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

the last 35 years he was used to hear threats of what the Ca- '
tholics would do if not granted their claims ; but he was not the
least alarmed notwithstanding, and was sure the Act would
pass and the Association sit down as quietly as the Hon. and
Learned Member (Mr. Brougham) when he finished his speech.
He remembered when cruising Off Cape Clear, at the ]period 61
the rebellion, he saw the Emerald Isle for the first time, and
having asked a man on board what would benefit Ireland, he
answered, that she'd never do any good till she was 24 hours
under water.—(A laugh.)—By that it was meant, until shewas
cooled and reduced to a moderate temperature. ,He denied that
England was not disposed to serve Ireland in any mode. Out
of the 54 millions 4-year raised for the State, that country did
not contribute more than 1-17th.—(Hear !)—And when the po-
pulation was starving, did not the people of England volun-
tarily give them 500,0001. ?—( Hear !)—As to Emancipation,
the Catholics did not, he verily believed, care two potatoes
about it.—(A laugh.)—The Opposition laid hold of it as one of
their great stalking-horses. For his part, if Ministers, who
were responsible for the discharge of their duty, told him that
the Association ought to be put down, he should vote for the
present Bill.
Mr. HOBHOUSE was astonished that, even in moments of
hilarity, the Honourable and Gallant Member would go to
such lengths as he had just done. He despaired of ever see-
ing the wrongs of the people redressed while such sentiments
were held by their representatives. The Hon. and Gallant
Officer could not hope to meet with the approbation of Many
Members even of Administration by the tone he assumed. It
was with pleasure he heard the Learned and Hon. Attorney-
General for Ireland with such glowing expressions bear testi
mony to the justice of the Catholic claims—if the AssociatiOn
did nothing else, it effected good in drawing out that declara-
tion. The Right Honourable Secretary for Foreign Affairs,
who had always hitherto given such proofs of liberality, and
was always listened to with delight, had expressed a conviction
that one day Eniancipation would be carried. These were great
things for the Association to have achieved. After some fur-
ther remarks in allusion to the Honourable and Gallant Ad-
miral's speech, the Honourable Member proceeded to say, that
it was an old proverb that the last feather broke the camel's
back, and that although the Catholics had hitherto endured so
much, more ought not to heaped on them. With respect to'
the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Controul, pre-
cedents were as natural as cases from the Hon. Secretary for
Ireland, and was one as good as the other—to dignur et Mc.
The parties accused were ready to appear and vindicate them-
selves, and ought to be heard. Who could honestly get up in
that House and say he knew all that was necessary of that Body
before a Bill such as the present was passed. As his Hon. and
Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham) observed, there was a striking
analogy between the situation of America and Ireland. In
1768, when the King came down to Parliament, he recom-
mended the House to take into its consideration the state of
Boston, where acts subversive of the Constitution were occur-
ring. The Address said the recommendation should be car-
ried into effect, and a resolution of the Congress contained ex-
pressions unquestionably rebellious. • Governor Pownal rose,
however, and said that if true the House ought to proceed—bur
he was satisfied they had never been employed. The Right
Hon. the President of the Board of Controul had complained
that the Association pre-judged cases before trial, but when
ex officio informations were .fled, did not four Judges first pro-
nounce that they thought sufficient guilt established to justify
the proceedings. The Hon. Member supported the motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was content to look at the'
question as to hearing counsel upon the measure in this way—
had the House already before it, or had it not, materials suffi-
'cient to warrant its coming to a decision ? He thought that the
House had amply sufficient; and that without resorting to a
single fact which was not admitted by the Hon. Gentlemen on
the other side. First, it was not denied that the Catholic As-
sociation represented the people of Ireland ; next, it was ad-
mitted, that this Association, upon its own showing, was form-
ed for the redress of all grievances, whether local or general,
which affected the Irish people. The Hon. Member for West-
minster might call these things words; but lie (the Solicitor-
General) must be allowed to consider them as facts. The As-
sociation took upon itself, farthcr,a direct financial character ;
and whether its levies were made by taxes, or is the shape of
a voluntary contribution, he should show to be a flimsy and
frivolous distinction. By the law of the country (here the
Honourable and Learned Member alluded to the case of
" The King v. Dolby") no person contributing to the funds
of the Catholic Association could sit as a juror on any trial
in which that Association interfered or was concerned. This
was one proposition entirely trodeniable ; and a second, no less
certain, was, that no person similiarly situated could be
examined as a witness. Then, as almost every Catholic in Ire-
land was declared to be a subscriber to the rent, it followed
that scarcely one in a hundred could be in a condition already
either to sit as a juror, or to give evidence as a witness, in any
cause, civil or criminal, in which the Association mightl take
' part. If counter-associations arose on the part of the Protestants,
disabilities on their part would be equally created, until the
thing would end in a stoppage of all administration of justice
throughout the country ;—and now, referring to the doctrine of
" conflicting vices" laid down a few nights since by the Hon.
Member for Knaresborough (Sir J. Mackintosh), he would put
it to that Hon. Member if this was a case in which, from such
conflict, any advantage was likely to be derived—whether the
subscription paid to this Association was voluntary or
compelled, he took to be a matter of no consequence.—
Taken in any way, it was illegal and unconstitutional ;
but it was said to be voluntary : let the House see how
it was collected. A register was kept of those who gave,
and of those who refused to give ; and this register was
exhibited at every general meeting. Those who did not
give, it would be remembered, the priest who went round had
power to excommunicate. He (the Solicitor-General) did not
mean to assert that any such power was commonly exercised,
but the power existed; and itavas one of his strongest objec-
tions against the measure called Catholic Emancipation, that
the priests of that faith held a power over their people which
they chose to call spiritual, but which it was impossible for men
of ordinary understandings to consider as any thing else than
temporal and civil. But if there was no fear of offence given
to the priests by a refusal to contribute, was there no dislike on
the part of men in general to be made marked characters—to
be put down in the Black Book ? lie should be inclined to say
of this voluntary contri'aition what Dr. Johnson had said of
the recommendation to choose a bishop—" the congi d'elire"—
that it was as much a matter of choice as when you threw a
man out of a two pair of stairs window, to recommend him to
fall to the ground.—(Hear! and laughter.)—Now, there was
no person at all responsible for the disposal of the money col-
lected in this manner ' • it all went, voluntary or compulsory, into
the hands direct of the Association ; but his present business was
to shew that, voluntary or compelled, the effect in law was the
same. Voluntary contributions in general were not lawful, with-
out a licence from the Crown. In the time of Bishop Atterbury,
who was known to have had friendships at the Court of St. Ger-
mains, certain sums of money had been collected by the scheme
of a charity sermon, and the Bishop was believed to have dis-
posed of them in that quarter. Now, for preaching that charity
sermon a clergyman had been prosecuted ; and the charge of
the Judge to the Jury on that occasion, he (the Learned Solici-
tor) had before him. The Judge said, " I told the Jury that
this practice was dangerous, and that it was an invasion of the
prerogative of the Crown and of the Legislature ; and that,
in my opinion, the defendant was guilty." What he stated
was borne out by this case : the broad law was, that it was il-
legal to raise money by contribution in a church—to raise it
even for the purpose of charity, unless for the use of the place
in which the church was situated—it was unconstitutional
to do this, and illegal, except by the King's licence. The
Crown had not the power of the purse against the people ; and
therefore it was unconstitutional that the people should have
the power of the purse against the Crown. And he had ~one
back to the time of Atterbury for this case ; but the principle of
the law had been acknowledged at a much later period. High
as the judgment stood of several gentlemen whom he saw on the
opposite benches, there was scarcely one, perhaps, whose facul-
ties would .stand higher than those had done of Mr. Sheridan.
Mr. Sheridan, himself, in the year 1724, when the question had
been whether die Crown could receive a voluntary contribution
—.Mr. Sheridan had been the first to declare such a course un-
.constitutional. That money was to have been paid. into the
hands of ministers; it was for a purpose which Parliament had
already recognized—the furnishing equipment for the war; and
yet Mr. Sheridan had said " Compulsory gifts are one offence,
and gifts however free are another; but one course, no less
than the other, amounts to a breach of the privilege of this
House; and therefore I think that the Serjeant at Arms ought
to be sent to take the chairman of any meeting attempting
such a course into custody." All these dings the Honoura-
ble Member for Westminster might call words.; but lie (the
Solicitor-General) called them facts: and they were facts suffi-
cient to warrant him in voting to put clown the Catholic Associ-
ation. Upon the general question of Catholic claims, he would
say nothing at present; there might be an opportunity, perhaps,
ofdiscussing thatsubject more fully before the close of the session.
At all events, the.present time would not he a very convenient
one for going into it.—(Hear, hear ! from the Opposition.)--
.He.understood that cheer perfectly; but certainly it affected
him 'nothing. His conduct had, at least, been always con-
sistent upon the question.—(Hear, hear !)—Whatever his opi-
nions were, they were sincere,. and he had never wavered in his
expression of them : he therefore had no explanations to make.
But with respect to the immediate question—the petition before
the House—did Hon. Gentlemen observe what it was that the
petitioners desired ? because the prayer was to be heard, not
merely by Counsel but by witnesses. And what was the evi-
dence which they desired to give p Why, they would call wit-
nesses to shew that, since the commencement of the proceed-
ings of the Association, it had never done any act, or made
any declaration, calculated to excite alarm or exasperate ani.
mosity. What, then, _these witnesses were to give evidence,

not as to facts, but as. to intentions ! They were to furnish
the House with their opinions, not with accounts of that
which actually had been done ! He wanted nothing of
this kind —it was attentive ; but he "really wanted no wit-
nesses who were to giVe the House arguments and deduc-
tions. There might be thirty witnesses, or twice thirty for
aught he knew ; but he did not want to have it proved by
those persons that to " hate" meant to like." Hon. Gentle-
men talked of precedent in the case; but what Counsel had
been waited for three years ago, Wen a Bill to limit the estab-
lishment of societies in Ireland had been passed ? If was wild 4
talk of privileges by the letter ; by the Bill 'of Rights it was
said that the subjects of England might arm ; but who would
have thought of calling witnesses, some years hack, to show
that bodies of men might assemble to practise military exercise ?
Now, in his short address to' the House, he had assumed no-
thing—he repeated this—Las a fact which was denied by the
members of the Association. He admitted that witnesses had
frequently been heard, and Counsel, in cases depending upoa
general principles ; but that had always been in cases where
the House had not facts sufficient to legislate upon before it. In
conclusion, he opposed the hearing of Counsel in the present
case as an unnecessary consumption of the time of lion.
Mem hers. _

31r. S. RiCE. stated, that there were persons in town ready
to give oral evidence OA the conduct of the Association, and to
submit to the House every document of their's from the first
moment of the constitution of that Body. They were within
reach of the House. The ?louse ought not to take the first
given evidence alone, but ought to accept the acts of the Asso-
ciation also. It had been said, that if the Bill was aimed at the
Catholics alone, their evidence would be admissible ; but when
the supporters of Orangentm supported it, could it be doubted
that it was intended for the Catholics, and the Catholics
alone ? If Orangemen felt aggrieved by the Bill, they also
might petition to be heard against it. It had been objected
that there were no precederltS in favour of the motion ; but
there were several Irish questions, and on the occasion of
an Irish measure, an Irish precedent was most applicable—
(Hear !)—in the reign of King Anne.—(Roars of laughter,
and cries of Irish ! from all parts.)—King Anne ! I meant
Queen Anne.—( Laughter again.)—No, I was right.—(Re-
peated roars.)—Will Hon. Members recollect the war cry of
the Hungarians ?—" Moriantur pro rege nosiro Mut ia
Theresa !" (Cheers.)—[Here the Hon. Member quoted
precedents from the reigns of King William, Queen Anne, and
Geo. I. of Irish Catholics having been heard by their Counsel
at the Bar of the Irish House of Commons against Penal Bills.l
The Catholics of Ireland had no connection with the lion.
Member for Aberdeen's Resolutions relative to the property of
the Irish Church establishment. They ought not to be censured
for those resolutions. Even on the Tithe Commutation Bill
Lord Kenmure refused as a Catholic to interfere through a re-
luctance to do any thing which could affect the property of the
Church ; and a Catholic Clergyman, on being examined before
that House, denied any intention or design on the part of the
Catholic Clergy on the Protestant Ecclesiastical property of
Ireland. Catholic Ireland was that night at the Bar of the
1-louse; and if their petition were rejected, the solemn respon-
sibility would rest on the Ministers of the Government.

Mr.. PEEL said, in addressing the House, he should studi-
ously avoid those topics which were connected with the general
question that had occupied their attention for 4 nights, and pro-
bably would fo-e more than one in the next week ; and he
should also dismiss from his consideration other topics which
had been referred to in no very discreet terms, such as the case
of the United Provinces, and the number and power of the Ca-
tholics.—(Bear, hear!)—He must first ask himself, is the claim
of the petitioners founded in justice ? Is it consistent with Par-
liamentary usage ? Is it demanded in equity ? and if he should
find that the demand was not- supported on either of these
grounds, he was prepared to resist it, and take upon himself
the responsibility. He wished to meet the question fairly—
was the claim consistent with justice—with Parliamentary
usage, or was a compliance required to supply the defects of
evidence ? With respect to precedents, although he did not
think this should be conclusive, yet, if he found they ran in
one uniform stream, it was a strong implication that the
general conduct of the House had been regulated with a
due regard to the interests of the country. The Gentle-
men opposite had, in his judgment, completely failed in ad-
ducing a strict instance of precedent applicable to the case.—
He conceiVed the general rule to be this—if a general measure
be introduced to the house of Commons, in which parties feel
ther pecuniary interests affected, they have a right to be heard ;
the House is then like a Court of Judicature, adjudicating on
civil rights, and they would not proceed without hearing the
parties. That splendid precedent adduced by the lion. and
Learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brougham), of the hawkers
and pedlers, which was considered so fine as to crown the
climax, had, in his opinion, completely failed. What was the
fact ? A Bill was introduced, affecting the interests of a cer-
tain class of subjects, and they prayed—to do what ?to exempt
them from certain penalties that all the rest of the community
were subject to ? No, but which actually deprived them of
bread. But so fay from this being a case in point, the House
refused to hear them.

Mr. BROUGHAM interposed, and said the Petitioners were
heard, as it would be found on reference to the Journals, 41,
30th June, 1785. _ _ _

Mr. PEEL having referred to the Journals, admitted his
mistake ; but this had no referrence whatever to the present
question, for there was a measure to impose a great additional
duty upon a certain class of persons, and in conformity with
the general usage of the House, the parties were heard. If the
present prayer was complied with, it would be impossible here-
after to refuse when any measure was proposed for the tranquil-
lity the country. When it was proposed to suspend the
habeas Corpus Act—a measure of great importance, a similar
application might be made, and could not be refused. The
consequence would be, that instead of discharging their delibe-
rative functions, the time of the House would be occupied in
hearing the eloquent speeches of Counsel. It was well known
general interest, or any enlarged principles, but the in-
that the paramount object with every Counsel was not any
terests and designs of his client. The propriety and absolute
necessity of this practice bad been maintained by the
best and highest authority ; and had not the House beard from
an eminent Counsel, that he would not submit the interests of
his client to those of his country ? Had they not beard him
maintain that he owed a paramount obligation to his client ?
.1 nd was not this very doctrine and argument
pressed against
himself ( 3I r. Peel) in the case of the Queen ? If this doctrine
were sound, was it not prudent not to admit to the bar of this
House Counsel, that would be urging the individual or partial
views of their employers, instead of discussing those matters
upon which ourselves might properly pronounce? If the bar
of this House were, upon every occasion like the present, to be
thronged by Counsel pleading for particular and partial inte-
rests, there would be no opportunity for the display of the elo-
quence of those Gentlemen who compose the Legislature, and
popular assemblies would be overborne by the splendid elo-
quence of Gentlemen who are called upon to advocate the
causes and interests of their clients. He remembered well
when the bar of this House was occupied by six large wigs
pleading for the interests of a Private Company (the Maritime
Association); and he was justified in calculating by the rule
of three, that if a Marine Insurance Association gave six large
wigs, how many wigs would the Catholic Association give ?
But although it had been the practice to hear Counsel at the
bar on private Bills, if this practice were applied to public
matters, what would be the consequence ? He remembered
having heard it urged in that House, that if the House received
Mr. Stephens as an advocate for the Blacks of St. Antigua,
some other Counsel would present himself at their Bar as the
Counsel for all England—(Hear, hear !), and the privilege of
discussing all public measures and proceedings would be en-
tirely taken out of the hands of the Members of the House. Ile
remembered when a certain Bill was introduced relating to the
slaves of an island in the West Indies, who were then perfectly
satisfied, and in a state of subordination and quiet. The object
of the Bill was merely to enable the owner of the slaves to re-
move them to another island, and a
gentleman appeared on
behalf of the Blacks to argue
against the measure; but it was
determined that the gentleman' had received no authority from
the negroes to appear in their behalf, and amongst those who
opposed his being heard, was the Right Honourable Gentle-
man (Mr. Brougham). There was a danger of establishing a
precedent against general principles, a nd if neither general
principles nor the necessity and justice of the case obliged the
House to receive the petition, it was incumbent upon the
House not to receive it ; and if their rejection of the petition
were sufficiently Explained to the Roman Catholics of Ireland,
they would be convinced of the justice and strict propriety of
the determination. He for one would never entertain the bad
opinion of the Roman Catholics which he heard perpetually
propagated in that House, that although Parliament might act
upon the most sound
principles , they would be dissatisfied, and
would imitate the example
of the United Provinces of Ame-
rica, and separate themselves from England. lie would enter
into no such views, and could not believe that this could pos-
sibly be the case. The course the House was now pursuing
was founded on good sense, and was called for by the nature
of the case, and arose particularly out of a well-founded fear
of establishing a most inconvenient precedent. The Catholics
of Ireland would appreciate the motives of the House, and
would willingly submit to the voice of reason,
and in saying
this he was only giving credit to their own assertions of their
loyalty and disposition to obey the laws. Looking at the sub-
ject as a mere question relating to the receiving of the peti-
tion, he could not conceive that there was any case made out,
that there were any grounds whatever for receiving the petition,
for the purpose of supplying
defective evidence. A great art,
if not the greatest part of the Hon Gentleman's speech (Mr.
Sitring Rice) was entirely applied to. this principle and object.
lie would say but a few words
upon the Parliamentary pro-
ceedings relating to tl •
,h
precedent was very ma-
terial in this point of view.p
The Gentlemen on the other side

of the goose had asserted, that there never was an instance of a.
Bill of this sort having passed without a Committee of the House,
or without some communication from the Crown. He begged
leave to say,• that this was not the fact, and that no assertion
could be moreerroneous.. To..prove it so, he would only refer
to well-known instances to the contrary. In last century, the
Habeas Corpus Act was suspended without any Committee or
communication to the House from the Crown. The notoriety
of the danger was thought to warrant and fully authorize the
Legislature to act without any Committee, without any mes-
NO from the Crown, and without the production of any
.papers. The Convention Act passed the Irish House of Com-
mons without the appointment of any secret Committee, and if
Irish precedents were good on oae side of the House, they were
equally Food on the other. True it was, that there was a Com-
mittee sitting on the subject in the house of Lords, and they
came to a resolution, that a self constituted body, interfering
with the administration of justice, and receiving private sub-
scriptions for the attainment of that and similar objects, was
an evil not to be tolerated by Government, and the House con-
cluded that it ought to be suppressed. There was then no
tittle of evidence before the House, but Parliament conceived
the Society to be a great evil, and upon the notoriety of that
evil, and upon that alone, did they found their resolutions and
pass their Bill. Parliament also enacted the Bill of 1795, for
suppressing seditious societies, without any Secret Committee,
or the production of any papers, or any direct communication
whatever. The prearnbleof that Act fully proved the fact, and
the doctrine he was now holding. After all the condemnation
of the proceedings of Secret Committees, and the declamation
that had been sent forth upon the subject of Green Bag Commit-
tees, now that Government came forward manfully, and stand-
ing upon their own responsibility, without any Select Commit-
tee, without any Secret Committee, without partial or garbled
extracts, they were assailed by the other side of the House for
departing from precedents and general principles. He conceiv:d
that the only question was, whether the evil of this Catholic
Association, and of other associations of the same nature, were
notorious or not ?—(Hear, hear, hear !)—He was not in the
least affected by those cheers ; if they meant any thing, he
supposed them to allude to his support of the Orange So-
cieties, and to amount to a charge against him of inconsis-
tency. But he could truly say, that he disapproved of all
secret associations, whether bound by secret signs or not.—
From his very first connexion with Ireland, he had ever
uniformly expressed his disapprobation of such societies. It
Was well known to the greater part of those whom he now
addressed, that in 1822 he had consented to a measure in-
tended to put an end to all such associations. When that
allsl a
jits s t
3s,
.tsa stages, a s it
subjects,
h related
e heardto onlynone
n n
eo
ofe
ctilieliroltisaeiPna
objectionssscel ads sti'orfou
which
were now so dwelt upon by the Gen-
tlemen opposite. Political combinations were then held in
great obloquy, and were suppressed with almost unanimous
exclamation by Parliament. If the Bill for their suppres-
sion was evaded by any subterfuge or artifice, or if its pro-
visions were in any respect abused, he, for one, was per-
fectly ready to accede to any measure which should have for
its object the putting of them down. But in passing the Bill
for the suppression of Orange Societies in 1822, the House
acted entirely upon the notoriety of the existing evil, and did not
proceed upon a Committee, nor upon any Papers laid before it.
at
tptohne thatßar oofc
rca-
ornh %,
if - QuidAlderman theGeKtit Gentlemen
aoppppl
the
House in favour of
himself or of his Orange Associations ?
Would not the Hon. Gentlemen opposite have treated the pro-
7ssailt e
tobbaev he esaarl c(11
posal with the utmost contempt and indignation ? And where
was their consistency, when they were now so vociferous in fa-
vour of the opposite association being represented at their bar?
Would they say, give that Association.an opportunity of being
heard by Counsel at the Bar, enable them to indulge in splendid
declamation about the right of Parliament to legislate generally
against what had been called a condemnatory Bill? Withrespect
to the present measure, be denied that it was a condemnatory
Bill. If it was a Bill of pains and penal ites, no person could doubt
the right of the Association affected by it to be heard at the bar
by Counsel. But such was net its Character, and yet the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had thought proper to give the Bill a
wrong appellation, the appellation of a condemnatory Bill, in
order to make out the title of the Petitioners to the privilege
for which they had applied. Again, with respect to tithes ; if,
when the Bill upon that subject was in progress through the
House, the Clergy had applied to be heard by Counsel on the
subject of Tithes, as well as on the general affairs of the
Church, would their application have been acceeded to ? If it
had, what delay must have resulted from the long speeches of
that might be expected from a subject so extensive and import-
ant ? But no one could think that the prayer of such a Petition
would be granted by the House. His Hon. Friend who spoke
last had asked how they could have more satisfactory evidence
on the subject of the Association than that of the petitioners
themselves ? But he (Mr. Peel) would ask in return, had they
not already the admissions of the Association ? He would be
able to shew, taking their public acts and declarations, and the
1 i
tnssio
parliamentary proceedings of the Association, that the House
had ample grounds for passing the Bill, without hearing a
single word more in evidence. He held a Petition in his hand
7taht ofol c,, of Ireland February, felt h t
b he
e had
necessity e c
e receivedf yesterday.
bestirring
which
It was the last act of the Association. They had thereset forth
datedthat the i
Catholics
the
themselves in their own affairs, and it was deemed right
to enter • into an Association to promote the general in-
terest of their body, and to bring under the frequent conside-
ration of Parliament the various and heavy grievances of
which the Catholic people of Ireland complain." Was not that
like an avowal of their representative power—(Cries of " No,
no!" from the Opposstion side ; " Bear, hear, hear !" from
the Ministerial) ? To his mind it admitted of that interpreta-
tion. The petition concluded with a prayer, " that no mea-
sure should be adopted against the Catholic AssociatiOn, or
against any portion of the Catholic people of Irelands without
first atibrding to petitioners a full opportunity of vindicating
their principles and conduct at the Bar of the Ilouse, and
to be heard, if necessary, as well by witness as by their Coun-
sel." That passage, he maintained, amounted to an admission
of their represeatative capacity at once—(Cries of No,
no
Hear, hear !)-1-1e did not admit the distinction that had been
taken as to direct and virtual representation, hut claimed
for Parliament the right to pass what laws they pleased. In
avowing their intention publicly of addressing and petitioning
Parliamera for the redress of grievances, they af}urd d e at least
an admission of their existence as a body, and the House
should never forget that they were a body who had assem-
bled twenty times since the month of October. They were
also a body who appointed Committees of Finance, Committees
of Grievance, and Committees of Education, and who required
no other qualification in persons desirous of becoming mem.
bers, than the payment of one guinea on their admission._
(Hear, hear! from the Ministerial side.)—lf Parliament con-
sented to recognize them in such a character, they might de-
pend upon it, that the interval would not be far distant
between such recognition and their assumption of all the
functions of Parliament. The had also professed, in their
petition, " to procure for the poor, the ignorant, and the de_
fenceless, redress from the known tribunals of the law, for out-
rages and injuries arising from party-spirit." That privilege
he also considered highly objectionable, for it was contrary to
the spirit of justice that the same body which exercised the
other acknowledged functions, should institute prosecutions
against individuals. The petitioners denied that they levied
contributions on their fellow-citizens. It was true, he would
admit, that they had no legal mode of enforcing subscriptions,
but if they could not exercise a legal, they had exercised
moral compulsion.—(Hear, hear !)—Was there no moral com-
pulsion in the fear of being registered in their black-book, as
an lion. and Learned Gentleman had called it ? Would any
man say that the threat of having one's name inscribed by the
Priest in a book, after Divine Service, on refusing to sub-
scribe, left that person at liberty to choose whether he would
subscribe or net ? One word more with respect to that leysawhich
was by far the most important part of the question. Did that body
admit, or did it not, that they received funds from the people ?
He held in his hand the Report of a Committee, signed " D.
O'Connell," which stated that, in order the more effectually to
exert the energies of the Irish people, it was necessary that
money should be collected. To that assertion he objected. The
intentions of the Association might be innocent, but to say the
best of them, they were very equivocal, and lie would say that
some acts of the Association, even giving them full credit for the
motives they avowed, ought never to have taken place---(Hear,
hear!) He could perfectly understand why words spoken in
the heat of debate by individuals who, in their cooler moments,
might be willing to retract them, ought not to be charged upon
the Catholic body; but the frequent use of such expressions
formed a strong objection to the existence of such meetings,
and could not fail to be prejudicial to the cause of the Catho-
lics themselves. However, as he was no friend to that cause,
he would dwell no longer on that topic. There was one Reso-
lotion passed by the Association, which he thought of consi-
derable importance. By that Resolution Mr. Hamilton Rowan
was admitted as a 31 em her of the Association. He would
ask, was not such proceeding likely to excite suspicion, and
exasperate animosities ? The Secretary of the Association had
addressed a letter to Mr. Hamilton Rowan, apprizing him of
the fact, and stating that the Resolution had been passed with
more enthusiasm than he bad ever witnessed on any former oc-
casion. That, on the mention of his honoured and beloved
name, it was hailed with the applause which formed, at
once, the testimony and the reward of a life that had been de-
voted to the service of his country. It was possible that the
individuals who had voted such an Address might not have
been aware of all the circumstances connected with the life they
bad so described ; but if a public body, collecting money to di-
rect the energies of the Irish people.; had been so unfortunate as
to propose that address, and to exult at the mention of that ho-
noured and beloved name, on the very day on which they had
adjured the Catholics by the hate they bore to Orangemen, was
it not a reason sufficient to excite suspicion in the most candid

mind ? With respect to the name and the political character 0
Mr. Rowanf he should say no more than what ha found in the
Report of the Secret Committee of the Irish House of Lords
in 1799. It appeared from their Report, that an English cler-
gyman, of the name of Jackson, had proceeded from France to
Ireland, tbr the purpose of conducting a treasonable conspi-
racy, with a view to the invasion of Ireland by France. That
in 1794 he had commenced a correspondence, and held fre-
quent interviews with Mr. Hamilton Rowan, as the leader of
the United Irishmen, who shortly afterwards was committed to
prison, but had subsequently escaped, and was attainted for
high treason: Vat he and Mr. Theobatd Wolf Toneand Mt-
Lewins had frequent conferences, the former of whom wa,,
taken in a French vessel, called the Hoche, on the coast of
Ireland ; and the latter escaped to France, where he acted a%
Envoy of the United Irishmen. After such a statement, would
the Association maintain that the Resolution to which he
had alluded, had no tendency to excite suspicion or alarat'?
Whatever they might think, or however they might reason ?
they might depend on it, that even if they had the power to
bring the whole body of the Catholics to the bar of that House;
the united testimony of six millions of men could not satisfy
the Protestants of Ireland or the people of this country that
there was no ground for suspicion or alarm in such a proceed.
ing.—(Hear, hear, hear! from the Ministerial side.)—That an
Association professing to haye 40,0001. a year, and six mil-
lions of people at their command, should hail the beloved name
of an attainted traitor, and adjure the Catholics by the hated
they bore to Orangemen, as their natural enemy, was a fact
which he would say afforded ground for suspicion and alarm
that could never be overstated.—(Hear, hear!)—lf they took
credit for such an act, the voice that informed them of the
danger of such a course, was a friendly voice; the man who-
cautioned them against the indiscreet course they were pur-
suing, by holding forth such a resolution as the act of the
deliberative body, was a friend to the peace of Ireland. Ile
would appeal to every man who pretended to the least re-
gard for the pure administration of justice, to put them-,
selves in the place of the individuals who might be pro-
secuted by the Association, and ask themselves whether,
against such prosecution, they could think it safe to go to
trial ? The Hon. Member for Knaresborough ; might mo-
ralize upon the advantage of keeping up the civil war of the
passions, but would he tell him that it would contribute to the
pure administration of justice, to have that body conducting
prosecutions, and prejudicing the minds of the people ? A re-
solution of the Association stated, that the Secietary had opened
an account with every parish in Ireland, in order to collect sub-
scriptions for the purposes alleged in their petition. Was not
that a ground of suspicion and alarm ? Could a body, con-
sisting of 3,000 men, for whose character they had no better se-
curity than the fact of being able to pay one guinea for admis-
sion, proceed in the exercise of such functions without awaltirs..
ing that sound constitutional jealousy with which it was
their duty to view every political measure ? After the Pro=
clamations that have been issued, the House was bound
to regard them with ten-fold jealousy. One of those
Proclamations set forth that care should be taken to pube
lish the sums subscribed, together with the name of each
subscriber, unless where the subscriber wished to remain
anonymous, and that with respect to a monthly Catholic rent
collected by three or twelve individuals in each parish, no such
body would be recognised by Parliament. But to return to
their petition—it represented their body as consisting of " Ca-
tholic Prelates, Peers, and Baronets—of many. Protestants of
noble families and great possessions—of many distinguished
members of high and learned professions—of commercial men
of great wealth and character—of country gentlemen, farmers,
traders, and substantial citizens." That it consisted of many
respectable persons, lie did not mean to deny ; but the more
important they were, the more did he object to their undertak-
ing the conduct of prosecutions. If Prelates and Peers and
Baronets were of their number—if even the venerated name of
Earl Fitzwilliam appeared amongst them, the more was it unfit
that they should institute prosecutions, because the prejudice
excited against the defendants were likely to be more strong.
It was possible that they might be acquitted; even under such
circumstances, but they had no right to send any man to take
his trial with such a weight of prejudice operating to his disad-
vantage. lie had shewn the foundation of his opinions by
reading extracts from public and official papers; and on these
public documents he meant to call on the House to support the
Bill, without hearing any evidence against it. He was satisfied
there were good and Parliamentary grounds for the measures
and he would vote for it without listening to any petition. His
sense of right and his sense of justice dictated to him boldly
and manfully to give his vote against the prayer of the Peti..
don. The Right Honourable Gentleman sat down amidst
loud cheers.

Mr. C. HUTCHINSON rose to defend the character of
party who was not then present to defend himself. The allusions
made to Mr. H. Rowan he would not pass over. He had been
in Ireland when Mr. Rowan was obliged to leave it, and he was
accompanied by the regret of all lovers of his country. The ob-
ject of the United Irishmen of his day was to relieve.lreland
from the effects of misgovernment and the foul misconduct
of official and judicial characters. lndeed they only attempt-
ed to do hastily that which the *sent Ministers were trying
day by day to effect more slowly and cautiously. It could
not be doubted that the present Bill was directed solely again: {
the Catholic Association. That body had been grossly libelled,
and the Counsel had a right to be heard at that Bar to remove
the unfavourable impressions that had been excited against•
them by those libels—the liberal part of the Ministry had beer
dragged into the line, and they would find it difficult to extricate
themsel4s. The Ministry were making war against the whole
Population of Ireland. He denied that the Protestant feeling
in Ireland was against the Catholics, although it appeared to be
the wish of Government to create that feeling among them.
begged of the House not to shut their ears against the petition' ,
of the insulted Catholics, for if it did, he would not answer for
what they might be driven to.
Mr. PEEL rose to explain. He wished to meet the question
by fair arguments, and felt convinced, that there was nothing
in what he had said which could be construed into insulting the
Catholics.

The Hon. L. C. CLARKE, the Member for Kilkenny, said
he thought Ireland would he perfectly tranquil, except for the
Catholic Association, which produced, not actual disturbance,
but agitation. He would support the Bill, and vote againsl-
- Petition.

Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT was ready to give his support to
the Bill. He thought some measure should be adopted for"
putting down the Association ; but he felt that the British'
House of Commons was acting unworthy of the greatest BodY,
in the world, when they refused the petitioners the right 0f
.
being heard at the Bar. I-le could not lay his hand on his heart
and say, the Catholics of Ireland were not insulted and degrad-
ed.,
He had never heard any argument against Catholic Eman-
cipation, which was not founded in error.
Mr. S:CARLErr rose in consequence of an allusion to his
opinion on the Constitutional Association having
been made
by a Right Honourable Gentleman in the course of a for-
mer debate. He was ready to admit that he did think the
Constitutional Association was not supported by law. It was.l
an association to prosecute political offences. It usurped g
power of the Attorney-General, but the Catholic Association
acted on different principles. The Attorney-General had,
done himself honour in not prosecuting upon the suggestion of
that society. He came to the House unprejudiced, with re-
s_pect to the question, but the speech lie had heard from the
Honourable and Learned Gentleman who opened the debate,
had induced him to vote tbr calling in Counsel. He gave his
vote conscientiously for hearing witnesses at the bar, because
the object of their errand was to prove to the House that their
desire was to have equal laws, and a fairer participation in the
privileges of the Constitution. Ile should always consider the
petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland founded on justice.
The ATTORNEYGNRL did not rise to occupY
much of the time of the House. He was only desirous of
making a few observations in answer to his Honourable and
Learned Friend (Mr. Scarleti). On a former occasion he con-
sidered the prosecutions of the Constitutional Association
illegal, and his Hon. and Learned Friend complained of
all Associations having the power to prosecute. Tlie Con-
stitutional Association, bad as it might be., could not be
compared with the Catholic Association. The Constitutional
Association was governed by persons of respectability, but
their proceedings were carried on by practitioners, who be-
came odious ; so much so, that persons considered themselves
fortunate because they were prosecuted by the Association.
It could not be said there was the least similary between
the two Associations. Who were the Catholic Association ?
were virtually three-fourths of the population of Ireland.
y could wield the whole fhrce of the Catholic population of
Ireland, and no person could deny that they were acting to
satisfaction of the Irish Catholics. That being so, what must
bee effect of prosecutions preferred by the Association, with
the whole population looking at them ? Could any thing be.
rare pernicious than a system of this description ? had
The
against the effect of public interest in prosecu-
tiownasY.3
likel The system of the Catholic Association was not only
formy to produce injustice, but to introduce spies and in-
ers,,xnd to prejudice all'
nals. cases which came before the tribu-
e very documents which constituted the prosecution,
werereceived by the Association, and referred to a Committee,
which ordered a prosecution. Every man who valued the ad-
ministration of Justice, ought; to vote for putting down. the
Catholic Association. The evils arising from this Association
werereater than any which had proceeded from the Constitu-
tional Association. Every prosecution promoted by the Ca-
tholic Association became a party question, and no man could
doubt the mischievous effects all their proceedings would
produce.
The call for question was very general,when BILDROUGHAM
rose to reply. He said, he
reater anxiety,
never rose to discharge his duty with
gecretar than at that moment. The Right Hon. the
Sy for the Home Department had, most undoubtedly,