The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-04 00:00:00

OftA 31-E N.

Lord KENYON held a Pennon from certain Protestants,
members of Orange Asfociations in Ireland, who wished to
have an opportunity of showing what were the principles and
conduct of those Associations before the Committee now sitting
On the state of Ireland. They nentioned the circumstances of
their history, the-period which they had existed, and the public
marks of approbation which they had received for their con-
duct from high authorities both in England and Ireland, will
they prayed that all those subjects should be inquired into be-
fore they were included within the operation of the Bill before
the House. Their Lordships would recollect that Parliament
had passed an Act two
.years ago to put down ceremonies
which were considered inconsistent with the public tran-
quillity in Ireland. The Orangemen, duly impressed with
the spirit of obedience to. the laws, had iinmediaLely sub-
mitted to what they required. .It was therefore hard, that
when a measure- was • passing to suppress an Association,
whose violent proceedings had excited alarm and disapproba-
tion, they should he included within the same condemnation.
They submitted that they had received from one Lord Lieu-
tenant and two Commanders in Chief thanks for their conduct
on various occasions, and that instead of being constituted into
a Body to change the existing laws, their object was to support
them. They did not pray to be heard by Counsel at the Aar,
but earnestly appealed to the House to institute an official in-
quiry into the principles and conduct of the Orange Societies.—
The petition having been read,
Lord ItEN YON moved that it be referred to the-Commit.:
tee on the State of Ireland.—Ordered.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES' BILL, _ _ _

The Earl of LIVERPOOL moved the Order of the Day for
the second reading of the Unlawful Societies Bill. •
The Earl of CAERNARVON presented a petition from a
number of Irish Catholics praying to be heard at the Bar of tha
House against the Bill. He should wish to know whether it
was the intention of the Nobje Earl opposite to comply with
the prayer of the petition; before he stated the grounds on which
he-thought the House should adopt that course.
The, Earl of LIVERPOOL had no hesitation in saving,
that under the circumstances of the case, he did not consider the
petitioners entitled to be heard as against the Bill.
The Earl of CAERNARVON conceived the claims of the
petitioners to be heard before they were condemned, to be
founded on the strictest justice. If justice were revered on
earth, where ought it to be more revered than in that House,
which was the highest Court of justice in the country. The
present Bill was not one of an incidental nature sent up by tfie
other House. It was the measure recommended by his
Majesty in his Speech, the measure which Parliament had too
hastily pledged itself to consider and prepare on the first day
of the Session. If it were so, he called upon their Lordships
to examine how the Members of the Catholic Association stood
affected as to that Bill, by the votes of the House and the
Speech of his Majesty. That Speech contained a most heavy
charge against them, for it charged them with having adopted
proceedings irreconcileable with the spirit of the Constitution.
Was that no heavy imputation ? Was it nothing for individuals
to be impeached by_ Royalty itself? Was it nothing for loyal
subjects that their King should come to Parliament and actetse
them of creating alarm, exasperating animosities, and en-
dangering *the peace of Society. And could their Lordships
hesitate to admit to their liar those arraigned individuals,
when they offered to prove, that charges so heavy in their na-
ture, and rendered still heavier by the mode in which they
were made, were wholly untrue ? If they were wholly untrue,
then, of all men, they had been the most calumniated. When,
on former occasions, measures had been proposed to curtail the
liberty of the people, they had not been grounded on news-
paper accounts alone. I'apers had always been laid on the
table, or Secret Committees appointed, to Report on the evi-
dence produced. For the latter there was no occasion, as there
was nothing of a delicate nature in the subject which should re-
venno?t tHhee fwoarms
ienrstrcuouettesde
pq tut ri rseu ead secretNi7h y uwqeur ryn (4) documentswgui
to say to their Lordships that the principal object of the pe-
titioners was to be enabled to lay before them the minutes
of all their proceedings from the institution of the Catholic
Association to the present hour, that they might convince the
House that there was nothing in those proceedings or in their
conduct to create alarm, exasperate animosities, and deserve
such a measure as the present. It might be said, that the As-
sociation was not named in the Preamble, but it was notorious
from the recommendation in the Speech from the Throne, and
from every thing which had since occurred, that the chief ob-
ject of the measure was directed against that Association. It
might also be objected, that it was the custom of their Lord.
ships to hear petitioners at the Bar only on their personal and
no personal interest
and conduct involved when their character were charged with
such heinous offences ? With what view should the House le-
gislateottcoof-nptcreasreyrvt4inhguutrdapeqeurileluitny in Ireland? What
much r having had so much
n ot
s theiro public interests.th eda rk
?Buunt, had y theyle
which their -hardships stood ? It was
aexe pthereienoneely tom be still considered
must complex and difficult to
proposedwas the stint utahtei ;IT
toi in sa 13

comprehend and to be enforced, to impose restraints on the
people of Ireland, with the state of which the eereat bulk of
the House he feared was but little acquainted;and no grounds
whatever for the measure were produced. Were an inquiry
instituted, the result might be an important legislative mea-
sure. Let their Lordships at least know what the evil was which
required their interference, that they should be able to judge
whether the remedy proposed were the proper one. What, if
the result of such an inquiry should be that the proceedings of
the Catholic Association .had not been calculated to create
alarm and danger, but that the peril arose from another quar-
ter ? He called upon the House to ascertain whether the
petitioners were or were not the mischievous individuals which
they had been represented to be. The Noble Earl then
urged the importance of tranquillizing Ireland. The two
countries must stand or fall together. Separated, their strength
was broken : united, they seemed placed by nature in the
surrounding ocean, to the admiration and the support of the
world. It were vain to rely on seven millions of Irish Ca-
tholics unless they were treated like fellow-subjects, partici-
pating in the same privileges. If one limb were paralysed,
life would soon be gone from the body of the empire. Let
. the first act of grace ,he, not to remove these petitioners front
the bar, not to condemn them unheard. Their Lordships were
directed by his Majesty's Speech to consider of a remedy : let
them do so; let them inquire, and not adopt " proceedings
irreconcileable to the Constitution, tending to create alarm,
and to exasperate animosities." For if this indescribable Bill
could be described, it could not be by other words than those
of the Speech itself. Let nothing be done to disturb the _tran-
quillity, which, it was admitted by the authors of the measure,
prevailed in Ireland, and nothing could stop in its progress,
the prosperity of an united empire. The Noble Earl con-
cluded by moving that the petitioners be heard by Counsel at
the Bar.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL should not allow himself to
be led into the discussion of the general question as to the
State of Ireland or the Catholic Association, as there would
be sufficient opportunities for discussing it afterwards. But
as to the particular question now before their Lordships, they
must give up all the general rules of proceeding of the House,
and establish a most inconvenient and dangerous precedent,
if they acceded to the prayer of the. petition. What was the
bill proposed ? One of regulation,—one which did not even
name the Catholic Association, but was applicable to all asso-
ciations, and being founded on an evasion of a former act,
bad for its chief object to prevent that evasion by new enact-
ments. If individuals, or particular bodies, *ere to be heard
on every bills lie did not know how their Lordships
.could le-
gislate at all. In cases of imminent danger, no precautionary
measure could be carried to repress that danger till long after
it had burst upon the country. It was true, that on certain oc-
casions, local or commercial interests were heard, but even
then it was nut onehe second reading of a bill, but in a Com-
mittee, and notean. the general measure, but on special points.
What Bill could there possibly he which would not affect some
body of men ?. If one were heard, how could others be refused ?
..The result w'euldhe,thet the hands of the House would be tied
up : 40 other applications would follow the present one if it were
granted, end as thee same justice must be done to all, the Bill
would pass six Months hence and all its effect would be lost. f
He had said that *bill was one of general regulation and did
not apply to the Catholic Association alone. At the same time
he would not be solencandid as to deny that the proceedings of
that Association formed to a great extent the grounds of the
measure.. The Noble :Earl had- said that when laws had been
proposed to restrict the liberties of the people, documents had
been produced and Secret Committees appointed. Yes, this had
.been done, because the measures were to be founded on those
documents ear_ the Reports of those Committees ; but here the
only ground was the. notoriety of the proceedings. Nothing was
assumed which the Catholic Aisociation did not avow, and it
would be hii object, when discussing the Bill, to prove out of
that -very notoriety the expediency of its being passed. It
was not- directed against the Catholic Association alone, but
against all others, for that Association was calculated to lead to
others dangerous:, to. the Constitution. Whatever was done
was therefore 'done in the least objectionable way, as the
operation of the Bill was made general. As to the necessity for
inquiry, their Lordships knew by their own votes and those
of the other House, that there did exist a general inquiry
into the state of Ireland, and that there was every disposition
on the part of his Majesty's Government to make it as full and
extensive as possible. It was not an hour since a Noble Friend
:of his had proposed to refer the petition of sonic Orangemen,
who complained of being included within the Bill, to that
Committee of Inqeiry.e And if there were persons of that body
who wished to be examined, he was perfectly willing to admit
that they were entitled-to a hearing before that Committee. He
believed that a Gentleman belonging to the Catholic Associa-
tion had been, or had requested to be, examined by the same
Committee. Let him, and let as many as would, come before
that C.torninittee and give evidence on all questions ; he wished
that every one should be heard. It had been said that the in..
quiry would tithe place after, instead of before the Bill had
passed. He admitted that ; but was there not a great differ-
ence in preparing, measures to sift the whole state of Ireland to
the bottom, or merely passing one which rested on general no-
toriety. He considered the present Bill to rest merely on mat-
ters of fact, on which no doubt could be entertained. If any
of those facts were contested, he would give it up. He could
see no reason. why the House should establish a most inconve-
nient precedent, which, if applied in one instance, must be ap-
plied in all, to the Orange Societies as well as to the Catholic
Association, He therefore felt that he best discharged his duty
by giving his negative to the motion.
Earl
ne
oitifoih tt.he t
ehaajrl precedent,eswt achhdeaomdobfi
atntctieohdtet
justhiti
ilaioset
House,
snts
etodr,
seotnnwfgolitrl
tttco(
i,obtficheoteanh
idpeueptometboani-
j e Go
fit tEh
odfucatiiionbeoefo'
,amnaedwe
men without trial. Ilaving heard nothing from the Noble
Earl on that subject, he rose to give his cordial support to the
motion of his Noble Friend. Ile was surprised that the No-
ble Earl had not taken a more manly ground, instead of say-
ing that the measure was one of a general character, and not
connecdtoeudbbteydn thatame thewithC
the Catholic
Atholiscsotsastoiocin was its
ibtsutcoulle
it be object,
when even the petitions presented in favour of the Bill prayed
that it might pass in order to suppress that Association.—
It would have been a more creditable proceeding in the
Government to legislate directly and exclusively against that
Body. Had that been done, would the Noble Earl have
thought the Petitioners entitled to be heard ? [No, from
the Earl of Liverpool.] The Noble Earl said No, and was
obliged to say so, because had lie admitted tlier claims in
that view of the case, he (Lord Grey) would have proved
that they were equally entitled in the other. It was said
that the Orangemen had petitioned ; but they considered
themselves so little affected by the Bill that they had merely
prayed to be heard by the Committee sitting on the State of
Ireland, in order to repel the calumnies with which they had
been assailed. What was the character of the measure ? It
imposed a new and severe restriction of a public right on the
whole people of Ireland, on account of the acts of the Catholic
Association. Here, -then, the whole body of the people were
to be deprived of their rights, on allegations of individual de-
linquency supported by particular facts. Now the petitioners
said that they denied those facts, and were ready to prove that
those allegations could not be maintained. Would their Lord-
ships not allow those individuals to vindicate themselvei, and
yet proceed to mulct the people of Ireland of its rights, on
account of their supposed delinquency. They were charged
with creating alarm, and that, if it existed, it W3S only in the
breasts of those who feared that they would obtain the
adjustment of their just claim. They were charged with
endangering public tranquillity ; but they answered that they
had produced no disturbance, and that even the King's
Speech admitted the peace of Ireland at this moment to be
more complete than at any former period. They were told that
they assumed the prerogatives of Parliament and levied taxes ;
but they replied, they levied no tax, and what they took was
from voluetary contributions, as all others Societies had done
since the period of the Revolution. They were accused of
having a Black and a Red book, and of inscribing in the
Black the names of those who refused to pay the rent in
older to devote them to persecutiob. They denied having
such a book, and offered to prove that they had not, and
made no such distinctions at the Bar. But, said the Noble
Earl, Committe of Inquiry is going on, let them go
and be examined ; let Mr. O'Connell come anti state his
eibejse,c
but
teivneerayn'
itlietu lad e of i
w investigationou litpls
pass,
ill be a ll
When
nuol
measures
liite s
hostile to the liberties of the country were proposed, as the
Noble Earl justly stated, they (the Opposition Lords) had
called for general inquiries. Certainly, but what was their
object ? To inevestigaptaesathede.groAuneomt
dos of
ithtel fo
thosemeasures be-
fore,as not after they had
now sitting, would the Noble Earl suspend the Bill till their
Report was received ? If so, he ((Lord Grey) would agree
that Mr. O'Connell and the Catholie Association should be

heard before the Committee. BUt it was an insult to say that
the Bill should first pass, and that investigation might follow,
_Suppose, and he thought it most likely, that it had been proved
before the Committee in question, that -none of the7chatges
brought against the Catholic Association were founded, that
they were all calumnies, and that a report to thateffeet should
be made to the House, in what situation .would their ',Lordships
stand ? They would have passed a law .reselicting
,the rights
of the subjects, and after inquiry it would be preyed that there
was no foundation whatever for such a law ! The Noble Earl
said that in cases of imminent clanger, hearipg petitioner against
Bills might be injurious ; but would that Noble Lord .85y that
great inconveniences weuld' now arise from sumperiting the
progress of the measure till the petitioners had roscued them-
selves from the charges cast upon them ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that rumour had de.
scribed the Bill under their Lordships' consideration as one
that had' emanated from a certain Noble Lord in that House,
but rumour was never more mistaken than in attributing it to
him. Until within about eight hours ago, he (the Lord, Chan-
cellor) had never seen it, though he was ready to confess,7that
having since seen it, the I3ill had his complete concurrence.
There was art'Act in force called the Convention 'Act, with
which tie present measure was directly connected. What the
law of Ireland.might be with respect to the proceeding's .which
those Bills were intended to affect, lie did not presume to know.
But he desired not to be considered as one of those yiTieetheuglit
that in England such proceedings would be lilt al: Ije stated
this because he wished to guard himself against being sup-
posed to pretend to a knowledge of the law of Ireland, or to
admit, in deference to any opinion, that if a body. in.Eeglend
assumed to itself the powers of Parliame.nt, or attempted to
overrule it, that body could' be considered legal. The Con-
vention Act declared that persons should not he delegated by
any portion of the people to act upon their part ; bat where
was thedifferenee? Or what did it signify, whether th'ey were
antecedently elected, Or whether, After assuming to act, they
were approved of by the -persons whom they had professed to
represent ? The evil was the sane to society, whether appoint-
ment in the first instance, or assent in the last, gave them the
authority against which Parliament had undertakenao legis-
late. He agreed with the Noble Earl, who spoke last, in think-
ing, that if that Bill was meant only to put down the Catholic
Association, he would rather see the name of the Association
inserted in the Bill.—(flear, hear !)—That he did not deny ;
and if the conduct of the Association had been such as-was de-
scribed in the enactments of the measure, he would, be justified
in assuming that such was the intention. When upon a well-
known occasion he had introduced a bill into the House of Com-
mons for the purpose of putting down The Corresponding Soci-
ties, which was his' Bill, though the present Bill was not, he
did then introduce the names of those socities. The present
Bill enacted, that the Associations, to which it referred, should
be illegal, though no antecedent delegation could be proved to
have taken place. But if it could be shewn that they had as-
sumed a representative character—that they had not only done
that, but proceeded to tax the people of the country ;• if they
also exercised a controul over the administration of justice,
which was a thing not to be tolerated in any country—if that
or any other such body, assumed so great an influence over
six millions of people, let the House only reflect what the
consequence must be, and especially in such a country as
Ireland.—( Hear, hear!)—lf it was done by the Catholics,
the same might be done by the Protestants, and what justice
could any individual hope to obtain ? With respect to the pe-
tition, this Act proceeded to legislate upon a general prin-
ciple, and the general rule in such cases was, that no man
could be heard upon petition, unless in cases here his own
particular interests were affected. If he was asked whether
there were not exceptions to this rule, he would say that he
believed there were many, but it was always at the discretion of
Parliament whether they would preserve the rule, or act on the
exception. Cases might be put in which Bills, on the demand
of extraordinary exigency, had passed in the course of one
day; which would subject the parties to the greatest possible
punishment, if net justified by the necessity of the occasion.
This was a departure from the usual practice of the Constitu-
tion, but not of precedent sufficient to overthrow it, and it
would be easy to suppose a situation in which much
danger would result from allowing the process of delibera-
tion to go on, and the measure itself might come too late to
remedy the evil against which it was directed. lf the general
measure applied to the•proceedings of the Roman Catholic As-
sociation, it would put an end to them. If it did not apply,
they might go On, Acting upon the general rule, he weuld
say, that it was necessary the Bill should pass, without hearing
the petitioners. If it affected them, it could only atlect them
because they had done what they ought not to have done.—
(Hear, hear !)—IIe would say, if the preamble could be proved,
if societies were formed, so as to evade t'ee operation-Of the
Convention Act, they were bound to pass the Bill, and to
pass it, as far us he could judge, without any-prelirnini,fy in-
vestigation.
Lord HOLLAND said, he not only believedehat this'evas
not the Noble Earl's Bill, but very strongly suspected that
he had never read it. He (Lord Holland)had heard with con-
sternation the assertion of the Noble and Learned Earl that the
existence of the Catholic Association might be according to
law in Ireland, but that it was not according to law in Eng-
land. But the Noble and 'Learned Lord afterwards explained
himself by adding that the Catholic Association attempted to
overrule Parliament. But if they did so, Parliament had as
much power in the one country as the other, and why did
they not proceed by some other course than iet of legisla-
tion. Upon the argument respecting the hearing of Counsel he
wished to say a few words. All the declamation of the Noble
Earl opposite (Lord Liverpool) about vetting a precedent
which would admit other parties to the bar, and interrupt the
business of Parliament, had been put on one side by the cor-
rection of the Noble and Learned Lord, who told them that
there were exceptions to the general rule, that parties had been
occasionally heard • and yet not much inconvenience had re-
sulted front it, aril! their Lordships had proceeded with the
business of Parliament as usual. But if the stream of pre-
cedents ran all one way, and that against hearing Counsel
at their Lordships' Bar ; he should say, that even then they
ought to take the plain, direct, and honest course, and hear
these petitioners before they were condemned and punished...-
He cared nothing for precedents in opposition to principle,
but if he were to use them for the present argument, he could
spew, that whatever they might be in that, or the other House,
in the Parliament of Ireland, the stream of precedents ran all
in favour of hearing the petitioners. Without detaining the
House while he went into the detail of those precedents, he
would merely state that Sir Theobald Butler, Counsellor
Malone, and Sir Stephen Rice, were heard by the Parliament
of Ireland against the very penal laws which this Catholic As-
sociation were endeavouring to get repealed, and in support
of the treaty of Limerick. He thought the Noble and Learned
Lord was entitled to credit for stating that he wished the name
of the Catholic Association had been mentioned in the bill.
For the Noble Earl opposite (Lord Liverpool) he fell, as the
Noble Earl knew, great private friendship, and high respect
tbber
incapablepri
a te
of cahnayr ee t
meane a r
and conduct,
rt
fi artifice.
But wtthl
ei cyh
weree
h believedovyy
he must protest against the argument that they were not to- be
deal-
ing with the interests and rights of millions and
iontn.filicitleo.setr,ryesiatiltils.
hefted because the Catholic Association were not named in
the bill. Either this was good for the Noble Earl's arpnient,
or it was not. And if it was, why did lie call upon their Lord-
ships to legislate upon the notoriety of the proceedings of that
body ? He (Lord Holland) professed to entertain a high opi-
nion of the talents and learning of the Learned Gentleman who
would in all probability have appeared at the bar on behalf of
the people of Ireland, and he thought it possible that the con-
siderable talent and eloquence which he.possessed might have
had some influence on their Lordship? minds. But if he pos-
sessed the genius of that orator whose-eloquence shook Greece
to the centre and the worst designs' that could be imputed.tte
him, not heelquence of a Demosthenea, with the intentieeehr_
a Cataline, could enable hum to do so much harm to
Tefselves
racter of Parliament, as they were inflicting p
bpaarr tui anli aPnrtid s and
le-
by the passing. of this bill. He declared thaut"
incendiary in Ireland, and wished to deluge ti;i3etr tot9ry, he
bleod, and to revive all the worst scenes f
sinhsouulltdeti rejoicep
oinn
ablelint e sentgre
aa
itionour he called upon
&mania) justice, and upon every feelizig,or
of the petitioners. If
their Lordships not to refuse the
Pran'eAsure, let them at !cast
impress the people of Ireland withouv _
; an, .et tueni not fur-
they were determined to pass the in
easy, indulgent, kind, and Silerterfuge of its being a gene-
belief that they Were
gene-
tify themselves behind the
50e depriving that people of the
sal measure, for the Pup tocondemned before-they were
to be c
twparyi n from
pes
Earl DA R N LEY P
uP
were bound to comply with it before
hti,eastrdright freemen—e°
said that their Lo;treldPisn rted the prayer of the petition, and
passing the Bill. He trusted the
they could be ie.' digent when the real interests of the empire
time' was not tar

••weilid be eons uitia by the Legislature ; and that Measure,
which could alone secure them, be granted to the Catholics of
Wetland. He took that opportunity of protesting against the
about to come under their Lordship's discussion.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
Contents - - 23
Not Contents - - - - 69
Majority against hearing Counsel -
SECOIsID READING OF THE MIA..
Upon the re-admission of strangers to the House,
The Earl of LIVERPOOL was addressing their Lordships
upon the motion for the second retulieg of the Bill. The Noble
.fir art said that the measure appeared to him to rest upon grounds
an distinct and different from the general question of the Ro-
rnan Catholic Claims, that he declared, if he were the most
eident friend to the concession of those claims, he should still
Mira this measure necessary. Their Lordships had alreadyhad
some discussion of the question now regularly before them, and
the Noble Lord who succeeded his Noble and Learned Friend
M that discussion, accused him (Lord Liverpool) of not hay-
;nit taken a very manly mode of argument in describing
this a.s a general measure, when he must know that it was in-
tended for the suppression of the Catholic Association. He
rans when he before addressed their Lordships, as he said
w, that the Catholic Association was the chief object and
anase of the measure. But did the Noble Lord see no diffe-
eenee between the application of a specific remedy to a spe-
cific evil, and the application of a general measure in which
a remedy for a specific evil was Included ? It was thought
necessary that all Associations of all descriptions should be
included in the measure, to shew that they wished to ligis-
late impartially ? but he did not deny, and had not denied,
rat the suppression of the Catholic Association was one of
its leading objects. It had been said that the acts of the
Association did not come within the intention of the Con-
v_mtion Act; but he thought that part of the question had
een entirely disposed of b the argument of his Noble and
Learned Friend. lie had no hesitation in declaring, that
such a body as this Association was inconsistent with the
permanent peace of Ireland, or of any other nation in the
work'. He was prepared to admit as broadly as any man the
eight of the people to meet and petition, and he considered
that right as one of the most important and valuable privileges
of the British subject. But he denied that such was the only
-object of this assembly. They did not limit themselves to the
exercise of the right of petitioning. When they assumed to
themselves a permanency of character—when they acted by
subordinate agents in levying money upon the country, and
in interfering with the administration of public justice—he
said that such a body was not only inconsistent with the. peace
of the country, but inconsistent with the principles of any Go-
vernment in the world. If this was the character of the Asso-
ciation, let •their Lordships look to the circumstances under
which it had been formed. The Catholics of Ireland might,
indeed, still complain—and bring their complaints to the Bar
of the House—that the Legislature had not thought fit to make
the remainder of the concessions which would admit them to
-all political rights. But he would say that the acts of the pre-
aunt Government had done more good for Ireland than had
been done for more than a century before. Her revenue had
been reformed throughout, and in such a manner as to satisfy
those who called the loudest for the measure. Her taxation
had been reduced to an unparalleled extent, until she paid less
taxes than almost any country in the world. England had
.taken upon herself the debt of Ireland. The administra-
tion of justice had been purified, the Magistracy revised,
and the Government had lent its aid to put down every
abuse that could be detected and exposed. lie enumerated
these acts to shew the affectionate disposition of the Govern-
. mein of the Uni-ed Empire towards that country, and to shew
that she had not only been treated with justice but with in-
• dulgence. In the midst of all this the Catholic Association had
risen up—a body of such a nature that it was only said not to
come under the Convention Act, because there was no previous
delegation from the people ; but the evilwas in the effect pro-
Ahmed by the acts of such a body upon the people • and this
lie contended, was the same as if it had been assembled under
delegation. He did not think it necessary to enter into the par-
ticular acts of the Catholic Association ; for he grounded his
argument upon the general principle of its injurious tendency.
He believed there were many innocent, well-disposed persons
belonging to it who neither saw nor intended evil. But his ob-
jection to the Catholic Association was, that no such body
could exist without producing evil. He agreed with the Noble
Earl opposite, that public bodies ought not to be judged by
particular expressions or hasty acts. But it was because he
knew that no body of men could be assembled in such a man-
ner without falling into intemperance, that lie wished to sup-
press the Catholic Association. He believed that no man who
elleard him could think that such an Association as this could
•_exist permanently without producing mischief. They might
think it a good instrument for gaining a particular object ; but
- if that particular question of the Catholic Claims were carried,
what security had they that this Association would disperse it-
self, or stop there ? It was wall known that they had other
- objects. They had been told, he knew nothing of it—but it
• had been said, that they were to have Catholic Emancipation
granted, if that would satisfy them. He repeated that he
- knew nothing of such a proposition, more than from common
rumour. But what was the answer to this? They did not hear
. that the Catholic Association had said they would be satisfied,and
abandon the other objects which they had proclaimed. It had
—been said• that other Associations existed for the purpose of
carrying on prosecutions. But let their whole proceedings and
- charactar of this body be taken into consideration, and then let
any one tell hint that the history of the country would afford
another_ example of the existence of such a body. He came
now to what was called the Roman Catholic Rent —not sub-
acription, but rent. What was the nature of rent ? Did it not
•• imply obligation, and was there not in its very essence some-
ahieg more than subscription ?—(Hear, hear !) But call it
rent, call it subscription, call it what they would, a communi-
cation was kept up with every village in the kingdom, and
-money was raised upon the whole Catholic population. This
could not ba voluntary. It might be called a voluntary sub-
scription, or by any other name they pleased, but in a country
• so divided by party as Ireland, if it were only as a proof of the
• aim, e ity of a man's principles, the contribution could not be re-
fused. But, in addition to this, who were the Collectors of the
Roman Catholic Rent ?—the Roman Catholic Clergy ! And the
places where it was collected ?—the Roman Catholic Chapels.
There was •nobody who heard him that did not know the influ-
ence exercised by the Catholic Clergy over their flocks; and,
- 'knowing that, was there any man who would tell him that
these contributions were not compulsory ? He had been in-
formed that, in one particular instance, the parties had pro-
cended to distrain for rent, and that the person so distraining
• had been tried at the Quarter Sessions and convicted. He
wanted no red book or black book to show, that those who
did not subscribe were known. Every man saw what his neigh-
, • hour did, and was he to be told that nine men out of ten would
not richer pay their contribution than be subjected to the fear
of being looked upon with an evil eye by the whole neighbour-
heod. These must be the necessary consequences of the exist-
ence of such an institution ; and it was not, therefore, upon any
particular facts, but upon its general nature, that he would
proceed to remove it. The Catholic Association avowedly in-
seterfered with the course of public justice. He conceived it im-
possible that any man could laudably make such an inter-
, ference whatever might be his intentions. And when he was
told of their millions, he felt his objection grow the stronger
on that account. He remembered hearing an observation from
Mr. Fox which struck him as being one of remarkable wis-
dom, and he had ever since remained of the same opinion.
Jt was this :—" I hate the tyranny of the few over the many,
• but there is one thing which I abhor still more, and that is
the tyranny of the many over the few." He fully agreed in
the sentiment, and the more formidable and numerous the
e body' the more powerful was its influence when it took upon
• itself to interfere with the administration of justice. Upon
-a another point, it was said of the Catholic Association, that
in Ole first place it had done no harm ; and secondly, that
it had done much good. He wished to know whether it was
no harm to excite the alarm which had been felt by a large
• portion of the country at its acts ? With regard to the good
that it had done, he would say that if it had promoted the
tranquillity of Ireland, so much the worse. He looked to the
power of doing so as a most danzeroua one in such hands.
He did not believe there-were any such, but if he could believe
that there were individuals in that Association who wished to
disturb the county and
eventually to overthrow the Govern-
ment, their Lor slops well knew that nothing was so danger-
- out as this power of creventing a premature display of their
- intentions until their plans were ripe, and that none had a
. deeper interest in preserving peace until the proper time ar-
. rived. Let them look to the example of 1798, at which time it
was said that nothing prevented the success of the rebellion but
• the premature rising Of -the people. .lf, therefore, they pos-
sessed the power of promoting tranquillity, they had also the
power to promote disorder.; and that was- to. him one of the
strongest grounds of objection. But he ascribed the present
tranquillity-of Ireland to the growing prosperity. f the cowl-
try.
'They found that in England the question of reform, and
other subjects of
agitation, had given way before the full ern_
playrnmt and
prosperity of our commerce, manufactures,
and agriculture. In Ireland there was more idleness for such
excitements to work upon,
but where the cause of that was
employment, lie hoped to see the
removed by the growth of
same effects produced, It was said they could not be sure
that this or any measure which Parliament could adopt would
be effectual. lie had seen measures of. this kind adopted
in England and he remembered that in 1796, when his Noble
and • NI Friend brought in his Bills into the House of
Cornaions for putting down Seditious Societies,one of the most
able Members of that House, Mr. Sheridan, exercised his in-
- gemlitY in a sneech against the third reading, by shewing
' now the mesas might be evaded. But still, some how or
esitherf they ne'rnt were evaded, . and these provisions were