Star.
London, England, 1825-02-19 00:00:00

'to ipOeir and 'indicate themselies, in 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 Honour-
able and Learned Friend (Mr. Brougham) observed,
there was a striking analog? between the situation of
America and Ireland. In 1768. when the King came
down to Parliament, he recommended the House to
take into its consideration the state of Boston, where
acts subversive of the Constitution were occurring. The
Address said, the recommendation should be carries
into effect, and a resolution. of the Congress contained
expressions unquestionably reittlious. Governor Pow-
nal rose, however, and said that if true the House ought
to proceed--hut he was satisfied they had never been
employed. The Right Honourable the President of the Board of
Controul had complained that the Association prejudged cases be-
fore trial, but when cr officio informations were filed, did not four
Judges first pronounce that they thought sufficient guilt established
to justify the proceedings. The Honourable Member supported
the motion ?

The SOLICITOR•GENERAL thought the real
question was, whether there was a sufficient basis of
facts to ground the_present Bill on ? He conceived
that there was. It was admitted that the Association
virtually represented the people of Ireland —and it was
admitted that they assumed for the redress of all kcal
and general grievances in Church and State. These
were facts. He she uld also direct attention to the dis-
tinction between compulsory and voluntary contribu-
tions. The interference of the Association in the Courts-
of Law was admitted to be general throughout Ireland,
yet his Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr.Brongliam)
knew that every Catholic who contributed to the fund
applied in prosecutions or actions, was incapacitated
from being a juror or a witness in any criminal case,
and from being a juror in civil cases; neither could a
Magistrate who subscribed to the Rent preside as a
Judge to hear such cases. If the Protestants, then,
were to establish a counter society, what became of
the administration of justice ?—( thar).—Gentlemen
had said that the paying of the Catholic Rent was not
compulsory ; it was like what Dr. Johnson called a
conge d'eli re, namely, to throw a man out of a two pair
window,- and recommend him to fall to the ground.—
The Honourable and Learned Gentleman quoted a case
which he conceived to bear upon the question of the as-
sumption of the Catholic Association to levy rent. This
case, he observed, occurred in the reign of Queen Anne,
relating to the Clergyman of a parish in Kent, who
was suspected to be in communication with the Court
of St. Germain's, who, for the purpose of raising funds,
preached a charity sermon. In consequence of this he
was put upon his trial. His eminent Counsel were Sir
Constantine Phipps and Mr. Serjeant Cummins; and
the Judge declared that he had no hesitation in saying
that this mode of obtaining money, although in the
form of a voluntary contribution, was illegal. He told
the Jury that it was a dangerous precedent, and an in-
vasion of the King's Prerogative. With regard to the
production of witnesses at that bar, he. had enough of
evidence before him to satisfy his mind. The Peti-
tioners proposed to convince that House that " no act
or declaration of the Catholic Association was of a

tendency to excite alarm or provoke animosity," so
that they were required to hear evidence as to the mo-
tives and intentions of this body—( Hear, hear).—They
had the Proclamation before them, and that, he con-
tended, was a matter of reason and deduction, which
that House were to exercise and draw for themselves,
and not have witnesses at their bar to do for them.—
Perhaps these Gentlemen would tell them that the
words " to hate" meant "to like," and then proceed
to explain to them what were the moral effects of their
language and conduct upon the people of Ireland.—
They had facts upon which to form their opinion, and
no man could gainsay those facts. When they put
down dangerous and seditious meetings—the Radical
meetings he meant—would they have heard at the Bar
the leading orator of that day, who was at once the
author and orator of those meetings? In passing the
mien Bill, would they have heard Aliens by Counsel ? It was
also worthy of consideration, that if they granted the prayer of this
Petition, they must be prepared to make sintikr concessions to
Protestants, or whatever parties might think themeelves sufficiently
interested in the question to prefer a shnilarcisins—{Hear).
Mr. SPRING RICE said, the evidence proposed to
be tendered to the House was widely different from
evidence of impression and opinion. Every paper,
every document, which the Association had ever re-
ceived or issued since its formation, was now within the
reach of the House; and was it possible that Honour-,
able Members would proceed upon the worst evidence
when the best was in their power? For the right of
the Catholic Association to be heard, it was obvious;
the Bill affected them, and affected them only. But if
the Orange Societies, or any other society in Ireland,
felt that their interests were connected with it, he should
say, that every one of them was entitled to be heard,
and would vote in favour of hearing them as freely as
he voted now. For precedent in a case like this he did
not care, fot the measure contemplated was wholly un-
precedented ; but precedent he had for hearing Coun-
sel in the case, and precedent of no very slight autho-
rity. In the year 1698, an Act had been introduced in
the Irish Parliament, for the purpose of providing for_
the greater security of the Royal Person and, Govern-
ment. This might be called a pretty general 'Measure,
but Counsel had been heard against it, upon petition,
before it was passed. In the year 1703,•again, another
Bill had been brought in to prevent the further growth
of Popery; and against that Bill, as well as the for-
mer, Counsel had been heard. Again, in the year
1715, a Bill had been introduced, prescribing the oath
of supremacy to be taken in certain new cases.—
Against that Bill Counsel had been heard, and the
cause complained of had been expunged before it
passed. If it had been the fashion to undervalue Irish
precedents, he hoped that these would not be entirely
neglected by the House. He cautioned the House
against the refusal of the present motion. If it were
refused, the Irish would have just cause to complain
that they were treated worse than their ancestors had been in the
reigns of King William and Queen Anne—(Hear, hear).—The
Catholics had been identified with the resolution proposed by the
Hon. Member for Aberdeen, relative to church property in Ire-
land, but with this they had nothing to do; the Catholic Clergy,
though anxious for some provision, did not look for any part of the
tithe property.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that in the observations
which he had to make, he would confine himself to the
question immediately before the House, without going
into the general one, except in those points where that
question had been touched. Without going into an
examination of what was done in the case of the Pro-
vinces of America, or inquiring into the power of the
Catholics, he would ask whether this was a question
consistent with the usage of Parliament ? Was it a me-
don required as an act of justice to the Catholics? He
looked Upon the Petitioners as upon all other Peti-