Commons Sitting of 10 February 1825

ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.
Sir George Hillpresented a petition from the gentry, clergy, magistrates, and freeholders of the county of Londonderry, praying for the suppression of a certain assembly in Dublin, calling itself, "The Catholic Association." He should at present abstain from making any comments on the various evils arising from that most mischievous body, and should confine himself chiefly to stating the origin of this petition. Great alarm was naturally felt in the county of Londonderry at the assumption of the Catholic Association to rule and govern the population of Ireland, taking them under their special protection, and alienating their affections from the constituted authorities of the country. Still, however, the inhabitants of Londonderry had come to a determination to confide in parliament, and not interfere, until an attempt should be made to collect the Catholic rent; and a circumstance occurred which rendered further abstinence impossible. It was this: a person in the neighbourhood had prevailed upon the inhabitants to subscribe a sum of money for erecting a Catholic school-house: but instead of appropriating it to its proper purpose, he sent it to the Association. In consequence of which, the inhabitants of Londonderry thought it high time to express their sentiments. Accordingly, a requisition was signed by 340 most respectable freeholders. A meeting was held, at which the petition was voted, and in a short time it

167
received no less than 1,700 most respectable signatures, together with the names of twenty-nine clergymen, and thirty-nine magistrates.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, that, as the right hon. baronet was in the act of extolling the moderation of the good inhabitants of Londonderry, perhaps he would favour the House with an accurate report of the speeches delivered by some of those gentlemen previous to the voting that petition [hear].
Mr. Dawsonsaid, that nothing could exceed the moderation and forbearance evinced by the Protestants of Londonderry. No single individual, holding the sentiments he did with respect to Catholic emancipation, had done a single act to cause a difference with their Catholic fellow-countrymen. As the Catholics themselves had thrown down the gauntlet, they must abide by the consequences. The Protestants remained tranquil, until the Catholic Association set on foot the collection of that abominable "rent" in Londonderry, and then they felt it their duty to come forward, to deny the bold and impudent assertion of the Catholic Association, that the Protestants of Ireland were favourable to their claims. The Protestant feeling was not in their favour. In Londonderry, for instance, the Protestants were, in point of numbers, two to one; and as to property, intelligence, and industry, they were a thousand to one; and, when the Catholics thought proper to make this boast, he felt it his duty boldly to proclaim, that the Protestant feeling of Ireland was decidedly opposed to any further concessions to the Catholics.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, he hoped the House would pause before they placed implicit confidence in the statements of the hon. member. The petition just presented was the only petition offered to the House on this subject from Ireland, and he was not aware that any other was in contemplation. The hon. member had thought proper to assert, that the Protestant feeling of Ireland was opposed to Catholic emancipation. It was painful to hear such assertions: but when they were made, he was under the necessity of rising to make an assertion of a completely opposite nature. Two thirds of the representatives of Ireland had voted for emancipation. Now, if they did not represent the feeling of the country, it cast a great stigma on the state of the representation in Ireland. And, with re-
168
spect to property, he would remind the hon. member of the petition presented by the Protestants of Ireland, a few years ago, in favour of emancipation.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, in opposition to the statement of the hon. baronet, that he had presented a similar petition in the course of the evening, from his constituents, containing, 4,700 signatures.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, he had one remark to make, to which he should not add a single comment. A requisition had been presented to the sheriff of Waterford, containing, amongst others, the signatures of many respectable magistrates, calling upon him to convene a meeting for the purpose of petitioning in favour of Catholic emancipation. The sheriff refused to call the meeting, and it was for that gentleman to state his reasons for so doing.
Mr. Denis Brownesaid, the only permanent foundation for the prosperity of Ireland, was a total relinquishment of all civil distinctions founded upon religious differences. For a long period he had advised the Roman Catholics in his neighbourhood to place their trust in the wisdom of parliament. For some time they had done so; but at length, when the proposition for placing the Roman Catholics of England on the same footing with the Irish was rejected, they asked him how it was possible they could have a chance, when that measure failed, notwithstanding the support of the prime minister of England? He was unable to give them an answer, and they then joined the Catholic Association.
Ordered to lie on the table.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.
Mr. Goulbournrose, pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland. He had truly felt, at the close of the last session, a most confident hope—a hope in which the House participated—that from the character of the measures which the government pursued, and the parliament recommended—from the mild, and temperate, and impartial manner in which they executed the high trust reposed in them, and the result of which was practically felt in the most beneficial effects throughout Ireland; he had undoubtedly felt, as he before said, confident hopes, that a far different duty would have been imposed upon him than that which he then rose to discharge. He sincerely

169
regretted that circumstances had since arisen to interrupt the realization of these hopes. He regretted, that when the outrages which some time back disgraced a portion of Ireland, had altogether, or almost altogether, ceased—that when its agriculture was thriving and its trades in activity—that when commercial establishments were about to be put in operation, heretofore unknown in that country—that when there existed generally an enjoyment of ease and comfort, indicating a more progressive increase; he regretted, he would say, sincerely, that another evil should have grown up, which demanded the vigilance of the government, and whose continuance was not only inconsistent with good government, but particularly opposed itself to the prosperity and improvement of Ireland. The House could not be ignorant of the circumstances to which he alluded. At the latter part of the last session, it was the expressed opinion of many of its members, that these circumstances demanded the peculiar vigilance of the Irish government; but with its characteristic forbearance, it was indisposed to any direct interposition, until it found the apprehended evil assume a formidable complexion. He said it with sorrow, that since that period the scene was changed. That assembly, which in its origin was doubtless an object of vigilance, had now assumed a character calculated to excite the highest degree of alarm, because the direct tendency of all its efforts was to deprive the country of the enjoyment of that returning peace and prosperity, which they were beginning to experience, and in place of rational authority, to substitute their wild and violent denunciations. There were two acts to which he should address himself particularly. They were the Irish act of 1793, and that which the House passed the year before last with the view of putting down secret societies. With respect to the first, known as the Convention act, it was historically true, that it was introduced to meet a case where the parties about to be convened were supposed by themselves, or at least assumed to represent the people of Ireland. Indeed, whoever turned his attention strictly to the proceedings of that country must be convinced that all conventions did assume a representative character. But, it would be a very wrong conclusion to draw, that the Convention act of 1793, had limited itself, at least in its spirit, to the mere
170
assumption of such bodies being a representative body. It was true the Irish parliament grappled with that assumption as its distinguishing feature. All such meetings had heretofore assumed the representative character, and the legislature thinking that designation at the time sufficient, believed that it could counteract all the other evils which were likely to follow such an assemblage. The particular assembly, however, to which the amendment he should propose was applicable, set out with the denial that they possessed any representative character; but it proceeded, nevertheless to acts which were equally incompatible with the principles of rational government. Indeed, it made a merit that it was a self-elected association—that it departed altogether from the representative character: but as it felt its way, it threw off all shackles, and exercised powers which it was within the scope and merit of the Convention act to declare illegal. The hon. and learned member (Mr. Brougham), whose opinions possessed, so deservedly, great weight in that House, had, on the discussion on his majesty's Speech, declared, that the Catholic Association virtually represented the Roman Catholic body. Was there not good reason, then, for the Irish government to call for the interposition of the legislature when they found an assembly setting out with a declaration, that they possessed no representative character; yet, as they proceeded in their course, assuming such a tone and complexion, as justified an hon. and learned defender of the Association, in that House, to recognise them as the virtual representatives of a great portion of the people of Ireland? Surely, the very power to effect virtually, what they could not do actually, without a violation of the law, was a justifiable ground for the Irish government to seek an amendment of an act of parliament thus evaded. If he virtually calumniated any man, and the effect was injurious, was he to be considered less reprehensible than if he had been guilty of a direct libel? He could not suppose that any one in that House would contend, that an assembly ought to be permitted to execute that virtually, which the law positively prohibited.—It would be his duty that night to call upon the House, for the adoption of remedies adequate to meet the evil. As he trusted that evil was but temporary, he should have to propose only a temporary corrective. It had been the boast of the

171
Catholic Association that all their proceedings had been published. It had been their unceasing effort, by every means within the scope of human ingenuity, to have their discussions circulated in the widest manner possible, and obtruded on the notice of the world at large. The Catholic Association began to act in 1823; and in its first report it was declared, that its object was confined to the furtherance of the question of the Roman Catholic claims. It was to him a matter of perfect indifference whether its object was limited to that question, or whether, as was avowed in their debates, it embraced reform in parliament, and eventual separation: with him it was no question; because it was no shield or security that the object was inoffensive, when the means of carrying that object into effect were incompatible with good government. In discussing the object and the proceedings of the Catholic Association, he felt the disagreeable necessity of adverting to transactions, with which the House was already acquainted, he should endeavour to relieve them, as much as possible, by restricting himself to the general tenour and scope of their discussions, and decline individual quotations. The House would bear in mind that this Association, though a public body, differed from most public meetings in this point—that they were all of one mind. There was no competition of opinion: no opposing voice was heard. Every speech was previously arranged, and every decision was unanimous. Indeed, if any unhappy adversary had the hardihood to present himself, he would most probably get a reception which would prevent any repetition. Formed as such a body was, there was a danger in the indefinite qualities of its constituency, and in its indefinite duration. Under different circumstances the fickleness of the multitude might operate as a check to the probable evil results of such an association; but he was compelled, with regret, to say, that a most influential body, whose duty it was to impart religious consolation, and to keep themselves apart from political contention; not only encouraged, but assumed a part of its powers. Next, in upholding that association were to be found men of disappointed ambition and considerable talents, who exerted themselves, no matter whether on real or imaginary grievances, in exciting the public feeling against the government; and in inflaming the population against
172
the laws, and what they described a prodigal and corrupt administration of them. It was of importance also to understand, that a union had taken place between the Association and the surviving members of the committee of 1793—that very committee against whose establishment the Convention act was enacted to provide. These very men were now enlisted with the Association. There were to be found also men who were most familiar with the traitors of old times—Tone, Russell, and Emmett—traitors who were arrayed against the strength of the government, and who were only put down by military force. It was, indeed, too true that in that Association were to be found also a great proportion of the Roman Catholic gentry and aristocracy. It was impossible, on looking at the situation of Ireland, not to feel that such a connection was not altogether voluntary on their part. A great number of that class were, he believed, as much alarmed at the proceedings of that Association as its most determined opponents in that House. They had been, however, led, either from a want of firmness of character, or a reluctance to lose the confidence of the people, to swell the triumph of that body. Though the Association avowed they were arrayed to obtain that which parliament had refused, they still condescended most strictly to imitate its forms. They appointed their committees of grievances—of education also and of finance. They had almost copied verbatim the sessional orders of that House. In one point, indeed, they abstained from imitation—they had not appointed a Speaker; probably because in an assembly in which there existed such an universal ardour for speech making, no candidate could be found who would pledge himself to be perpetually silent [a laugh]. It had been also the practice of that Association, from time to time, to convene aggregate meetings, as they were called, of the Roman Catholic body of Ireland, and these meetings were convoked in such a manner as to appear contra-distinguished to the Catholic Association. But of whom were those aggregate meetings composed? Principally of the very persons who belonged to the Catholic Association itself, and who played off this joggle upon the people, making them believe that the proceedings of the aggregate meetings conveyed a distinct approbation of the conduct of the Catholic Association, the

173
fact being, that those proceedings were merely self-gratulatory and complimentary to the very individuals in whom they originated.
There were several important topics connected with this subject, to which he now felt it his duty to call the serious attention of the House. The first was that which, although by some it was supposed to be a voluntary contribution, was by many considered in the light of an onerous and grievous tax—he meant the Catholic Rent. The fact was, that, under this name, large sums of money were collected from the people of Ireland, no one could pretend to doubt. Now, he thought that no man who understood the constitution of the country, could contemplate the levying of money upon his majesty's subjects by an irresponsible body, to be applied to objects not previously defined, but at the discretion of the self-constituted authority by which such money was called for, with any other feeling than that of unequivocal disapprobation? But, if the House went further, and looked into the details of this system, and the means resorted to by the inferior persons employed in its enforcement, they would find evil consequences and dangers far exceeding those which were to be apprehended from the appropriation of such funds being left in the hands of an irresponsible body. The order upon this subject emanated from the Association. The particular amount to be raised was not stated; that was left to depend on the liberality of the contributors, and on the exertions of those by whom the subscription was to be collected. The mandate of the Catholic Association was, however, issued to the priest of every parish in Ireland, calling upon him, in distinct terms, to use every means in his power to produce a large contribution. Besides furnishing him with the necessary instructions for this purpose, he was supplied with books to enrol the various contributions; and his ready acquiescence was secured, not only by the political ascendancy which the Association would naturally have over him, but by the subordination which, as a minister, he owed to his bishop. On the receipt of this mandate, the priest announced its contents from the altar of his chapel, as well as the names of the individuals on whom he fixed for payment; which individuals were, according to the duty imposed upon him, to have no option
174
on the subject. Cases however were not rare in which, the mandate of the Association having been issued, and some hesitation in its execution having been manifested on the part of the priest, he received a censure from the Association in terms too distinct to be misunderstood; and in some cases in which the priest had forborne to execute the orders sent to him, he had been held up to the congregation of his chapel as undeserving their confidence and attachment. The instructions to the priest went still further. He was told to enter into the books which were sent him the names of the individuals who contributed to the fund. Thus, the allies of the Association, those on whom they could call in any case of emergency, were recorded. But, that was not all. What would the House think when they were informed that there was another book, in which the refusals to contribute were also recorded. Every man who dared to refuse, whether Roman Catholic or not, whatever might be the wants or necessities which prevented him, was comprehended in this register. But the Association went a step further. In a country in which the gentry were of different persuasions, it was obvious that some of them would consider themselves bound to oppose the collection of the Catholic Rent, conceiving that as the peasantry were in penury, and unable to provide for their families, it was their duty to advise them against this unnecessary expense. What was the consequence of this? That the Catholic Association actually wrote letters to the priests of the parishes, denouncing the individuals who thus acted, holding them up to reprobation and scorn; he would not say to vengeance [hear, hear!] When the House came to look into the application of the money so raised; so torn from the people [cries of hear, hear!]—he begged to say a few words to the hon. gentleman, who by that cheer, seemed to think that the Catholic Rent was a voluntary subscription. Were they really so ignorant of the absolute power of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland as to doubt, that when their authority was exercised, especially over I the lower and more ignorant portion of their flocks, it must prevail? Did they recollect the means which the priests possessed of enforcing their authority? Whether they had availed themselves of all these means in the present case was a

175
question into which he would not then enter [hear, hear!]. He begged not to be misunderstood on this subject. What he maintained was, that the orders of the Catholic Association, and the operations under those orders, had the effect of producing what was actually an obligatory payment of sums, which many of those who contributed them were very unwilling and little able to pay.
He would next inquire into the application of this money after it had been so collected. On this topic he would confine himself to a few facts, and would detain the House as little as possible by his observations upon them. He had no desire to prevent the Catholic Association from giving briefs to members of their own body. He did not quarrel with them for employing an agent in this country constantly occupied in the furtherance of their purpose. He did not quarrel with them for acts which merely impugned their discretion, and which had no operation on the general tranquillity. Nor would he enter into any consideration of the kind of regard which a society, professedly established for the security of the rights of the people, had shown for the liberty of the press. He did not quarrel with them for having retained as advocates a considerable portion of the press. He did not quarrel with them for having instituted prosecutions against that part of the press which was hostile to their cause. He did not quarrel with them for their union with Cobbett. He did not quarrel with them for expending the money of which they had drained the population of Ireland for such purposes; not because those purposes were unattended with serious evil, but because other acts of theirs were attended with evil so far exceeding in extent, that he should consider it unworthy of himself to detain the House for a moment on the points upon which he had just touched. It was the interference of the Catholic Association with the ordinary administration of justice of which he mainly complained [hear, hear!]. He knew perfectly well, that on that part of the case he should be met by arguments deduced from the recent existence of an Association in this country, instituted for the purpose of prosecuting offences against the well-being of society. He knew that an hon. and learned gentleman opposite was prepared to tell him, that what was legal in England must be legal in Ireland;
176
that what was fit to be permitted in the one country, must be fit to be permitted in the other. But he (Mr. G.) could show the House, that even where what was fit to be permitted in one country was fit to be permitted in the other, the course pursued by the Catholic Association in their interference with the administration of justice in Ireland, was followed by consequences which could not result from any similar proceedings in this country; by consequences fatal to the interests of peace and tranquillity; by consequences which sooner or later would, if that course were allowed to go on, render it impossible for any man in Ireland to obtain justice before any tribunal in that country. For these gentlemen were not content with exerting themselves to influence the administration of justice in its final decisions; they mingled, by themselves, or by their agents, with all the preliminary proceedings of the law. They sent down their agents to the courts of petty sessions, and poisoned the administration of justice at its outset, with all the bitterness of political discord. In this country it would be impossible to introduce party questions into a case of felony. The reverse was the fact in Ireland. There was no felony, no misdemeanor, which interference might not instantly render a party question Before the courts of petty sessions the agents of the Association employed themselves in making statements, favourable to their objects, and calling on the magistrates, either to espouse the cause of the suffering Catholic against his Protestant adversary, or to shield the Catholic where the Protestant was the accuser. In all these cases, an endeavour was made to load the Protestant with the odium of crimes which he might or might not have committed; but the very endeavour prevented the trial from being fair and uninfluenced. If the system was allowed to continue, a court of petty sessions in Ireland would be rendered merely a theatre for the exhibition of the talents of a Catholic Associator; and the magistrates composing it would be perplexed with subtleties having nothing to do with the real merits of the cases before them. He spoke in the hearing of hon. gentlemen who well knew that such had already been the consequences of the interference of the Catholic Association with the administration of justice; and that several magistrates, most respectable, active, and impartial men, had been induced to retire from those courts in

177
which individuals deputed by the Catholic Association were present.
But, putting out of view the evils which arose in minor courts in consequence of the interference of the Association, he would proceed to call the attention of the House to what had taken place before higher tribunals. He would not trouble them with many cases; but there were one or two which would afford sufficient proofs of the existence of the evil. It happened about the end of last July that a statement was made in the Catholic Association respecting a supposed murder in the parish of Ballabay. It was declared, that a most unprovoked, brutal and wanton murder had been perpetrated by a Protestant on a Roman Catholic. A letter was published in some of the Irish papers, calling on the Catholic Association to interfere. When the subject came before the Association, that body emulated all the dignity of parliament. Mr. J. D. Mullen moved for the appointment of a committee to investigate the circumstances of the case; with authority to adopt such measures as circumstances might require. On Saturday, the 31st of July, the report of the committee was read, detailing the supposed circumstances, and stating that those circumstances called for the interference of the Association! and Mr. Cavanagh was in consequence appointed by the Association to conduct the prosecution. Here, then, was a man charged with murder going to trial with a declaration from the body representing the whole Catholic population, that they had investigated the facts, and that the result was, their conviction that the murder had been committed, and that the individual so charged ought to be prosecuted by the Association [hear, hear]. But, let the proceeding be pursued further. When the trial came on, a host of evidence swore to the infliction of a great many wounds on the deceased, and to the manifestation of the most horrid cruelty. Witness after witness declared upon oath, that the prisoner jumped on the throat of the deceased, kicked him in the spine, broke his ribs, &c. What was the fact? The surgeons who had examined the body, and who were brought forward by the prosecution, proved to the satisfaction of the court, that there was not a word of truth in all this previous evidence, and that the body had suffered no such violence. It appeared, that the deceased person suf-
178
fered in consequence of an accidental fall over a short post, which broke one of the small vertebræ of the back; and eventually the prisoner was acquitted. When the verdict of not guilty was pronounced, the judge even considered it his duty to address the prisoner to the following effect:—"I do not think it would be right to discharge you without expressing my entire satisfaction at your conduct. It is in evidence that you endeavoured to preserve the peace from being disturbed, and your efforts entitle you to great approbation." Yet this individual, not only innocent, but as it turned out meritorious, had been denounced a fortnight before by the Association as guilty of the great crime of murder; as having, he being an Orangeman, murdered a Roman Catholic; and a hostile feeling was thereby strongly excited against him.—It had been said by the hon. member for Midhurst, that if he admired any thing in the conduct of the Catholic Association, it was their interference with the administration of justice; for that the administration of justice in Ireland was so bad, that any interference with it must be productive of benefit. He hoped, however, that the hon. gentleman would allow that the interference which had just been described was not of a very advantageous character.
There were many circumstances connected with these transactions on which he would not trespass on the patience of the House by dwelling. Among others, it would be observed, that the greater part of the jurors before whom trials took place, were subscribers to the Catholic rent. He might, perhaps, be excused for thinking that it would be better, instead of calling on such individuals to decide upon prosecutions instituted by those to whom the rent was paid, to leave the administration of justice to its natural course. The only other case with which he would trouble the House, was that of a soldier, who was tried in the county of Kildare, for administering unlawful oaths, In January last, it was announced to the Catholic Association, by one of their agents, that a private in the 25th regiment, had been discovered in the act of seducing several Catholics to take an oath, the obligation of which was, to kill all the Protestants, all the soldiers, and all the Orangemen; his object being, of course, to lay informations against them after having thus inveigled them. The Association declared, that the case was clearly one of

179
guilt; that the soldier was evidently a ruffian, who deserved the punishment of transportation; but that, unless the Association sent down an agent, the fellow might escape. This declaration was read by the priests in all the chapels. He confessed, that, when he saw this declaration, he did not believe that any man could be wicked enough to invent all the circumstances of the tale. What followed? The Catholic Association employed an agent to prosecute the soldier. The case came on before one of the most numerous benches of magistrates ever known, comprehending no fewer than 43 individuals. The evidence, however, adduced on the part of the prosecution, developed so much inconsistency and contradiction, that the 43 magistrates decided unanimously, that there was no foundation for the charge. It was not enough that this soldier had been so unjustly denounced as a ruffian by the Association—it was not enough that he had been so denounced from the altars of the chapels—it was not enough that counsel had been employed by them to endeavour to bring him to punishment; but search was actually made for his wife, and for other branches of his family, in order to compel them to leave the country [hear, hear]! With such specimens of the conduct of the Association before him, it was not surprising that he should prefer leaving the administration of the law to its natural course, rather than admit of any interference on the part of that or any other body. Suppose the case of this soldier had been the other way—suppose he had been taken up under the Insurrection act—suppose, in that event, a course had been pursued against him by the magistrates similar to the course actually adopted by the Association—suppose that, previously to his trial, he had been proclaimed a ruffian, justly deserving of transportation—suppose the magistrates had used means to expel his wife or his family from the country, what would have been said of their conduct [hear, hear!]? Why were the members of the Catholic Association to be dealt with more mildly? Why were acts which would be pronounced criminal on the one side, to be palliated on the other? Was the House to bow to the authority of the Association, and, however gross and indefensible their acts, to allow them to pass without animadversion? He might pursue the subject much further. Consequent to this transaction
180
respecting the soldier, was a similar one with reference to a member of the police, the object of which, he was bound to say, was to render that body odious. The whole tendency of their proceedings was to excite, in any case in which Catholics and Protestants were concerned, all the acrimony of party feeling. Considering to what extent the payment of the Catholic rent had gone, the means of influence possessed by the Association were very great. So long as they possessed those means, he was persuaded the House would agree with him, that justice could not be purely or satisfactorily administered in Ireland.
He came next to the conduct and exertions of the Catholic Association within the last year; and in the observations which he was about to make, he would confine himself to their position in the month of December last. It appeared from their proceedings, that in that month they began to collect a revenue for the purpose of furthering the object which they had in view—namely, that of influencing the minds of their Roman Catholic countrymen, and impressing them with the necessity of supporting their system. In order still further to advance this, their great object, they put forth a document entitled "Address of the Catholic Association to the people of Ireland" [hear, hear! from both sides of the House]. The House need not feel alarmed, it was not his intention to read at length that celebrated address; some few passages of it, however, he felt it necessary to advert to. In one place it said," we advise you to refrain totally from all secret societies from all private combinations; from every species of whiteboyism, or ribbonism, or by whatever other name any secret or private association may be called." The Association proceeded to point out the other inducements to their Catholic brethren to remain quiet—namely, the power of the law, the inconvenience and injury caused by indictments, and so on; at length they came to a point to which he begged the most serious attention of the House, it was one in which they pointed out the number of innocent persons who during former disturbances, had suffered for the guilty. Thus it appeared that they could not caution the people to remain tranquil, without libelling the laws of the country. This too, was told, not to the well-informed and well-judging part of the population, but, to the ignorant and illiterate—to men most likely to be led

181
away by any statement made to them from such a quarter. In the name of the government of Ireland, and those high authorities by whom it was administered, he begged to repel this charge. There was nothing which had more seriously engaged the attention of the present lord-lieutenant of Ireland than the fair and impartial administration of justice to all ranks and classes of society. He appealed to those gentlemen who interested themselves in Irish affairs, and who remembered the bill introduced by him last session, whether the most scrupulous attention had not been paid to this point: nay more, he challenged any instance where the severest punishment of the law, or even transportation or imprisonment had been inflicted in any case where there remained a shadow of doubt of the prisoner's guilt. There was no man better acquainted with the truth of this statement than the gentleman who was at the head of the Catholic Association. He was a man not belonging to the low and uninformed class of society; he was a man, who, from his professional habits, must be convinced that such was the fact.
He next came to the motive—the principle of action—most calculated to make an impression, resorted to by the Association. Their address contained in conclusion this memorable passage: "In the name, then, of common sense, which forbids you to seek foolish resources, by the hate you bear the Orangemen, who are your natural enemies; by the confidence you repose in the Catholic Association, who are your natural and zealous friends; by the respect and affection you entertain for your clergy, who alone visit with comfort your beds of sickness and desolation. By all these powerful motives, and still more by the affectionate reverence you bear for the gracious monarch, who deigns to think of your sufferings with a view to your relief; and, above all, and infinitely beyond all, in the name of religion, and of the living God, we conjure you to abstain from all secret and illegal societies, and Whiteboy-disturbances and outrages" [hear, hear!]. And this was the address which it had been boasted was the work of the Sabbath! Gracious God! was such an address to be put forth under the sanction of piety and religion? Who ever before heard it boasted, that it was doing the work of God to couple his holy name in the same sentence with the
182
hatred which men bore to their brethren? He maintained that in the breast of the man who wrote that address, as well as in the breasts of the Association who promulgated it, the love of God, if it did exist, must have a different interpretation from that given to it in the mind of any man of any antecedent period professing the Christian faith [hear, hear!]. And yet, this was the doctrine infused into the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland! They were told that they were to look upon the Orangemen (and let it be recollected that in many parts of Ireland the terms Orangemen and Protestants were nearly synonymous).—They were told to look upon every Orangeman as their natural enemy—as a person with whom they were to keep no faith—as one to whom they were to extend no justice, but against whom they were not only allowed, but justified, in exercising every violence, and perpetrating every outrage. What must be the feelings of the Protestant, or, as they were called by some, the Orange population of Ireland, when they found themselves so generally denounced—when they found themselves so formidably opposed by a body professing such principles? Let them look to the discussions which took place in the Catholic Association itself, and they would find a full confirmation of his statement. One individual of that body (Mr. Lanigan), much to his honour, pointed out the inexpediency of putting forth this address, and particularly recommended the omission of the objectionable passage to which he had just called the attention of the House. It was, he said, a passage which would be misunderstood by those to whom it was addressed, and also misunderstood, per haps misrepresented, by their enemies. What was the result? A debate arose upon the objection, and such was the majority against it, that the address was sent forth without any revision. He had a right to maintain that these were the principles by which the Catholic Association were actuated; nay, more, that they were the principles upon which they were ready to act, the moment they obtained power over their Protestant brethren. He asked, then, could the Irish government look with indifference at such a state of things? Could they avoid perceiving the danger which threatened, if they delayed a moment in calling for the intervention of parliament, for the purpose of at once putting a stop to them.

183
But, there was another ground of alarm which struck him more forcibly than any he had yet adverted to. It was decided that the proclamation or address of the Catholic Association should be sent into the different parishes in the country, and read by each priest from the altar. This had been very generally done; and, if he wanted an additional argument to prove the extent and power of the Association, he had it in the fact, that they found a ready acquiescence on the parts of a great proportion of the Roman Catholic clergy thus to denounce their Protestant brethren. This circumstance carried the more weight, when they recollected, that it was the act of numbers of ministers of a religion which, however corrupt it might be considered to be, was founded on principles not widely different from our own, and which never could be supposed to inculcate such a precept. Notwithstanding this, however, the declaration was given to the Catholic people, and was left to work its way, and produce its natural effects on the minds of the ignorant and illiterate. Was it, then, to be wondered at, that a Society so formed, and so acting, should create anxiety and alarm? Was it possible that his majesty's government could avoid calling upon parliament to interpose in aid of their want of authority, and prevent the danger likely to arise, not only from political dissention, but also from religious collusion? It was impossible that, under such circumstances, much and serious alarm should not be felt in Ireland. He did not mean to say that that alarm had not been carried, in some instances, to a greater extent than was necessary; but, who could point out the limits to which an alarm, at first justified, was to extend? It was impossible to tell; and particularly when it spread in quarters where former disturbances and dissentions was still fresh in the recollections of the people. He might illustrate this part of his argument by quoting many cases. He should, however, confine himself to a few facts. The Society of United Irishmen, who assembled in 1791, had for their avowed object the attainment of Catholic Emancipation; but it was subsequently ascertained that their real object was revolution, and a separation of Ireland from this country. And yet there was this difference between that body and the Catholic Association, that the former did not levy money from the people. It did not employ counsel to hunt down a poor sol-
184
dier, and point him out as a fit object for transportation. But, in one alleged object they agreed. The Catholic Association, with means more formidable, and with greater resources than the other, professed to seek only Catholic Emancipation.
Taking this view of the question, was there not cause for alarm? Was not the Irish government bound to call upon parliament to rescue the Irish people from a tyranny at once the most severe and the most odious? Before he stated to the House the nature of the remedy he was about to propose, he begged their attention to the consequences likely to ensue, in the event of parliament refusing to interpose its authority for the protection of those who were menaced by the Catholic Association. If they did refuse to inter pose, was it not natural to suppose that the aggrieved parties would, in their own defence, enrol themselves also into an association [hear, hear! from the Opposition]? He repeated it—would they not feel bound to co-operate for their own protection? And this being once the case, could that House be insensible to the numerous evils which must of necessity ensue? Were they to have these two bodies continually sitting in the sister country, disturbing its peace, and impeding the execution of every act of its government? If so, they would have in every prosecution the Catholic Association sending down counsel and marshalling evidence on the one hand, and its opponent association sending counsel and marshalling evidence on the other. Surely the House could not wish that the animosities existing between Catholic and Protestant should thus be kept alive, but rather that they should be at once and for ever buried in oblivion. Who could live in a country so agitated, so disturbed? Who could bear to witness such a continuance of tumult and disorder as must necessarily take place, unless the cause of both was speedily and effectively put down? If hon. members conceded to him the existence of the evil, then they must agree with him as to the necessity of some remedy, and their only difference, could be in its details.
He had yet one or two other observations to make with reference to other societies, before he came to the measure which he meant to propose. The House would recollect, that two years ago he had introduced a bill to prevent secret

185
societies in Ireland. He had done so, because he felt that such a bill was necessary to the peace of that country. He was happy to state, that in some parts, of Ireland, that bill had attained its object. In many parts, the societies so suppressed had not re-modelled themselves so, as to elude the bill, but had altogether abstained from meeting from the moment they were declared illegal. He was bound at the same time to add, in justice to those societies who did re-model themselves, that they had substituted for their illegal oaths, the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and that a written certificate of such oaths having been sworn before a magistrate, was necessary to the admission of any member. He confessed, that the feeling which actuated him in bringing in that bill, induced him to go further, and to put a stop to those other societies by which the peace and tranquillity of Ireland were interrupted. The most objectionable parts of the Catholic Association were its permanent sittings, and its levying money from the people. The objects of his bill, then, would be, to prevent the permanence of those sittings, the appointment of committees beyond a certain time, and also to put a stop to any levy of money fox the purpose of redressing private or public grievances. It would also render illegal all societies which were affiliated; which corresponded with other societies; which excluded persons on the ground of any particular religious faith; or in which any oaths were taken other than those directed by law. There would of course be exceptions in favour of certain societies, such as meetings on the subject of trade, agriculture charity, and others of a similar description. The parties charged with belonging to any prohibited societies would be proceeded against by indictment alone; so that, in the event of any vexatious prosecution, the attorney-general should have an opportunity of interfering. This was an outline of the remedy which he meant to propose; and he confessed he saw no other mode of putting an end to a society to which every lover of peace and order must be opposed—a society which arrogated to itself the prerogatives and privileges of the Crown, solely for the purpose of supporting the interests of a faction. There had been times when the House did so interfere for the protection of the peace of the country; and he felt sure, that even now the name and author-
186
ity of parliament were respected in Ireland. He called upon them, then, to exercise that authority upon this occasion. By doing so, they would put an end to those dissentions by which Ireland was internally torn and divided; remove the difficulties by which her government was impeded; and restore to her that peace, prosperity, and happiness, to which she was entitled, and which it was the most sincere and anxious wish of his majesty's government she should enjoy. He begged, in conclusion, to move, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend certain Acts, relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland."
Mr. John Smithsaid, that as an individual intimately connected with the Irish society of London, he felt it incumbent on him to deliver his sentiments on this momentous question. He could assure the House that, in all he meant to say, he followed no other dictate than that of a sincere sense of public duty. A great part of the right hon. gentleman's speech related to the conduct—the atrocious conduct, as he had termed it—of the Catholic Association. The right hon. gentleman had given the House many details and statements on that subject. If he were to decide on mere statement and detail, then certainly he should be as much satisfied with the statements and details of the right hon. gentleman as he could be with those of any individual he was acquainted with. This would be very justifiable in a private case. But when a great public measure was connected with those statements, then he could not rest satisfied with any details which came from the right hon. gentleman, unless they were borne out and corroborated. He would, on this occasion, take the same course which had been adopted on others; he would call for some evidence to prove that the step intended to be pursued was just and proper. He regretted the scenes which took place in 1791;at the same time, he did not wish to enter into that subject. But, as the right hon. gentleman had touched upon it, he would call on him to look at the transactions of 1795. These were matters of historical recollection, and might be spoken of with propriety. Did the right hon. gentleman remember the frightful cry of "To Hell or Connaught!" fulminated against the Roman Catholics? Did he recollect the conflagration of their houses, and the burning of their property? The Orange party

187
had possessed this power of domination for a long time; and all men agreed, that in some instances the magistrates had abused the authority intrusted to them. It had fallen to his lot to present the petition of a poor man whose cottage had been forcibly entered, whose property had been destroyed, and whose arm had been broken by a party of Orangemen. The unfortunate man pursued the offenders and proceeded at law against them, and though they were charged with a capital offence, they were admitted to bail; they were, subsequently, brought to trial, and acquitted; the jury, he presumed, being Orangemen. But this was not all; in a short time afterwards, the very persons so acquitted were sent by the Seneschal of Enniskillen, to seize the only cow which this poor man possessed [hear!]. This was enough to shew, that, in the north of Ireland, justice was not impartially administered. It had been said, in 1822, by the late lord chancellor of Ireland, lord Redesdale, that in that country there was one law for the rich, and another law for the poor, and that both were equally ill administered. After that opinion, he might be pardoned for entertaining notions somewhat similar, and for preferring the authority of the noble lord to that of the right hon. gentleman. With respect to the Address he had read, he could assure the right hon. gentleman, from the bottom of his heart, that he strongly condemned that publication. He felt the full force of what the right hon. gentleman had said as to the connexion formed in it between the Almighty and hatred to the Protestants. One thing was quite certain, that there existed among the Irish Catholics a profound sense of injustice; and this sense must be supposed to be the result of long series of insults and injuries. Most of these insults and injuries had proceeded, on the part of the present and late government of Ireland, from a deficiency, as it struck him, of that common article—common sense. Some of their measures were absolutely contradictory. Two years ago the House had interfered for the purpose of putting down Orange societies, associations of individuals under a secret oath. It was quite clear that no community could exist in security, so long as one portion of it was allowed to take oaths, the import and object of which were unknown. No doubt, therefore, the interference of the House on the subject was
188
highly proper; and he had most heartily concurred in all it had done. Honourable gentlemen would, however, be surprised to hear what he was enabled to state, on undoubted authority. The copy of a genuine letter, written under the direction of the earl of Liverpool, in the year 1809, had been put into his hands, the subject of which was the Orange associations. It happened, that in that year, a private soldier died in a distant part of England, and among his papers were found forms of certain oaths; he having been a member of an Orange club in his own regiment. They were sent to the War-office, and the letter to which he had alluded, signed Cecil Jenkinson, had been framed to express the earl of Liverpool's strong disapprobation of such societies: he stated, that they were punishable under two acts of parliament; under one by two years' imprisonment, and under the other, in case of indictment, by seven years transportation. His lordship, therefore, desired that this fact might be made known to the different regiments. Was it not, however, very reasonable, that at that moment when Orange societies in England did not excite much attention, such pains should have been taken to put them down here, while they were allowed to continue in Ireland, composed as they were of some of the first persons in that country? An individual holding one of the highest situations under the government had belonged to them. The inference was, that that which in England was punishable by seven years' transportation, was no crime in Ireland; and nothing could be more flagrant than to keep up so odious a distinction. In point of fact, the Orange Associations in Ireland were most numerous; and so they continued until about two years ago, when they became troublesome to the government, and it was obliged, in consequence, to lay its hands upon them. Two years ago, therefore, they were in a great degree suppressed; but why had not this measure been resorted to long before? If Orange societies had been put down earlier and entirely, he verily believed that the House would never have heard of the Catholic Association. The eldest law of nature, self-defence, had been its true origin [hear!].—He would not enter into any remarks on the plan of the right hon. gentleman. Other opportunities of discussing its details would occur; but he must say, that he regarded the proposal of this measure as one of the

189
most unfortunate events that had happened for a long time. The right hon. gentleman had said, that he expected from it peace and tranquillity, and that the Irish nation would hereafter participate in all the benefits of the present flourishing state of the rest of the empire. On several former occasions, he had taught the House to believe that such would be the effects of the Insurrection act—had it done so? Had it not, on the contrary, doubled the sense of injury on the part of the Catholics, and sent into banishment many who, he believed, were innocent of all crime. It was an extraordinary fact, to which he could speak from an accidental knowledge of several individuals holding distinguished situations in New South Wales, that, of all the convicts sent thither, the Irish were the most orderly, decent, and respectable. Their conduct there formed a striking contrast to the lawless and violent intentions they were charged with entertaining at home [hear!]. The right hon. gentleman might indulge hopes, and that they might be realized was the wish of every lover of his country; but if they were realised, it would be in opposition to the experience afforded by the whole system of government in Ireland for many years. Hitherto, none of their flattering anticipations had been realised; and he was well satisfied that there was but one mode of producing peace, tranquillity, and prosperity in Ireland—concession to the Catholics of those rights of which their Protestant brethren were in the daily enjoyment [hear, hear!]. In the Hanoverian dominions of his majesty, the most extended toleration existed. In Canada also, where half the population were Catholics, the utmost harmony prevailed. The same remark would apply to Maryland, under the government of the United States. It was originally a Catholic settlement, and a great proportion of the inhabitants were still of that persuasion; they lived in perfect amity with the Protestants, married and intermarried (which it seemed was not allowed in Ireland), and engaged in mutual speculations both of commerce and agriculture. He would defy the right hon. Secretary for the home department, with all his ability and learning—he would defy the whole university he represented—to produce a single instance, in ancient or modern history, where the most extensive toleration had produced the slightest peril to the state. The true method of managing
190
religious sects, and preserving order and good-will in a kingdom, was to render equal justice to all: this system extracted the venom from the sting even of those reptiles in a state who were most disposed to wound. Before he sat down he could not refrain from stating the deep grief he felt at seeing this measure, which must so importantly interfere with the happiness and prosperity of the Irish people, supported by the right hon. Secretary for foreign affairs. He gave that right hon. gentleman full credit for the sincerity of his former exertions to remove the disabilities under which the Catholics laboured, but he grieved to find that he lent himself to this new and perilous experiment. If government were disposed to check these Associations, why did it not proceed against them in a different manner, without producing disappointment and exciting resentment? On a very recent occasion, the right hon. gentleman had laid before the House the result of his proceedings relative to the independent states of South America. As an Englishman, he felt gratitude for the statesmanlike manner in which that important negotiation had been conducted: it was highly creditable to the right. hon. gentleman, and to the government who had supported him; because, while careful of the national honour, and watchful over the national interest, he had not neglected to be just. After this display of his love of justice and liberality, it was doubly grievous to see the same right hon. gentleman lending himself to a measure which must blast for ever, in the minds of the Roman Catholics, the hopes his previous conduct had excited. Why did he not attempt something worthy his high talents and liberal mind, to heal the festering wounds of Ireland? Perhaps he was the only man in the country who could, accomplish this great object; and, scorning all considerations of fleeting ambition and temporary popularity, if he valued his character with posterity, or the permanent welfare of his country, he ought to commence this great and beneficent undertaking. A time must arrive with all men, when they would have to look back to the events of their lives for many subjects of satisfaction or accusation, the best would find much to regret and deplore, but at that moment an opportunity was offered to a great and enlightened mind, which never might recur, and the neglect of which, on the approach of death, might be

191
a source of the bitterest affliction. He conjured the right hon. gentleman to retrace the steps he had recently taken—to open his heart to the cries of the afflicted Irish—to withhold his support to this bill—and to stand forward once more the eloquent and the undaunted champion of equal laws and equal rights to the Catholic and the Protestant. He would fain persuade himself, that it was still the wish and the intention of the right hon. gentleman to do justice to Ireland; and nothing but perseverance in a course of measures like the present could induce him to abandon the hope, that it was yet the destiny of the right hon. gentleman to vindicate the cause of his injured and oppressed countrymen, and to secure to them the blessings of the British constitution.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, he came to the discussion of this subject with the greatest possible sorrow, because it had been his conviction, subsequently confirmed by the candid avowal of the right hon. gentleman, that the House would be called upon a career of conduct and a course of measures, the effect of which would be to sap the foundation of the peace and prosperity of the realm, and to sow the seeds of discontent and sedition. If the question had been as to the provisions of the bill, in common candour he would have deferred the discussion of their merits or defects. But, to the principle he objected; and therefore, whether the enactments were mild and circumscribed, or severe and extensive, was on the present occasion, of no import. He was prepared to contend against it on reason; and he thought he should be able to dispute it upon experience. Were he asked if he disapproved of the Association, his answer would be clearly in the affirmative. He regretted its existence, though the grounds of that regret might be different to those of the right hon. gentleman. To many it was, no doubt, highly objectionable, because it brought into weekly and daily observation the just grievances of the Catholics; for if the Association had not been backed by just grievances, it would never have tempted the interference of parliament. No doubt some persons might, with apparent reason, complain of its proceedings, because they brought to light disagreeable truths; but he (Mr. A.) disliked its existence, because that very existence afforded an undeniable proof of misgovernment and maladministration.
192
For years the finger of scorn and contempt had been every where raised against his majesty's ministers, for their conduct towards Ireland; but they had been reviled in vain, and upon them the lessons of experience seemed to have been lost. Were he asked, whether he wished the Association to continue its labours, his reply would assuredly be in the negative; but by that admission he gave not the least advantage to the framers of the bill now under consideration. It was frankly confessed, that this measure was only the commencement of a series, and that others would be, from time to time, introduced, to keep pace with the ingenuity of those who succeeded in evading the law. True it was, that an act of parliament might destroy the Catholic Association in its present form; but who should say how often it might be revived in some other shape, requiring new exertions on the part of the executive to keep pace with its ingenuity? The difference between the right hon. gentleman and himself was this—the right hon. gentleman waged war against the symptoms: he waged war against the cause. Emancipation, and emancipation alone, could put an effectual end to the labours of the Association. The Association might be dismembered, but the spirit which produced it would continue even in greater activity. The longer justice was refused, the more virulent would be the exasperation on the part of the people of Ireland. He was now entitled to call the Catholics the people of Ireland. Of the Protestants he spoke with all respect. God forbid he should be so intolerant as to deny it to them! But the House should recollect the disproportion in the population, and that the Protestants no longer monopolized all the education and civilization of the country. The great body of the Catholics now possessed knowledge, which was power, and civilization would enable them to use that power to advantage: they were therefore entitled to be called the people of Ireland. What, then, he would now inquire, could be the possible effect of this measure? What could be the effect of any measure of this kind, but to aggravate the very feeling out of which the evil complained of had arisen? The right hon. gentleman adopted a course which excited, instead of allaying irritation; which encouraged discontent instead of promoting good will; while he (Mr. A.) in accordance with the ablest and wisest

193
of men that had ever adorned the annals of the country, by restoring the Catholics to their unquestioned rights, and by destroying all odious distinctions, would raise them from a degraded caste, take them into the bosom of the state, and by uniting all its subjects, consolidate the strength of the empire. On this general view he was prepared to resist the motion before the House. But the right hon. gentleman had indulged, in many observations upon the Catholic Association. He (Mr. A.) did not mean to stand up as their advocate and panegyrist, nor would any hon. gentleman on his side of the House do so; but he should hold himself unworthy of his place, because guilty of a base acquiescence, if, from the fear of misrepresentation and calumny, he did not boldly state his opinion regarding it. He regarded the existence of this body as a natural consequence of the system of misrule so long pursued. It had been used as an argument against the Catholic claims, and urged with great effect in this country (though he was surprised to hear it from any gentleman who had visited Ireland), that the question of emancipation only affected a small number of individuals, and, that to the great mass of the Catholics, it was wholly unimportant; that it was merely a dispute whether Mr. O'Connell should have a silk gown, or lord Fingal form one of the twenty-eight representative peers of Ireland. If the great body of the Catholics were disposed to afford a clear practical answer to this argument, or more properly to this assertion, he, for one, could not blame them. That the Catholics, to use the terms of their opponents, had united and banded themselves together for this purpose, and had established the Association, he begged leave, on the other hand, to ask, if no parties had united and banded themselves against them? Had the House never heard of Orangemen, and of Orange societies? Had it never witnessed, on the part of these Orangemen, a detestation towards the Catholics, at least as strong as the hatred of the Catholics towards them? Such was the fact; and he deplored it. He stated it clearly and broadly, because it was only by plain and unequivocal statements, that the people of this country arrived at a correct knowledge of the real state of things, and were thus rendered capable of deciding this great question, involving the safety and prosperity of the whole empire. But, were
194
the Orangemen the only parties systematically united and banded against the Catholics by the strongest ties, those of sympathy and self-interest? Could it be disputed, that the main body of the clergymen of the church of England were so united and banded and ranged against their fellow-citizens in the most resolute hostility? Had they not been so united and banded since the moment when, lord Sidmouth declared that he held his office by the tenure of Catholic exclusion? Was it wonderful, then, that the Catholics of Ireland, surrounded by enemies, united and banded against them, in that country—aided by others, united and banded against them in this—recollecting the argument used at the Union, and that notwithstanding, after five and twenty years, they were as far as ever from the attainment of their object—should be induced to combine for the accomplishment of a purpose for which they had been so long struggling? Had they so combined in violation of the existing law? Most assuredly not. For if they had been guilty of the slightest infringement, was it to be supposed for a moment that the vigour of its arm would have been called into action against them? It was undeniable, then, that the Association had not offended against the law; although a solitary attempt, which he would not now characterise as it deserved, had been made to bring one of its members to justice. With the full knowledge of the existence of Orange societies, who had violated a known law, and of the existence of the Catholic Association, which had violated no law, the House was called upon to adopt new and more vigorous measures, to keep pace with the ingenuity of those who, to maintain their rights, were compelled, by the injustice of their oppressors, to resort to expedients becoming rather the guilty than the innocent. For one, he abjured such a course—such a system of legislation which, if pursued, must end in the total separation of Ireland. He recollected no domestic question so awfully important. The right hon. gentleman, with some warmth, had deplored the union of the two characters of priest and associator. He (Mr. A.) deplored it also. The combination of a religious and a political character in the same individual had been productive of some of the greatest evils the world had known. But, did this combination exist only among the Catholics? At least it was

195
right to be impartial on such a topic; and, if he abominated the union of priest and politician among the Catholics, he abominated it equally among the Protestants [hear, hear!]. It was of no consequence to the argument, that the Protestant was a dignitary of the church, and the Catholic a country pastor, poor from his station, and obscure from his poverty. If it were wrong in a Catholic priest to join in a humble supplication for justice, might we not condemn, with at least equal severity, the deacons and archdeacons of the establishment, who, from the pulpit and from the press, urged their flocks to petition against concession [hear, hear!]? If it were a crime in a Catholic priest to interfere for the attainment of the Catholic claims, surely it was not less criminal for a Protestant divine to interfere at elections for the return of members hostile to those claims.—Another topic on which the right hon. gentleman had laid much stress was the interference, or, as he called it, the intermingling, of the Association in the ordinary administration of justice. On that subject all must speak according to their separate information; and he (Mr. A.) was prepared to state, that he knew of instances where the interposition of the Catholic Association had been attended with great public benefit, by promoting and establishing the ascendancy of the law. This desirable object had been thus accomplished; it had made the rich man amenable to the law, and had given the poor man a consciousness, that if he were aggrieved by the law he might be redressed. The statement of particular instances was always objectionable, and its inconvenience had been proved by the proceedings of that night. Now, those cases proved any thing in the world but what the right hon. gentleman wished to establish by them; for even taking them both on his representation, the persons who gave evidence detailed such circumstances as led to an acquittal, and the real ends of justice were effectually answered. Giving, therefore, to the Catholic Association all the malignity of character which had been imputed to it, even that malignity was destructive of its own object, and could not accomplish its designs. But those cases touched not the character of the Catholic Association at all. They only referred to the conduct of a Catholic priest. Assuming the circumstances to be as the right hon. gentleman stated them to be, he had no hesita-
196
tion in condemning the conduct of that priest. But, what had this to do with the Catholic Association? The man received an acquittal from a full bench of magistrates, at the head of whom was an upright and honest judge, Mr. Blackburn, which was the most consolatory circumstance he (Mr. A.) had heard with respect to Ireland. It was absurd and unjust to impute blame to this Association, for the expression of feelings which were nothing but the inevitable result, and necessary consequence, of the system which had been pursued towards the Catholics of Ireland. One objection which had been made to that Association, and to which he was himself inclined at first to attach some importance, was, he was happy to perceive, without foundation. It was said by the enemies of the Catholic Association, and the same observation was applied to Orange and other Associations, composed of and representing large bodies of the people—that the influence which they must necessarily possess, and the wealth which they could bring to bear upon any question, might obstruct the due administration of justice, influencing juries, for example, to pronounce an iniquitous verdict, and to crush some opponent whose innocence could be of no avail against the intrigues of a powerful body. But, had this charge ever been brought against the Catholic Association? Did the right hon. gentleman complain of the unjust conviction brought about by their means, or was it to the recent acquittals of innocent persons, effected through the instrumentality of that body, that his objections applied? Where, then, he would ask, when so much good had confessedly been done by that body, in the way of facilitating and not preventing the fair and equal administration of justice, was the necessity of legislating against it?—The right hon. gentleman had laid great stress upon a paper sent forth by the Association, and addressed to the people of Ireland, commenting in severe terms upon the language of that address. Now, he (Mr. A.) had read that document upon its first appearance, and he could see nothing to call down severe reprehension, while there was much in it which had obtained his unqualified approbation. He had thought it upon first looking at it (and he really, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, had seen no reason subsequently to alter his opinion) a temperate

197
and manly production, emanating from a virtuous and well-regulated mind, and essentially calculated to answer the end it professed to have in view; namely, the allaying of animosities, and the promotion of tranquillity. There might, to be sure, be two or three warm expressions, but the House would make allowance for that exuberance of language which seemed so natural in an Irishman, especially when he conceived he was suffering under oppression. And he was sure they would agree with him, that there was nothing in that document to call down the strong censure of the right hon. gentleman. What, for example, was the language of that address, and what was the advice which the Association gave to the people of Ireland? He would, with the leave of the House, read a passage from that document, and he would submit, if it did not bear him out in the character he had given of it. "We advise you to refrain totally from all secret societies; from all private combinations; from every species of Whiteboyism, or Ribbonism, or by whatever other name any secret or private association may be called. We would not attempt to deceive or delude you; we could not obtain your confidence, if we were to state falsehoods; and if we could, we would not purchase confidence at the expense of truth." What, he asked, could be more calm, more temperate, than the language of this passage? He would read another passage which breathed the same spirit. "Whenever Whiteboy or Ribbon offences are committed, many innocent persons will inevitably be convicted of crimes which they never committed." What could be a stronger argument to the people to refrain from crime than that contained in this passage? Here self-preservation—and what could be a more cogent reason?—was held out as the inducement to abstain from crime. Had this paper said, "Wherever Whiteboy offences are committed many innocent persons have been convicted," the language would not have been half so emphatic, nor the argument half so powerful; but the word will conveyed a warning of the future, founded upon the experience of the past, in language that must have come home to those to whom it was addressed. For, situated as Ireland had been, who was there so inexperienced as not to know that in times of disturbance, and amongst the exasperation of parties, the innocent, either from acci-
198
dent or design, had often been confounded with, and punished for, the guilty? and it did not require much foresight to be convinced similar circumstances would be productive of similar results. The Address went on to state, "How many innocent persons have been known to suffer transportation? and how many have we seen suffer death, by reason of Whiteboy crimes?" And then, with a degree of candour which was highly creditable to the framers of this document, it proceeded to exculpate the government of the country from the odium which might otherwise attach to the employment of spies, by stating the necessity which existed for such a system, where outrages such as had been described prevailed. "Some may blame the administration of the laws for these frightful results; but, good sense will soon convince every dispassionate man, that they are the necessary results from the passions which are naturally excited by Whiteboy and Ribbon outrages and crimes, and, from the rewards, which at such periods are justifiably offered to informers, amongst whom will be found the very basest of mankind." Now, what was there in these and similar passages, to call for the animadversions of the right hon. secretary? But, that right hon. gentleman had passed by such passages, in order to fasten and dwell upon one isolated sentence; which he would boldly say was the only passage, throughout the whole of that document, to which the shadow of an objection could attach. Although he would take upon himself to defend that passage, which he could have wished had been omitted, still he could not help saying, that much more stress had been laid upon it, than was warranted, either by the context or the words themselves. The passage to which the right hon. gentleman alluded, was this—"In the name, then, of common sense, which forbids you to seek foolish courses; by the hate you bear the Orangemen, who are your natural enemies; by the confidence you repose in the Catholic Association, who are your natural and zealous friends; by the respect and affection you entertain for your clergy, who alone visit with comfort your beds of sickness and desolation; by all these powerful motives, and still more by the affectionate reverence you bear for the gracious monarch who deigns to think of your sufferings with a view to your relief; and above all, and infinitely beyond

199
all, in the name of religion and of the living God, we conjure you to abstain from all secret and illegal societies, and Whiteboy disturbances and outrages."—This was the passage in which the obnoxious expression which had called down the strong reprehension of the right hon. Secretary, was to be found. And what was this obnoxious expression?—"By the hate you bear to Orangemen." Had the Association said, "We advise you to hate all Orangemen—we conjure you to look upon them with feelings of irreconcileable hostility;" then, indeed, no language could be too strong to mark his reprehension of such language. But, such was not the language of the address. It was not an advice to war; it was an invitation to peace and good-will. He regretted the use of the word; for he believed it had diminished the friends of Catholic Emancipation, and made some of those who were otherwise favourably disposed to that measure hostile to it; but, in his opinion, the meaning of the expression had been greatly perverted; and taking it even in the most unfavorable sense, was, he would ask, an isolated expression like this, emanating from a single body or a single man, to be made an argument for refusing their just rights to millions of our fellow subjects? Were the Catholics of Ireland to be punished for a single word? Were they to be ground down by oppression, and then refused even the poor privilege of complaint? Would the parliament of England, that parliament which sanctioned and persevered in a system necessarily productive of ill-blood, add insult and oppression to injustice? What had the Catholics of Ireland done, but that which was the necessary consequence of the system to which he had alluded? But, as they were upon the great object, of obtaining a participation of the benefits of the British constitution, what more natural course could they pursue, than refer to the pages of their history, and endeavour to follow the example of those patriots who had procured for them any of those rights, which, after so many struggles, and with such difficulty, they had obtained? While occupied in such a search, to whom would they be more likely to refer than to that great and able man Mr. Grattan? What was the course, then, which that tried patriot had pursued, in order to achieve those rights, which under his auspices, were obtained for his country? Was it not by the
200
institution of an Association, similar, in a great measure, in its object to the Catholic Association? And was it not natural for the present leaders of the Catholics to expect, that, by pursuing a similar course, by keeping within the bounds of the law, by persevering in the language of firm but respectful remonstrance, they might ultimately obtain the object of their efforts? Was there any thing unconstitutional in this? He would say, no; and he would say further, that unless the Catholic Association had kept within the bounds of propriety, unless they had the feelings of the respectable part of the community with them, they could never have survived as they had done; but, like the Convention to which he had alluded, fall to the ground the moment they ceased to retain the confidence of the people. The institution of the Catholic Association was the natural consequence of the system which had been adopted towards those whom they represented. That Association had grown out of a solid grievance, and if ministers wished to know the proper way to put it down, he would tell them:—It was by removing that grievance, and granting Catholic emancipation. But, if they chose not to apply this only remedy, he could tell them that the measure of the right hon. Secretary would not avail; and the next best thing they could do would be to let the Catholic Association alone. Had it not been for the contemplated measure, there might have been some chance of its dying a natural death. Even the Rent, its most formidable engine, could only, according to the right hon. Secretary's own statement, be collected by compulsion; and, to any body who knew any thing of Ireland, this fact was, he believed, a sufficient evidence that the Rent was near its end. This, therefore, was an additional argument for leaving the Association alone. To this dilemma were the opponents of the Association reduced. It must die either a natural or violent death. If left to itself, the former must soon be the consequence. It owed its existence to a moment of enthusiasm, and that enthusiasm could not last. But although the enthusiasm might subside, and the Catholic Association be extinguished, did it follow that the Catholic spirit was to be extinguished also? He would answer, No! and this bill of the right hon. gentleman would daily and hourly increase it. It had been said, that

201
the Catholic Association did not possess the confidence of the Catholic people of Ireland. It had been doubted, whether the Catholic nobility and gentry would be found to unite and concentrate their energies upon the common object of their emancipation. The progress of the Association had proved, that neither the Catholic people generally, nor the nobility and gentry in particular, were so indifferent to the obtaining of their rights, as the enemies of their cause had supposed. The question then was, would this enthusiasm, this union of heart and purpose have lasted? He had already answered that question, by saying, that if any thing could, more than another, have riveted the bonds of fellowship between the Association and the great body of the Catholics it was this bill of the right hon. gentleman. That the Association had before possessed the confidence of their countrymen, it would be idle to deny. That the present measure would give them an additional claim to that confidence, was a proposition, which few would be hardy enough to controvert. That this persecution would only stimulate further efforts upon the part of the Catholics, must be equally obvious to those who knew any thing of human nature. They had made a great struggle; and, although they might be baffled in that struggle, still it had drawn the attention of others upon them. It had raised them in the estimation of others, which was the true way to elevate them in their own; and the consequence would be, to produce perseverance, instead of inducing any relaxation in their efforts. If, therefore, the right hon. gentleman had wished to inspire confidence, instead of creating distrust, and to create, as it were, a beacon to light the Irish Catholics to future exertions, he could not have taken a more effectual course than that which he had adopted. The bill of the right hon. gentleman would not, he repeated, have the effect of deterring the Catholics from seeking for their just rights; nor would it, he was confident, by any means retard that great measure, which alone could afford a remedy for the multiplied evils of Ireland—the emancipation of the Catholics. It would, on the contrary, he was satisfied, promote and accelerate that measure; for although there had been a cry against the Association, with a view of creating a prejudice against the Catholics on the part of the people of this
202
country; although it had been said, that they carried things with a high hand, that they bearded the marquis of Wellesley, and usurped the functions of the Irish government, the people of England were, he was convinced, too sensible to be deceived by such representations; and they had already begun to ask themselves this serious question, "What are we to do with Ireland? Is she to hang like a millstone round the neck of this country, a burthen to us, and incapable of benefitting herself? It is evident that something must be done, and that something is Catholic Emancipation." It was, therefore, with the utmost astonishment that he had heard the right hon. Secretary talk of the alarm which he said prevailed in the country upon this subject. They were alarms which, he would venture to assert, had no existence, unless in the imagination of the right hon. gentleman. But, even if they did exist, that circumstance should not prevent him (Mr. A.) from expressing his conviction, that upon the carrying of the Catholic question, the safety of the empire rested, and his determination to support that measure, in all times, and under all circumstances, "through evil report, and good report." The bill of the right hon. gentleman might pass; the Catholic Association might be put down—but, the divisions of that House would pass away, while the progress of education, and the feeling of an enlightened public must work their way. These were the sentiments upon which he had acted, and upon which he would continue to act; holding fast by those immutable truths which, through all changes and circumstances, must ultimately and effectually prevail. He hoped, however, that the measure of Catholic emancipation would not be postponed too long. Had it been conceded at the Union, the period when it ought in justice to have been granted, it would have come with a much better grace from the grantors, and upon much better terms to its opponents; and this might be predicated of every succeeding year to which the boon had been delayed. But, although this was his opinion, and anxious as he had always felt for the granting of that measure, still, had he at the time of the Union been able to foresee future events, he would have postponed the grant of Catholic emancipation to the year 1825. For, when he looked to the present flourishing state of this country; its commanding

203
situation; its flow of capital; and the great advantages that would result to both countries from the union of commercial interests, he could not but feel that the present was the time when the grant of Catholic emancipation would be most desirable and most beneficial [hear, hear!]. When he said this, he did not mean to insinuate, that the accomplishment of that measure was by any means unlikely in the present year. He did not know when his hon. friend, the member for Westminster meant to bring forward his motion relative to Catholic emancipation; but he should not be at all surprised if some Orange member were to anticipate his hon. friend in the introduction of the measure. It had been said, by some of those who were most opposed to the Catholic claims, that if the system of forty-shilling freeholds were abolished, they would have no objection to vote for emancipation. He believed that the great ground of objection, upon the part of the majority of the exclusionists to Catholic emancipation was, that it would destroy the Protestant monopoly. But, when they reflected upon the progress of education—when they reflected that knowledge was power, and that the Catholics were making rapid advances, not only in intelligence but in physical strength, perhaps they might be inclined to enter into a compromise. He therefore had some hopes that between his hon. friend (sir F. Burdett) and such Orange members as might be inclined to become the advocates of Catholic claims, a compromise, such as that to which he had alluded, might be agreed to, and the measure of emancipation acceded to in the year 1825, under the auspices, and with the co-operation of all parties [hear, hear!].—It was impossible for him to state his view of this question without speaking of the government of the marquis Wellesley. He had thought, and he had expressed that opinion in the House, that the government of that nobleman had been entitled to great credit; but now he was free to say, that he conceived it had totally failed. He would explain why he thought so. When lord Wellesley accepted the important post which he held, his known opinions had the effect of placing him in a delicate and difficult situation. He (Mr. A.) wished to see him have fair play, and that he should neither be embarrassed by the practices, nor made the instrument of Orangemen. His lordship's government
204
had been represented as absolutely perfect. But, in fact, it had failed; and the proof was, that the House was that night called upon to pass a bill by which it was admitted that the state of faction in Ireland was such, that the government required extraordinary powers to enable it to maintain its authority. He repeated, therefore, that it had failed; and he was convinced that every other system of government must fail until Catholic emancipation should be granted. More had been done of late, it was said, to conciliate than had ever been attempted before—greater powers had been conferred upon the government, but nothing except emancipation could do any good. For this reason he would not concur in the measure before the House. Every body must see that this was one of a series of measures, contrived to keep pace with the ingenuity of the government and the discontent of the people. He for one, feeling that justice had not been, and never could be, done to the people of Ireland, until their emancipation should be conceded, and that all other measures would be hopeless and unavailing, would resist to the utmost of his ability the proposition of the right hon. gentleman.
Sir Henry Parnellspoke to the following effect*:—
Mr. Speaker; I shall commence the observations that I am about to address to the House by following the example of my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down, and declaring the great regret with which I feel myself obliged to oppose any measure proposed by his majesty's ministers respecting the affairs of Ireland. I have been, and still am, ready to believe, that in regard to Ireland they are actuated by the best motives, and that the general principles upon which the government of Ireland has been of late conducted, is deserving of being supported. But, when a measure is proposed to the House which I think must be followed, if carried into a law, by the most pernicious consequences to the interests of the empire; a measure that I consider to be the first of a series of measures of more violence on the part of the Catholics, and of more coercion on the part of government, that must terminate in general confusion and rebellion; I feel
* From the original edition printed for J. Ridgway, Piccadilly.

205
myself called upon to step forward and make use of every means in my power to stop its progress.
I do not see any thing in the present circumstances of the case, to warrant the despairing of being able to induce his majesty's ministers to withdraw this measure. I am thoroughly convinced that the current opinion against the Catholic Association has been formed under the greatest delusion. Ex-parte statements have been so industriously circulated, and so negligently admitted to produce an influence, that the public mind has been formed without any opportunity of having the merits of the case at all understood. Not only the opinion that prevails out of doors, but the general opinion that prevails here, and the opinion of ministers themselves, have been too hastily declared in favour of putting down the Association, and therefore there is just grounds for anticipating a great change in those opinions when the subject shall have been fully discussed, as I trust it will be, in every way and on every occasion, that the forms of the House allow to members for the discussion of it in the most minute and extensive detail.
In proceeding to the examination of this case, I must begin by noticing the very vague and indefinite terms in which the charges made against the Association are expressed. Their proceedings are declared to be irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution; but if they have been in point of fact what they are stated in debate to be, why are they not openly declared to be proceedings in violation of the constitution? Their proceedings are said to be calculated to excite alarm and exasperate animosities. Why are they not declared to be proceedings that have excited alarm and exasperated animosities? The reason is, because, though these direct charges are so profusely made in debate, no minister could take it upon himself to state them in this open and direct manner, in a speech purporting to be the speech of his majesty.
In respect to what has fallen from the right hon. gentleman, the chief secretary of Ireland, I will first notice the difference of opinion that prevails between him and the right hon. secretary of state for foreign affairs. The latter gentleman, on the first day of the session, protested against the monstrous idea that there existed any identification between the Catholic Association
206
and the Catholic body. He called it an incubus, and said, in the name of the Catholics, he denied any connexion between it and them. But the chief secretary of Ireland has gone into great detail, to shew that the whole of the Catholic nobility, the whole of the Catholic hierarchy and clergy, and the whole of the Catholic laity, are one and all united in feeling and opinion with the Catholic Association; and by doing so, he has most clearly taken away from the secretary for foreign affairs, the sole and whole grounds on which he rested all his charges on the first day of the session against the Catholic Association.
But the right hon. gentleman has endeavoured to do away the impression his admissions were justly calculated to make, by saying that the nobility had pandered to the popularity and influence of the Association. This, however, I am able to deny, and to shew not to be true, by referring to the letter of lord Gormanstown to the Catholic Association, in which he voluntarily comes forward and declares his entire approbation of the proceedings of the Association: and to that excellent letter of lord Kenmare, in which he has expressed sentiments exhibiting the justest feelings of his own degradation and that of his Catholic countrymen; and in which also he declares his fullest approval of the Association, and of its efforts to redress the grievances of the Catholic community. In addition to this, I am enabled to state, that at one of the late meetings of the Association, lord Killeen was in the chair, who for many reasons may be justly said, on all such occasions, to represent the opinions of the whole Catholic nobility.
The right hon. gentleman, as well as those who have preceded him in these discussions, has made the gravamen of the charges against the Association, consist in their conduct in regard to certain law proceedings; but the House must have participated in the surprise which I feel, after hearing the very laboured statement of the right hon. gentleman, to find that he has been able to bring forward only two cases of charge against the Association. The first of these cases he informs us, occurred at the end of last July, the case of Ballibay; and the second, after an interval of five months, in the beginning of January, at Six-mile Bridge. The House must be struck with this decided failure of the right hon. gentleman, to

207
substantiate his sweeping and most formidably sounding charge against the Association, when, with all his necessarily accurate knowledge of every thing the Association has been doing, he could find no one case to refer to, during this long interval of the most active career of this alarming Association. In my opinion the right hon. gentleman has not acted quite fairly by the Association, in not having mentioned the other cases of interference which actually did occur. But the inference is palpable that is to be drawn from this suppression; it is this, that these other cases tell against the conviction of the Association of unconstitutional conduct.
I will now proceed to mention what these other cases are, and I feel confident that after I have submitted them to the House, the impression will be not unfavourable to the general character of the Association. The first case is that relating to an affray that took place at Innismore in the county of Fermanagh. A quarrel between two individuals, one a Protestant, the other a Catholic, was to be settled by a boxing-match at a fixed time and place. The parties met; but the friends of the Protestant having come provided with fire arms, fired on the Catholics, killed one man, and wounded some more. Notwithstanding the violence of this outrage, the magistrates took no steps to discover and apprehend the offenders; they refused even to take informations against them. The whole business was on the point of being quietly passed over, as hundreds of similar cases, as a matter of course, have been suffered by the magistrates to lead to no prosecutions, when the Association sent down an agent and a barrister, Mr. Kiernan, to inquire into this transaction; and employed them, subsequently, to conduct a prosecution against the offenders at the ensuing Assizes at Enniskillen.
Now, as to the point, whether or not the Association did any thing improper by so employing agents and counsel, the House will agree with me, when I say, that it mainly depends upon the state of political feeling, at the time, in the county of Fermanagh. What this was, I am able to show on the most unquestionable testimony, namely, that of the Judge of the Assizes, Mr. Justice Moore, whose name I cannot mention in this place, without noticing the able, upright, and constitutional manner, in which, he has discharged
208
the high, and in these times most responsible, duties of his office, on the numerous occasions in which he has of late been placed in the most arduous situations. The following is an extract from the charge of this learned judge, to the grand jury of the county of Fermanagh, on opening the king's commission at the assizes; and I am sure, that after I have read it, the House will form but one opinion as to the unfortunate extent of political animosity that existed in this county at that time, and of the absolute necessity of giving assistance to any Catholic peasants when aggrieved, with the best legal advice and protection. "There were," said the learned judge, "no burglaries, no highway robberies, no burnings, nor any of those crimes that occur in society, and yet the calendar was stained with crimes of a sanguinary nature, and with more sacrifice of human life than appeared in those distant parts where disturbances had lately reigned. It was strange that the calendar of this country should be so marked with blood." The learned judge said he would not take upon himself to assign any cause for this, it was the business of the grand jury to put matters in train for unravelling the reason of this state of things.
When the trials came on of the persons who had been concerned in the murder committed at Innismore and in other battles that had taken place, the real cause of all the evil was soon found to be, wholly, party feeling. The prisoners, who were charged with this murder at Innismore, having been put upon their trial, the jury found a verdict of manslaughter. But here, again, and evidence is to be produced on the authority of the judge, is another complete proof of the impracticability of an impartial administration of the laws where these unfortunate party feelings so extensively prevail. When Mr. Justice Moore passed sentence upon the prisoners, he addressed them to the following effect, and thus pretty plainly expressed what his opinion was of the verdict of the jury:—"Prisoners; you owe the preservation of your lives to the lenity of the jury. Your country has been in a state of violent disturbance for a year or two in consequence of the mistaken zeal of party feeling. It lies with the magistrates to repress this lamentable evil.—Dennis Rooney; you cried out that you would have the life of a Lisbellaw man, and blood for blood. You struck the

209
deceased two blows while he was laying on the ground, as if to insult the expiring man—to extinguish him the more."
Now let the House carefully look at this case from the beginning to the end, and then say which deserves their favourable judgment, the charge which is made by the right hon. gentleman against the Association for interfering with the administration, or the defence that I am now bringing forward to shew the absolute necessity of such interference. First; an armed body of Orangemen fire upon an unarmed body of Catholics, without any previous attack on their part. Secondly; one Catholic is killed and several are wounded. Thirdly; no magistrate makes any exertion to discover and apprehend the offenders, while some magistrates refuse to take informations against them. Fourthly; when the offenders are brought to trial, although the crime of murder is, according to the address of the judge, established by evidence, the jury find a verdict of manslaughter. Now, I am sure, no member who has heard the words of the learned judge, can hesitate a moment in admitting, that under such circumstances as he has described, it was perfectly justifiable in the Association, to endeavour to obtain for the Catholic peasantry of the county of Fermanagh something like a due administration of the laws, by sending down an agent and a barrister to conduct this particular prosecution.
But I have still something further to state respecting this case of Innismore. It was of so flagrant a nature, as to the original outrage, that the Irish government most properly, sent down Mr. Blackburn to ascertain all the circumstances relating to it. But did Mr. Kiernan, the Catholic barrister, interfere with or obstruct Mr. Blackburn, as the representative of government? No, on the contrary, he gave him all the assistance in his power; he co-operated with him most cordially, and in point of fact, he contributed very essentially to promote and assist the object of government. Mr. Kiernan, it appears from the published proceedings of the Association, reported most favourably of Mr. Blackburn's conduct in regard to the previous inquiry, and afterwards mentioned in the highest terms of panegyric the conduct of Mr. Justice Moore.* In the course of this trial
* Mr. Blackburn presided at the trial at
210
it was established in evidencce, that one of the Catholics, who had been wounded by a gun-shot in the thigh, had applied in vain to certain magistrates to take his information against the persons who fired at him; but did Mr. Kiernan recommend instantaneous proceedings to be taken by the Association against these magistrates? No; it appears in the debates of the Association, that he advised the matter to be left to his majesty's attorney-general, and that the Association should not proceed unless the government declined to do so. This is the first case of legal proceedings by the Association that I have to lay before the House, and I feel confident, that no member will hesitate to allow, that under all the local circumstances of it, the existence of an Association in Ireland, willing and able to afford legal aid to the peasantry, is not altogether what it is represented to be by his majesty's ministers.
The case I have next to mention, is that of a chief constable of police at New Ross in the county of Wexford. This officer had exercised his authority in a severe manner against some poor people, and used offensive language in addressing them: upon a complaint being made to the lord-lieutenant, he directed, the neighbouring magistrates to examine into the transaction. The Association sent down Mr. Bric, a Catholic barrister, who after a very able effort to obtain justice for the people, succeeded in causing the magistrates to decide against the chief constable. In consequence he was removed by order of the lord-lieutenant, from his situation in that part of the county. Now I have made inquiries concerning this business, and I am able to say, on the best authority, that it is the general opinion, that nothing but the attendance and exertions of Mr. Bric, produced the event that here took place.
The third case I have to state is that which occurred at the quarter-sessions, at Killesandra, in the county of Cavan. Here several Catholics had been very severely beaten at a fair; and the party who beat them, when they found informations were lodged against them, swore cross-informations so that a great number of desperate
Six-mile Bridge, and in open court, stated in the highest terms the approbation of the whole bench of magistrates, of. Mr. O'Gorman's conduct, who had been sent down by the Association.

211
assaults stood for trial at these sessions. Mr Bric was again employed. The bench was most respectably attended—the trial of one of the Orange party was first gone into, and after a vast deal of contradictory swearing, the jury without hesitation found a verdict in favour of the Catholic prosecutor. Here I wish to make a few observations in reply to what appears to me to be an unfounded statement of the chief secretary of Ireland; he has broadly declared that the Catholic barristers have been sent down to the country by the Association, to conduct legal proceedings, have uniformly made speeches to excite every kind of hostile party feeling; thus prejudicing and destroying the purity of a due administration of justice. Nothing, I can assure the House, can be more utterly devoid of foundation, than this charge of the right hon. gentleman. I have read, I believe, the whole of the reports of these trials, and have never observed that the Catholic barristers in any instance have departed from that strict line of professional conduct and duty which was befitting them to adopt. The House will at once see that no professional man could, with the slightest regard to his character and his own interest, take the course said by the right hon. gentleman to be pursued by them. But I am able to say, that so far from having carried party feelings and party zeal into their proceedings, they have uniformly obtained the approbation of the courts in which they have acted. In the case of Killesandra, when the magistrates suggested to Mr. Bric, that it would contribute to the tranquillity of the county, not to persevere in any more of the numerous actions that the Catholics had brought against Orangemen, he immediately declared his perfect readiness to comply with the wishes of the court.
The fourth case of legal proceedings of the Association that I wish to notice, is that concerning the riot and battle at Maghera, in the county of Derry. In this instance, a common quarrel terminated in a general action. The Orangemen, armed with muskets, fired on their unarmed opponents in the street, killed four persons and wounded a great many more. The state of party feeling in this part of the county induced the Association to send down Mr. Shiel, the Catholic barrister, to attend the trials that took place at the last Spring assizes at Londonderry. The first set of prisoners, the Orangemen, who were put upon their trial,
212
were aquitted. The second set, the Catholics, after a sort of reconciliation, were discharged. In this case all the circumstances that belonged to the transaction; the conduct of magistrates and jurors; and the state of party feeling in the country, fully justified the interference of the Association.
Having now gone through these four cases (and I am not aware that any other exist, of interference by the Association), I request the House to examine carefully how the question stands, as it affects the Association, between these four cases and the two cases that have been mentioned by the right hon. gentleman. I say that each of these four cases of interference are completely justified by the peculiar circumstances of party feeling in which they were involved; and as to the two cases of the right hon. gentleman, I have little doubt, but that after they have been more minutely investigated, they will not turn out to be what they have been represented to be by the right hon. gentleman, such complete proofs of unconstitutional conduct on the part of the Association, much less sufficient grounds for the severe measure of restraint upon the rights and liberties of the people, as that which is now proposed to us.
I was somewhat surprised that the right hon. gentleman omitted to state other instances, besides direct interference on trials, of the interposition of the Association in matters connected with the administration of justice, because I have heard in other places of their being much complained of; I mean the communications that have been made to magistrates by the law agents of the Association, in the shape of latitats, when cases of mal-ad-ministration have taken place. But I suppose the right hon. gentleman may possibly agree with me, in thinking, that this sort of restraint upon the magistrates is of considerable practicable utility. In point of fact, nothing is so important for the peasantry of the country as to have some protection, and some security, that the laws shall be fairly administered by the magistrates; in some parts of Ireland, there is, I know, no cause for complaining of the proceedings of the magistrates, in those parts they are as just and exemplary in their proceedings as the magistrates of any county in England; but in other parts nothing can have been more oppressive than the way in which the duty of the justices of the peace has been

213
performed. Now, as far as the Association have lent their aid to bring delinquent magistrates to account, there exists a very general opinion in Ireland, among reasonable and moderate men, that a great practical benefit has been the result.
Upon the whole of this case of the interference of the Association in the administration of justice, I beg to make this concluding remark; that whatever there is in the conduct of the Association that appears to be contrary to established principle or practice, may be traced to some previous violation of principle and practice by their opponents: and secondly, that the necessity which thus exists of interfering in the administration of justice in a very great degree arises from government not taking those steps that are in its power, for repressing the previous misconduct of the Orange Societies. In districts of a country so agitated by party zeal as they are described to be by the judges, the government ought to have their law agents constantly at work; and barristers, in whom the Catholics can place confidence, regularly employed as counsel for the Crown at the Assizes to do every thing that can be done, to enforce the effectual administration of the laws; and if this were to be the conduct of government, then, as there would exist no occasion for the Association to interfere, the Association most unquestionably would not interfere; in place therefore of an act of parliament to prevent the Association from carrying on legal proceedings, the true remedy on this particular point is, for the government to take the protection of the peasantry into their own hands: to revise and purify the magistracy: to look after the conduct of sub-sheriff's, and to repress by every means in their power the hostile spirit of the Orange Societies against Catholics.
In what has fallen from the right hon. gentleman on the subject of the Catholic Rent, there is a good deal that is quite inaccurate. The right hon. gentleman has said that the money collected is to be applied to no declared and defined object; but so far from this being the case, the Association have given the greatest publicity to their plan, and described, in detail, the purposes to which this money is to be applied. I hold in my hand the printed paper that has been circulated throughout the whole country for directing the manner in which the rent is to be collected, and the money to be applied.
214
It states—"The purposes for which the pecuniary resources are wanting, should be clearly defined and distinctly understood. The following purposes are of obvious and paramount utility. 1st, To forward petitions to parliament. 2nd, To procure legal redress for all such Catholics, assailed or injured by Orange violence, as are unable to obtain it for themselves. 3rd, To encourage and support a liberal and enlightened press, as well in Dublin as in London, a press that would readily report the arguments of our enemies, and expose the falsehood of the calumnies upon us and our religion. 4th, To procure for the various schools in the country cheap publications. 5th, To afford aid to Irish Catholics in America, to attain religious instruction. 6th, To afford aid to the English Catholics for the same object. A committee of twenty-one persons is to superintend and manage the expenditure of the subscription money; and no monies are to be expended without an express vote of the Association upon a notice regularly given." This is the published plan of the Association, so that, in point of fact, in this instance, when the right hon. gentleman charges the Association with collecting money for unknown and undefined purposes, he is wholly in error.
The right hon. gentleman has said that the Association has issued its mandate to all the priests of Ireland to collect the rent and to fill the office of Treasurer. But here again the right hon. gentleman is mistaken. The same paper from which I have just read extracts, contains the plan of the Association for collecting the rent: but I can state to the House precisely what the course actually-followed is. When the inhabitants of a parish wish to contribute to the rent, a meeting of the parish is summoned, at the meeting a chairman is appointed, frequently, though not always, the priest. Resolutions are proposed approving of the collecting of the rent, and a committee is appointed, with a secretary and a treasurer, to manage the collections. But in no case out of some hundreds that I have read, have I ever found the priest appointed to act as treasurer. In point of fact the priest has nothing more to say to the business than any other person, and either supports or opposes the plan, as he thinks proper.
But this collection of the Catholic Rent is styled, the assuming of the authority of parliament, and a levying of taxes.

215
Nothing can be more unfair than this charge, or more untrue. The payment of the rent is perfectly voluntary, and there exists no kind of analogy between this simple subscription of money, and the forced levying of a tax. Upon the subject of the great amount of money that had been collected, and is intended to be collected, those representations are quite unfounded that are so often and so loudly repeated. The truth is, that if the sums the Association proposed to raise, in the paper I have read from, dated February, 1824, in their total amounting to upwards of 25,000 l., are compared with the sums collected, of under 9000 l. the plan, as far as money was the object of it, has not succeeded. But a large sum of money was not the object of the Catholic rent. Being in company with a Catholic bishop, I said to him, the Protestants I find are very much alarmed at the Catholic rent; to which he replied, they have no reason at all to be alarmed about it, if money was the object of the Association, the rich Catholics would quickly provide it; but the real object of the Catholic rent is, to prove to lord Liverpool, that he is mistaken when he rests his opposition to Emancipation on the grounds that the lower order of the Catholics have no interest, and feel no interest in carrying this measure.—As to the necessity of the Association being possessed of some funds or other, no one can deny it. To do justice to their petitions; seeing how much of the opposition that exists to them in England arises from a total ignorance of the case, and from early established prejudices against the Catholic religion, all that is now collected ought to be expended in publishing and circulating such works as are calculated to make the question better understood. It is in this way that private bills are carried through this House, and why should not the Irish Catholic Association be allowed to exercise and enjoy the same privileges in this respect as is allowed to every set of projectors of gas works or rail roads?
The next charge that is made against the Association is, that by exciting alarms, it endangers the peace of society; but this I will prove to be a charge that is not founded in fact, and I speak from my own knowledge on the subject. I was in Ireland from the end of July to the beginning of September, when I left it; and I can most truly say, that at that time no alarm whatever of any kind existed; the
216
public mind had not been, for a very long period, so perfectly tranquil as it then was; I returned to Ireland on the 7th of November, when I found the greatest excitation of public feeling had been aroused, and party spirit raging in an extreme degree. But what was the cause of this great change? Was it the proceedings of the Catholic Association? No. The Association had adjourned in July, and did not meet again till the 16th of October; and nothing very particular had occurred at the two or three meetings that had, up to that time, been held. But what had actually occurred was this, the London Hibernian school Society, or Association, had thought proper to send two delegates to Ireland, Mr. Noel and Captain Gordon, to convert the people to Christianity. These gentlemen commenced their public career at Cork on the 18th of September at a meeting of a Bible society. It was announced, that a fair opportunity would be afforded to all parties to be heard, and the Assizes then going forward at Cork, Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Shiel were brought before the public, at the direct instigation of a London Controversional Association, to exercise their talents in discussing the respective merits of the Protestant and Catholic religion. This discussion continued two days, and the speeches having been reported at great length, a universal excitement took place all over Ireland of no moderate kind, on the disputed point of the propriety of a free circulation of the Holy Scriptures. Mr. Noel and Captain Gordon acted in the most open manner, and with the greatest candour gave the Catholics to understand that in their opinion they were not christians; and that their object was conversion to Christianity. These gentlemen from Cork went to Clonmel, where two other whole days were occupied in a hot debate upon the free use of the Scriptures; from Clonmel they went to Waterford, where they attended, on the 28th of September, a meeting of a Bible society, and renewed the discussion of the Bible question. On the 19th of October, the celebrated meeting took place at Loughrea, where the archbishop of Tuam met with some interruption as chairman of a Bible meeting, by a Catholic clergyman attending, and entering into the list of controversial contention.
The impression which these meetings made on the Catholics, and the Catholic clergy, was, a belief that a general and systematic plan was on foot to put down

217
the Catholic religion; and therefore their resistance to the advocates of the Bible societies was naturally energetic, and calculated to excite a good deal of apprehension. It was by these numerous meetings, the publishing of the whole of the speeches, and the strong doctrines set forth by both sides, that by the beginning of November a universal alarm prevailed throughout all Ireland. This was still further evinced by a set Bible meeting, not unaptly termed a Bible fight, which took place on the 9th of November at Carrick on Shannon, when four clergymen, the elite of the whole Established Church, attended to enter the lists with four humble priests, the production of the banks of Shannon. But the general alarm and universal excitation did not reach its highest point till the Bible meeting at Carlow on the 5th of December. There the advocates of a free circulation of the Bible, especially sent down from Dublin, were opposed by the professors of the Catholic college of Carlow, and met with a reception, which seems to have led public opinion to determine that this trial of strength in point of learning and talent, proved to be in favour of the Catholics.—Now, I take it upon myself to say that the progress of the Catholic rents, the progress of union between the Association and the Catholics at large, was increased more and more every day, according to the progress of those discussions upon the Catholic religion; for it was the Catholic religion which was mainly brought forward, and unavoidably so, at every Bible meeting, I will also take it upon myself to say, under the whole circumstances of the case, that it is to these Bible meetings that all that great alarm which prevailed in Ireland last winter is properly to be attributed, and not to the proceedings of the Catholic Association. For what actually happened as to this alarm? From the day of the meeting at Carlow, when the Bible meetings ceased, the alarm began to die away, till I may say, by the beginning of January, no alarm whatever existed.
I have now stated to the House, what appears to me to be sufficient grounds for denying that the right hon. gentleman has established any of his allegations against the Association in respect of interference with the constituted authorities in the administration of justice; in respect to the Catholic rent, and in respect of their proceedings having excited alarm and endangered the peace of society; I could
218
read to the House from a petition of the Association, presented last session by the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, their defence of themselves from precisely the same charges that are now made by lord Wellesley's administration, and by the secretary for foreign affairs. For it somehow so happens, that those ministers who were not long ago opposed to the Orangemen, have so completely and entirely adopted the sentiments of the Orangemen of the North of Ireland, that this petition against the accusations of the Orangemen, contains a full answer to all the accusations they now labour under.
But, if I have in any way failed to establish a defence of the Association by this recital of details, I think I shall be yet able to say a great deal towards the justification of the Catholics by appealing to general principles. If the Catholics are oppressed by positive and increasing grievance, and one which justifies an incessant demand for redress, they are driven to act through the medium of popular assemblies, attended as they unavoidably must be by all the inconveniences of general discussion on inflammatory subjects in such assemblies. In all places of this kind, the orator who carries his arguments to the extreme of opinion, is naturally greeted with unbounded applause. It has been made a matter of charge by the chief secretary of Ireland against the Association, that they are violent in their speeches without any just cause. It is on the ground that no competition of opinion prevails in the body. But it would be to expect that the members of the Association differed in their nature from all other men, to require of them, when discussing their grievances, not to give to those who express those grievances in the most glowing colours, their most vociferous applause.
But, great allowance ought to be made in these cases of perhaps intemperate discussion, for the heat that is generated by long-continued opposition, much of this intemperance should be set down to the effects of disappointed hope, and a great deal to the resentment and spirit of retaliation which is excited and justified by the insolence and virulence of their opponents. If the intemperance with which the demand for redress has been urged, is to create a prejudice against the Association, the virulence with which the demand has been resisted, should have some operation in justification of the Association.
The right hon. the chief secretary of

219
Ireland has explained to the House that his intended measure against the Association is to be founded upon the precedent of the Irish Convention act of 1793, and he has broadly laid it down as a principle of the constitution, that every kind of delegated Association is contrary to the spirit and principles of the constitution. To this doctrine I cannot agree, when the first instances of meddling with the right of delegation are of such recent date; and it is because the proposed bill is a new encroachment on popular rights, that I even more object to it, than I do on account of the Catholic Association. This is the point of view that every friend of the British Constitution ought to take of this bill; for under the cover of putting down an Association for acting in a manner irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution, it is positively in itself a gross violation of it.—But, the right hon. gentleman has made a statement to the House in respect of the history and character of the Irish Convention act of 1793, which I take it upon me to say, is, in every particular, directly at variance with the true state of the case. The right hon. gentleman has told the House many things about the Catholic Convention of the year 1793, and by placing together the existence of this Convention and the passing of the Convention act in the same year, he has endeavoured to lead the House to believe that the Convention act was passed for the purpose of putting down the Catholic Convention. He has, in point of fact, asserted that this was the case; and then proceeds to argue, that as a new Catholic Association has risen up, that cannot be reached by the act of 1793, the principle of that act is to be further proceeded upon and a new act passed to meet the new case.
Now, I assure the House, that if they will look into any history of what took place in Ireland in 1793, no part of the statement of the right hon. gentleman will be found to be correct. It is in every respect quite contrary to the actual occurrences of that time, and I will now proceed to prove it; having fortunately the means of doing so at hand. The Convention act of 1793 was a measure flowing directly out of the reports of the Irish parliament upon the disturbed state of the country. The evil at that time was the progress of the Society of United Irishmen, and the preparation for an effort to separate Ireland from England by the aid
220
of France, and by the extending of Jacobinical principles. Arms and ammunition had been imported in large quantities, and a plan was on foot for holding a National Convention in the course of the summer. It was for the object of suppressing this Association of United Irishmen, and not of putting down the Catholic Convention, that the Convention act was passed; a fact which is fully proved by the following circumstances:—In the first place, although the Catholic Convention was formed by regular delegation in the end of 1792, and commenced its sittings some time before the meeting of parliament in 1793, the report of the House of Lords on which the Convention act was founded, does not once hint at the existence of this Convention as the cause of the act. In the next place, there is an extract from the speech of the Irish attorney-general, Mr. Wolf, delivered in the House of Commons in the debate on this bill. Mr. Grattan had complained in his speech, that the Catholic Convention was libeled by the bill. But the attorney-general "denied that the bill had any retrospect particularly to the Catholic Convention; it originated," he said, "merely from a professed design to call a Convention to represent the people and overturn the parliament. He alluded to the Society of United Irishmen."—"He further declared he knew of no object of the bill but one—that was to prevent the threatened Convention of the United Irishmen."—"It went," he said, "only to prevent assemblies purporting to be the general representatives of the people, not representation for any pre-conceived object."* Nothing can be more indisputable than this fact of history, that the Convention act of 1793 was not a measure at all connected with the Catholic Convention of 1793, or the system or principle of delegation on which this Convention was formed. What, then, becomes of the argument of the right hon. gentleman, and of the grounds of his new bill, founded as they have been all through by him, upon the notion which he has entertained, that the Convention act of 1793 was an act passed to put down the Catholic Convention of 1793?
The right hon. gentleman, in order to bring into his service this act of 1793 as a precedent to go upon, has referred to the
* Irish Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 13, p. 535.

221
Society of United Irishmen of 1791, and in a manner that naturally will impress every member of the House with the belief, that this society was a Society of Catholics. He has stated in the most unqualified terms, that this society was formed for the purpose of carrying Catholic Emancipation, and again, has displayed how little acquainted he is with Irish history. After such a statement the House will be surprised to hear me say, that this society consisted wholly of Protestants or dissenting Protestants; and that the object of it was to carry reform of parliament. This was the description given of it in the report of the secret committee of the House of Commons in the year 1798. In this report it is stated that Catholic Emancipation was only the ostensible object, and not the real one, and held out to induce the Catholics to join it.
But other means of proving the errors the right hon. gentleman has fallen into, even still more complete, remain for me to mention: namely; the proceedings of the Catholic Convention of 1793, and the result of them. Towards the latter end of the year 1792, the Catholics, in order to remove all grounds for the statements that had been made in the Irish parliament, that the old committee did not speak in their petitions the sentiments of the whole body of the Catholics, devised the plan of electing delegates in each county, and assembling them together in Dublin. A circular letter was accordingly written by the secretary of the committee, to some leading Catholics in each county, containing a plan for electing these delegates. The business of electing them went on in the most regular manner, and the convention of delegates met soon after in Dublin. This Convention, like the present Association, adjourned from meeting to meeting, bad very long and very intemperate debates; had committees of grievances and committees of accounts; collected a large sum of money from the different counties in Ireland, and among other things strongly recommended a reform in parliament. There was just the same canting against this Convention, as there is now against the Association. It was called the Popish parliament, its leaders were called furious demagogues—its proceedings were termed gross violations of the constitution—it was described as a power usurping the prerogatives of the constituted authorities: nothing was left unsaid or unwritten that could be said or
222
written against this Catholic abomination by the Orange party. But still it went on meeting and debating, and publishing long speeches, till at length it resolved to send delegates to London with a petition to the king, to request his majesty to sanction a relaxation of the penal laws. All this time the Irish government did not interfere; on the contrary, it was generally understood that the whole plan of the Convention had even been suggested by persons belonging to it. The delegates proceeded to London, and waited on Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt gave them an audience; he did not refuse to communicate with the agents of an association of delegates; he did not quarrel with the principles of delegation; but he did what was very different from what his successors are now doing, he recommended his majesty to receive the Catholic delegates at his levee. His majesty upon the occasion, gave the delegates a most gracious reception, and he in the end granted the objects of the prayer of the petition of the Catholic Convention; and when lord Westmorland, the lord lieutenant of Ireland, opened the parliament, he informed both Houses in a speech from the throne, that he had the commands of his majesty to recommend to them, to take into their consideration such measures as might be most likely to strengthen and cement a general union of sentiment among all classes of his majesty's subjects, and particularly the situation of his majesty's Catholic subjects. The consequence of this speech was the passing of the act of 1793, and giving many valuable concessions to the Catholics, and the voluntary dissolution of the Catholic Convention. Now, as all these things took place and were brought to their completion in the month of March 1793, it is wholly impossible for any one to doubt that they had any connection with the Convention act which was brought in afterwards and passed in the month of July of that year.
Having now gone through a faithful description of the case of the Catholic Convention of 1793, I submit it to the House, whether it would not be much wiser on the present occasion to follow the example of Mr. Pitt and of his late majesty, and meet the claims of the Catholic Association with concession, than to pass this bill for putting down this Association? This is the right use to make of the precedent of 1793, in place of misrepresenting it, and founding upon the misrepresentation this most impolitic measure.

223
I will now proceed to shew that the principle that has been advanced by the right hon. gentleman, as a principle of the constitution, that all delegation is contrary to the constitution, is not allowed to be the case by some of the highest authorities on this point. Upon occasions of this kind, and more particularly when Ireland is concerned, it is impossible to open the works of Mr. Burke without finding some passages strikingly applicable to these subjects. The following are to be found in Mr. Burke's second letter to sir Hercules Langrishe:—"Whenever ill humours are afloat in the state, they will be sure to discharge themselves, in a mingled torrent, in the cloaca maxima of Jacobinism (or separation); therefore people ought to look about them.—First, the physicians are to take care that they do nothing to irritate this epidemical distemper. It is a foolish thing to have the better of a patient in a dispute. Its complaint or its cause ought to be removed, and wise and lenient acts ought to precede the measures of vigour. They ought to be the ultima, not the tota ratio of a wise government. Where a prudent and enlarged policy does not precede force and attend it too; where the hearts of the better sort of people do not go with the hands of the soldiery, you may call your constitution what you will, in effect it will consist of three parts, cavalry, infantry, and artillery, and of nothing else.—I agree with you in your dislike of the discourses in Francis street. After people have taken your tests, prescribed by yourselves, as proofs of their allegiance, to be marked as enemies, traitors, or at best as suspected and dangerous persons, we are not to be surprised if they fall into a passion, and talk, as men in a passion do, intemperately and idly.—Indeed, my Dear Sir, there is not a single particular in the Francis-street declamations which has not, to your and my certain knowledge, been taught by the jealous ascendants, sometimes by doctrines, sometimes by example, always by provocation. It gave me no pleasure to hear of the dissolution of the committee. There were in it a majority, to my knowledge, of very sober well-intentioned men; and there were none in it but such, who if not continually goaded and irritated, might be made useful to the tranquillity of the country."
These are the sentiments of Mr. Burke in respect to the management of popular ill humours, and the treatment of popular
224
wrongs, and hence we see that he considered the Catholic Convention of delegates of 1793, holding their meetings in Francis-street, as a safe and useful Association.—I will now refer to the opinion of Mr. Grattan, whose authority on constitutional and on Irish questions, no one will dispute. In the debate in the year 1811, on Mr. Pole's circular letter for putting down the Catholic board of that day, he delivered the following opinions:*—"It should be the care of the government not to perplex, diminish, or degrade the liberties and rights which the law had left to the Catholics. It ought to be a fundamental principle, that the communications between the Catholics and parliament should be free and unembarrassed. In his judgment, such popular meetings (of regularly elected delegates) so conducted, were not just cause of alarm. It was well that opportunities should exist for the mind of the people to evaporate. It was the undoubted privilege of the subject to be sometimes violent and clamorous in the maintenance of his rights."
I trust I may be allowed to say, after having laid this case, as to the principle and practice of delegation, before the House, that I have proved that the opinions of the right hon. gentleman and the opinions of others, that are now so much the fashion, about the constitutional character of the proceedings of the Association, are wholly devoid of any real authority. I trust I may be allowed to say, that the opinion that has been formed by the Irish government of the necessity of putting down the Association, is a hasty opinion; and that the nature and bearings of such a measure have not been sufficiently considered either in respect of past example, or of the probable consequences of it. I therefore earnestly call upon the right hon. gentleman opposite, to reflect once more upon the conduct of Mr. Pitt under similar circumstances, and to examine again whether the danger which is said to arise to the public interest from the existence of the Association, is really such a serious danger as it has been represented to be?
I will now go on to make some observations on what was said on the first day of the session, on the subject of the Association, by the right hon. the Secretary for foreign affairs. He said, that if it had
* See First Series of the present work. Vol. 19. p. 25.

225
not been for the Association, the administration of lord Wellesley would have been productive of the greatest benefits to Ireland. In this opinion I perfectly agree with the right hon. gentleman, I believe that lord Wellesley would have conferred very great advantages upon Ireland. But then I beg to ask, Whose fault is it that the Association has existed? Something more is to be said upon the matter, than merely to accuse the Association of the derangement of lord Wellesley's measures. But before I go further into this topic, I wish to draw a distinction, which I venture to say is a most material distinction to be made, between lord Wellesley and lord Wellesley's administration. In the customary way of speaking in this House about the government of Ireland, lord Wellesley is spoken of as if he was himself the whole government of Ireland, a sort of dictator; but nothing can be further from the truth than this way of regarding his public character. The government of Ireland consists of a cabinet of six persons, and that being the case, when I call to the notice of the House, that out of these six, four are directly opposed to lord Wellesley in their political opinions, it is not fair to hold lord Wellesley responsible for every thing done, or what is more in point, for every thing omitted to be done by the local government of Ireland. I have had the honour of having so many full and friendly conversations with lord Wellesley on the state of Irish affairs, that I am completely satisfied of his great anxiety to do every thing to appease animosities, and promote the general prosperity of Ireland that any one can desire to be done. But after the experience of three years, and upon the fullest consideration of all that has passed, I am certain that lord Wellesley is so unwisely fettered by the manner in which his cabinet is composed, that he cannot do what he may be disposed to do; and that, consequently, those benefits, which ought to have been the result of his going to Ireland, have failed to be realized. The expediency of a divided [English cabinet is justified on the grounds, that there is a union of sentiment upon all the great questions affecting the interests of the empire, except that of Ireland. But it so happens, that in respect to the Irish cabinet, there can be but one question of any importance to be brought under its consideration, and that is, the precise question on which the division of opinion prevails, and therefore there is not the
226
smallest pretext for continuing this absurd arrangement. Had not the hands of lord Wellesley been tied up in the way they have been, I am able to say, upon the authority of the most intelligent Catholics, that the Association never would have existed; for the Catholics have not been so unreasonable as to be disposed to quarrel with lord Wellesley, because the whole measure of Emancipation was not conceded. Their dissatisfaction is as much a matter of feeling as of interest, and they value attention to their feelings equally with measures conferring personal advantages upon them. It is this want of attention, even in small affairs, to their just pride and wounded dignity as men, which created that soreness and discontent and despair which directly occasioned the formation of the Association. But I am quite certain that the chief cause of the present embarrassing state of things would never have existed, had lord Wellesley been, placed by the English cabinet in a situation to act upon his own unquestionable disposition to conciliate the Catholics. It was not until lord Wellesley had been in Ireland for nearly a year and a half that the Association was formed. The Catholics waited to see what course in respect to their case, lord Wellesley's administration would adopt, but when they saw no acts of favour conferred upon them, and no effectual steps taken for putting down the Orange Associations, while the Orange party were daily attacking them in all directions, and throughout the north of Ireland were ill treating the peasantry, they felt the absolute necessity of forming their own association as a measure, first, of self defence, and secondly, as one required to promote their claims in parliament. The communications I have had with intelligent and temperate Catholics, enable me to assure the House that the Catholic body will never place any confidence in lord Wellesley's administration so long as he is associated with persons of opposite politics; and that they never will believe that there is any sincere intention to put down the Orange associations, so long as persons filling the offices in the Orange lodges are allowed to retain high offices under government.
I now come to the part of the case that relates to a remedy for these alarming proceedings of the Catholic Association. In the first place, I deny that the nature of the evil is correctly stated to the House. The evil is not association but

227
exclusion. It is the exclusion of the Catholics from their rights and privileges, that is the cause of the existence of the Association; and the only true remedy, is the unqualified repeal of the whole Catholic Penal Code. I cannot conceive how the House can in common consistency recommend any other remedy to his majesty, after having in the year 1821, when the whole case of the Catholics was before the House, passed a bill towards accomplishing this repeal. But if the House shall think proper on this occasion, to decline to propose the emancipation of the Catholics, then I shall earnestly recommend the House to leave the Association alone. The inconveniences which may attend this line of conduct, will be as nothing in comparison with those ruinous consequences that will inevitably flow from a coercive measure to put down the Association. The proceedings of the Association have no real danger belonging to them. There is no treason or insurrection connected with them; there is no obstruction to government, and no injury to any man either in person or property. The outcry is wholly artificial, and studiously kept up by the party who wish to stop the progress of emancipation. But even if the Association was, in reality, in every respect what it is represented to be; is it not reasonable to expect that it would now change its course of proceedings? As to Mr. O'Connell, who certainly directs it, he is a man of talent and sense, and will not wantonly injure the interests of the body who place their confidence in him; with all his zeal in debate I know that he is ready to receive advice not only from Catholics but from Protestants; and he has substantially acted upon such advice. Besides, the circumstances under which the Catholic question now stands, are widely different from what they were even only a few months ago. The entire union of the Catholic body has been effected by the Association. But what is of still greater importance, the whole, incessant, and most scrutinising attention of the people of this country, has at last been brought to bear on this question. The public press is universally occupied with it; a great part is devoted to the emancipation of the Catholics; and although a very influential portion of it exercises great talent and perseverance, in endeavouring to run down the Catholics and their religion, even this does good,
228
because it keeps up the consequence of the struggle, and promotes examination, and the learning of the true merits of the case. The Association willfeel, what I myself most strongly feel, that as all this discussion must end in making the Catholic question fully understood in England, it will insure the success of the Catholic cause; and therefore, I entertain no doubt whatever, that if the Association is left to itself, it will change its conduct, with the change of circumstances that has occurred; and discontinue some of those proceedings which it adopted, as necessary to force the attention of the people of England to their grievances.
On the other hand, if the bill pass into a law, what will be the consequences? The right hon. the chief secretary of Ireland has told us his bill is to be only temporary. I think he takes upon himself to engage for what he is very little able to perform. Will the conduct of the Catholics suffer this bill to be a temporary one? will they not, in the struggle to gain their rights, do something or other, which will induce the right hon. gentleman, to come down to the House, and call upon it, to renew his measure? The whole case of the right hon. gentleman, in respect to this remedy, rests upon the supposition that this measure will be followed by submission on the part of the Catholics; that they will rest perfectly satisfied at being prohibited to associate in the way they think proper for obtaining redress of their grievances. This appears to be a very vain calculation; for a time, the Catholics will probably submit; but whosoever knows any thing correctly concerning the present state of the Catholic mind, will agree with me in saying that they will again, and before long, come forward with even more resolute demands for concession to their claims. If honourable members judge of the present state of Catholic feeling from what it was only a few years ago, they will form very erroneous conclusions upon the probable future conduct of the Catholics. Heretofore the effects of poverty and slavery arising out of the old penal laws, were to enfeeble the spirit and feeling of the Catholic body; but these have been gradually wearing out; and the particular attention of the House should be given to a fact of the greatest importance in the present discussion, which is this, that in the course of the two last years a greater change of public feeling has taken place among

229
the Catholics than perhaps ever took place in the same period of time among any people. This fact I will not rest merely upon my own assertion; but I will explain and account for it to the House by shortly reciting the causes of this change.
In the first place, the progress of wealth and education has led to a great extent of intelligence, and made the Catholics more accurately acquainted with the grievances they labour under, and they now know their own members by a regular census. But the circumstance which has produced the greatest effect, and has done the greatest mischief, is the celebrated, but most injudicious charge, of the archbishop of Dublin. It is quite inconceivable to what an extent this has excited soreness and passion among the whole Catholic body. It is to this that is wholly to be attributed the appearance of the bishops and priests as the warm supporters of the Association and the Catholic rent; their stirring in politics can be most accurately traced to this event. Many of the Catholic clergy who had never been active as politicians, but all their lives endeavouring to promote submission to the laws, from the moment that this charge appeared, have never ceased to resent the injustice done to themselves and their church; or to take those public measures which to them seemed best calculated to secure to themselves their proper rank in society, and to their religion the respect that is due to it. The undisguised efforts that have been made by powerful societies to establish an effectual system of proselytizing, have also had a great effect in drawing forth the Catholic clergy in defence of their religion; while controversial sermons preached weekly on Sundays in Dublin and in many parts of the country, with a view to expose the Catholic religion, have had their share in putting the Catholic clergy forward as the active parties in promoting political objects. The manner in which the petition to this House in 1823, was received and disposed of, produced the greatest dissatisfaction; the majority that appeared in favour of adjourning the debate was taken to be a majority against the petition; and a feeling of despair became very general of ever obtaining relief by application to parliament. This feeling was still further encreased and strengthened by the way in which the bill of last session, for the relief
230
of the English Catholics, was rejected in the House of Lords. These are the grounds which exist to justify me in saying that a most extensive change has taken place in the Catholic mind of Ireland, and for also saying that no rational expectation can be formed, that the object of the right hon. gentleman in passing an act for putting down the Association will be obtained. I consider this measure to be the first of a career of measures that inevitably will end, in general confusion and rebellion. As the Catholics will continue to labour under grievances, they will be induced to take such steps to give vent to their feelings, as will probably be an evasion of the new law. They will in all probability express their feelings with more violence than usual in consequence of being placed under greater restraints. The right hon. gentleman will then come down to the House with a new case of violation of the spirit of the constitution, and call upon the House for a new measure of coercion. This new measure of coercion will lead to new acts of evasion and violence on the part of the Catholics, until by new modes of evading the law, and new laws to coerce popular assemblies, the Catholics of Ireland will be trained on by degrees to involve themselves in open insurrection. The right hon. the secretary for foreign affairs, has a great deal more to say to this question as the foreign minister of the country, than he seems to be aware of, The union of these countries, up to this moment, exists only on paper; there is no cordial national union. Ireland is still in feeling and in fact a county foreign to England. The people form a clear notion of a distinct Irish nation and a distinct English nation: and I can assure the right hon. gentleman, that the moment this bill passes into a law, the people of Ireland will esteem it to be a belligerent act on the part of the English nation, against the Irish nation, and I fear it will puzzle the right hon. gentleman extremely after this once happens, to negociate a peace between the two countries. I am sensible in making these observations, I expose myself to the charge of using menace to enforce my arguments; but I shall not be deterred by any apprehension of this kind, for the truth cannot be told to the House without adopting the course I am now pursuing. I feel the conviction so strongly in my own mind, that the measure proposed to the House will be attended with pernicious consequences, that I

231
should betray my duty to the House, if I concealed from it the grounds on which that conviction has been formed; and therefore I shall go on, and explain the manner by which Ireland may, and I think will, become the scene of open rebellion. The population we know, from the census of 1821, was five years ago nearly seven millions: these millions do not live in villages, as the people of England do, perfectly obedient to the laws, under little other control than that of the parish constable; but they live hutted over the whole face of the country, free from almost all control and superintendence. These millions for the last thirty years, have been training from time to time, and from county to county, in all the practical courses of secret conspiracies and open insurrections! The sympathy of grievance and of religion, that is universal among them, forms a basis for carrying on, with effect, the most extensive schemes of popular organization. If any fixed determination to make a great popular effort should seize possession of their minds, in vain would the Catholic nobility, the Catholic lawyers, and even the Catholic clergy, exert their utmost endeavours to check them, and universal ruin and destruction must be the inevitable consequence of any such popular effort. But it is to take a superficial and erroneous view of the case, to argue it upon the actual existence of seven millions of people in Ireland. These millions are daily and rapidly increasing in numbers, probably at the rate of doubling in twenty-five or thirty years. In 1765 the population of Ireland may be taken at two millions, in 1795* it was four millions, and at this day, 1825, it cannot be less than eight millions.
There is no doubt that the census of 1821 was under the actual numbers. Every instance of an actual enumeration that has since taken place in any parish, has proved this to be the case. But even if the number were in 1821 only seven millions, the rate of annual increase on this number will, by the regular calculations in use on these subjects, make the population to be nearly eight millions. In America it has been ascertained beyond a doubt, by a series of censuses, that the population doubles in twenty-five years, and to judge from all appearances, and from the known
* See Population Returns, printed session 1824, p. 7.
232
progress it has made, it may be assumed that in Ireland it doubles in something about the same time. The existing eight millions in Ireland, at this rate of increase, will soon become ten, twelve, fourteen millions, growing up alongside of the population of England of fourteen millions, which increases only at a rate of doubling in fifty-one years. I submit therefore, to the House, whether these are not plain indisputable facts, that shew beyond all manner of doubt, the absolute necessity of attaching the people of Ireland to the government and laws of England, and, once for all, establishing on sound principles, a real union between the two countries. When I state to the House so strong an opinion of the danger of rebellion in Ireland I know I state only what is the current opinion of the best informed resident gentlemen of Ireland; it is no idle fancy of my own; I have been led to examine the question seriously and most deliberately, by finding when lately in Ireland, the conversation of all private society dwelling so much upon it. What happened in the year 1641 is constantly spoken of; comparisons are frequently drawn between the present state of the country, and the state of it immediately previous to the breaking out of the great rebellion of that year; and it has therefore become my duty as a representative of Ireland, to communicate to the House, the information that I have had the means of collecting, and my decided opinion upon it.
In the course of these discussions, the House has been told, that no increase of the army is necessary for Ireland. But the right hon. the chief secretary of Ireland will not say that this is the opinion of the members for Ireland. When lately there, I invariably found that the demand made upon government consisted of two parts, the first to put down the Association, the second to double the army. I venture to say, without any fear of being contradicted by any Irish member, that there is no second opinion in Ireland, in respect of the absolute necessity of doubling the army, if the Association is put down.
I have now gone through all the leading topics which belong to this case, and I feel, with some degree of confidence, that I have succeeded in refuting many of the arguments which have been urged by the right hon. the chief secretary of Ireland. I have shewn that the law proceedings

233
which the Catholic Association have carried on, have been completely justified by the circumstances of each case, and that the conduct of the Catholic barristers who have conducted them has been most praiseworthy. I have shewn that the right hon. gentleman committed many errors in the statement he made about the mode of collecting the Catholic rent, and the objects for which it was collected. I have shewn that every thing he has advanced in respect to the Catholic convention of 1793, and the Convention act of 1793, is quite contrary to historical facts. I have accounted for the alarms that existed at the end of last year, by shewing what the proceedings were of the Bible and Hibernian School Societies. If other honourable members will exert themselves, and make full use of the powers they possess, according to the forms of the House, to expose the true character of the proposed bill, I cannot help entertaining a strong hope, that it will never pass into a law. For every hour that shall pass away, and every speech that shall be made, will serve more and more to shew how utterly impolitic it is to interfere with the Catholic Association. I conclude, by again stating to the House, that this measure will be considered by the people of Ireland as an act of aggression. That it must lead to a succession of new violences and new measures of coercion, and that there can be no other termination to its destructive operation but insurrection and rebellion.
Mr. Leslie Fostersaid, he was anxious to avail himself of the earliest opportunity of expressing his opinion as to the conduct of an Association, which was at that moment exercising all the functions of parliament in Ireland [cries of "No, no"]. The House would see presently how that question stood. The members of the Association, had, he would admit, avoided the form, but they had secured all the reality of representation. They differed from other delegated bodies in this respect—that they inspired sentiments in those whom they represented, which were reflected back to themselves. They superadded to their legislative capacity the functions of the executive power, which were so wisely separated by the British constitution; and in this respect he agreed with an hon. member opposite, that they were unlike a regular parliament. It was true that they acted with an appearance of openness. They set apart one day in every week for open dis-
234
cussion; but the application of their immense pecuniary resources were settled by committees, whose proceedings were secret, whose debates were not reported, and who were in communication with large bodies of men in several parts of Ireland. The right hon. secretary for Ireland had detailed so many of the functions of parliament which they had assumed to themselves, that he felt it unnecessary to follow the same statement, in feebler terms, at that late hour of the night. But, the most alarming of all the powers they had assumed was that of taxation. As to its being voluntary, though the Association asserted that to be the case themselves, and though there were many who entertained the same opinion, he could not consider it in that light altogether. As far as he was informed, the proposal of the rent was received with great coldness in the first instance, by the peasantry, to whom it was proposed; but when the ministers of their religion gave them to understand, that some undefined benefit would result to the Catholic church from the levy, that unwillingness was overcome. What was at first involuntary, became afterwards not only voluntary, but highly desirable. The resources of the Association became thus strengthened and extended from week to week. Was it, he would ask, right that chapels dedicated to divine worship should thus become the weekly theatre of political discussion, and that, too, of discussions having such an irritating and inflammatory tendency? It was well known that the moment the rent was paid, an undue degree of confidence was excited in those who paid it. They imagined that they had done something which was to produce for them the most important political consequences. But, the evil was increased by this—that in proportion as the confidence of the Catholics seemed to increase, the apprehensions of the Protestants increased in the same undue degree. The effect was not merely to create a union amongst Catholics, but to beget a disunion between them and all other religious persuasions. The moment the rent began to be collected in a particular district, adieu to all good feeling in that neighbourhood between the professors of the two religions. The House had heard of Orange societies, and he for one did not approve of their existence. One effect of the proceedings of the Catholic Association was to make the Catholics

235
believe, that in uniting they were only leagueing against men who were leagued against them. This, however erroneous in principle, and mischievous in practice, would not be unnatural where bodies of Orangemen were known to exist; but, what was the effect of the general doctrine among the peasantry, in districts where Orange societies were scarcely known? It was well understood that the Orange societies were, for the greater part, confined to the north of Ireland. In the south they were little known, but the peasant who got access to the speeches of the Catholic Association, was led to impute to nearly the whole body of the Protestant clergy and magistracy, the self-same conduct which was condemned in the Orangemen; so that, in fact, to be a Protestant, was enough to have the party looked upon as an Orangeman. He would ask, whether it was right that an assembly should be suffered to exist, which, in its general conduct, and in the ordinary tone of its speakers, represented the whole Protestant population of Ireland as having hostile feelings towards their Catholic countrymen? One effect of such a body was, that while it contributed to unite the Catholics on one side, it tended also to the creation of opposite parties on the other. Was such a formation of parties, however much it might be deplored, at all surprising? He would mention one fact as illustrative of this feeling in Ireland; and it was a fact to which many members in that House could bear testimony. So lately as Christmas last, a report had been circulated of some plan on the part of the Catholics hostile to the safety of the Protestant population [hear, hear!]. He would admit that the report was wholly unfounded; but still it showed the ferment, and the state of irritation, into which the public mind was thrown by the proceedings of the Association. In a few days after the address of the Catholic Association was published, a rumour was spread, and generally believed, that some personal mischief was intended on a particular day against the Protestants; and, to such an extent did this belief prevail, that in several districts the whole of the Protestant male population remained up on the night in question, with arms in their hands, and those arms loaded. Was this a state of things which should be suffered to continue? Let the House only suppose, that on the night in question a cottage had accidentally got
236
on fire, what an effect might it not have produced? Might not a whole county be committed by the acts of one party, in what they would consider retaliation for a supposed attack on themselves? Yet, such might be no very improbable consequence of the present state of feeling in Ireland, where the character of an Orangeman was so undefined, or, rather, where it was so defined, as to be made applicable to a very large portion of the community. It was surely right to put an end to a system, under which the name of Orangeman, a name odious in that country, might be applied to any one, to himself, who was no Orangeman, amongst others, with a settled design of promoting hostility between the two great classes of the Irish community, which created hatred upon both sides, which awakened in one party an unfounded and artificial confidence, leading them to look forward to expectations that could never be realized, and in the other, as unfounded apprehensions. The feeling with which the great bulk of the population contributed their portion to the rent, was another matter worthy of consideration. It was, that the money so applied would be productive of great spiritual advantage to their church. It was this which produced the readiness to assist with their contributions, and which created that extensive confidence in those to whom they trusted the application of the money. In what manner were the Catholic clergy of Ireland supported? It was known that they were paid by the voluntary contributions of the great mass of the people: and that the amount thus paid was not less than 200,000 l. a-year. It was contributed in small portions, and no doubt from religious feelings. Acting upon this knowledge, the Association had determined to apply to the same persons, who were contributing to the support of their clergy, for money to advance their own projects. He would ask the House to reflect for a moment upon the alarming importance of such a proceeding. If those persons only added twenty-five per cent to their contributions for ecclesiastical purposes, they would have 50,000 l. a-year applicable to political objects. Was it right that so large a sum should be applied to such a purpose? Could such collections be called in strictness voluntary contributions? For the purposes to which the money was to be applied, it was almost immaterial whether the collection was voluntary or otherwise; but

237
undoubtedly it would be a mere play upon words to call this a voluntary contribution.—He had said thus much of the effect of the Association upon the peasantry. He would now say a word upon its consequences to the upper and middle classes of society. With respect to them, there appeared in the Association a bold spirit of penetration into the affairs of private life, which, in matters of public discussion, were usually spared, save only in periods of revolution. The landed proprietor who was believed to be hostile to the proceedings of the Association, was held up to general odium in every one of his public and private relations—his conduct, whether as father to son, as landlord to tenant, as neighbour to neighbour, or as host to guest. Inquiries were set on foot; rumours were adopted as evidence; some act of a reprehensible nature was selected, on the loosest authority; and the individual was denounced as a person who had abused his station in society. Was not that an intolerable state for any country to remain in? Was it not a calamitous circumstance, for any private individual to be brought thus injuriously before the public, to be held up in such a country, and at such a moment of exasperated feeling, as a tyrant and an enemy to the people?—Another objection to the system was the influence assumed by the Association of acting as returning-officer of Ireland, and dictating to the people who should be returned, and who should not, at any election that might take place. It was an alarming thing for a body with 50,000 l. a-year at their command, with religious opinions of the majority at their back, with a strong state of excitement to forward all their views—it was an alarming thing for such a body to assume to themselves the power of saying, this man shall be returned, and this man shall not. He remembered the outcry which was raised by some hon. gentleman opposite, against the Constitutional Association; but that body never pretended to such acts as those which the Catholic Association had adopted.—It was said that the Catholic Association had contributed materially to the present tranquillity of Ireland. He would confess that they had called upon the Catholics, in an address, to abstain from violent courses "until"—but that was an important until—until the question of the Catholic claims was decided in that House. But, though this address, had had some effect in pro-
238
ducing repose and silence, it was the silence of breathless expectation. He would leave it to the House to decide whether that was a sort of peace-making for which they ought to feel much obliged to the Association. It was one which generated a degree of heat and party-feeling not to be tolerated. Ireland, however, possessed at that moment, much better guarantees for her internal tranquillity. When they were all agreed as to the effect, it would not be amiss to inquire into the cause. The fact was, that since Ireland was a nation, her population never was more employed than at the present moment. It was unnecessary for him to go into details, but it was found that, in defiance of the menaces of captain Rock, British capital was daily infusing itself into that country, and the good effects of it were felt in every part of the island. These were seen not in one, but in many instances. It was only lately that many restrictions upon the trade of Ireland had been removed. With their removal her resources had increased. He would state a few facts to the House upon this point. Of all her rising manufactures, the most extensive was that of cotton. It was likely, in a few years, to equal the linen manufacture itself. It had been the former policy of this country to preserve to itself a monopoly of exports, shutting out Ireland from the market of the world; and it was not until 1822, that this system was changed with respect to cotton goods. The consequence was, as he should now state.—In 1821, not a yard of cotton was exported. In 1822, the first year in which the system was changed, 17,000 yards were exported; in 1823, 2,700,000; and in 1824, more than 6,000,000 yards. Such was the progress of their prosperity in one branch of trade. With respect to the linen manufacture, it was retiring from the north, and spreading over the south and west, where its benefits were strongly felt, and where it was daily increasing. In her distilleries, which afforded such a vent for the produce of her agriculture, there had been also a great improvement. Since the removal of the restrictions upon the export of Irish spirits, there had been an extraordinary increase in the quantity distilled. In a word, there never was a period when British capital was so generally and so successfully employed in that country. As to the periods of past disturbance, the troubles of 1822 were, in

239
fact, subsequent to, and consequent upon, the famine of 1821; so that they could furnish no substantial argument against the generally improved condition of the country, arising from permanent sources. Another of the causes of her present tranquillity was the excellent system upon which her police was now established. But, a main cause of this growing prosperity was the tithes' commutation law, from which the greatest benefits had resulted, since it had removed from the collection of this ecclesiastical incumbrance much of the uncertainty and ill-feeling that formally attended it. Grateful as he felt for the tranquillity at present enjoyed by Ireland, he was not indisposed to give the Catholic Association due credit for having been instrumental, in some degree, to that tranquillity. To that extent he gave it due credit; but not beyond that: and he must be permitted to add, that it was the only power in that kingdom which was capable of interrupting the tranquillity for which he felt so grateful. He meant not to impute to it any design of the kind; but, if their power were allowed to go on increasing and uninterrupted, the tenure by which the government would hold that portion of the empire would be the caprice of the Catholic Association. The question still remained, however: if they put an end to this Association, would they thereby cure the evil they sought to remedy? In all times, almost, a duplicate of parliament, of some sort or other, seemed to have been a favourite scheme with the Irish. In the year 1782, when the Volunteer Association was organized in Ireland, they convened a national convention at Dungannon. Gentlemen would see, if they consulted the parliamentary papers of that period, that the people who then returned representatives to the assembly in question were among the most intelligent portion of the Irish population, who, with muskets in their hands, exercised this elective franchise. The parties they returned were, for the most part, their colonels and officers, and merchants and men of substance; and they spoke of their House of Commons, as if it was an assembly of venal and profligate members, who were bartering their votes, and selling the independence of their country [hear, hear!]. This convention, thus constituted and thus returned, excited at the time—and naturally excited—a considerable feeling of alarm in the government;
240
and yet he would defy any body who heard him, to tell him what ultimately became of that convention. It subsided and disappeared, and no record of the immediate cause or manner of its disappearance was to be found. In 1793, a Convention was again summoned at Athlone; and though there was some question as to how far the Roman Catholics had been connected with the assembly at Dungannon, the Convention of Athlone was certainly of Protestant origin. In 1810, again, there was formed the celebrated Catholic Board. That was done away with after some state trials; but, in all these three instances, these assemblies had been reduced by the exertion of a proper and necessary firmness on the part of government. The learned gentleman concluded by recommending his majesty's government to encourage in every way the tranquillity that was springing up in Ireland. The House might conscientiously differ as to the best mode of treating this subject; but it was his firm persuasion, that if parliament would say to the people of Ireland; "We will protect you; we will take you out of the hands of the Association; we see the elements of peace in the country, they shall not be destroyed:" if parliament would hold this language, he was firmly persuaded, they would, at no very distant period, secure the permanent prosperity and tranquillity of that country.
Mr. John Williamssaid, he was convinced that, within his own moderate experience of parliament, there had never been a question of such vital importance to the Irish people, and indeed to the whole empire, as the present. And, if it had been necessary for those who thought with him to wait for the full development of the measure now proposed to the House—if it was not enough for them to know that the principle of that measure was vicious, and that no sort of composition or qualification could make amends for this defect in the principle of such a bill; it would certainly have been but reasonable for them to wait, and see whether the workmanship would surpass the material. But having recognised upon the face of the speeches which had been that evening made upon the subject, nothing which, could warrant a hope of such a kind; and not anticipating (for nothing had occurred that could warrant him to anticipate) any good from the old system of new legislation on one side, to meet the violence offered on the other—(though he

241
by no means admitted the violence to have been threatened, even, in his case)—not expecting any good result from the adoption of such a system, instead of the adoption on the part of government of such measures as might remove the causes of complaint that unhappily existed in the system of Irish government; having, in short, heard nothing that afforded any prospect of composing and conciliating Ireland, he, and those who thought with him, felt it necessary to take an early and decisive step, even in this stage of the question. And first he would ask, on what ground—under what pretences—was this enactment brought before the House? What was the object of all those endless details which had been entered into by the right hon. and the hon. gentlemen, with respect to the supposed excesses of the Roman Catholic Association? Upon what principle did those gentlemen call on the House to legislate upon this occasion? For, admitting—an admission that in the teeth of the speech of an hon. friend near him, he had no right to make—the tendency of this Association to those violent excesses that were imputed to it—to what did all the arguments of honourable gentlemen opposite tend? Whence did the excesses consequent on the disappointment of the Catholics arise, supposing those excesses to have been committed? Was there nothing to account for the severity of that disappointment? Had no expectations been held out to them? Was the promise, of which they claimed the fulfilment, a new one? Had the House of Commons never encouraged them by the result of its own votes to expect the boon they asked for? Was the grant of that boon never held out to them, even by the cabinet? Or had no portion of his majesty's ministers encouraged their hopes? Was it to be expected that men would, without a murmur, abide the cruel disappointment of those hopes, when that which was withheld from them had been, as it were, within their grasp; but when they who had once been their best friends turned round upon them, the very first time that their conduct was found out to have been not quite so strictly correct and proper as it ought to have been, and turned round, too—in a manner, somewhat equivocal he must say—to appeal for a justification of their altered sentiments to a feeling supposed to be cherished in Ireland—the existence of which feeling he strenuously, however, denied—and which
242
feeling the good sense of that House might at any time put down, without resorting to measures of so dangerous and reprehensible a kind as that which was now proposed? At all events, it was a feeling that must have been conjured up, only by this particular crisis, and would not be found to have any permanent existence in the country. But, was it right to take advantage of it, if it had been thus excited, to turn round upon the Catholic Association, and to treat them as ancient delinquents in the cause? The course that he was now taking, the conduct he was now recommending, he could illustrate and embellish by much greater and higher authority than any reasoning which he (Mr. W.) could bring to the subject; and that authority was furnished on no very distant occasion. The distinguished individual he was now alluding to, in that instance (a discussion happening in the year 1813), when also there was alleged discontent on the part of the Catholics,—when also "particular circumstances" existed (to use a phrase that was at all times employed, whenever it was wished to escape from a salutary measure),—when, also, there was a threatening appearance about the condition of Ireland—after noticing that it was harsh and uncharitable to notice the conduct of the Roman Catholics under their disappointments with too much nicety or rigour, delivered this sentence:—"Sir, it appears to me most unfair to visit on the Roman Catholics the opinions and the conduct of such public assemblies as profess to act for them"[hear, from Mr. Canning]. He rejoiced to hear that cheer from the right hon. gentleman; for he rejoiced in supposing that the right hon. gentleman came into this opinion of his right hon. and learned friend (Mr. Plunkett) on the present occasion. He hoped that the House would find by his speech of that night, that they should have the accession of his powerful support to the other opinions which he (Mr. W.) was now about to cite from the same eloquent authority. The speech went on thus:—"If they labour under a real and a continued grievance, and one which justifies, on their part, a continued claim, they muse act through the medium of popular assemblies, and must of course be exposed to all the inconveniences which attend discussion in such assemblies. In all such places, we know that unbounded applause attends the man who occupies the extreme

243
positions of opinion, and that the extravagance of his expression of such opinion, will not be calculated to diminish it. That there may be many individuals anxious to promote their own consequence, at the expense of the party whose interests they profess to advocate, is an evil inseparable from such a state of things; and amongst those who sincerely wish to promote the interests of the cause, much may fairly be attributed to the heat naturally generated by long-continued opposition; much to the effects of disappointed hope; much to the resentment excited and justified by insolent and virulent opposition. But, Sir, I should unworthily shrink from my duty, if I were not to avow my opinion, that the unfortunate state of the public mind in Ireland is, above all things, imputable to the conduct of the government." Now, what was the conduct of the government in that particular? The holding out delusive hopes that were not meant to be realized, and giving it to be understood, that they considered the question of Catholic emancipation to be really a vital question, affecting the best interests of the empire; demonstrating, apparently, this conviction from time to time, by majorities of that House; and at the same time not carrying the measure distinctly to its end; but, on the contrary, when some opportunity had been offered by the resentment of the parties who were smarting and suffering under the delay of justice, severely visiting them for their irritation. They said to the Catholics, "Your conduct should have been more peaceable—more circumspect." Whether this forbearance was in man—whether it was naturally to be expected under such circumstances, he (Mr. W.) would not stop to inquire; but, in point of fact, this was very like saying to the Irish Catholics, "If you are not more than men in your conduct, we will not help you?" For parliament to be hesitating and dividing upon the only question that affected any portion of the present peace and happiness of the empire—to be from time to time exciting expectations from one side of the cabinet, and daunting them from the other, was neither more nor less than to deceive them by holding out delusive hopes, the disappointment of which must excite their discontent, unless they were gifted with feelings superior to those of ordinary men. Still further to support his own argument, he had been diligent to fortify himself, by collecting the opinions
244
of great men who had gone before them, some of whom might even then be present to hear their own speeches cited; and if they were, they could hear none better. The right hon. and learned Attorney-General for Ireland, would be immediately recognized in the observations he was about to read. Those observations had been made by him, when speaking on that precise subject which afforded the only shadow of a shade that could operate as a reason for this interference on the part of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Goulburn)—he meant the supposed spirit of discontent that the Catholic Association would have a tendency, as it was said, to foster. The passage in question was this:—Sir, I must say that Ireland has not been fairly dealt with. It is the bounden duty of the government to make up their minds, and to act a consistent part. If this measure be utterly inadmissible, expectation should be put down by the certainty of rejection; resentment should be allayed by the clear exposition of the necessity which bars; the fever of the public mind should be subdued, and all the means of conciliation, consistent with such a system, should be resorted to. If, on the other hand, this claim may and ought to be acted on, it should be frankly received, and honestly forwarded; every facility for its accomplishment should be afforded, by tempering and directing the proceedings of those who seek it; by suggesting the conditions and terms on which it should be granted; and by arranging the details, as well as by planning the outlines of such a system. But, how can any honest mind be reconciled to the ambiguity in which the cabinet has concealed itself from public view on this great national question; or with what justice can they complain of the madness which grows out of this fever of their own creating? This is not one of those questions which may be left to time and chance; the exclusion of millions from the rights of-citizenship is either a flagrant injustice, or its necessity springs out of the sacred fountains of the constitution. This is no subject of compromise. Either the claim is forbidden by some imperious principle too sacred to be tampered with, or it is enjoined by a law of reason and justice, which it is oppression to resist. In ordinary cases it sounds well to say that a question is left to the unbiassed sense of parliament and people; but, that a measure of vital importance, and which has

245
been again and again discussed by all his majesty's ministers, should be left to work its own course, and suffered to drift along the tide of parliamentary or popular opinion, seems difficult to understand—that government should be mere spectators of such a process is novel; but, when it is known that they have all considered it deeply, and formed their opinions decidedly in direct opposition to each other, that after this they should consult in the same cabinet, and sit on the same bench, professing a decided opinion in point of theory, and a strict neutrality in point of practice—that on this most angry of all questions, they should suffer the population of the country to be committed in mutual hostility, and convulsed with mutual rancour, aggravated by the uncertainty of the event, producing, on the one side, all the fury of disappointed hope, on the other side malignity and hatred, from the apprehension that the measure may be carried, and insolence from every circumstance, public, or private, which tends to disappoint or to postpone it; one-half of the king's ministers encouraging them to seek, without enabling them to obtain—the other half sub divided; some holding out an ambiguous hope, others announcing a never-ending despair. I ask, is this a state in which the government of the country has a right to leave it?" [Loud cheers]. If he (Mr. W.) were called upon to answer this grave question, he should answer "No." He should say, that to waste any longer portion of time in dividing and cavilling on the only point that could seriously affect the present peace of the country, would be to surrender the best interests of the country. That delay was one cause—indeed the only cause—of the excitement of public feeling in Ireland; if such excitement existed. But, as long as this sort of hesitation and reluctance was to prevail, what was to be expected in Ireland but that fever, that sort of heart-burning, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded? What was to be the consequence of this measure? Did ministers imagine that if by means of it they could succeed in putting down the Roman Catholic Association, they would succeed in putting down all other organs of complaint? No. A remedy for the grievances of Ireland must be given—a radical cure for her disease must be furnished. Never let it be supposed, that if this bill should pass (which God avert!) it would ever be of any use
246
in the kingdom of Ireland. To give it any effect, force—military force—must be employed. And upon this single principle, the proposed enlargement of our army was intelligible enough [hear, hear]. If this was not to be the case, why then it would remain on the Statute-book as one additional penal law against Ireland; and it must prove a mere brutum fulmen. He was not a little surprised, when the hon. and learned member (Mr. Foster) was tracing the Irish history, that he should have omitted the remarkable peculiarity that, on all occasions, public peace had attended concessions, and violence followed oppression. He would remind the hon. and learned gentleman, that in the year 1777, when the French fleet stood in the Channel, the Irish made a demand for help. The English government said, "We cannot help you, but we can give you an act of parliament;" and accordingly, an act of parliament was passed, which contains almost all the concessions made to the Catholics; and, so grateful was that grateful nation that, immediately after, 20,000 men were voted for the navy But, that was not all. The volunteers of Ireland, 50,000 strong, assumed, in 1782, a truly-menacing aspect; for they deliberated with arms in their hands. Yet, the hon. member forgot what became of them. He would supply the information. The Irish volunteers were quieted by the recognition of the independence of the country. In 1783, these volunteers attempted to renew the Convention, and submitted to parliament a plan of reform; but the proposition was rejected, on the ground that it had originated elsewhere. Their claims were then silenced: they died on that very day, and never assembled after. Were ministers alone, of all men living, never to profit by experience? Reference had been made to Mr. Burke, and to his opinions; and the Stamp-act had been mentioned. He thought that a strong instance in his favour. When the Stamp-act was repealed, what was the consequence? Why, that order and tranquillity had followed in the train of conciliation as a matter of course. Why should Ireland be different in that respect from other countries? Was there any country, whose people were more grateful or more generous? He answered, no, there was none; and, if that answer was correct, why should they alone require penal enactments to govern them, instead of being ruled by mild and gentle mea-

247
sures? Why should not government take advantage of their kind and generous disposition as a people, and give them justice, and so disarm opposition? If any among them entertained hostile feelings towards the government, they would be disarmed when the cause of their complaints was taken away. His objection to the measure was preliminary, and he might say radical. He thought that to adopt it, was beginning at the wrong end, and that government did not so much want support as direction and reformation. They should act rightly, in order to obtain the welfare of the people; they should not pass penal enactments against the people, when conciliation would effect what penal enactments could never produce. He was persuaded that this was not the act of the monarch, who, when unfettered by his ministers, had shewn, with respect to another portion of his empire, that he was ready to do what was necessary for their benefit. The gentlemen who introduced this measure was incurring a heavy responsibility; the safety of the empire might depend upon it; the feelings and happiness of thousands were concerned in it; and he did think that, before it had been introduced, those gentlemen should have given it more consideration than they seemed to have bestowed upon the subject.
Mr. Secretary Peelrose to state a few of those grave considerations by which his vote of that night would be directed. He would first notice an argument that had been made use of, in the course of this discussion, by an hon. member, the effect of which, if it were well founded, would be to take away from government, or from parliament rather, all right of interference in the case of associations that might be deemed illegal. The hon. gentleman had expressly said, "he would not vindicate the acts of the Catholic Association; he thought them to be, in many respects; indefensible, and he could not stand forward as their advocate". But still that hon. gentleman conceived, that the hands of the House were tied up—that these people laboured under such a grievance, as took from the House all right of interference with their proceedings; those proceedings being admitted, by the hon. gentleman himself, to be indefensible. Why, if this were so, there was an end of all their deliberations in that House, on this or on any other subject. If that doctrine was to prevail, it must follow that
248
the subjects of this country, if they should imagine themselves to be suffering under a grievance of this or any other kind, might resort to unconstitutional measures for their redress; which measures, however, parliament could not interpose to check, until those grievances should have been first removed. Now, he maintained, that from the moment parliament recognized such a doctrine as this, they would abdicate their legislative functions altogether. It seemed necessary to approach this argument in the first place, before he proceeded to any other observations; for if the principle were once accepted, where was its application to terminate? Where were these Associations to end? There were many persons who considered the representation of the people in parliament to be so bad and imperfect, that a large portion of the people were deprived of their rights. Now, that might be considered a grievance, and a grievance of a very heavy kind; and, if the argument he had alluded to was to be admitted, why might not the country expect an Association for the purpose of obtaining parliamentary reform [cries of hear, hear!]? What would be the consequence of such a system he knew not; but he called upon the hon. gentlemen, who expressed by their cheers their willingness to have such Associations, that if they admitted the principle in one case, they must expect Associations for the removal of every real or supposed grievance; and if parliament should afterwards think of putting an end to them, the answer would be, that the subjects of the country, and not its legislature, were the proper judges of those grievances, and of the propriety of the measures to be taken to redress them. That, however, was not his reading of the law. He conceived parliament to be the sole constitutional judge of these matters, and if the parliament thought a law ought to be continued, those who fancied themselves aggrieved by it must not resort to unconstitutional measures to procure its abolition. They might petition—they might represent their grievances to parliament, and their petitions and representations would be taken into consideration; but parliament would abandon its duty, if it allowed any body of men to act independently of its authority, and only according to their own free pleasures. He claimed the right of parliament to act as it should think fit, if it should deem the Catholic Association, or any other of the

249
same sort, at variance with the principles of the constitution.—He should consider this Association in two ways—as a political body, and as a body interfering with the administration of public justice. He should first consider it as a body interfering with the administration of public justice. In doing this he should follow the example of the hon. and learned member who spoke last, and should cite the authorities of eminent men—of men to whose opinions he should always pay respect, and whose sentiments, though expressed on another subject, applied with peculiar force to the present. He should first cite their opinions as referring to Associations, in the character of societies for the prosecution of offenders. These societies had lately been very much before the public, and had been the subject of considerable discussion in that House. To one especially he should refer. It was denominated by its own supporters, "the Constitutional Association;" but it was termed by the advocates of extreme decency and gentleness and moderation, both in act and language, on the other side of the House—"the Bridge-street Gang"[a laugh!]. It would be no answer to him to say, that this society had not been suppressed by the government. Such an argument was at no time conclusive; but, in the present instance, if it should be used, it would be peculiarly inapplicable. At least, it would not have the smallest application to him. He was no member of the society—he had never lent the authority of his office to the society; but though he had done none of these things, yet, he must say, that he thought there was a marked distinction between the Constitutional and the Catholic Associations; and that every argument which had been considered applicable to the Constitutional Association would apply with tenfold force to the Catholic Association. But following the example of the hon. and learned gentleman, who had just resumed his seat, and wishing to embellish his speech by the eloquent opinions of greater men than himself—by the sentiments of greater authorities—to whom he should introduce, not merely general observations, but principles applicable to all times; and he should leave it to the House to say, whether they did not peculiarly apply to the present question. The first quotation would be from the hon. member who made the motion with respect to the Constitutional As-
250
sociation; and he need not hesitate to give that hon. gentleman's name; for it was one, dear, he was sure, to every friend of liberty, and one that he could not mention without that feeling of respect which was due to the private character and public consistency of a man from whose political opinions, however, and from the whole tenour almost of whose public life, he had the misfortune entirely to differ—he meant Mr. Whitbread [hear, hear]. The hon. member for Middlesex had said, when speaking of the Constitutional Association, that he had always observed, even in the transactions of private life, that individuals acting collectively would openly avow proceedings which, in their individual character, they would have been ashamed to acknowledge. He did not pretend to any deep knowledge of the law, but he would contend that the Association was formed against the common law of the land, and in opposition to the act of Maintenance. That act was passed to prevent oppression; and he thought that subscribing to prosecute individuals at the suit of the king, came under the description of Maintenance, and within the contemplation of the act."* The hon. member for Middlesex was of opinion, therefore, that such societies were contrary to the act of Maintenance. He did not know whether the Roman Catholic Association of Ireland were aware of this act or not: but he contended, that if this doctrine was true, whatever might be the object of such a confederacy, it came within the meaning of that act; and that parliament was bound, at any rate, to provide a bill that should remedy such an evil. But, he would now resort to legal authorities, which on such a subject must be considered as entitled to greater weight than any others. From among the legal authorities, the opinion he should first cite was that of an erudite civilian. He did not mean, however, to confine himself to gentlemen learned in the civil law alone. He should take the opinions of men engaged in all the branches of the law, but should commence with the learned civilian, who, as a member of that House, had expressed his opinion on these Associations. That learned doctor (Lushington) had commented with great force on the difficulty which would be imposed upon persons, if they were maliciously
* See Vol. V. p. 1488 of the present series.

251
prosecuted, in afterwards obtaining compensation in damages for the injury they had sustained. Now, suppose the soldier, whose case had recently been mentioned, should commence an action for a malicious prosecution, would he not lie under those difficulties to which the learned civilian had referred? He afterwards said, that "if counter-associations should be resorted to, nothing but dissention and ill-will would be seen, instead of that peace and quiet to which the country was so anxiously looking."* Would not any person who heard these remarks, without the observations with which they had been introduced, suppose they had been made in the course of the present debate upon the Catholic Association? Certainly they would; and, in fact, nothing could be clearer than their application to this subject. He would now resort to the opinion of those who were distinguished ornaments of the profession of the common law. He would first of all take the opinion of an individual who now, with great credit to himself and benefit to the country, presided occasionally as a judge in one of our courts of justice. He alluded to the common serjeant (Mr. Denman). The opinion of that learned person was, that "the great objection to the Constitutional and all similar associations was, that they could not exist without becoming a seminary for spies and informers". The case of the soldier which has just been alluded to by his right hon. friend, who had been proved innocent, not by the verdict of a jury merely, but by the unanimous decision of a bench of forty-three magistrates differing widely in religious and political sentiments, proved beyond dispute that the proceedings of the Catholic Association had given rise to an innumerable swarm of spies and informers. That soldier had nearly fallen a victim to the artifices of such miscreants; and thus experience proved, that when Associations were formed of such a nature as that whose demerits they were now considering, the prediction of the common serjeant must instantly be realised. The learned gentleman had gone on to say, that "as to the formation of a counter-association, nothing could be more injurious to the administration of public justice than for two parties to be constantly running a race with each other, endeavouring to pour their several friends into the
* See Vol. V. p. 1491.
252
jury-box, and thus to gain a triumph over the law."* Now, if all the Catholics of Ireland were subscribers to the Catholic Association, and if other Associations were to be formed to counteract its proceedings, there would undoubtedly be a constant endeavour, in both parties, to pour into the jury-box their several friends, and thus to obtain over the law that triumph which the common serjeant had so clearly predicted—he now approached the authority of the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) who was considered as the political leader of the other side of the House. His opinion was quite as strong as that of the other respectable authorities he had quoted; and was the more valuable as it furnished him with an answer to an objection which, in all probability, would that evening be produced. He had no doubt he should be followed in the debate by those who would ask him "how is it that you, who approved of the Constitutional Association, are now so eager to repress the Catholic Association?" The first answer he would give to that question would be this—"the two associations are very different." He was sorry to be diverted from the point on which he had just been going to address the House, but he thought a fit opportunity was now offered to him of pointing out the broad distinction which existed between these two celebrated Associations. It might, perhaps, be only right in him to state, that he had never been either directly or indirectly a member of the Constitutional Association; and that he never would be a member of any such Association, unless that occurred, which he had no right, even for the sake of argument, to suppose would occur; namely, that government should obstinately refuse to the subject the protection it owed him. He never, he repeated it, would be a member of any Association which interfered with the functions of the executive government, and which volunteered the duties which the constitution appointed efficient and responsible officers to discharge. He would now repeat that these two Associations differed from each other, upon grounds which it was utterly impossible for any man of sense to confound. For instance, he thought that the Constitutional Association, supposing a murder to have been committed, would never have published an ex-parte state-
*Ibid p. 1493.

253
ment of the evidence by which it was to be proved; and sure he was, that they would never have got together a band of spies and informers to prove the commission of a murder which had never been committed. Yet, all this had been done under the influence of the Catholic Association. So that there was the widest distinction between the two societies; the one limiting its prosecutions to the case of blasphemous and seditious libels, and the other extending them to the highest offences known to the law—the neglect of magistrates to perform their duties, and the commission of crimes as atrocious as murder.—But to return to the opinion of the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea. That hon. and learned gentleman had said, that "in his opinion, a man might with perfect consistency approve of the other societies alluded to incidentally, and yet disapprove of that under the notice of the House; as the distinction between them was as clear as possible. Some offences were, and ought to be prosecuted, though many a man would feel a repugnance at having his name mentioned in the same line with such an offence, even as its prosecutor. The argument drawn from the societies to prosecute for thefts could not apply to the present Association. How was it possible that a man's feelings could be so interested in the case of a theft, as they would be upon a question purely political? Party feeling would interfere, and even the jury become contaminated with it, by the encouragement of such a society as this. The remedy proposed would be an aggravation of the mischief; for, as had been well-observed, it would lead to the pollution of the very fountain of justice." The hon. and learned gentleman had in these words expressly described the case of the Catholic Association. It prosecuted for offences which, in their nature, were purely political; and by so doing, tainted the administration of public justice. They took upon themselves legal functions—they sent agents into the country to prosecute for political offences, and from that moment they tainted the administration of justice. The hon. and learned gentleman then proceeded:—"The society was, in fact, evidently erected for party purposes—to punish libels on one side, and, if not to encourage, at least to leave untouched all those on the other. For these reasons, he considered it dangerous that such a society
254
should exist; and if any thing could increase his abhorrence of it, it was the sort of defence by which it was endeavoured to be sustained."* With this language he fully concurred. If any thing could increase—he would not say his abhorrence, but—his alarm, at this Association, it was the ground upon which he had that night heard it defended. He was sure it would be gratifying to the friends of government, to hear such sound principles advocated by the other side of the House; especially as they were so strictly applicable to the Catholic Association [hear].—He should now advert to what had fallen from another hon. and learned gentleman on the other side, the member for Peterborough (Mr. Scarlett). That hon. and learned gentleman was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the court of King's-bench, and, from the rank he held in his profession, as well as from the respectability of his private character, was entitled to have the opinions which he stated in that House on points of law viewed with the most profound attention. The hon. and learned member for Peterborough went even further than any of his learned colleagues. He said, that "he could not concur with his hon. and learned friend in pronouncing this society to be legal: he thought it usurped the functions of the attorney-general, in whose hands prosecutions for political offences were vested by the government, and where he thought the discretion of instituting them would be exercised with more coolness than this society was likely to use on such subjects. Any set of men arrogating to themselves such a power of prosecuting for political offences, assumed an unconstitutional power, which he considered dangerous, and which he could not easily be persuaded was legal. He meant to pronounce no conclusive opinion until he had all the acts before him."† Having, then, these concurrent opinions from the other side of the House, that an Association founded upon such principles, though it perhaps might be legal, was at any rate unconstitutional; that its proceedings were not merely dangerous to the tranquillity of the country, but fatal to the impartial administration of justice—seeing that all the arguments which applied to the Constitutional Association applied with still greater force to the Catholic Association
* Ibid. p. 1496.
† Ibid. p. 1499.

255
—had he not, he would ask, gone a great way to prove that the House ought not to reject, he would not say the measure, but the consideration of a measure, which was calculated to apply a remedy to an evil of which he was sure that scarcely one man in ten would seriously deny the existence?—He was now discussing the operation of the Catholic Association, as it affected the administration of justice in Ireland; and he therefore called the attention of the House to what he deemed a most important consideration. He ought, perhaps, to have stated, that the discussion, in which the opinions which he had just read had been advanced by the hon. and learned gentlemen opposite, occurred previously to the discussion which afterwards took place in the court of King's-bench respecting the legality of the Constitutional Association. Now, let the House mark how that discussion bore upon the present question. In the year 1821, the present lord mayor of London was one of the sheriffs of London and Middlesex. A prosecution had been instituted by the Constitutional Association against Dolby, for editing a seditious or a blasphemous libel. The sheriff Mr. Garratt who had been a subscriber to that Association, had returned the panel from which the jury who were to try the indictment were to be chosen. A challenge was accordingly made to the array. It was objected to this challenge by the sheriff that he had withdrawn from the Association, and that he had publicly declared so in a letter he had written to its secretary at the time of his being elected sheriff. That was afterwards proved to be fact; and yet, notwithstanding, the Court held that he was disqualified from performing the duty of returning the jury. Nay more; in the course of the trial, a question was submitted to triers appointed by the Court; and on its being attempted to examine him as a witness, the Court ruled, that he could not be admitted as a witness because he was not unindifferent. Now, supposing Mr. Garratt had been in the situation of a grand juror, would not the same objection of unindifferency have also applied to him? He believed that a challenge against him on that ground would have held good; at any rate, it would have applied to him as a common juror, for the court of King's-bench, upon application being made to it, had ordered the attorney of the Association to afford the defendant a
256
list of its members, in order that all of them who were returned upon the jury list might be struck out of it [hear, hear]. Now, he would call upon the House to apply this rule to the Catholic Association. Was not every Catholic who had subscribed even one farthing to this Association disqualified, on account of his unindifferency, from sitting as a juror on any prosecution which it might institute? Was not the very fact of his subscription a proof of his unindifferency? They had been told that evening, that every peasant in Ireland was a member of the Catholic Association. If this were so, was not justice likely to be tainted in its administration, when nearly every person who was qualified to sit upon a common jury was disqualified by his own act? Was not a system which gave rise to such inconvenience, neutralizing and rendering null the various benefits which parliament had recently conferred upon the Catholics of Ireland? Parliament had recently enabled them to act as jurors and grand jurors; and yet here was an act of their own body, which set them aside as jurors, if they had subscribed one farthing to the Catholic rent [hear!]. He knew not what answer could be given to this argument; but if it were well founded, it appeared to give to the House a decided right of interference on this most important and interesting subject. He called upon the House to consider the consequences to which a continuation of the present system was likely to lead in populous parts of the country, where the rent was regularly paid. Suppose an offence which involved a party question and enacted party animosity came on for trial, in what a situation would the Court be placed? How could a panel be formed of parties perfectly indifferent? Nay, the evil which he was now pointing out to their attention had actually occurred. His right hon. friend had detailed two instances: and the hon. baronet who had replied to him, thought that he had given his right hon. friend a very triumphant answer, when he had told him that they were but two. Now, his right hon. friend had mentioned these two instances, merely as a specimen of what was now going forward in Ireland: he did not say that he could not have furnished the House with two hundred similar instances. The objection was not to the evil in any particular case, but to the taint which it cast upon the administration of justice [hear,

257
hear]. The hon. baronet had also undertaken the defence of the Association against his right hon. friend, and in such a strain, that if there was any truth in his argument, the powers of the Association, instead of being diminished, ought to be increased. To show, however, the extent of the nuisance which this Association caused, he would read to the House an extract from one of the Irish newspapers which had last arrived. It appeared from it, that at a meeting of the Catholic Association on Wednesday last, a gentleman, to whom it had been referred, made a report on the case of John Cahill, and the rev. Allan Cavendish. He did not know whether he might be wrong or not in so doing, but he must ever protest against the principle on which these reports were made. This Association, be it known to the House, had appointed a committee to report upon the conduct of a magistrate, who, if the report were unfavourable, would afterwards be put upon his trial at its expense. Would any man rise in that House, be the conduct of Mr. Cavendish what it might, to vindicate the propriety of such a proceeding? Here was a body with large funds at its disposal, which it expended in instituting an inquiry previous to trial, and which brought in its report declaratory of the party's guilt or innocence, before it even placed him upon his trial. In the present instance, the committee had even done more than make a report declaring the guilt of Mr. Cavendish; for the conclusion it had come to was this—that a memorial should be presented to the lord-lieutenant on the subject of that gentleman's improper and illegal conduct. Nay, more. The gentleman who brought in the report actually moved, that the action in the case of Cahill should be defended at the expense of the Association, and also that a petition should be presented to parliament praying that Mr. Cavendish should be removed, as being an unfit person to act as magistrate. The Association, if its aim were justice, might at least have postponed the petition to parliament till after the conclusion of the judicial inquiry. But no—at the self same moment the associators published the memorial which they presented to the lord-lieutenant, and sent the magistrate to trial, not only with the disadvantage of a previous condemnation, but also with the disadvantage of having it known that a petition was to be presented to parliament
258
against him, for what he had done as a magistrate. He had no means of knowing any thing of the merits of this transaction except from a letter of the earl of Donoughmore on the subject, which a gentleman had read to the Association. Here Mr. Peel read lord Donoughmore's letter, in which he declared, that as governor of the county he had examined into the charges made against Mr. Cavendish, and had found them groundless! that he had transmitted 14 folio pages of depositions which he had taken during the examination to the lord chancellor, who had not only acquitted Mr. Cavendish upon them of the charges adduced against him, but had also applauded his conduct on the very grounds intended to criminate him, and that he considered the further persecution of this excellent gentleman to be an act of oppression on the part of the Association. Now, when such was the opinion of a nobleman who had always been friendly to the Catholics, of the nature of their conduct, was it possible that the gentlemen of Ireland would undertake the duties of the magistracy, if they were to be liable to such attacks in the performance of them? For the vindication of the magistracy—for the maintenance of the laws—for the impartial administration of justice—he called upon the House to consider of the propriety of applying some remedy to that which he trusted he had now indisputably proved to be a most afflicting evil [loud cheers!].—He did not think it necessary to detain the House any further, with regard to the proceedings of the Catholic Association in corrupting the administration of justice. He would therefore next call to their recollection the political nature of this imposing body; and in doing so, he must beg their attention to a few facts. Here was a body which had now been in existence for more than a year, under the pretence of preparing a Catholic petition to parliament. That body imitated, or, he should rather say, travestied, all the proceedings of that House—a matter of little importance in itself, but which, combined with others, assumed a certain degree of consequence. It separated in summer as the House of Commons did. It met again in the month of October. The hon. baronet had told them, that when he was in Ireland in September, he found the country perfectly tranquil; but he had forgotten to mention a slight fact that was not, however, unim-

259
portant; namely, that the Catholic Association was not then sitting. The hon. baronet had likewise told them that he had returned to it in November, when he found the inhabitants arming in defence of their lives and property, and an alarm prevailing amongst all classes, which was evidently unfounded and exaggerated. The hon. baronet had here also forgot to mention another slight circumstance which was not wholly unimportant; namely, that on his return he found the Catholic Association sitting—that it had been sitting ever since the 16th of October—and that its schemes, which had then been six weeks in operation, had produced all the alarm which the hon. baronet had so strongly deprecated. The hon. baronet, however, had disregarded this cause of the alarm which agitated Ireland from its inmost centre, and had attributed it to another, which was perfectly ridiculous—the presence of the Bible missionaries in Ireland. The strange notion which the hon. baronet had formed upon this subject, recalled forcibly to his mind a fable of very ancient date, though of uncertain origin. In this fable it was represented, that a great pestilence had fallen on the beasts, and that they had a congress, or perhaps an association, to deliberate into the cause of it. The lion, the tiger, and the other animals who delighted in blood, all asserted that they could have nothing to do with the cause of it; but having discovered that an ass had eaten of a thistle on the Sabbath, they agreed, with the utmost unanimity, that the ass must have been the animal that had called down the anger of Heaven, and therefore sacrificed him to appease its vengeance. The hon. baronet reminded him strongly of this fable of the ass, when he attributed the alarm of Ireland to the missionary wanderings of captain Gordon and Mr. Noel [a laugh!]. Did the hon. baronet recollect that at that very time the Association had published the address which had since been so often quoted? Could he find nothing in that address more alarming than the presence of captain Gordon? Could he find nothing in it to excite alarm in the breast of every Protestant, when he found the Catholics adjured to unanimity by their hatred to Orangemen? Could that phrase of Orangemen be confined to the mere illegal associations which were so called, or was it not as notorious as the sun at noon-day, that by it all the Protestants of Ireland
260
were designated? When such phrases were used, was there not a cause for the alarm which existed very naturally, though in a very exaggerated degree, throughout the whole of Ireland? This body, he also begged the House to observe, had a complete organization throughout the country. He did not mean to say that this organization was for the purposes of mischief; but this he had a right to say—that it was calculated to excite suspicion. The spirit of our constitution was founded upon suspicion; and he had a right to assume it likely that this body, though it might not intend evil at present, might be turned to it at some future period. This body had its agent in every parish, and its correspondent in every town. Their intentions might be good, but with such machinery, how easily might they be converted into a political engine of the greatest mischief? The hon. baronet had told them, that all their precautions to put it down would be unavailing. He had said, "Abstain from all legislative measures: this nuisance, if nuisance it be, will speedily abate of itself. I have the authority of a Catholic clergyman high in their confidence to say that they only want to raise a small sum in order to give a contradiction to some taunt of lord Liverpool." He did not know whether the hon. baronet, though he repeated, believed the story of his informant: but, at any rate, he must remind the hon. baronet, that it was directly in the teeth of the proclamation published by the Association itself. In that proclamation they declared it to be their intention to raise 40,000 l. or 50,000 l. a year. Of this sum 5,000 l. was to be employed in controlling or enlightening, as they called it, the public press of England. Another 5,000 l., and they were very liberal in their votes, was to be applied to the preparing petitions to parliament. Now, he hoped that the subscribers would demand a rigorous account of the expenditure of this money; for they ought to be informed, that petitions to parliament cost nothing but the parchment on which they were written, and could be transmitted free of expense to any member whom they selected to present them. Then, part of it was to be expended in paying an agent in England. Another 5,000 l. in sending priests to North America, and another 5,000 l. for the conversion of their haughty and heretical neighbours in England. If the contribution of one farthing a-piece from

261
each Catholic in Ireland enabled the Association to raise such large sums, surely there was ground enough laid for the interference of the House. Was it not a fit subject for its jealousy, when it was found that it had instituted committees of finance, of grievance, and of education? The assumption of such powers was, in his opinion, inconsistent with public liberty, and ought therefore to be put down without delay. The House was accustomed to admire the popular part of our constitution; and justly, for the checks by which it was guarded were extremely wise. It held its deliberations under the will of the Crown, which could be suspended by it at any moment. No such check existed upon the Catholic Association; which held its meetings in no definite place, and was free from all control as to their time or duration. The House never instituted a criminal prosecution without great precaution, and always with and by the consent of the Crown, to which it previously sent an Address. The House, too, always guarded against bearing down an individual by its weight: but, no such scruple existed in the members of the Catholic Association; it was under no control as to the prosecutions it instituted, and even went deliberately to create prejudices against the accused, by distributing ex-parte statements of the evidence to be produced against him. In that House they were not accustomed to vote away money to individuals, without a committee being appointed to examine into his claims to remuneration. The Catholic Association, on the contrary, voted away money at will, without any restrictions, and thus arrogated to itself powers which were possessed by no other body in the country. What would be the consequence of establishing the principles on which it was founded?—the establishment of counter-associations in all directions, by individuals for their own protection. The country would, in consequence, be filled with dismay, confusion, and anarchy; for if parliament would not provide protection for individuals, it might be taken as a certain truth, that individuals would very soon provide it for themselves. It appeared therefore to him, both with reference to the political mischief and the corruption in the administration of justice which this association was calculated to create, that the House was bound to apply the remedy which his right hon. friend had that evening proposed. He had too
262
good an idea of the supremacy of the British parliament to think, that it would require the triple military force predicted by the hon. baronet to carry it into effect. He had too good an idea of his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects to think that they would place themselves, on account of it, in opposition and defiance to the government; but, be that as it might, he considered that sufficient had been shown to justify that government in applying the remedy which his right hon. friend had pointed out to it.
Mr. Denmanrose amid loud cries of "Adjourn." After apologizing for presenting himself to the notice of the House at that late hour, he said that he had been so far misled by vanity as to suppose, that the argument which ministers attempted to derive from the Constitutional Association had been completely disposed of on a former evening. As that argument, however, had now made its second appearance, he would promise, if he was not able to give it two or three more decisive answers, to give his vote for the right hon. gentleman's proposition; which he conceived to be full of danger to the country, and to be such as would cover the House with disgrace, if it obtained its sanction. The right hon. gentleman had referred, and with great kindness, to the manner in which he (Mr. Denman) had expressed himself three years ago on the Constitutional Association. At that time the Constitutional Association had been three years in existence, and its proceedings and actions were well known to the public. Did that Association meet to repel attacks made on itself? or to complain of the unequal administration of justice among its own members? or to volunteer the office of attorney-general, and undertake the prosecution of various state offences? On the contrary they acted as if the attorney-general was either blind, or negligent of, or inadequate to his duty; and thinking themselves very superior persons, when, in point of fact, they were very inferior ones, instituted a series of jobs, which they called prosecutions against individuals for offences, for which, if they had been guilty, they ought to have been attacked by the attorney-general with ex-officio informations. The Catholic Association, on the contrary, subscribed only to prosecute those who had injured Catholics, and to repel aggressions under which, he trusted,

263
no class of the king's subjects would ever rest quiet. They were aggrieved by degrading laws and unjust exclusions, and in consequence were treated with a degree of partiality by the magistracy of Ireland which was hardly credible in this country. They had therefore subscribed to repel injury and to organize a system of mutual defence. The Constitutional Association existed for no such purpose; for it prosecuted state offences, and was always engaged in attack, never in defence. It was not clear to him that the Catholic Association had ever prosecuted any offences which were in their nature strictly political. There was one particular case of libel upon themselves. He alluded to the "Courier," which had inserted a paragraph alleged to be libellous on the Catholic College of Maynooth. [Loud cries of "hear" from the ministerial benohes.] He asserted, that if it was a libel at all, it was a libel on themselves. [cries of "No", from the ministerial benches.] The right hon. gentleman had shown that night much of the subtlety of a lawyer; but he must be more subtile than the most subtile lawyer, if he could convince him, that a libel on the College of Maynooth, which afforded instructors to all the Catholic body, was not a libel upon themselves. Was the conduct of the Catholic Association in instituting that prosecution at all like that of the Constitutional Association? Quite the reverse. The latter association brought prosecutions against individuals for libels which, but for their interference, would have died a natural death within a few short hours of their issuing from the press, and which he thought the attorney-general had acted wisely in leaving in their own filthy and degrading obscurity. Such being the objects of the Constitutional Association, what was the remedy that the hon. member for Middlesex proposed to apply to it? Did he propose the introduction of a new law? No. He said, "Here is an outrage on the law—let us have the law enforced, to put a stop to it." That was the language of a wise and prudent statesman. Nothing was so wise as occasional legislation; nothing so poor as great legal wits exerting their ingenuity to put down every artifice by which their cobweb clauses might be defeated as soon as they were passed. The object of this bill, if it were successful, would be to drive those who now met openly and without disguise,
264
into clubs, and cabals, and secret associations, which former bills had been enacted to put down. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that as the subscribers to the Constitutional Association had been disqualified to act as jurors in any prosecution instituted by it, so, too, were the subscribers to the Catholic Association. In that point of law the right hon. gentleman was perfectly right. The only good thing which occurred at that time respecting this Constitutional Association was, the publication of the names of its members; and when the name of one of them, the present Lord Mayor Garratt, was struck off the list of jurors to try a case in which the Association were the prosecutors. But it was said they knew nothing of the names of these contributors to the Catholic rent. Suppose they did—would that knowledge enable them to detect prejudiced persons, and disqualify them from sitting on particular juries, when the whole Catholic population must be considered as inflamed, and justly, on account of the bitter exclusions to which they were exposed, and the general state of the penal code, which raised a wall against their possession of constitutional rights—a barrier which the wisdom of parliament ought long since to have removed, and which must be removed before the Catholic could be satisfied with his lot, or the peace of Ireland be put upon any secure basis?—It had been said that the Catholic Association had, in point of fact, fallen within the provisions of the Convention act, because of their delegation for conducting prosecutions. If such were the case, then, upon the same ground, the Constitutional Association had infringed the law; for they also had instituted prosecutions by a delegated body, and yet the government vindicated their proceedings although they superseded the functions of his majesty's attorney-general. The same bold attempt had been made to institute legal proceedings against supposed offenders, in the celebrated and most questionable circular-letter of lord Sidmouth to the magistrates throughout the country, in which he called upon them to arrest and hold to bail persons who were found vending supposed libels, or in other words, newspapers. These poor strolling venders were thus exposed, by high authorities in the state, to the vengeance of this self-constituted and miserable body, who usurped the office of public

265
prosecutor; and this arm of power was brought to bear upon the helpless, at the same moment that the foulest and I filthiest class of libellers that ever disgraced the public press were encouraged in the "John Bull" to pursue their tainted course. Upon the occasion of the Constitutional Association, the lord chief justice of the King's-bench had laid it down as law, that it was competent for any body of men to prosecute offenders as they had done. Was not the same dictum applicable to the measures of the Catholic Association? How was the distinction, then, to be drawn between such societies as were legal in this sense, and the contrary? Had they not societies for the prosecution of swindlers; and, more particularly, had they not societies for the protection of religious liberty, formed by congregations of Dissenters, who co-operated to protect the law of toleration from being violated in their case, and which, at every assize, were found conducting prosecutions for an obstruction of their right of worship, and carrying them on with the greatest moderation and the greatest propriety, and constantly raising money for defraying the necessary legal expenses of such proceedings? There was another society not of a dissimilar nature, of which he did not like to speak more particularly in the absence of the hon. member for Dover (Mr. Butterworth), whom he had lately seen dozing on the benches, and who had probably since retired elsewhere to enjoy a more comfortable repose. But they all knew what the Methodists had done, and the money they had raised by subscription, when in 1811, and 1812, lord Sidmouth wanted to limit, or qualify, the right of preaching in the Methodist congregation. And, were the Catholics alone to be denied the privilege of similar complaint? Had they no right to repel, by similar means, the aggressions upon their body? With the reference to the two cases which had been put forth of prosecutions instituted by the Catholic body, he was ready to justify both, and to show that, from first to last, the Catholics were justified in what they had done. In the case of the soldier, suppose they had been misled by false information—how was that to be known before the inquiry? Was it, prima facie, impossible to suppose that spies were abroad to delude the unwary? Had not miserable wretches fallen victims to similar espionage in this
266
country? Why were the Catholics to be refused the supposition, that such plots were concocted to dupe them? But, what harm had the prosecution of the soldier effected? He was acquitted, it was true; nevertheless, it did not necessarily follow that he ought not to have been put on his trial. It was not correct to say, that the prosecutions of the Catholic Association interfered with the official duties of the attorney-general, for every body knew that that hon. and learned personage was often too much occupied with political matters and weighty business of state, to think of every particular case in which individuals might think a prosecution just and necessary. It was beneficial, therefore, both to the Attorney-general and to the country, to find that there were other means besides those of official lawyers to procure a redress of specific grievances, or an inquiry into the conduct of alleged offenders. He repeated, that it was open and honest for the Catholic Association to have prosecuted the soldier, and, as he was acquitted of the charge, the mischief, if any, must have been small. The other case, that of the supposed murder of the Catholic by the Protestant, had not he thought been fairly stated; and there again he would ask, did not satisfaction, and not injury, follow that inquiry; and was not the party acquitted upon the evidence rendered by the prosecutors themselves? The same observation applied to the magistrates' case. Were the magistrates, upon complaint being made, to have a perpetual immunity, and to pass off without inquiry? He hoped not; and a recent case in the court of King's-bench had given, on the contrary, a salutary lesson. He would say, therefore, that in these cases, selected as matter of triumph by the gentlemen opposite, he thought that the Catholics had done what was right and proper. With reference to these prosecutions, they had been told that the newspapers in the interest of the Association had blazoned forth the imputed crimes before trial, and excited a strong and unjustifiable prejudice against the prisoners. Far be it from him to palliate such misconduct if true; for there was nothing more criminal and dangerous than to run down incarcerated individuals on the eve of their trials. If, however, any such practices had prevailed to any unbecoming extent, there were laws enough to punish the authors

267
of such injustice, without looking for fresh enactments. There was no necessity for this, or indeed for any other purpose which he had heard stated, connected with this subject, to call for a revision of the old Convention act; than which he believed there never had been a more unfortunate absurdity. What were its provisions? To put down all delegated bodies, except the House of Commons. Would it be believed that in this famous act there was a provision, excepting from the visit of the constable and the operation of his dispersing staff, the two Houses of parliament, the Houses of Convocation, and certain corporate offices? All these provisions protected the Irish parliament from the Convention act; but the British senate was not so exempted, and were, as the law stood, liable to be put down by the nearest constable. [A laugh]. And what was the effect of this wise and provident act of their ancestors—how short was the time between its enactment and the rebellion? The act had deprived the people of the natural vent for the statement and circulation of their grievances; and, what was the consequence? They met in secret clubs and dark cabals, and a dangerous political explosion was the consequence. An hon. friend of his had hinted, that the Irish House of Commons was notoriously exempted from the operation of the act, because it could in no case be said to have represented any part of the people of Ireland [hear, hear]. He hoped, however, that no such description would ever apply to the parliament of England, and that they would profit by the pregnant example of the sister kingdom, and avoid this precipitate and absurd system of legislation. If, however, the Catholic Association were put down, he hoped the members of it would, instead of expending 5,000 l. in preparing petitions to parliament, apply it to the purchase of a seat in a certain house, to be filled by some individual capable of at once advocating their claims, and showing that there were yet means of rendering their contributions beneficial. When the right hon. gentleman descanted upon the station and attitude of the Catholic Association, did he forget his own Letter, in which he had wisely and strenuously recommended the abolition of Orange processions? Had the Orange system been abolished? It had not; and it was notorious that this
268
Catholic Association had arisen as its counterpart, to protect their population from lawless oppression, and to endeavour to secure for them that redress of grievances without which it were vain to hope for tranquillity. It was idle to say that this Association had imitated and usurped the forms and functions of parliament, and had levied taxes upon the Catholic population. The reverse was the fact. They had not levied taxes, but collected subscriptions voluntarily given, to protect themselves from abuse and oppression. Again and again he would ask, why were the Catholics to be denounced for obtaining subscriptions for the prosecution of their rights? No such attempt had been made to drown the clamorous conventions among the agriculturists, when they pressed upon parliament for relief. Indeed, he recollected at that time, that so loud were the country gentlemen in their demands for redress, that even the hon. member for Somersetshire (sir T. Lethbridge) declared himself a reformer: so violent was his attack upon ministers for deserting his favourite question, at the period to which he alluded. It was time that the British parliament should seek to discover some other remedy for the evils of Ireland, than by the augmentation of penal statutes. There was a remedy that had never yet been tried, but which was plain and compendious: redress the people's grievances, emancipate the Catholics from the trammels of bad laws, remove the cause, and then the effect will follow—with the grievance will depart the evil; and then parliament will have acted not only with justice and wisdom, but in obedience to the united recommendation of the wisest statesmen of modern times. Against the adoption of this just and wise, and straightforward course, they were met by the old crooked argument of expediency and ill-fitting time. Why was the time ill-fitting? It was said, unjustly said, that the question of Catholic emancipation was unpalatable even in that House, much more in the country. He denied it. How could it be so, when the House on every side, reverted to the opinions of all the highest authorities who had been its brightest ornaments. It was, therefore, with surprise and pain that he had heard on a former night the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs say, that in the present feelings of the people of this country, he was sorry to think that the question of Catholic emancipation

269
was almost desperate. How desperate? Though the occurrence took place three years ago, he yet felt ringing in his ears the transcendant eloquence with which that right hon. gentleman introduced, and successfully carried, in that House, his bill for restoring the Catholic nobility to all the rights of the British peerage. What reason, then, had the right hon. gentleman to think that the public mind had retrograded? The people of England were every day—and it was the natural result of a diffusion of knowledge—becoming less hostile, if hostile at all, to the just claims of their Catholic fellow-subjects. Look to the divisions of that House, when even the venerated names of Fox and Grattan introduced the subject, and compare them with the subsequent divisions. Would the right hon. secretary for the home department answer, in the spirit of the reformers, and tell him that the House of Commons, that had so often carried the question in favour of the Catholics, did not represent the opinions and feelings of the people? But, he would ask the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, where it was he had made the discovery? Was it not when he was about to set out on a foreign expedition, or rather when there was a probability of his changing his destination? His speech at Liverpool was before the world: it was a well considered production; and in that speech it was for the first time disclosed by the right hon. gentleman that he despaired of the Catholic question. Let us look to the facts. That question had been successfully carried in the House of Commons in a most crowded House, nearly five hundred members being present. The majority in favour of the measure amounted to 249. It went on increasing through the successive stages. He had seen a correct statement of the minority; and, in reference to the state of public opinion, he would shew that in that minority against the Catholic claims, there was not to be found any of the members for the counties of Northumberland, Durham, York or Middlesex. In the towns and other counties they were divided. In the city of London there was a variation—at one period there were three to one in favour of the measure; latterly a majority against it. Take the other large towns, and in favour of the measure were to be found both the members for Newcastle, Durham city, York city, Nottingham, Derby, Northampton, with the great metropolitan
270
population of Westminster and Southwark. After such a statement, on what grounds could any man say the cause of Catholic emancipation was hopeless or desperate? Where existed the pretensions on which the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs ventured to attack that portion of the House who supported him in his laudable efforts to render justice to the oppressed Catholics of Ireland and England? Had they not a right to complain of such a desertion? Had not the great, liberal, and enlightened population of England, whose representatives voted with the right hon. gentleman, just ground to complain, that because he thought proper to change his course, he should condemn them to the debasing charge of gross bigotry and intolerance. Looking at the minority on the question, it would be found that the majority of that minority were the members, either for what were so justly called rotten boroughs, or the representatives of peers, or of the Treasury, or of their own boroughs. Had he not a right, then, to assert that the great and decided majority of the people's representatives in that House were in favour of Catholic emancipation? Since that period there had been, no doubt, great activity on the part of the clergy against the measure. The church was a compact, steady, ably organized body, when any supposed interest of their own was affected. They were easily awakened on such subjects, and had no slight facility in calling their archdeaconries into action. There were, however, a most respectable number of the clergymen of the establishment in favour of the claim. But, considering them as a corporation, it was too true that they looked with rather a selfish jealousy at any liberality towards that parent church from whence they emanated: happily emanated, he would say, although a decided enemy to any system of civil or political degradation. Their influence in getting up petitions against the Catholic claims were also probably successful, with the unfortunate tithe-payers, who were unwilling to disoblige those who had it in their power to afford a modification of such a severe imposition. But, he did, in his conscience, believe there was not in this country a man of sound, enlightened, and comprehensive mind, who did not deprecate the continuance of a system of intolerance that risked so much without any benefit. We had heard much of auricular confession; and no man could

271
doubt the perversion that was made of that religious rite. Would it be believed, that though disused in the reformed church, the canon and the words of ordination were the same as practised in the Roman Catholic? So would it be disused in the Catholic, if our degrading disqualification did not interpose, if we left men to the spirit of the age, and to the progressive improvement which must follow. What a libel was it upon Christian legislators to declare, that those who professed that ancient form, through which the church of England held it from the apostles, were unfitted for the participation of civil rights. The right hon. secretary had harped on a topic which he had selected from a most excellent mass of advice, published in the Address of the Catholic body. In a sneering tone, he had forsooth, observed, that they had made a new discovery; namely, that Whiteboyism was no benefit. The Catholic Association had supplicated, and the answer to that appeal was, peace and tranquillity in Ireland. It was a matter of record, in the king's Speech, that Ireland was in a state of undisturbed tranquillity, and progressively growing into a comparative condition of wealth and happiness. Why, then, seize such a moment to rivet instead of loosen bad laws upon a peaceable people? Great stress had been laid upon the passage in the Catholic Address which adjured the people to be tranquil, "by the hatred which they bore the Orangemen"—a strength of expression which no man could literally justify, but which he had every reason to believe was taken by those who read such language, in a figurative sense. To show, however, that each party dealt in language of similar severity, he would refer to a very abusive article reflecting en Mr. O'Connell, in the "Dublin Evening Mail," so that when the one party was intemperate, the other speedily had a set-off without any legislative interposition. The Catholics knew they must expect the great weight of the Established Church against them. The church formed a compact, extensive body, which doubtless presented a dangerous hostility in such a cause; and it must not be denied, that there was a similar deep-rooted hostility in another very high quarter in the state—he meant the lord chancellor, an eminent and illustrious man, remarkable for the pertinacity and ability with which he had succeeded in securing to himself for twenty-five years,
272
the honours and emoluments of the highest offices—a man who had law in his voice, and fortune in his hand, and who, whether he opposed the schemes of liberal feeling at home or abroad, must undoubtedly be considered as a formidable opponent. It was said of this great man, that he had formed a serpentine line in the cabinet, which ran into new forms of curvature, which it would puzzle a geometrician to trace. Whatever serpentine line he had formed, it was nevertheless quite clear, that the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Canning) on this question always kept at one side of it, and the lord chancellor at the other [hear, hear]. This noble lawyer swayed the cabinet with his twofold power of statesman and lawgiver, and openly avowed his determined hostility to concession. But why was the successful exercise of such power permitted, when justice, and the tranquillity of the country required a sacrifice of obsolete notions? It was only two years ago, when a noble friend of his (lord Nugent) had succeeded in carrying through that House a limited measure, calculated to convey a small boon to the Catholics, by opening to them the magistracy and some other trifling privileges; but this measure was thrown out elsewhere, through the same ominous interest. Why treat the English Catholics so? They at least were quiet and submissive. The hon. and learned gentleman then enumerated the bills which had passed the House of Commons, and been thrown out in the House of Lords under this particular influence, and where others were so shackled as to have their nature entirely altered in their progress. Why did a statesman of enlarged and liberal views permit this to be done? Why not say, when the violence and enigmatical construction of detached passages in Catholic addresses was quoted, that there were books the most sacred, in which passages, if taken in this literal sense, became liable to misconstruction? There was, for instance, the passage in the book which said—"If thy enemy be hungry, give him food, if thirsty, give him drink, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head." Why did not the eminent lawyer to whom he alluded yield to the flow of liberal opinions which had of late poured into the cabinet, or retire, as many of his predecessors had done, when their sentiments were incompatible with the retention of official station? There were examples enough in

273
this high office of such retirements. Lord Rosslyn had retired when unable to carry a favourite measure. Lord Hardwicke had retired after effecting great reforms in his branch of the law. Lord Somers, at an earlier period, had done so, after remedying many blots in the administration of justice. The greatest philosopher, and most glorious intellect of his times, had bent to the storm. Sir T. More, whose brilliant eulogium had been pronounced by the great Protestant historian of his day, had yielded to his royal master, not only his office but his life, when he could no longer hold his place without a sacrifice of justice. The hon. and learned gentleman then adverted to the manner in which some of their bills had been treated elsewhere by a noble personage—the Marriage-act for instance; and he called upon that House to protest against the disgrace which such mutilation was calculated to bring upon their enactments. He conjured them to pursue their measures steadily, and assert their power in a constitutional manner. The noble lawyer to whom he had alluded, was at times peculiarly tenacious about what he termed ex post facto enactments; and yet, on other occasions, he eagerly adopted them to suit particular views—the act suspending the penalty upon nonresident clergy, for instance. The country had complained of the abuses and oppressions of the court of Chancery, which invaded and distracted the rights and interests of property throughout the kingdom. It had been admitted by all sides, that the reform of that jurisdiction had been delayed twenty-five years too long. That noble and learned person had taken no part in the discussion, except that of repelling, with uniform and successful strength, all examination into the subject. Surely, a man of the learned lord's mind, as evinced in this case of resisting the most indispensable alterations of that court, could not be entitled to that weight and authority as a statesman, which honoured his opinions among his colleagues. He really was astonished that an individual so pre-eminently gifted as the right hon. gentleman could consent to compromise his great consequence by accommodating his sentiments, upon subjects of almost vital importance, to the taste of such a person. The right hon. gentleman had taken credit with the House for what had been done for South America. He (Mr. D.) was of opinion
274
it ought to have been done six years ago. It would have been a good substitute for the Foreign-enlistment bill. He had heard that that great and necessary measure had, after all, been an affair of compromise; and his readiness to believe it was increased by the knowledge that this was a cabinet of compromises. He had heard that it was put in this manner—"I will agree to your proposal, if you will vote for a certain obnoxious measure which is to be brought forward in another quarter." ["No, no, from Mr. Canning."] He thought that this mode of compromising upon so many important occasions, was not only beneath the weight and rank which the right hon. gentleman now fairly held in the esteem of the nation, but that it was quite unnecessary. He complained of the continual treachery which had been shown to the Catholic cause by its parliamentary advocates. Lord Fitzwilliam was shackled in his administration, and removed, because he was considered to be too favourably inclined to it. In 1800, Mr. Pitt, and in 1806, the ministry went out of office because they could not carry the measure. In 1822 the right hon. Attorney-general for Ireland proposed it with a pomp of eloquence find power of argument, which he had never heard excelled; and yet, in a few months, that right hon. and learned gentleman slipped into office, and there remained without a single effort to the same effect. The marquis Wellesley also exerted his splendid talents in the House of Lords in favour of the Catholics; although since his accession to the vice-regal dignity, he had been neutralized, and deprived of all masculine power, by having such a secretary imposed upon him as the right hon. gentleman opposite. Then, again, there was another party, important within the walls of parliament, although their importance was nearly confined to those limits. He meant the Grenvilles; who, it was well known, sacrificed power with Mr. Fox, in 1807, because they could not carry the Catholic question; perhaps the only popular step that they had ever taken. That party had since returned to power; but nothing had been done by them to advance the Catholic cause.—He must confess that he viewed with horror and apprehension the bill proposed by the right hon. gentleman—a bill which, although it was called temporary, would, no doubt, be permanent: and must, indeed, be followed up by a series of similar

275
measures. If parliament set its wits against a people by a bill, was it not likely that they would devise every kind of stratagem to secure the object nearest their hearts. It was whispered already that the Catholic Association was dissolved; that it would meet no longer; publish no more proceedings and debates in the journals. Did the House believe that such a step would afford a better security for peace and union? His main objection to the proposed bill, however, was, that it was one of the outworks to defend the ancient Protestant monopoly in Ireland, against the just assaults of the Catholics. It was on that account that he had ventured to trespass so long upon the attention of the House, but he would now conclude, by giving his direct negative to what he conscientiously believed to be the most unjust, the most unfair, the most mischievous, and the most destructive measure, that had ever been proposed in parliament.
The debate, at two in the morning, was adjourned till to-morrow.