The Sun.
London, England, 1825-02-21 00:00:00

DAILY

Extractsfrom the Morning- Papers, Feb. 21,1825.
• E TIM ES.]
Mr. Brougham's motion to hear evidence and
Counsel at the Bar of the House of Commons on
behalf of the Catholic Association, and against
the Bill, - produced an • animated discussion on
Friday evening. We are not inclined to treat
this subject 'warmly,- not being quite satisfied
that it would have been wise to grant the motion
of the Learned Gentleman ; although a more
manly ground might, perhaps, have been taken
than that of precedent, whereon to establish the
negative against him... The Bill, inadequate and
futile as we have from the first considered it, is
beyond all doubt a measure of general policy.
The second division of it is framed for ti-me
suppression of the Orange confederacy. Could
the Orangemen be refused a privilege accorded
to time Catholics ?- Could the House, after
suffering an harangue from Mr. O'Connell, shut '
its ears against Sir Harcourt Lees, espe-
cially nominated to support him ? It would,
indeed, be a spectacle worth paying for, to
see a mixed corps of Catholic and Orange wor-
thies pressing a joint petition upon Parliament—to
leave them and their innocent animosities unmo-
lested, and to let them " in puke and quietness"
fight out their own battle. As for evidence at
the bar, what facts could be given to rebut those
already published by authority of . the Associa-
tion ? IV-hat parole evidence could stand for a
moment against the record itself ? The constitu-
tion of this formidable body, pervading the
whole of Ireland, is a fact incontrovertible. The
interference in the administration of justice—
the quantum of power generated—the purposes
to which it might be abused—the very virtue
assumed by the Catholic leaders in the produc-
tion of that tranquillity which reigns from
Derry to the extremity of Munster ;—these
are all so many grounds on which to jus-
tify a strong presumption, that if the leaders
of the Association were to take " huff" at any
act of the Government here or in Dublin, they
could throw the country into a flame. Now,
that is a power with which no body of individuals
in any community ought to be invested. The argu-
ment against despotism in a single hand is not that
every reigning monarch must be in hisheart a tyrant,
but that he may in time degenerate, or that one
less worthy may succeed him. So the reasoning
which overturns a single despot is good against a
many-headed despot.• No subject, nor as-
sembly of subjects, ought to be permitted to
wield a power convertible against the peace of
society. We cannot perceive how the known
facts or goneral reasonings like these could be neu-
tralized by time testimonies of Messrs. O'Connell
and his associates, or by their speeches at the bar.
We can understand,indeed,how the reports of what
was said and done by them in a spirit, though
not in a form of menace and defiance against the
Parliament, even at its own threshold, might be
conveyed to Ireland, and there converted into
fuel for fresh excitement. We can believe that
time new bill would then be described to the Ca-
tholic world as having been carried in contempt
of evidence and argument, whereas it is now to
be no worse than carried in their absence.