Lords Sitting of 8 February 1825

UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS IN IRELAND.
The Marquis of Lansdownrose, in pursuance of notice, to move an humble Address to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to lay before the House any despatches which may have been received from the Lord Lieutenant

129
of Ireland, relating to political and religious societies existing in that country, their origin, progress, and consequences. He was induced to obtrude himself on the House, because, in the Speech by which the session had been opened, his majesty was made to say, that Ireland had partaken in the general prosperity of the empire, and that, with respect to tranquillity, a great improvement had taken place in the state of that country; but it was added, that there existed in that country associations of a mischievous nature, irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution. Combining these passages of his majesty's Speech with that which immediately follows, and which contains a recommendation to their lordships to adopt measures for the remedying the evil thus pointed out—combining with this recommendation, too, the indisposition shown by the noble earl opposite, to communicate that information which would be necessary to enable their lordships to form a right opinion on the subject—combining, he said, all these circumstances, he felt the House to be placed in a most singular and unprecedented situation—unprecedénted, because he did not remember an instance of any new restriction, even in time of war and public danger, having been imposed on the rights and liberties of the people, without a committee having been appointed, in the first place, to inquire into the alleged evil, or the whole proceeding having been preceded by a communication of the documents containing the evidence on which it had become necessary to impose restrictions on the freedom hitherto enjoyed by his Majesty's subjects; and it was not upon any one class of his subjects, but upon all classes, that this new measure was to fall. The freedom of individuals was, it appeared, intended to be limited in a way hitherto unprecedented. He had a right to assume this; for if there was any law capable of correcting the evil complained of, he could not suppose that there was any indisposition, either in this country or in Ireland, to enforce it. The acts of the associations, then, which were referred to in his majesty's Speech, whether morally right or not, must be legal as the law now stood. Their lordships were, however, called upon at once, without any knowledge of the evil said to exist, to apply a cure, to provide a remedy, for a danger, at the moment when that danger was not pretended to be imminent
130
—at the moment when the country was declared to be in a state of uncommon prosperity—at the moment when, however much men might differ as to the causes, all parties agreed that unusual tranquillity prevailed in Ireland, even in those parts of the country hitherto most disturbed. Different accounts of the cause of this extraordinary tranquillity were given by different parties. The friends of the Catholic Association asserted, that it was all owing to their endeavours to promote peace. The friends of the lord-lieutenant said, that it was owing to his prudent management, and his firmness in the exercise of the power confided to him. The friends of his majesty's ministers insisted, that it was entirely owing to the wise measures which the Administration had, for the last two years, adopted with respect to Ireland. Other persons, he did not mean members of their lordships' House, but of the other House of parliament, might allege, with at least equal truth, that the present tranquillity of Ireland was owing to the many judicious amendments introduced by them into those muchboasted measures of his majesty's ministers. But, whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the cause of the tranquillity, there was but one as to the fact; and he had, therefore, a right to assert, that either there was not in Ireland a body willing to disturb, or, what would answer his argument equally well, a body able to disturb the peace of the country. What a moment, then, was it, which was chosen for this extraordinary proceeding! As if some great conspiracy had been dicovered, as if some dreadful treason had burst forth, their lordships were to be called upon to impose new and unheard-of restrictions on the liberties of the people, without giving themselves the trouble to inquire into the existence of the supposed evil, or its specific nature, if it existed. This, too, they were called upon to do in a case which, as he should show by-and-by, was one which no law could reach. But he should perhaps be told, that all inquiries of the nature of those which parliament was accustomed to institute on similar occasions, were unnecessary on this, because their lordships had only to govern their proceedings by the notoriety of the case. If, however, there was any one case or subject on which it was impossible to use this argument of notoriety the present was that one, because it was a

131
case in which the persons who had the best opportunities of information had been most notoriously deceived. He did not mean to allude to the imperfect knowledge of persons in this country, or sitting in that House; but to the actual law-officers in Ireland, whose business it was to inquire into the nature of the case, and who had the best means of obtaining a knowledge of it. They had, however, as it appeared—and this seemed to be owing to the very nature of the subject—allowed themselves to be completely deceived. That the Irish public was not hostile to the Catholic Association, might be inferred from the result of the late prosecution of one of its members. In that case, the witnesses produced to support the charge turned round and contradicted themselves; and this defeat of the law officers of the Crown took place, not before a petty, but before a grand jury. He should be doing injustice to the talents of the legal persons to whom he had alluded—and no one rated their talents higher than he did—if he supposed that they were accurately acquainted with the state of the facts when they went before the grand jury. The subject, indeed, was one on which they were liable to be deceived, and all the information they had received had left them in the dark, as to what really passed within the walls of the Association against which they had proceeded. He, therefore, must conclude, that the present was, in a peculiar manner, one of those subjects, upon which their lordships, instead of relying upon assertions, loose reports, and newspaper statements, ought, before they committed themselves in so difficult a task as finding a remedy for the evil, to inquire strictly into its nature. When any measure was proposed to be adopted, arising out of any imputed danger, more especially when that measure was one which affected the rights and privileges of the people, all persons would surely agree with him, that it was necessary for their lordships to satisfy themselves on three points. They had, in the first place, to satisfy themselves that there existed a great evil to be corrected. They had next to satisfy themselves as to what was the nature of that evil, and by what remedy it could be put down. They must, in the third place, satisfy themselves that in thus extinguishing the evil of which they complained, they did not create a greater mischief in its stead. Now, in all these points, their
132
lordships required information, which could only be obtained through the despatches he called for. Considering, however, the uncertain nature of the evil—considering how difficult it was to apply a remedy to it—their lordships must perceive how particularly necessary it was, in this case, to learn what the nature of the evil was, from those who had the best opportunities of knowing it. This was the only method by which they could judge what remedy ought to be applied. They were about to engage in a task, the execution of which, even with the information he called for, and most certainly without it, would be of a most difficult nature. It was one of which their lordships might see the commencement, but of which they could not foresee the end. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack was reported to be the parent of the forthcoming measure; but, under whatever auspices it might be introduced, he was sure that it required so much nicety, such exquisite legal tact, that it could not be committed to any other than the highest and ablest hands. The noble and learned lord had undertaken a task which would require all his ingenuity. No man had a higher sense of his talents than he had; but, after all he could conjecture, and every estimate he could form of the abilities which the noble and learned lord was bringing, or had by this time brought to the task, he could not anticipate any success to the measure which was about to be introduced. In the absence of all information, he was under the necessity of collecting from report what the intended measure was to be. If, as was said, the object of the measure was to extinguish the Catholic Association and the Catholic rent—if the noble and learned lord could accomplish this without disturbing, in a very considerable degree, the existing relations of society, he must acknowledge that the noble and learned lord would surpass any chancellor that ever existed before him; but he would tell him that unless he could pass a law making it penal for persons to say that they placed confidence in others—unless he was able to prevent people from giving away their money—unless he could prevent the sentiments expressed by the mouth of one man from reaching the heart of another, and the money of one man from passing into another man's pocket—unless he could do all this, he would do nothing. The noble and learned lord would do

133
well to look at the difficulties of the task, for it was most difficult and hazardous; but he must say, that if the noble and learned lord were capable of doing it, he would immortalise himself.—Before he proceeded further he would just notice an argument that would probably be urged in support of the intended measure. Indeed, he knew, that the noble earl opposite, in order to smooth the proceeding through that House, had said, that it was not a substantive bill, but merely an amendment of the Convention act. Now, there was a most material difference between the two measures, and one which those who brought this forward would do well to consider. The Convention act was passed to prevent a form of proceeding which, whether it was an offence or not, was a tangible object. He would not enter into any discussion of the principles of government at the present moment; but, while waving all questions of that sort, he should be sorry to give an unqualified opinion against delegation; because, the greatest and best men this country ever produced, had considered delegation a fit and constitutional mode for the people to resort to, to obtain a redress of grievances. The Catholics might, on this question, quote the opinion of a noble friend of his—the noble lord who lately moved an address to the throne, and whose opinion can surely have lost none of its authority with the other side of the House,—that "delegation was not only innocent, but a proper and legal remedy for grievances." He, however, admitted, that delegation was a practice perfectly tangible by law; and one, he must also own, which he thought ought not to exist in Ireland, in the present state of the country. In like manner, the law against secret oaths was a law capable of application. Their lordships might say, that the outward form of an oath should not be administered, for that form was, like the conventional delegation, a tangible object. But now, when there was no outward form, when no compulsion or binding by oath was resorted to, and when all that was done was founded in confidence, he would ask, what could be accomplished by any law, more than merely getting rid of certain words? The noble earl opposite might object to the term "association," or he might object to the term "rent," especially to the latter, as it was an object with many people that every thing under that name should take a very
134
different direction. Their lordships would recollect, that a secretary for Ireland had set himself against the word "committee," and succeeded in getting rid of it; but the term "association" took its place; In like manner, the noble and learned lord might get rid of the words "association" and "rent," but the question was, would not the people still meet, and still pay rent in spite of the law? The noble and learned lord would find his task more difficult than even that which another sort, of chancellor encountered, when he endeavoured to make the people of Ireland pay money against their inclination. Finding it extremely difficult to make them pay any thing, he applied a remedy to the evil, which was by not asking them to pay at all—namely, by remitting the taxes. The noble and learned lord would find it a hard task to prevent the Irish from paying their own money in any way in which they wished to pay it. Whatever might be the law, it was always difficult enough to get money into one's pocket; but he had never heard of any difficulty in getting money out of it. He was perfectly convinced that the noble and learned lord would not obtain his object either with the association or the rent; the people would still fall upon some method of assembling; and with regard to the rent, which was thought so alarming, the noble and learned lord certainly could never cause it to be less, but his measure might very well cause it to be more. The effect of the noble and learned lord's measure was likely to resemble that of a proceeding which occurred in the French Academy. The poet Piron being about to publish a work, applied to a member of the Academy to make a speech against it, and state that it was a most detestable work, as he should then be sure to sell every copy of it. Now, had he been a member of the Catholic Association, and could have gained access to the noble and learned lord, knowing that parliament was going to meet, he should have asked him to say that the Catholic rent was a very bad thing; and then he was sure that it would soon be doubled. And here he would venture to tell their lordships an anecdote which, though relating to ancient Irish history, was not unconnected with the present subject. In a remote period of the connexion of the two countries, he believed as far back as Henry 8th, when those acts of violence which had always been too frequent in Ireland, prevailed to

135
a great extent, the Irish were accustomed to vociferate two exclamations, or invocations, he did not know which to call them, but the words were Crom a boo and Butler a boo. The correspondents of the English government wrote representations, stating that those words were doing great mischief—that they were the cause of all the outrages which were committed. A meeting of the cabinet immediately took place; but history did not inform us whether there was on that occasion any difference of opinion, or whether the division, if there was any, was straight or serpentine. It was resolved, however, that the obnoxious words must be put down, and an act was passed for abolishing the words from the Irish language. This might be seen upon examining the act: but, considerations of humanity dictated a provision, which stated, that as the Irish, in their then state of excitement, would not be quiet if they were not allowed to use some exclamation, they might be permitted to call out "St. George," but that if they persisted in using the proscribed words they should be hanged. Now, history did not relate whether this law had the effect of making the Irish discontinue the mischievous words, or whether they adopted in their stead the more loyal exclamation prescribed for them: but, the outrages continued as violent as ever. This act, then, had failed; but he could not tell how far the subtile refinements of modern politicians might succeed in the present. He doubted, however, their success. Their lordships must recollect that it was against words, and words only—things which could not be made subject to law—they were called upon to legislate. Their lordships, however, would do well to consider what might be the consequences of their legislation; for this was one of those serious and important subjects in which, if they should fail, they could not say that they would be able to return to the state in which they stood before their failure. It became them to consider whether, by expressing an apprehension of the Association, they would not give importance to it, and increase substantially the very powers which they were about to abridge nominally, and thus furnish arms against themselves. It was not necessary for his purpose to take any opportunity of apologizing for, or explaining, the proceedings of the Association. He thought nobody had any right to judge of those proceed-
136
ings from report; but he had no objection to state, that if the reports of the proceedings of the Association which had, from time to time, reached him were correct, he saw much in those proceedings to disapprove, both with respect to the body collectively, and the members of it individually. But, having said that, he must also say, that he did not think it was possible—certainly it was not probable—that any large assembly, composed of persons labouring under political grievances, and agitated by what Protestants called religious passions, or even those circumstances apart, could meet and carry on frequent debates on all subjects—though God forbid that they should not have the power—without circumstances arising, or much being said and done, which he and other persons, taking a totally different view of the subject, must disapprove of. He was likewise bound to state, that there were some of the proceedings of the Association, of which he entirely approved; but, because the proceedings of the Association were of that mixed character, he would not therefore attempt to put it down and extinguish it, conceiving, as he did, that it grew almost necessarily out of the condition of the great majority of the population of Ireland. There existed on the surface of society evils of all descriptions, resulting from the habits and passions which degraded human nature, which no reasonable man thought of attacking, because they eluded the grasp, and deceived the eye of legislation. If this was the case with respect to the habits and passions of society, how much stronger did it apply where the opinions of society only were concerned. In a country divided by opinions on religious and political matters, it was proper that individuals should have an opportunity of presenting their opinions publicly before the rest of the community. Whether the opinions promulgated were right or wrong—whether the prejudices which existed were well or ill founded—it was desirable that they should be expressed openly, and not in secret and confined places. Opinions resembled those fluids and vapours with whose extraordinary powers the world was daily becoming more intimately acquainted, which, if pent up, would explode and sweep every thing before them; but which, if allowed to mix with the free and unadulterated air, lost at once their mischievous powers. On that account,

137
he thought that parliament ought to pause before they attempted to suppress the expression of opinions of which many persons might even justly disapprove. He would now move, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to direct, that there be laid before the House, copies of all despatches from the lord-lieutenant of Ireland, relative to the religious and political Associations in that country, and their consequences."
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that when any individual in that or any other assembly was about to make a motion respecting a particular proceeding, it would be as well if he would take the trouble to inform himself of the nature of that proceeding. If the noble marquis had thought proper to wait two or three days, he might have fully satisfied himself with respect to the proceeding to which his motion referred. It was perfectly true, that in the Speech from the throne, his majesty after congratulating parliament on the tranquil state of Ireland, alluded to certain political associations, stated to be pregnant with the worst consequences, and called on their lordships to consider whether any remedy could be applied to those evils. It was also perfectly true, that their lordships had carried up an address to the throne, wherein they stated, that they would take the subject into consideration, and endeavour to ascertain whether any remedy could be applied to the evil pointed out by his majesty. There the matter rested at present. The noble marquis might know, from the votes on the table, that it was the intention of his majesty's ministers, in a few days, to introduce, elsewhere, a measure applicable to the subject which had been brought under their notice by his majesty's Speech; and he conceived that it would have been the proper and regular course for the noble marquis to have waited to have seen, before he made his motion, what that measure was, with respect to which he appeared to be completely mistaken. But, he would argue the question on the supposition of the noble marquis. The noble marquis said, that no attempt ought ever to be made to abridge the liberty of the subject, without an inquiry being instituted on information laid before parliament. If the noble marquis meant, that no measure having for its object to abridge the liberty of the subject ought ever to be adopted without their lordships
138
being put in possession of sufficient grounds to justify such a proceeding, he perfectly agreed with him in that proposition. But, those grounds might be, as he should have occasion to explain, facts of general notoriety, which were as well known to all their lordships, or might be, as they were to the executive government. The noble marquis had asked, on what principle the proposed measures were to proceed? On the principle upon which their lordships acted two years ago, when they adopted a measure affecting what were called Orange societies. Their lordships on that occasion did not ask for a little of evidence, or enter into any inquiry on the subject: but, could it be said that any of their lordships knew half as much of those societies as they did of the Catholic Association? He was not arguing that their lordships, in acting in that manner regarding the Orange societies, had acted rightly. He merely stated the fact, that they acted without any inquiry or official information, and only on the notoriety of the case. The advocates of the Orange societies, if there had been any in that House, might, with some reason, owing to the nature of those societies, have asked for information respecting them; but, not so with respect to the Catholic Association, the whole of whose proceedings were public. If it were intended that the measure about to be brought forward should rest on official information, or upon any principle of confidence in his Majesty's government, he would agree with the noble marquis, that before their lordships adopted the measure, there would be fair ground for calling for inquiry or information. He had no difficulty in saying thus much—that the measure intended to be introduced would not be founded on any official information, nor on any principle of confidence in government, nor, indeed, upon any circumstances which might not be equally as well known to any one of their lordships as to his majesty's ministers. It was the boast of the Catholic Association—he alluded only to the fact, making it neither matter of praise nor blame—that all their proceedings were public—that every thing they did, was done in the face of day, and laid before the whole world. If their lordships should think fit to adopt any measure affecting the Association, they would adopt it on that which was admitted by the Association, and which no member of it would deny. He

139
had already quoted one precedent for the intended proceeding, and he might, he had no doubt, have found many others if he had sought for them. He could see no ground for adopting such a motion as the one proposed by the noble marquis, at any time, much less when the measure to which it referred was not yet before their lordships.—The noble marquis had thought proper to suggest all the difficulties which would occur in framing an act which was to affect the Catholic Association, or other societies. Why should their lordships discuss the subject in the dark? Let them wait till they could discuss it in the light. They would soon have the measure before them, and might deal with it as they should deem fitting. The noble marquis assumed—for what reason he could not divine—that the proposed measure was the contrivance of the noble and learned lord on the woolsack. Why it should be supposed that the noble and learned lord must be the contriver of any measure of the kind, he was really at a loss to imagine. Undoubtedly, the noble and learned lord being one of his majesty's official advisers, the measure could not be introduced into parliament without his concurrence, but certainly it was not any part of his duty. The noble marquis said, that the Irish government had nothing to do with the measure. He denied the correctness of that statement. The measure was the measure of the Irish government, approved of by the English cabinet. It was the measure of the Irish government, resulting from a deep sense of its necessity to preserve peace and tranquillity in Ireland.—He would not then allow himself to be led into a discussion of the provisions of the bill, or of the proceedings of the Catholic Association; but he would ask, what must be the effect of the political and religious animosities which such a society as the Catholic Association must produce in that part of the empire where it existed? Could the matter stop as it at present stood? The noble marquis had said, that there would be inflammatory speeches made in ail public assemblies. He was disposed to admit that to a certain extent, and also that such speeches sometimes served as a vent for angry feelings; and so far were not without their advantages. But there was, in his mind, a great and important difference between inflammatory speeches made in a divided assembly, and inflammatory speeches made in an assembly whose
140
whole principle and object was professedly to be united. If men of different persuasions were brought together to discuss a particular measure, warmth on one side would produce warmth on the other, and it was impossible to contemplate it with any degree of asperity. But, in an assembly of men having all the same object, and professing all the same thing, inflammatory addresses must be looked upon with a different feeling. He was, however, willing to admit, that with those qualifications, he was not disposed to lay much stress on inflammatory speeches, except in so far as they were constructive of acts. The inflammatory speeches delivered in the Catholic Association had been acted on! but he would not go further into that subject at present. The noble marquis said, that some evidence of what was the state of feeling in Ireland with regard to the Association was to be found in the result of the proceedings which had been instituted against one of its most able and powerful members. The case had failed before the grand jury. He did not know the noble marquis could draw any inference from the not finding the bill, as to the opinion of the grand jury, or any other body, with respect to the Catholic Association. The individual was indicted for uttering certain words, which were considered by the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, to be seditious. The grand jury, however, did not ascribe the same intepretation to the words that the law officers had done; they therefore ignored the bill, and the individual was not sent to trial. Did that circumstance lead to any inference whatever as to the conduct of the Catholic Association, or the light in which it was viewed in Ireland? He knew of nothing more injurious to the liberty of the subject, and the due administration of justice, than the drawing of general conclusions from individual cases. It was the law of England, that an accused individual was to have the benefit of any doubts which might exist in the minds of the grand or the petty jury. He would be the last man, after an accused individual had been acquitted, to bring the case forward again, unless it were a very gross one indeed. With those feelings, he bowed to the decision of the jury: it was good for the case under consideration, but he must deny that it was applicable in a general way. Having said thus much, he would add a word with respect to the conduct of indivi-

141
duals; it was on the acts of the body itself that the opinion of parliament should be founded. Whether, when the intended measure came to be discussed, he could or could not bring sufficient evidence of the improper conduct of the Association, he would not at present discuss; but it was impossible for him to allow the subject to pass without alluding to one circumstance. If there had been inflammatory proceedings on the part of the Catholic Association, there never was a time when they were less justifiable than the period at which he was speaking. There never was a time when they were less justifiable on account of the prosperity of the country—if that were a consideration; and by some it would be deemed so, because distress always produced a moral effect on the minds of individuals. There never was a time when they were less justifiable on account of the general conduct of government! for he called upon the warmest advocates of the Catholics, and those who most strongly condemned the policy by which Ireland had been hitherto governed, to declare, whether there ever had been a period when justice had been more fairly administered between all parties, or when government had shown a stronger desire to act with kindness towards the Catholic body, than during the last few years. But that was not all. The subject remained to be considered in another point of view. He had stated, on the first day of the session, that he looked upon the Catholic Association, and those who supported it, as being—unintentionally perhaps, the most of them—the greatest enemies of Ireland, since they checked its prosperity, drove wealthy people out of the country, stopped the flow of capital into it, and excited animosities which it was the wish of the government to allay and remove. It was impossible such a body could exist without creating opposite associations, and thus defeating the object of government, who anxiously desired to extinguish all religious differences, and to promote peace and charity among all mankind. If parliament should not deal equal justice, and put down all associations, what would be the consequence? They must permit all associations; and if they did, they would produce a state of rancorous religious, and political animosity, totally incompatible with the well-being of any country in the world. He had said on a former night, what he would
142
now repeat, that if it were only for the interests of the Catholics themselves, the intended measure ought to be adopted. It was calculated to advance their interests more than those of any other class. His objection to the motion was, that it was unprecedented, and that it had reference to a measure of which the House at present knew nothing. He also must contend, that their lordships would stand in need of no information respecting that measure, because it would be founded on no special knowledge or official correspondence in the hands of ministers, but on that which was matter of notoriety, and might be in the possession of every one of their lordships.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he should give his decided support to the motion. It seemed to him that the noble earl had altogether misunderstood the drift of his noble friend. He had forgotten that the motion, which he referred only to a future bill, had arisen out of the Speech of his majesty. The noble earl had assumed that the Association was destructive of the peace and happiness of Ireland; but he should recollect that there were many persons, both in and out of parliament, who had avowed it as their opinion, that instead of producing mischievous effects, it was calculated to secure the peace and advance the prosperity of that country. For his own, he would say to the Catholics of Ireland, "Persevere, and do not relax in your legal endeavours to obtain your just rights and to secure the blessings of equal law for yourselves and your posterity."
Lord Hollandobserved, that the noble earl opposite had commenced his speech by an argument on the course of proceeding. The noble earl conceived that his noble friend had submitted a motion which had reference to some measure about to be introduced to that House, and he was so prodigiously pleased with the discovery that he had ended his speech with a recapitulation of what he had said about it at the beginning: but, both at the commencement and the end of his speech, and through the whole course of it, the noble earl had very carefully and prudently abstained from stating to their lordships what the motion was, or from giving any reasons why the information which it sought should not be granted. He had contented himself with saying, that the motion had reference to something of which the House knew nothing. Now he (lord H.) said, that the motion had refer-

143
ence to the King's Speech, and to some points stated in that document. The refusal, and not the demand, of the information on the present occasion, would be unprecedented, indecent, and radically unjust. How often had the noble earl and his colleagues come down to that House calling for committees, and furnishing papers and information, which were all to end in laws abridging the liberties of the people? He had never heard any person on his (lord H's) side of the House, when the noble earl had brought down his accursed green bags containing volumes of papers libelling the people of England, cry out "What is the meaning of all this? There is no bill before us: it is in the House of Commons." Although no man could feel a stronger objection than he did to the appointment of committees for the purpose he had mentioned, he had never been heard to say, "Do not go into the committee, because you do not know what may be the result of your inquiries." It was a strange proposition, that when the House was called upon to apply a remedy to an evil, they should not inquire into the nature and extent of the evil because they did not know what remedy might be adopted. He was of opinion, that if the nature of the motion were properly understood, it would be impossible for the House, if they had any respect for their character, or wished the measure about to be proposed to carry any weight or consideration out of doors, not to agree to it. The noble earl said, that a precedent for the intended measure was to be found in the bill which the House passed respecting the Orange Societies. He denied that it was a precedent. The noble earl was fond of precedents; and if he could have found any better, he would not have been content with such a curious one as that which he had brought forward. The noble earl took it for granted, that the House was unanimous with respect to the bill which affected the Orange Societies. Though he (lord H.) did not take a strong part against that bill, he said "not content" to its passing; and he felt that he ought to be ashamed for not stating his reasons for doing so at the time. He certainly entertained no great predilection for the persons affected by the bill, but he said "not content," because he disapproved of the principle. How was it that the House was reconciled to the law which the bill enacted? It was merely the extension
144
of a law already existing in England. And how did the House suppose that law was originally introduced? In a committee by the late lord Melville, then Mr. Secretary Dundas, after a long and painful inquiry. The conduct of government on the present occasion was quite unprecedented. From what had fallen from the noble earl, it seemed, that the pattern and model to which he looked with respect to the intended measure, was the Irish Convention act. If he (lord H.) were going to look for the model of any legislative proceedings, it would not be in the Irish Statute-book that he would look for it. If he were going to look for a precedent it would not be in the frightful epoch of 1793 that he would search for it with the least distrust. But after all, the Irish parliament must have justice done it. At the time the act was passed there was a threat of a convention to be held at Athlone, for purposes legal in description, but there was reason to suppose with other designs. The opinions of the first lawyers of that day were collected on the subject, and the result was, the passing of the act. It should be recollected, likewise, that we were then on the eve of a war with that country which held forth its arms to receive the discontented of all countries, but more particularly those under the dominion of his Britannic Majesty. What was the course then taken? The noble keeper of the Privy Seal, sitting opposite (the earl of Westmoreland), was then viceroy of Ireland. He did not know whether the noble earl would take it as a compliment or a censure, when he said, that he was never particularly squeamish with respect to what measures he thought necessary for the protection of government. Whatever might be the merits of his oratory, the noble earl was never very meally-mouthed in denouncing against those who plotted against the government. But, surrounded with all the dangers to which he had alluded, what had been the conduct of the noble earl when he came down to the Irish parliament? Did he, as ministers had done on the present occasion, mark out conventions for the notice of parliament in the Speech from the throne? No, he recommended conciliation and concession to the Catholics. He began by a boon, and afterwards proceeded to adopt the measures which he thought necessary for the safety of the state. The Convention act

145
of the 33rd of the king was preceded by the 29th of the king, which conferred upon the Catholics almost the only privileges which they enjoyed. He was glad that his majesty had not himself delivered this Speech, in which he had been advised to mark out by name this Association. He contended, that the nature of his noble friend's motion was mistaken. The question was not whether or not the alleged grievance required a remedy; still less was it, whether it was to be remedied in a particular mode; but the question before their lordships was, whether they were to proceed to the adoption of an important measure with or without information on the subject? It might be said, they had the King's Speech. He admitted they had; but first, he would consider that paragraph of it which referred to Ireland. He had read that paragraph over and over again, and still he knew not how to understand it. It began by saying, that the Irish were more prosperous and industrious than ever, and then it stated, that Associations existed in that country, which were an evil that called for a remedy. Now, if the noble earl meant that no information should be afforded to the House until after the remedy was brought forward, why recommend an inquiry? Sure, after the remedy was adopted, their lordships might then go into the inquiry! "This motion," said the noble earl "is unparliamentary—Why, before you have a bill introduced, will you inquire whether you want a bill or not?" He now came to the only information they had upon the subject; namely, the King's Speech; and even according to that, if any measure were to be adopted upon it, it ought not to be adopted rashly; for it was stated in that Speech, that the condition of Ireland was prosperous, therefore there was full time for inquiry, but, what was said of the evil? With their lordships' permission he would read the whole of that part of the Speech. "It is no small addition to the gratification of his majesty, that Ireland is participating in the general prosperity. The outrages for the suppression of which extraordinary powers were confided to his majesty, have so far ceased as to warrant the suspension of the exercise of those powers in most of the districts heretofore disturbed. Industry and commercial enterprise are extending themselves in that part of the united kingdom. It is, therefore, the more to be regretted that Associations should exist in Ireland
146
which have adopted proceedings irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution, and calculated, by exciting alarm, and by exasperating animosities, to endanger the peace of society, and to retard the course of national improvement." Now, there was nothing here to warrant haste on the part of the ministry, nor did his majesty recommend the hasty adoption of any measure: the words were—"His majesty relies upon your wisdom to consider without delay, the means of applying a remedy to this evil." Now, he knew no means of applying a remedy to an evil better than by inquiring what the nature of it was. A noble lord said, "Let us hear what is the nature of the evil in Ireland." To which the noble earl replied, "Yes you shall hear it, but it shall be from my own mouth." There was, certainly, to use a term which had been well applied elsewhere, something "serpentine" in this part of the Speech. On the one hand, there was a recommendation of inquiry, and on the other hand an allegation of the existence of certain evils. Let the House have all the information that was to be had on the subject; for surely it would not be treating the people on the other side of the water well to recommend the adoption of some measure, without first letting the House know what that measure was. But before discussing the necessity of removing any danger, it might be right to see if any danger existed. Let them look at the passage upon this subject in his majesty's Speech:—"It is therefore the more to be regretted, that Associations should exist in Ireland which have adopted proceedings irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution, and calculated by exciting alarm, and by exasperating animosities, to endanger the peace of society, and to retard the course of national improvement." Now, when he read this passage, he looked round him to see what this Association was; and it struck him that it was the Irish cabinet. That, indeed, was an Association contrary to the spirit of the constitution of this country; for it was formed upon a system of disunion and counteraction, which might be seen in every one of its measures, and which was only equalled in this respect by the English cabinet. It now seemed that the spirit of compromise which pervaded the acts of this cabinet ran further, and found its way into the King's Speech. It was marked by the greatest inconsistencies, like the conduct of the Attorney-general

147
of Ireland, who ran into the opposite extremes, and cried "Crom-a-boo," and "Butler-a-boo" also. Could any thing be more likely to perpetuate the animosities alluded to than this? It pervaded not only the actions of ministers, but the Speech of his majesty to that House. The serpentine line pervaded every part of it—
——"Penitusque in viscera lapsum
Serpentis furiale malum, totamque pererrat."
The real question before their lordships was, whether or not, when they were called on from the throne to legislate on evils said to exist in Ireland, they were to do so in the dark? The evils here described were, exciting alarm and exasperating animosities, and thereby endangering the peace of society, and retarding the prosperity of the country. Now, the line of conduct adopted by the government seemed to him to be exactly calculated to keep up these animosities, until one of the parties at length carried its object by force; for he could not help thinking the present measure the most impolitic that ever was proposed. When the Convention act was passed in Ireland, that great and good man, Mr. Grattan (the greatest and the best his country ever produced), called it an act for the gratification of spleen. That act empowered a magistrate to dissolve any assembly, and take the Speaker's chair away, and turn him out of doors, save and except the knights, burgesses, and citizens in parliament assembled (which saving clause, by the way, did not save them, for they shortly afterwards ceased to sit), and save and except the congregation of a church. Now they (the House of Lords), in framing a similar act at present, must draw up a clause, saving and excepting his majesty's cabinet of ministers, and those councils to be summoned for the advice of his majesty—He had, perhaps, trespassed too long upon the attention of the House, considering the narrow grounds on which the question before their lordships rested. If they took the necessity of any measure for granted without receiving any information respecting it, contrary to all custom, and all reason, such a measure, when adopted would have the character of passion or of servility, and not the character of justice. If the necessity did exist, where so many millions were to be affected by the measure, it was, indeed, a frightful necessity, still their lordships were bound to obey it; but he
148
conjured them, as they valued the safety of the empire—he conjured them, as they valued the liberties of their fellow-subjects—he conjured them, as they valued the character of the laws of this country—not to have recourse, without full and substantiated evidence of that necessity, to so baneful and disgusting a measure.
Earl Bathurstsaid, his noble friend had not contended for the proposed measure, except upon such public information as would leave no doubt of its necessity. He, however, must despair of the vote of the noble baron opposite, if, looking to the spirit of the proceedings of the Catholic Association in Ireland, he did not consider it essential to the tranquillity of that country that such an Association should not be permitted to exist. His noble friend had stated, that he would not be drawn into a premature discussion of the means by which associations were to be put down. When the bill should be brought forward, their lordships would have an opportunity of judging whether the means suggested were adequate to the end proposed on the one hand, or trenched too much on the liberty of the subject on the other. The individual who was to bring forward this bill was the secretary for Ireland. It was, therefore, to be considered strictly as an Irish measure, recommended by the government of Ireland.
The Earl of Carnarvonstated, that he was surprised that the noble lord on the other side should oppose the motion, after so many things had been brought forward by his majesty's ministers, which they were pleased to call statements; though he could not find that any thing had been stated. The noble lord refused them information, although he wished to persuade them that there existed in Ireland something dangerous to the constitution, and that it was that something that had induced them to put into his majesty's Speech words for the purpose of inducing the House to adopt measures likely to trench on the liberty of the subject. In what a situation were they placed by the noble lords? For his own part, he supposed, that as the cabinet was made up of members of very diversified opinions, so, in type of the disarrangement contained therein, the Speech had been organized by each putting in a sentence, some of which were contradictory of others, and the address that had been returned in answer to the Speech, was, as usual, an echo of what it contained. To that address he

149
had said Not-content, and he had done so, because it did not pledge them to make every inquiry, and give his majesty such advice as they might think essential to the safety of the kingdom, but pledged them to adopt measures for the remedy of an evil with which they were not to be made acquainted. And then they were told, that it was no business of theirs; that they were to gather their information from another place; that they were to wander on in the dark. To the address, therefore, he had not given his consent, as he considered the pledge that it contained a rash one. For even if they were to receive any light on the subject, whence was it to come? Was the bill that should be sent up to them from the House of Commons to be their only source of information? Were their lordships to say Content or Not-content, without asking for further information, or exercising their own judgment? Were they to proceed in this way, upon such a measure as this, when they would require evidence before them in support of the most unimportant private bill? The noble earl said, that all the information was to be derived from the newspapers; and in the same breath he stated, that the proposed measure was to be founded on the despatches received from the lord lieutenant of Ireland, and not on the notoriety of the circumstances which called for it. The ministers said to the House, "We act on despatches; the newspapers are enough for you." Why not give the facts, and the reasons on which the Irish government asked for this step? If a rebellion or conspiracy was to be put down—if captain Rock was in the field—then would they have loaded the table with documents. But Ireland was now tranquil. The people had appealed to the laws. By their peaceable and constitutional conduct they had disconcerted the cabinet. But, was it really true, that this information was withheld from a feeling, on the part of the noble earl at the head of the law department, that no bill could be framed to meet the exigency of the case? Was this the true cause of this reserve It was quite wonderful that the usual topics of declamation should no longer find a supporter amongst them. Strange that their lordships should hear nothing of "steady loyalty," and "rallying about the throne"—topics which used to be so eagerly seized upon by the noble lords opposite, upon occasions such as this. The real cause of fear oh the part
150
of the cabinet, was the unanimity of the people of Ireland. They had reason to apprehend much from the harmony, the unprecedented concord, of the Catholics; and, when they talked of the dangerous acts of this body, they ought to be told, that the most dangerous acts which could be committed, were those of passing measures of severity, without exhibiting to the world the facts that would justify them. He should give his support to the motion.
The lords then divided; for the motion 20. Against it 42. Majority against the motion, 22.