Star.
London, England, 1825-02-26 00:00:00

Mr. LEYCESTER thought the ,preseat . -*mulct
drive dre'Alsociation to assume a:more-form Mishit elsa-
racter,and,that it theseforeenglinto be Weaned. in its
voesent state. If the 4isseciatiett contittned, cintitholki
aniantipation could net be: delened, aid !leerily eann-
tkreti how the Right-ikinotstableend Darned-Utterney-t
fieneval who approvid of that measuresoltmeh, could
,so.asst.thetround.from-underhis own feet—strike the
weapon from ,his own hand, -as he did by the present
measure. The Orangemen thought the demolition of
the Association was the destruction of emancipation;
and would its friends join them in undoing their own
work? Ia the present state- f Ireland, he-believed the'
interference of the -Association in the administration:of
the laws, indispensable to the purposes, of justice. They
were the only friends of a destitute multitude. The pre-
sent Bill made h criminal for any man to assist another
in defending himself. • Thus Government, who would
not undertake the'effice, Were truly like 'the-dog in the
manger—they would neither be charitable themselves,
nor allow others to be so. As to the expression " hate"
in the Address, he had yet to learn that good could not
be extracted from evila-that a flower 'was not to be
gathered from a thistle. The Right Hon. Secretary
(Mr. Canning), he thought undervalued his own power
and popularity, for he (Mr..Leycestei) believed both
to begreat. It was said of one of the ancients, that he
could raise 36,000 men ,bythe stamp of his foot; but
the Right Honourable Gentleman, by one stir of his
foot on that side of the House, could raise six millions of his fellow
subjects to the rank of freemen, and his country to the pinnacle
of greatness: • •
Mr. SPRING RICE should not'abuse the indulgence
of the House by enlarging upon the various pointsl
connected with this Bill, which had already been dis•
-
cussed. His observations would- be confined to the
nature of the Bill immediately under consideration. In
his opinion, instead of destroying, it would confirm the•
power of the Association. In stating this, he was
guilty of no inconsistency, for he must always deplore
that such a state of things should exist in any country,
as to render it necessary for any body of men to usurp:
the power of the Legislature, and wield the force of the
nation. The Honourable Member then adverted to the
circumstance; under which the Convention Act was
passed in Ireland, and denied that the Catholic Asso-
ciation had evaded -it or any law. What that Act had
not expressly prohibited was legal, and with the present
Bill the Catholics would act as they did with the one it
professed to extend and amend. One thing more he
would impress upon the House. lie begged- their
attention to one clause of the Bill, and he felt assured,
as soon as pointed 'out, it wriold'heeejeCted. He should
trespass on the House to read it.—" And be it further
enacted, that it shall -and may be lawful Wand for any,
Mayor, Sheriff, or Justice of the Peace, and they are
hereby respectively authorized, empowered, and re-
quired, within his and their respective jurisdictions, to
'command all meetings, bereinbefore declared to be
unlawful assemblies, immediately to disperse; and if
,any such meeting shall not thereupon immediately di:.
perse, to apprehend all persons offending in that behal4
and to demand admission into any house, outshouse, or
office, Where they shall respectively /lave good reason
to believe that such unlawful assembly shall be, and if
refused, to enter biforce."—(Hear, hear). Somethin&
analogous to this tnight,-perhaps, be found in the Penal
Laws of Ireland, but he was convinced nothing like it I
ever existed in the lawsof England. Would the House
consent that any one Magistrate--any one 'lrish Ma-
gistrate, should have the power, for what he might,
deem "good reason," without iesponsibility,to force into
the sanctuary of private life, and violate all the rights
and privileges of free-born subjects ?—(Hear). He would
state to the House a few facts, to shew the sort of
persons to whom . that authority was to be delegated.
He should refer no farther back than the year INS,
and the occurrences Which took place on the Leinster
Circuit of that year. The first case occurred near
Clonmel, where a pinion of the tame of Connell
brought an action against a Magistrate, a Mr. Faulk-
ner, for false imprisonment. It appeared on the trial
that Colwell had been employed to serve a civil process
on Mr. Faulkner—that he refined to take off his hat
When ordered to do so by the latter, and in consequence
he was arrested under the Insurrection Act and
committed to gaol. The Hon, Member then adverted
to the address of the Hon. end Learned Member for
New Ross (Mr. Dohertg and also the charge of the
Judge who presided. next noticed a case of man-
slaughter in the county ot Wexford, and read an to
tract from the summing up Of the Lord Chief Justice
of the Irish Court of King's Bench, which he insisted
was more inflammatory, if taken without the context,
than anything ever uttered in the Association. Another
instance of the conduct Of the Magistracy took plate at
Tallow, in the County of Waterford, *hen a man was
confined for fifteen weeks in Bridewell, by his landlord,
as a means of obtaining his surrender of a lease, and
only discharged when it was threatened to expose the
affair. It was creditable to the Gnvernnent that they
removed incompetent and obnozioui persons front the
Magistracy. But still it would not be said that the
Magistracy of Ireland were fit to be trusted with the
powers, vested in them by this Bill. Even if they were
as pure as the Magistracy of England, or of Utopia, he
would not trust them with such powers. He hoped
they would never hear again in that House of the fair
administration of the Insurrection Act, after they had
it upon record, thatthete were no less than three cases
of injustice and corruption against the Magistrates in
the course of the present Assizes. One of the cases un-
der the Insurrection Act was that in which a Colonel
Dempster was taken up by order of a Magistrate for
'being out at unseasonable hours, at a time when he was
actually walking with his wife. An action was
:brought against this Magistrate, and damages re,
covered, and yet he was allowed to remain in
the Commission of the Peace. He had the authority
f the Honourable and Learned Member for New
Boss (Mr. Doherty) to state that this outrage pro-
ceeded from private resentment. The Honourable'
acid Learned Gentleman,• he believed, was Counsel for
the plaintiff on that occasion. But the arbitrary powers
of this Bill were to be vested not only in the Ma-
gistrates, but in the Sheriffs and Mayors of Ireland.
Now, he asked the Right Hon. Attorney-General for
Ireland, whether, from his experience of that body,
chosen, as they were, from a list bearing the impress
of King William, he thought they were calculated foe'
the upright discharge of such powers ?—(Hear, hear).
He protested, in the name of the House and his country,
against the peace of Ireland being pat into such hand+.
He had opposed this Bill throughout, because it would
be prejudicial to his country. At the same time he was
ready to give thd highest credit to the Irish Government
for what they had done for Ireland. For that he awed
them his gratitude, and willingly tendered his thanks.
His hostility, hcroreyer, to this Bill was ROE les coed on

that account, and he felt it hi. duty tb tnove as an
Amendment upon the Original Motion, that it be read
that day six months.
Mr. DOHERTY said, he rose under circumstances'
of great embarrassment to repel a charge which, were
it well founded, would render bite undeserving, not
only of the name of kiend,_ which the Honourable
Member for Limerick (Mr. S. -Wet had "applied to
him, but of holding a seat inthat He alluded
to the charge brought against :him,
_not for the -first
tune, by that Honourable Member. In the sourse of
`his speech he had said, that he wished he (Mr. Doherty)
instead of giiing them the evidence of others, had,givert
them the evidence of his own esperience in the adminis;
tration of justice in Ireland, derived from his Jabbers*
"as a Barrister upon the Leinster Circuit. He also tact
'gone on to add, and 'in *another cal;acity, klitown t#
`him and' me." Now, if this language meant anything?
it meant that he (Mr. Doherty) had sought to insprsi.
'upon the House in opinion unsuppoited by, evicieneii
and unfounded in truth. This insinuation he .indigs
Dandy repelled. 'Before he had the honotir of a' seatie
that House, about two-years ago, he had' seen a Petition
presented by'the Honourable and Learned :Ptiernber‘fire
Winchelsea (Mr. Broughatn), containing grave charges
against the administration of the laws in Irehand,ide-
claring that the fountains of justice were poisoned, nod
its streams perverted. With reference to this, he'lnei
taken the first opportunity of stating in that 'Houle,
that as far as he had had opportunities of judging, the
administration of justice was pure ; that there was bat
one law for the rich and the poor, the Protestant and
the Catholic. He spoke this from the experience of
seventeen years in the Courts of Ireland— (icar). Again,
when the Catholic Association put forth a sweeping
denunciation against the laws, declaring that there was
no justice in 11eland except for the rrivilegediew, he
had repeated his denial. He had done this unit warmth.
and he would tell the House why. All the other topic's
of grievance put forth by the Catholic Association faded
ii* insignificance before this one of partiality in the ad..'
• ministration of the laws. In that country it operated
like a firebrand, to rouse the peasant to outrage and
revolt. if he should disprove this assertion, he hoped
Honourable Gentlemen opposite, would give up this un-
worthy slander, which of late had been so industriously
propagated. The opinion of Sir John Davis.upon the
Irish people was, 14 that there is no ration under the
sun who love equal and impartial justice so much as
the Irish." Such was his opinion of the Irish people.
They were unchanged since the days of Sir john Davis,
and therefore be (Mr. Doherty) said, that without Ca-
tholic Emancipation they could live peaceably ; but
revolt and rebellion would be the consequence of per.
suading them that the administration of justice was'
unequal. Now, with respect to the passages which the
Honourable Member for Limerick (Mr. S. Rice)' had
brought against him for his speeches delivered in the
character of an advocate in Court, he must say, he did
not think that mode of dealing with a legal Memberof
that House altogether fair. When he entered the doors
'of that House, lie threw away the advocate, and'thought
'only of how he should best give his vote with honesty—
(Hear, hear). With- respect 'to what he should do as
an advocate in Court he referred him to the Honourable
and Learned Member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham),
for-instructions on that head. He should indeed be
surprised if his consistency were to be impeachedrbe-
cause, in the course of one Circuit, •they could set one
Speech against another to the destruction of each Other
—(A laugh). But what had the cases which
,his Hon.
Friend had brought forward proved ? One was, that a
Magistrate, having isjured a poor man, was struck off
the list of Magistrates. Did this prove that there sous:
no justice for the poor man in Ireland ? That he under's
stood to be one of the positions of his lion. Friend.----
Another csise was thatsf Colonel Dempster, for whom..
he was Counsel. He knew he had said in that capacitr
that there was some private pique between the plaintiff
and defendant, but there was not the shadow of evidence
in support of the assertion—(A laugh).—The fact was,
that the Magistrate was a Scotchman, nearly two years
resident in Ireland. Walking the streets after the hour
prescribed by the Insurrection Act,'and seeing a Gentles
man, a half-pay Officer, abroad, he took mit his watch,
and finding by it that all poor people were in bed, he
thought the impartial administration of justice required
that be should
,put the Act in force against this indivi-
dual. Now, did this case prove that the law was not
for the rich as well as the poor in Iceland?—f Hear,frier).
The plaintiff recbvered damages against the Magistratk,
because he had 'matted to furnish himself with a copy
of the Duidia Gintiti, which was required by the Act:
to be the only eOidence admisSible of the district beia(
under the Insurrection Acts So that if the Chaneollhe

of Ireland had :truth that Magistrate off the list, it
would have been for not having is copy of the DA.
lin Gettdte. The third ease to which his Honour-
able Friend had alluded, was that of Mr. Faulkner.—
That case, he believed, was one in whieh a 000 T thin
recovered large damages against a Magistrate for a hi el
term of false imprisonment—another of the Hon. Gen-
tleman's chosen proofs of.the maladministration of the
laws in Ireland, and that there was one law for the pith,
and another for the poor—(Hear, hear). The Hon.
Gentleman had alluded to something very significantly,
as though it were a secret between them. He believed,
it was with reference to his duties as one orthe Com-

auslsoners of Inquiry into the fees taken in Courts tsf
Justice. Now, whatever confidence he might fiave in
the Honourable Gentleman hi other respects, there was
note between them in this. Whatever abuse canto
...to

his knowledge, appeared in his Report, and became fhe
prciperty of the public.. He *at not obliged to seek
favour from the heads of his profession, and he would
never•stoop to slander for the gratification of the popes
lar appetite. With respect to the praise bestowed upon
the Chief Justice of Ireland, it reminded hilts of the
observations of some one to another, who strati •ery loud
end pompons in his praise of Herculets,6" Who said
anything against Hercules 7' —( A latigh.)-,-Se he UM
of the Chief Justice ; the rare conturrente of all parties
in Ireland in doing justice to his talents and integrity, rendersol
any of the panegyrics they had lately heard iu that House useless awl
out of place—(Hear, bear).
Mr. SPRING RICE declared that he never meant to
impute to the Hon. Member anything like being actn—
ated by personal feeling.
Mr. ALEXANDER BARING still hollered, that ii,
the present state of party, the impartial administrant*
of justice in Ireland was impossible. The ease had
always been as he stated it, and must confined to be
so, in every time, And iti every country. He did not
believe that it would have been possible to get justice
in Ifeland, either in the late cases, brought forward the
mbar day by the Right Honourable Attorney- CieneM,
or in the proceedings that 6: iginated out of the wadi.
kit the theatre upon the L6td Lieutenant. tifhla the'
areal question of Catholic claims remained moistly