Sitting of 3 March 1825

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND— ORANGE LODGES.
Mr. Brownlowpresented a petition from certain Protestants
900
of Ireland, praying inquiry into the institution, objects, signs, oaths, and passwords of the Orange Lodges of Ireland. The Orangemen were most anxious for inquiry, in order that they might relieve themselves from the malignant libels of interested parties. They were ready to make a disclosure of every thing connected with the existence of the societies, before the committee now sitting on the state of Ireland, as they had, in fact, nothing to conceal. He also made some remarks, on certain charges brought by Mr. O'Connell against the Orange Associations. One of these charges was with regard to the 68th psalm, verse 23, "That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." It was imputed, that this text was used as a sign by the Orangemen, when the fact was, all that Orangemen had to do with the 6Sth psalm was the question, "Where do you come from, and where are you going to?" and the answer, "I am going to the high hill of Bashan." He did not apprehend, that, after the bill now before parliament should have passed, Orange Societies would continue in Ireland.
Lord Althorpremarked, that part of the information of which Mr. O'Connell had spoken, had turned out to be correct; and it was certainly singular, that the right psalm, though not perhaps the right verse, had been pitched upon.
Mr. Hutchinsonsaid, that if the Orange Lodges had been maligned as to their motives, the fault was attributable to themselves, since they had refused to make any disclosures.
Mr. Abercrombyexpressed the great gratification he felt at hearing that Orange Societies were extinct in Ireland. He was glad also that they had now no objection to the investigation of all their secret oaths and signs, and he hoped that the committee on the state of Ireland would enter into the subject. He was certainly surprised at this change, because he could not forget, that, two years ago, when he brought forward his motion, they had done all in their power to conceal what they now volunteered to disclose.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he felt the utmost satisfaction at the intimation, that there was to be a complete end to Orange Societies in Ireland. He most cordially joined in the exhortation that these associations should yield to the repeated sense of parliament, and obey what would

901
soon, in all probability, become the law of the land. The petitioners referred to the testimony he had borne to their loyalty, in 1814. He was willing to bear the same testimony now. Indeed, no complimentary expressions he could use, would be stronger than those employed by the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, in the late discussions on the Catholic claims. But no loyalty, on the part of the members of the lodges, could compensate for the evil of their existence. With regard to certain members of the Orange Associations, he was able to assert, that, although in public employments, they had continued to belong to them, for the sake of exercising a beneficial influence over the rest of the members, at once to dissolve all connexion.
Mr. Brownlowobserved, that, by saying the Orange Societies no longer existed, he meant to indicate to the House that, as soon as the bill now before the other House passed into a law, the Orange Associations would submit to that law.
Ordered to lie on the table.

REPEAL OF THE ASSESSED TAXES
Mr. Maberlysaid, he rose, in pursuance of notice to call the attention of the House to the propriety of repealing the whole of the Assessed Taxes. When he looked round him, and saw the thin state of the House, he should have imagined, that not a single petition had been presented for the repeal of those taxes; whereas, if the country were canvassed from house to house, he believed that nine hundred and ninety-nine householders out of every thousand would be in favour of this motion. However eloquently and forcibly the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward his financial statement, he might be allowed, without impugning the right hon. gentleman's motives, to differ from him as to the means by which he proposed to alleviate the burthens of the country. Concurring with him in his principles of foreign policy and free trade, he could not help thinking he was at variance with his own principles on other subjects; but, following up those principles, he should endeavour, and he hoped successfully, to contend that the right hon. gentleman had not taken the best mode of relieving the public from their real burthens. He did not contend that the people were now distressed; but he contended that if they were now in a more affluent state than formerly, they were still enti-
902
tled to all the relief that could be afforded to them, and that the governors were to act for the benefit of the governed. He had supposed that the right hon. gentleman would have paid more attention to this particular subject; and he thought the people had a right to have these taxes repealed, when their opinion was so general on the subject. He should endeavour to follow the right hon. gentleman through his statements; and it did appear to him, that, following up his own principles and propositions, the right hon. gentleman, had not taken the best means of alleviating the public burthens. He would therefore state his own views, and show that a reduction of taxation to a larger amount might be effected than that which was proposed. The first article that the right hon. gentleman proposed to reduce the duty on, was hemp, from which he took 50 per cent, consequently leaving a duty of 15 per cent. Now, he always understood that this article was to be put on the same footing as flax, because it was a raw material, and greatly used in manufacture. Cordage was now purchased from foreigners; whereas, it would be wholly manufactured by ourselves, if there were no duty on it. The right hon. gentleman said, "here I have followed the advice you gave me; I have reduced the duty on the articles you pointed out;" but, in point of fact, he had not made that reduction on those articles in which it would have a real effect on manufactures. The next article, the duty on which was reduced, was coffee; when petitions were coming from every part of the kingdom, praying for a reduction of duties on other particular articles, without any allusion or reference whatever to coffee. This was a reduction which would only operate in favour of the rich, and, therefore he thought, as it would not give general relief, the right hon. gentleman might have made a better selection. The next article was wine. To be sure, the right hon. gentleman made a sort of attempt to say that wine was an article of necessity for the sick; but he nevertheless could not help thinking, that it was an article of luxury on which a reduction of duty would not affect the poor. He should be told that the motive for this was, to follow up the principle; namely, "we shall pay for these things in articles of our own manufacture; and if we reduce the duties we shall increase the consumption." That might be very true in some

903
respects; but, would any member believe that if a person was in the habit of drinking one bottle of wine at dinner, he would drink two, in consequence of this reduction of duty? Would the consumption be doubled? for that was the real question. In his opinion, it would not; and when the right hon. gentleman proposed to give up 230,000 l. on this alone, he thought it might have been given up on some other article, which would afford relief to the community at large. The next article was British spirits, and the argument used by the right hon. gentleman was the same as that which he adopted with respect to wine; but in this reduction he rested mainly on the tendency it had to abolish the commission of that enormous offence, smuggling. He was sorry this offence made so deep an impression on the right hon. gentleman, because his principle was not followed up with justice. Last year he chose to legislate by halves on this very subject, and to reduce the duty in Scotland and Ireland to 2s. 6d. while in England it remained at 10 s. 6d. Every body told him then that he would prevent smuggling in Scotland and Ireland. And so he did; but he brought it to the borders of the Tweed; for, in fact, it would not be abolished without reducing the duty equally through all the three countries. If the right hon. member did this, smuggling in the particular article of spirits would be at an end; and the smuggler would be driven to turn his capital and industry to tobacco and other articles. He, therefore, should say, that the duty ought to be reduced on every other article, before those things were touched, which were only calculated to demoralize the people. The next article was rum; and, he would leave that subject to those who were more competent to treat of it. The next article was cyder; and with respect to that, relief was certainly afforded to those who drank cyder as beer. With respect to the repeal of the Assessed Taxes, it would be not only doing away the taxes themselves, but abolishing the vexation which many persons endured from the mode in which they were subjected to penalties, from not knowing how to act. The article to which the reductions of the right hon. gentleman next applied, was iron; and he would ask, why he did not take the same course with respect to hemp? That article was also a raw material, and he saw no reason why one should stand at 15 per cent while
904
the other was at 30 s. There should be some equal scale, to follow the principle of the right hon. gentleman correctly. He had nothing more to say with respect to the proposed reductions; but he thought it expedient to show the right hon. gentleman how much more he might have done. Did he not think it would be much better to reduce the duty on tea, than the tax on wine and spirits? We could send out manufactured articles to pay for tea the same as we did to pay for other articles. The benefit proposed by reducing the duty on wine and spirits was, that there would be an additional quantity consumed; but, there was this difference between that reduction and a reduction of the duty on tea—the one commodity tended to demoralise the people, while the other did not. The next article alluded to by the right hon. gentleman was tobacco. It was much more desirable that the duty should be reduced on that, than on spirits, because it was become an article of necessity; and moreover, it was as much smuggled as spirits; therefore the argument with respect to smuggling applied equally strong to it. There were many articles which would come under the same description, such as hides, indigo, tallow, wool, silk, &c and he would say that it was expedient to reduce the duties on these articles, in preference to those articles which demoralised the people. He should not dwell on these articles: all he meant to show was, that if the selection of the right hon. gentleman had been more judicious, there would have been more relief afforded.—He should now proceed to the consideration of that part of the question of which he had given notice; namely the reduction of the Assessed Taxes. He thought after the numerous petitions that had been presented from all parts of the country, the House must be thoroughly convinced, that there was no tax on which a reduction would give so much general satisfaction as the assessed taxes, particularly the house and window taxes. He was not so anxious as to the others, because they fell more on the rich. By the abolition of these taxes, we should get rid of one entire branch of the management of the revenue; because the land tax could be easily put under another class. A saving of upwards of 300,000 l. would take place in taxes which not only pressed on the people, but were vexatious and onerous in their nature. The people were as much dissatisfied with

905
the vexatious mode in which these taxes were collected, and the trouble they had in making appeals, as they were with the burthen itself. The hon. member here referred to the speech of the chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1823, in which that right hon. gentleman said, there was a necessity of getting rid of direct taxation then. The assesed taxes were quite as grievous now; and he knew of no class in society that would not be relieved by the repeal of them. The poor man would be relieved; the man in middling circumstances would have his oppression alleviated; and, above all, the shopkeeper, on whom these taxes pressed particularly heavy, would be eased of his burthen. He was aware that the window-tax had been remitted, as far as shop windows were concerned; but yet these taxes operated, in other respects, most grievously on this class of society. He looked upon this tax as a partial tax—as a sort of property tax; and, as such, just as grievous as if it was put directly upon funded or landed property. The reducing a tax in part was, in his opinion, a very improper measure. If a tax was to be reduced, it should be reduced altogether; by which means there would be a great saving to the government in the expense of receiving and gathering it. With respect to the sinking fund, instead of keeping it up, he thought it might be much better applied to the reduction of taxes. In fact it was no sinking fund; for he would shew that the debt was greater at the present time than in the year 1815. The House was told that there was a sinking fund of 5,000,000 l. A noble lord had come down and declared, that the safety of the nation depended on it; but in fourteen days afterwards he had stated, that finding it not agreeable to the House, he would, if it pleased, grant an annuity for forty-five years, so that the government should have in its possession a fund for the satisfaction of those demands; and the noble lord was actually allowed, though going in opposition to his own principles, to put a debt of sixty millions on the country; and he also made, what he had no right to make, a voluntary surrender of two millions. Mr. Ricardo had said, that he found, from experience, that a sinking fund was always seized by the minister. Nothing could be more true than this. It was true, that that gentleman had never objected to the principle, though he had in that manner found fault with the application. The
906
argument mainly used by the advocates for the sinking fund, was the advantage that accrued from daily purchases; that is to say, that though the money was obtained on bad terms, yet the system was to be encouraged, as it went to the keeping up of public credit. But, the proof of the fallacy of all this reasoning was the fact, that the country had a funded and unfunded debt of 12,000,000 l. more than it had in Jan. 1816; and the way that was adopted, was an underhand and juggling one, in order that the country gentlemen might be deluded into the support of the measure. With respect to the advantages, he contended that they were greater by giving up the taxation, than by increasing the sinking fund. He would not deny that the interest of the debt had been greatly reduced by altering it from five to four per cent, but that advantage did not arise from the sinking fund—a thing that, in fact, never existed—but was rather owing to the prosperity of the country, which gave the people energy and industry. He knew of nothing that came so home to the people as the reduction of direct taxation. He had voted with the government oh all occasions when they had displayed a liberal policy; but he would ask the right hon. gentleman, whether the sinking fund could give such general satisfaction as the reduction of the taxes? He took the same view as the right hon. gentleman had done, with respect to the regulations of trade, and he thought that a better alteration had never taken place. Before, it was nothing but restriction; now, it was all liberty: and he was convinced that there was no measure that could give more general satisfaction, than the repeal of the Assessed Taxes. The amount that he proposed to be repealed was 3,970,000 l., as taken off from the nett produce of 1824. He would move his first resolution," That it is the opinon of the House, that all duties on Windows imposed by 48 Geo. 3rd, and subsequent acts, should cease and determine."
Mr. Leycesterseconded the motion. He said, he was decidedly in favour of getting rid of the assessed taxes, from the constant vexation to which the collection of them was subject. Let these taxes be taken off, and the revenue would lose nothing, for the country would be richer, and the consumption on all hands would be greater. Gentlemen would keep more horses, more servants, and contribute to

907
the support of the state full as effectually as they did at present. Under the existing system, the land was overshadowed with tax-gatherers, a venal phalanx, always ready to cry "Popery," or "No Popery," at the beck of any minister who thought proper to command them. The whole process attendant upon surcharges was vexatious and unsatisfactory, in the highest degree; and the trouble of appeal was such as to render that remedy entirely unavailable. He agreed entirely with his hon. friend, as to the propriety of the repeal of the assessed taxes; and not less decidedly upon the reduction of the sinking fund. The removal of taxation, by favouring the accumulation of wealth and capital, would do ten times more towards enabling us to get rid of the national debt, than ever the sinking fund would do. There were circumstances in the condition of the country which made such a change of system peculiarly desirable. A general desire prevailed for an alteration in the corn laws. It was most advisable that such an alteration should take place; but quite impossible that it should be made, without are-peal of the sinking fund. The corn laws formed a counterpoise, as regarded the agricultural interest, to the assessed taxes; and it would be impossible for that interest to bear such a burthen, if it was deprived of that support.
Mr. Heathcotesupported the motion, because he was persuaded that it was the general wish throughout the country. He was not, however, of the same opinion, with respect to the sinking fund; for he was persuaded it was a fund that, should this nation be again engaged in war, would enable the government to arm the troops, and raise the necessary supplies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he certainly felt a little surprise, after having heard the argument of the hon. gentleman, that he should have brought forward his motion to-night, because he grounded the practicability of effecting his object on the extinction of the sinking fund. Now, it so happened, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had that very night given notice of a motion which went to get rid of the sinking fund; and it was a little singular, that the hon. gentleman should bring forward his present motion without attempting to lay the basis on which alone he admitted that it could be founded. However, as the hon. gentleman had not thought proper to take that
908
course, he should state to the House the reasons why he thought it would not be advisable to adopt the hon. gentleman's proposition. He should take the liberty of considering the hon. gentleman's proposition as a whole; for, although he had divided his motion into a number of branches, probably with the view of catching the votes of a few persons who might be disposed to give it a partial support, yet the notice which the hon. gentleman had given, and the general argument on which he had founded his motion, went to the abolition of the whole of the assessed taxes. It was to be recollected, that, at no distant period, the hon. member for Westminster was to move, specifically for the repeal of the House and Window taxes. He should, therefore, consider the hon. gentleman's motion, as a motion for the repeal of the whole of the assessed taxes. The hon. member, while he disapproved of the items of taxation which had been proposed to be remitted, contended, that by getting rid of the sinking fund, three millions and a half of taxes might be reduced, in addition to the 1,500,000 l. proposed to be reduced. The hon. member argued, that the reduction of the duty on hemp was not sufficient, inasmuch as it was now 3s. per cent on the value, and it was only proposed to reduce it to 15. It should be recollected, however, that if the demand for hemp became greater, the duty would cease to bear so high a proportion to the price. He had been informed, by persons capable of forming a sound opinion on the subject, that the reduction of the duty on hemp was a boon which would be generally felt, and duly appreciated. The next item was that of coffee. Here the hon. gentleman had found fault with him for having selected an article which, he said, was very little consumed in this country. He did not know upon what ground the hon. gentleman had made his statement. At all events, he was satisfied, that, if it were not for the high duty, it would be much more extensively consumed. It appeared that, since the duty had been increased, the consumption had diminished; and there could not be a surer criterion of a tax being too high, or a stronger motive for reducing it, than the fact that it had impeded the consumption. He had recommended the reduction of this tax; first, because it would tend to bring a nutritious and palatable article within the reach of the poorer

909
classes of the people; secondly, because it formed part of those general principles of commercial expediency, which he had recommended to the adoption of the House; and thirdly., because it tended to give additional facilities to the consumption of West-India produce. With respect to the reduction of the duty on wine, the hon. gentleman had treated with great contempt that part of the statement which he had made on a former night, in which he had endeavoured to shew that wine was not a mere article of luxury. To a vast number of persons in the middle classes of society wine could not be considered as a mere luxury; but, even admitting it to be so, why should they not endeavour to give to those classes a taste of the luxuries which they themselves enjoyed? If he had made the article of wine more accessible to trades people, for instance, than it had hitherto been, he conceived, that the course he had taken was perfectly consistent with justice and sound policy. He believed there was only one objection to the reduction of this duty; and that was, that it came a year or two too late. The hon. gentleman had found great fault with the proposed reduction of the duties on spirits. This was certainly a very important part of the reductions, as it constituted one-half of the duties which he proposed to remit. The hon. member, however, seemed to forget, that the course which he had taken with regard to spirits, was rendered absolutely necessary, with a view to the prevention of smuggling. After the measures which had been taken with this view in Ireland and Scotland, it was perfectly clear, that it would be impossible long to maintain a duty in England, between which, and that in Ireland and Scotland, there was the enormous difference of 10 s. 6d. and 2s. He was perfectly aware of this; and he had only maintained the duty so long in this country, with a view of observing the practical effect of the measure in those parts of the empire. The hon. member said, that the reductions did not go far enough; and that he did not execute his own purpose. He admitted that he did not; but it was impossible to do every thing at once. The hon. member wished the duty on tea to be remitted; but, if he dealt in this way with all the great branches of the revenue, what would be the effect of such a sweeping reduction with respect to his own proposition for the reduction of the assessed taxes? He
910
complained also, that the duty on tobacco had not been taken off Now, it would have been useless to diminish the duty on tobacco to a less extent than one half; for any smaller reduction would only have thrown money into the hands of the dealer, without diminishing the amount of smuggling in that commodity. Supposing the reduction of the duty on tobacco to have been one-half, and the loss to the revenue one-fourth, this alone would amount to 1,500,000 l. the whole of the disposable surplus. How would such a reduction, therefore, have affected the hon. gentleman's plan for the reduction of the assessed taxes? Then, the hon. gentleman went to the duty on tea. The duty on tea was 100 per cent; heavy enough God knew! and the amount of revenue arising from that commodity was 3,000,000 l. The smuggling in this article was not so easy as in some other articles; but, if the smuggler were driven from his illicit trade in tobacco, he would probably have recourse to tea, and in order to prevent smuggling in that commodity effectually, it would be necessary to reduce as much as three-fourths of the duty. This alone, therefore, would produce a loss to the revenue of 2,250,000 l. How could such a reduction be consistent with the hon. gentleman's own proposition?
Mr. Maberlysaid, he had not proposed to reduce all those articles in that proportion, but only some of them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it appeared, then, that he had misunderstood that part of the hon. gentleman's argument. However, he contended, that the assessed taxes ought to be reduced, and that it would be possible to repeal them, as well as to apply 1,500,000 l. to the reduction of taxes on articles of consumption, by getting rid of the sinking fund. Now, he begged to call to the recollection of the House, that, since the year 1821, three millions and a half, that was, one-half of the assessed taxes, had been reduced. He had applied himself generally to relieve the country from its burthens. Great relief had been afforded in the malt and salt taxes, and in the duties on articles connected with foreign trade. Out of ten millions which had been applied to the relief of the country in the last four years, three millions and a half had been applied to the reduction of the assessed taxes. This was surely a fair proportion, supposing the other objects of relief to have been worthy of the

911
attention of parliament. The hon. gentleman said, they had nothing to do but to get rid of the sinking fund, and they might then repeal three millions and a half of taxes. But, he had also argued, that, in point of fact, they had not got five millions of surplus; the arrangement about the half-pay and pensions was, as he contended, a mere juggle, and the surplus did not amount to more than three millions. If this was so, the hon. gentleman's proposition would actually go to increase the debt of the country to the amount of 500,000 l. The right hon. member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney) and the late Mr. Ricardo, though they were opposed to a sinking fund, constantly argued for the necessity of maintaining a surplus; but, the hon. gentleman's proposition would destroy that surplus. The hon. gentleman had said, that though his (the chancellor of the Exchequer's) propositions had been favourably received in that House, they had excited universal dissatisfaction out of doors. Now, as far as he had been able to collect the opinions of persons out of doors, the propositions which he had made to the House, so far from exciting universal disappointment and dissatisfaction, were approved by all classes of the community, and believed to be founded on a fair, just, and enlightened regard to their best interests.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he could not go the whole length of his hon. friend's propositions, because he did not think they could be acceded to, consistently with the principle which he had always maintained, of preserving a considerable surplus. In the propositions for repealing the house and window duties, he fully concurred. As he had had no opportunity of making any observation on the night the chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement, he must now give that right hon. gentleman his hearty thanks for a Statement, which he had heard with great satisfaction. It was a candid, liberal, and enlightened view of the state of the country; and he congratulated that country upon having a gentleman of such principles in the situation which the right hon. gentleman filled. At the same time, he agreed with his hon. friend, that a larger portion of the surplus ought to have been applied to the reduction of taxation. The first duty of parliament was, to give effect, as far as possible, to the energies of the people; and the most effectual way in which that could be done
912
was to reduce taxation. It had been said, that taxation was to be reduced to the amount of three millions and a half; but it should be recollected, that we were now in the tenth year of peace, and that we had still to make up a revenue of fifty millions in taxes of every kind. Could it be imagined that we were always to continue at peace? And, if we had such an amount to make up in peace, was it not to be expected that our burthens would increase on the breaking out of a war. He did not say that there was any immediate prospect of a commencement of hostilities, but it was not probable that we should continue always at peace. However, while we were so, it was right that every thing should be effected, to render us better able to meet the additional burthen. The best way to do this would be to pay off while we could, as much of the debt as possible. The keeping up a large sum as a sinking fund he condemned; as it held out a temptation to a restless minister to embroil the country in a war. In the proposed reduction on wines he entirely concurred; but, he thought the reduction would not be effectual if the government did not go a step further. By the treaty with Portugal, in 1810, it was agreed, that every encouragement should be given to English companies dealing in the wines of that country; but, the fact was, that since then a Portuguese company was established which, by its dictum, decreed that only so many thousand pipes of wine should be annually imported into England; so that they effected a complete monopoly. It was somewhat similar, with respect to the importation of claret into this country. It was in very few hands; and the price was regulated by the quantity which they pleased to import. He trusted that ministers would interfere to prevent this monopoly; otherwise their proposed reductions would not be of much advantage to the country. He would give his support to the propositions of his hon. friend, for the repeal of the house and window-tax. These would amount to 2,500,000 l., which, added to the 1,500,000 l. which the right hon. gentleman proposed to reduce, would make 4,000,000 l.; but, as some of the right hon. gentleman's items, to the amount of 270,000 l., were included in those of his hon. friend, the whole of the reductions would then be 3,730,000 l., which would still leave a sinking fund, or

913
a surplus revenue, ample enough to meet any deficiency between our income and the expenditure. As to the bargain with the Bank, for the "dead weight," it was most ridiculous to continue it. The arrangement, he knew, was made before the right hon. gentleman came into office, but it was an arrangement which he trusted he would not sanction.
Sir J. Wrottesleysupported the motion. Though he would give the preference to the reduction of the House and Window-taxes, he was an advocate for the repeal of the whole of the assessed taxes. Even after the reduction of those taxes, by getting rid of the sinking fund, there would remain a surplus of two millions.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that, in his opinion, the proposed repeal of taxes would not produce relief amongst those classes for whose benefit the reduction was intended; for he had always found, that in cases where the poor had been relieved from the operation of a tax, the landlords increased their rent. He should vote with his hon. friend, because he was desirous that all the assessed taxes should be taken off.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, he could easily conceive that there were many persons in the country, who would be very desirous that all the assessed taxes should be taken off; and if principles of that nature, which were formerly avowed, had been adopted by parliament in an evil hour, they would have led to the destruction of the British empire, by violating the obligations of national honour, the strict observance of which, under all circumstances, had given England that proud pre-eminence which she now enjoyed over all the nations of the earth. With respect to the proposition of the hon. member, he must say, that as notice had been given of a motion concerning the sinking fund, it would be much more candid and manly to introduce those arguments on that occasion. But, although he could not admit its candour, he could very well understand the tactics upon which the motion of the gentlemen opposite was founded. The hon. member very well knew, that many members might feel disposed to vote for the reduction of the assessed taxes, who would resist any attempt upon the sinking fund. But, the House must see, that to vote for the proposition of the hon. member would be violating the principle to which they were pledged, of maintaining a sinking fund. There was another consideration to which
914
the attention of the House ought to be directed; namely, whether the reduction proposed by the hon. member was that which would give the greatest general relief. He was ready to admit, that there were some taxes which nothing but severe necessity could justify. It had been always held by the gentlemen opposite, that direct taxes operated less mischievously than indirect taxation; and that the Income tax was as free from objection as any other, but for the inquisitorial power which accompanied it. Now, the window-tax was not liable to this objection; and he therefore thought it was not one of the taxes which should be selected for repeal. It had been said, that the reduction of the tax on windows and houses would operate as an inducement for absentees to return and reside at home; but, he was persuaded, that his right hon. friend had, by the reduction of the duties on wine, held out the most effectual temptation for absentees to reside in their own country; and upon this subject he wished to mention to the House a circumstance which had just come to his knowledge. It was proposed by his right hon. friend as part of his plan, to remit to the wine merchants the duty on their stock on hand; and he had learned with considerable indignation, that, within these two days, they had added a price to their wines equal to the duty proposed to be remitted. Now, if this were the case, it would be proper for the House to consider whether those gentlemen should be allowed to pocket this duty; and before they decided this question, it might be just as well for them to determine whether these conscientious wine-merchants should not be first allowed to get rid of their stock on hands, and whether, instead of putting this duty into their own tills, it should not find its way into the public Exchequer. He thought it right to suggest to his right hon. friend, whether it would not be better to let this 300,000 l. go into the public purse, and when those gentlemen had got rid of their stock on hand then to let them obtain relief. The first question was, whether the reduction of taxation had been carried as far as it could at this time? And the second, if it had not, then whether it would be right to carry it further by a direct reduction of the assessed taxes? For the reasons which he had already stated, he was disposed to answer in the negative, to both branches of this question. To those reasons, too, he must add the authority of antiquity

915
seeing that the window-tax was one of the most ancient taxes imposed in this country. At the present moment, notwithstanding the immense increase of the population, its produce did not much exceed the amount it yielded before the commencement of the last war; and therefore it could not be presumed to be so burdensome as it had been represented to be. England was that country, indeed, of all Europe, from which the smallest amount of direct taxation was raised, as compared with the amount of its revenue. Under all these circumstances, he should feel it his duty not to lend himself to the support of any further remission of direct taxes, so long as there should be other taxes in force, which bore more directly and more heavily on the industry and the manufactures of the country.
Mr. T. Wilsonsaid, he could not repress his astonishment, at the language which had been held by the right hon. gentleman. From that right hon. gentleman, as the avowed friend of free and unshackled trade, and the advocate of that cause against all monopolies, he had never expected to hear such manifest contradiction and inconsistency, as he had that night been guilty of; particularly in remarking on the recent rise in the cost of wines. The fact was, that it was the severe weight of the tax which pressed on that article, that had kept people back, upon small stocks, from purchasing: but on the first prospect of a reduction of the duties, they very naturally came forward, in order to replenish their cellars. The consequence of which was, that, for the moment, the demand exceeded the supply, and hence the price was so excessive. Were the wine-merchants to be spoken of as if this effect had been an arbitrary one with them? Could they make the right hon. gentleman, for example, buy, if he did not like to do so? Really, the right hon. gentleman had applied a most unsound doctrine to this subject. He should reserve his general opinion, as to the sinking fund, until the discussion of the promised motion; and should only observe, that he could not agree that three millions were as good as five for a sinking fund.
Lord Althorpsaid, that we had a sinking fund of five millions, or we had not. If we had no such sinking fund, then all the discussions relative to the policy of maintaining such a fund were all put aside; and there could be no reason why the proposition for its reduction should
916
not be adopted. But, if we had such a fund, it then became a very grave question, whether that proposition would be an advisable one to carry into effect. For his own part, he much approved of all the steps which had been taken for bringing back our revenue to a sound and wholesome system. He must at the same time caution ministers not to persevere, against the wishes of the country, in refusing the further reduction of the assessed taxes, for fear of endangering the safety of that system. He had been much surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman expressing so much indignation against tradesmen for making as much as they could of a sudden improvement in their trade. Such an expression of feeling would have astonished him, coming from any member; but, coming from that right hon. gentleman it was most inexplicable. The hon. member for Wareham had asked the right hon. gentleman whether he meant to leave for ever upon the country the immoderate weight of a debt of 800,000,000 l. Now, he (lord Althorp), for one, should answer, that he would not be at all afraid of leaving the debt at that amount; so long as the interest and all the annuities charged upon it could be punctually and honestly discharged—although he might be of a very different opinion if the debt itself were of that amount that there was any possibility of buying it up. That, it was evident, was not at present the case. Upon the whole, he should support the two first of the resolutions that night submitted to the House.
Mr. Huskissonbegged to supply an omission, of which he had been unintentionally guilty. The treaty under which his right hon. friend was bound to continue, for a certain time, a certain duty on port wine, was not, as some gentlemen appeared to suppose, the treaty of 1810; but the much older treaty, commonly called the Methuen treaty, which stipulated, that the wines of Portugal should be admitted into this country, on the payment of a duty, one-third only of that payable on the wines of France. In return for this arrangement, Portugal consented to receive the productions of our woollen trade on favourable terms. This treaty with our ancient ally bore date in 1703. By it it was agreed also, that either party to the contract, at the expiration of every period of fifteen years, might give notice to the other, of any revision or alteration that it might desire;

917
such revision to be arranged and agreed upon between the two governments. The treaty of 1810 had been executed with a view of this kind: and at the end of 1825, it would be competent for either party to propose the introduction of such changes and modifications as its own interests, might seem to require. It was very true, that honourable gentlemen had with justice complained of the manner in which the wine-trade was carried on in Portugal by a chartered company, created by the crown of Portugal; not, however, recently, but at least sixty years ago. That monopoly, he should have no hesitation in saying, was, as all commercial monopolies, generally speaking, were, injurious even to the welfare of the commerce of Portugal herself. Its establishment arose out of the maladministration of this wine-trade by the English factory, at that time settled at Lisbon: and this treaty proposed to repress any improper encroachments of the company' upon the general trade in wine between the two countries, by this periodical facility of revision. It was, perhaps, difficult to say, in what specific manner the relative interests of two independent nations in a trade could be otherwise adjusted. At the close of the present year, however, he should be glad to receive any suggestions, with a view to the improvement of our wine-trade with Portugal. As to what had been called his monstrous proposition about the wine merchants, he had been misunderstood. What he had said on that point, was in strict conformity to what he had said on an occasion, happening while lord Bexley was chancellor of the Exchequer. A reduction of the duty on malt was proposed by the ministers; and he at the same time intimated, that he should allow a remission of duty upon Stock in hand; whereupon one of the greatest brewers rose in that House, and said, that the public would not benefit by the reduction of duty, for that the brewers would put the difference into their own pockets. He (Mr. Huskisson) then called on the chancellor of the Exchequer not to allow any such remission in the teeth of such a declaration; when the brewers thought fit to retract, and the public had the benefit of the reduced duty. What, therefore, he had done by malt, he would certainly do by wine.
Mr. Calcrafthad always understood from the right hon. gentleman, that the
918
demand regulated the supply, and the supply the price of all commodities. But his doctrine of to-night was exactly the reverse of all this. Why, surely no man could say of any article—"I will have this at such a rate." To what purpose, then, were the remarks of the right hon. gentleman on the conduct of the wine-merchants? His own understanding of the Methuen treaty was, that if the wine company of Portugal interfered with the trade subsisting btween England and Portugal, the two states would immediately interfere to remedy the evil. But, what was the fact? This company said one year to the English consumers—you shall have 25,000 pipes: then the next year, you shall have 16,000; the next, 10,000. It was evident then that they regulated the trade at their pleasure.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the Methuen treaty was certainly retained as an article in the treaty of 1810; but, there was another article in the treaty of 1810, which went, in terms, to preclude Portugal from creating or sanctioning any monopoly, or exclusive company, that should be prejudicial to the interests of the British trade. At that time, the Oporto wine company was in existence, it did not exert its powers and privileges in any such manner, or to such an extent, as to interfere with the British trade. In course of time, however, it undoubtedly did so; and that fact became the subject of a complaint on the part of the British government, to the government of Portugal. The government of Portugal, thinking, probably, that they derived some advantage from such a company, always denied the construction which England put upon the treaty; and long and unsatisfactory discussions were entered into by both the parties on that question. In 1820, a new minister was sent by Portugal to this country, charged to negociate a revision of the terms of this contract. To say the truth, he seemed to know very little about his business, and was soon after recalled. A notice had been given since, to the Portuguese government of our intention to revise and reconsider the treaty of 1810. With a view to that revision, Portugal had already suspended one article of the treaty. Some of the conditions and articles of that treaty were extremely onerous to Portugal; others to this country; but the revision of the whole was, he was happy to say, open to all the contracting parties.
Mr. Marjoribanksthought that the gentlemen engaged in the wine trade would act, not only unjustly, but inconsistently with their own interests, if they did not reduce the prices of all their wines after a ratio at least equal to the reduction of duties upon them.
Mr. Monckdiffered from a right hon. gentleman as to his estimate of the great weight of assessed taxes in France. In that country, the amount of direct taxes was, upon property, about 10 per cent, and no more; and for this the payers had value received to a great extent, in paving, lighting, and roads supplied by government, and the very important exception from those turnpike dues, which assailed a man at the end of almost every hundred yards in this country. The heaviest tax which the people of France paid, was a land-tax, amounting to about 4s. in the pound, and producing a revenue of 12,000,000 l. sterling, or one third, nearly, of the whole revenue raised by the French government. One thing was certain, that if the right hon. gentleman would not reduce the assessed taxes of England, the excess of smuggling in this country would soon do it for him. By the returns to this House it appeared, that during the last year one million pounds of tobacco had been run; which, had they been regularly imported, would have paid a duty of about 200,000 l. The hon. gentleman then contrasted the cost of the preventive service and other establishments for the prevention of smuggling, with the value of goods seized to the Crown; and argued that lighter taxes and lower imposts would produce fewer smugglers and a greater revenue. With respect to the sinking fund, he was friendly to its principle; but, he thought a sinking fund of 3,000,000 l. would be sufficient; and that would afford an opportunity of further reducing taxes to the amount of 2,000,000 l. As to the assessed taxes, he hoped the right hon, gentleman would always keep in mind the relief of the working classes, and, with that view, he should be most delighted to find the duty on their beer, instead of being 10 s. per barrel, only 5s. With this impression he should certainly vote for the two first resolutions.
Mr. C. Calvertfelt it necessary to set the House right with respect to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman with regard to the reduced duty on malt, during the period when a noble lord, now belonging to another House, was chancellor of
920
the Exchequer. The reduction, of which so much had been said, was no more than 8s. a quarter, and on that occasion, he would remind the House, that it was not to be expected the great brewers could lower the price of beer even as much as a halfpenny a pot, and for this reason, that a reduction of a halfpenny per pot would be equal to 21 s. a quarter. He then foretold that there could be no reduction; nor was there any. The fact was, the great brewers cared nothing about his interference; it had, and would have, no effect on them, though he went about fretting and giving himself great credit for the wonders he had wrought. As to the reduction which goon after took place, it was by no means attributable to that right hon. gentleman's threats, but to a subsequent lowering of the price of grain.
Mr. Alderman Heygatefeared, from the course adopted by ministers, there was little chance that the country would be relieved from the taxes now sought to be repealed. After adverting to the evils of smuggling, especially as it was much aided by the middling classes of the community, he contended, in reference to the budget of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that the reductions proposed did not relieve the proper persons. Those who wanted aid most were not the rich who drank French wines, nor the poor who drank spirits, but the middle orders, who were obliged to keep up a respectable appearance at an expence which they could ill afford. He gave credit, nevertheless, to ministers, for a sincere desire to benefit the people at large! He firmly believed that the greatest benefit would result to the lower orders if spirituous liquors were made so dear as to be out of their reach; for it was the opinion of the best writers, that nothing tended so much to demoralize a people, as the facility with which they could procure spirits. In voting for the reduction of the house and window tax, he did it under the conviction, that even without it ministers would be able to reduce the expenditure to the limits of the income.
Sir R. Wilsonnoticed the state of the Netherlands, with regard to taxation. Notwithstanding the cheapness of house-rent and provisions, the fiscal regulations there were so vexatious, that the English had abandoned all the principal towns where they had formerly resided. He objected to the house and window tax. because it was inquisitorial, and interfered with the privacy of life.
Sir W. Inglebyobserved, that, notwithstanding the flattering statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, he could see no reason to change his opinion of the necessity of a reduction of the house and window duties.
Mr. Maberlyrose to reply. He said, he was not surprised that ministers considered the sinking fund a tender subject, because they knew it was a mere delusion; he should, however, be glad if the chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. friend would settle between them what was its real amount. He had the authority of the chancellor of the Exchequer for saying, that next year he expected it to be 5,500,000 l. and adding to it the anticipated surplus, there would remain 7,000, 000 l. for the relief of the people from taxation. He contended that the relief would have been much more important, if the chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the duty on tea and tobacco. At all events the selection of the right hon. gentleman had been injudicious. He admitted that direct taxation was just in principle; and on this account, he preferred a property tax; but from its odious inquisitorial character, he hoped never again to see it adopted. Whatever might be the result of the present motion, he was convinced that the House would at last come to the determination, that the House and Window tax ought to be repealed. The feelings of the people were in favour of its abrogation; and, after the sacrifices they had made, those feelings deserved attention. Should the result of a division be contrary to his hopes, he had the consolation of knowing that the hon. member for Westminster had given notice of a motion of a similar kind, which he trusted would meet with better success.
The House divided: Ayes 64. Noes 111. Majority against the motion 47.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc.

Denman, T.

Anson, hon. G.

Duncannon, vis.

Benett, J.

East, sir E.

Bernal, R.

Gordon, R.

Blake, sir F.

Grant, J. P.

Bright, H.

Guise, sir B. W.

Burdett, sir F.

Gurney, R. H.

Byng, G.

Heathcote, sir G.

Calvert, C.

Heygate, W.

Cavendish, C. C.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Cavendish, H. F. C.

Hornby, E.

Cradock, S.

Howard, H.

Davenport, D.

Hume, J.

Denison, W. J.

Hittehinson, hon. C.

922

Ingilby, sir W.

Poyntz, W. S.

James, W.

Ridley, sir M. W.

Jervoise, G. P.

Robarts, A. W.

Johnstone, W. A.

Robinson, sir G.

Lambton, J. G.

Rowley, sir W.

Leader, W.

Taylor, M. A.

Lester, B.

Tierney, right hon. G.

Lethbridge, sir T.

Townshend, lord C.

Leycester, R.

Webb, E.

Lloyd, J. M.

Whitbread, W. H.

Lockhart, J. J.

White, S.

Maberly, W. L.

Williams, T. P.

Macdonald, J.

Wilson, sir R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Winnington, sir T.

Manning, W.

Wood, M.

Milton, visc.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Monck, T. B.

TELLERS.

Palmer, C.

Palmer C. F.

Calcraft, J.

Powlett, hon. W.

Maberly, J.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.
The Earl of Carnarvon,before the House proceeded to the order of the day, wished to present a petition, signed by several respectable Irish Roman Catholics now in London. Before the me-

855
tion for the second reading of the bill, which was now on the table, should be put, he wished to know, from the noble earl opposite, whether he would accede to the prayer of the petitioners to be heard by counsel against the bill. If the noble earl did not consent to that proposition, he should feel it his duty to trouble their lordships with a statement of the grounds on which he thought the prayer of the petion ought to be granted.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had no hesitation in stating, that, under the circumstances of the case, he thought the petitioners were not entitled to be so heard.
The Earl of Carnarvonthen rose to state his reasons for supporting the prayer of the petition. He conceived, he said, that, like all individuals who were about to be affected by a proceeding before the House, the petitioners were entitled to be heard by counsel against the present bill. This was a principle which had always governed their lordships' proceedings, and which should always be strictly adhered to by that House, which was the highest tribunal of justice in the kingdom. What was the nature of the bill before their lordships? Need he put that question? It was the measure indicated, at the commencement of the session, in his majesty's speech: the very measure which their lordships' had pledged themselves, from the first day of the meeting of parliament, to take into their serious consideration. Now, if it was the measure thus directly pointed out in the king's speech, let him ask, how the members of the Catholic Association stood affected by the bill? The speech from the throne contained a charge of a most serious nature against certain individuals. It charged the members of the Catholic Association, if not with an illegal, yet with a most enormous offence. It stated, that industry and commercial enterprise were extending themselves in Ireland, and then came the following passage—"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 excitingalarm, and by exasperating animosities, to endanger the peace of society, and to retard the course of national improvement." Now, he would ask their lordships, was not this a serious charge to be made against any individuals? Must not the members of the Catholic Association, after
856
this, labour under an imputation which they must be desirous to remove? Was it nothing for loyal subjects—if such they were—to hear words of the kind he had quoted, put into the mouth of their sovereign against them? They had endeavoured to tranquillize their country, and had succeeded; but they were charged with adopting proceedings inconsistent with the constitution, and calculated to create alarm in the country. This was not all: they were charged with disturbing the peace of society, and retarding the improvement of the country. Surely, these were charges which entitled the individuals against whom they were made to come before that House, in order to prove that the imputations cast upon them were unfounded. But inquiry had hitherto been refused; because it was alleged, that the improper conduct of the Catholic Association was so notorious, as to render evidence unnecessary. He had, however, been taught by experience the folly of legislating on such a ground. He never would look for evidence in support of such charges to public report, or the details of newspapers. It was not on such authority that their lordships ought to legislate, when the liberties of the people were in question. A select committee had been appointed to examine into the state of Ireland, and it was proposed that the measure now under consideration should also be referred to a select committee, in order that their lordships might hear the opinion of that committee as to its necessity. But, their lordships were told, that there was no occasion for any preliminary inquiry—that, in fact, there were no secrets to inquire into, because the meetings of the offending society, had always been public, and their proceedings published to the world. Their lordships, however, had no means of ascertaining the truth of the representations which had been made of the conduct of the Catholic Association. Much of the information they might have on that subject must have reached them through polluted sources, which could not be depended on. He was, therefore, instructed to say, that one of the objects of the petitioners in asking to be heard by counsel was, that they might have the opportunity of laying before the House the authentic minutes of the proceedings from the first day of their meeting to the present hour. Those minutes would show, that there had been nothing censurable in their conduct—nothing which could make them

857
subject to the charges pronounced against them in his majesty's speech, and which had been made the ground for bringing in the present bill. He knew not, therefore, how the noble earl could justify his determination not to allow those persons to be heard in their own defence. Such a determination was contrary to all the practices of their lordships' House. So careful were their lordships with regard to personal interests, that they would not pass a bill to exclude a goose from a common, until the owner was heard. Would it be said by any one of their lordships, that this bill was not directed against the Catholic Association? The ground expressly stated for it was the notoriety of the proceedings of that body. If the noble earl could not but acknowledge that the bill was introduced in consequence of the proceedings of the Association, how could he refuse to allow the members of that body the opportunity of justifying their conduct? The speeches of noble lords opposite, and still more the speech of his majesty, made a distinct charge against the members of the Association, and his majesty had called upon the House to take up the subject immediately. The words of the speech were—"His Majesty relies on your wisdom to consider without delay the means of applying a remedy to this evil." He was, therefore, warranted in concluding, that the bill now before the House was the measure which ministers considered to be the remedy for the evil which his majesty had pointed out. But it was said, that the petitioners had no personal interests at stake on the question—that the measure was altogether one of a public nature—and that it was not the practice to hear counsel against a proceeding of a general description. If the petitioners really had no personal interest—if they complained of no particular injury to themselves—then this argument would be good; but, these were men whose individual conduct was called in question, and who were charged with offences of the most aggravated kind. Had they, then, no interest in the removal of such imputations? It was plain that in this matter their lordships were legislating in the dark. They might, however, easily obtain information; and ought not, for their own sakes, to refuse any evidence which was offered. After all the experience they had had of Ireland, could they expect any advantage from the measure which it was proposed to enact? Could they hope
858
that any measures of a coercive description would ever produce a beneficial effect? Notwithstanding what had been said in the speech from the throne, all that their lordships regularly knew of the Association was, that since its meeting tranquillity had been preserved in Ireland. Was it reasonable, then, to expect the same effect from putting it down? The necessity for obtaining information before they passed this act, was materially increased by the distance of the persons to whom it applied. The proposed measure was to affect the people of a country of whose true interests, he was afraid, many in that House were not well informed—a people whose habits were very different from those with whom their lordships were more intimately acquainted. On all former occasions, when it had been proposed to pass a measure of this sort, applied to this country, it had been always the practice to precede it by a committee of inquiry. If, then, it was thought necessary to seek information, before a measure affecting the liberties of the people of this part of the country could be adopted, how much more were their lordships bound to look for information in the present case? If the conduct of the Catholic Association was as dangerous as it had been represented, would that body be countenanced by the principal persons of the country? That Association had in its favour not only the great body of the Catholic population, but its leaders were among the ablest men in the country; and from the petitions which had been presented, their lordships knew to what extent it was supported by men of wealth and rank. Until better information was obtained, it was ridiculous to assert, that the existence of this Association was dangerous to the country. If their lordships granted an inquiry, it was probable that the result of the investigation would produce some important information. It was possible, that some legislative measure might be found necessary; but, in the first place, let the House go into an inquiry, to ascertain the real nature of the evil, and to determine whether it required a legislative remedy. He hoped for their lordships' own sakes—for the interests of Ireland—and for the interests of this country—that they would not refuse inquiry. He was sure that they would obtain information which would be useful to them on the present measure. What, if the result should be, that it was

859
not the Catholic Association which had exasperated animosities, endangered the peace of society, and retarded the course of national improvement, as described in his majesty's speech? What, if it should be found, that these evils were not attributable to them, but to others? If, then, this might prove to be the case, why should we not return the ingredients of the poisoned chalice to the lips of those who were the real authors of the evil? Of this he was certain, that if their lordships allowed the petitioners to plead their own cause, they would do much towards laying the foundation of permanent peace. And, if this was necessary for the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, it was no less so for the interests and security of Great Britain. England and Ireland must stand or fall together. He again pressed upon the recollection of their lordships, that it was in consequence of the words in his majesty's speech, that the present measure was resorted to. The only way to make the bill intelligible would be, to leave out the whole of the preamble, and to substitute for it the words of his majesty's speech, charging the Catholic Association with adopting proceedings inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, calculated to excite alarm, to endanger the peace of society, and to retard national improvement. But, before this charge was inserted, it ought to be ascertained whether the Association merited it. Their lordships were bound to inquire, whether it was not others who had interrupted the peace of the country, and retarded those national improvements which might give to Ireland that degree of prosperity and wealth which was consistent with the number and the character of her population. He believed that no country in the world would exhibit so rapid a progress in prosperity as Ireland, if their lordships adopted the measure which the state of that country really required. He concluded by moving, "That the petitioners be heard, by themselves, or their counsel, at the bar of the House."
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he would not enter into any discussion on the general measure to which the order of the day applied. There would be sufficient opportunity for its consideration, when the motion came regularly before their lordships. With regard to the proposition of the noble earl, for hearing counsel, he conceived that, if their lordships acceded
860
to it, they would give up all those general rules, by which their practice had hitherto been guided, and would establish a precedent of a most dangerous nature. What did the bill before the House enact? What did the preamble state? It purported to be a measure altogether of a general nature. It did not even name the Catholic Association. He did not mean to deny that the conduct of that body afforded a ground for passing the bill; but, unquestionably it was directed equally against all associations. It was, as the preamble stated, introduced for the purpose of preventing the evasion of a former act. This being the object of the bill, if every particular individual, who might allege that he was aggrieved, was to be heard against it, their lordships would never get to the end of their labours. If individuals were allowed to come forward and state reasons against the passing of general measures, parliament never could legislate. When any particular or special pecuniary interest was supposed to be affected by a measure before the House, individuals so situated might be heard; but, in so far as their lordships had been accustomed to hear them, it had always been when the bill was going into the committee, and not on the second reading. The persons thus heard were always heard on their own special interests only. What bill was there with regard to which a similar application might not be made, if the claim of the petitioners were allowed on this? If their lordships consented to hear one body of men, what good reason could they give for refusing to hear another? If the Catholic Association were to be heard against the bill, every other society would have an equal claim; and their lordships might pass six months in hearing counsel. He had already said, that this bill was proposed against associations generally: it applied to all alike. He did not, however, mean to deny that the conduct and proceedings of the Catholic Association had influenced, though not exclusively, the bringing forward of the measure. It had been said, that, on all former occasions, before passing any bill of this kind, their lordships had instituted inquiries, and adopted the measure in consequence of the report of a secret committee; but here the case was essentially different—the measure was grounded on the notorious nature of the proceedings against which it was directed. That notoriety was always assumed. Indeed,

861
there was not a fact respecting the conduct of the Catholic Association on which he relied, which he was not prepared to give up, if any noble lord would say that he knew it to be untrue. There would still remain ground enough for passing the bill, as a measure applicable to all associations; not to the Catholic Association alone, but all other societies which adopted proceedings irreconcilable with the spirit of the constitution. The provisions of the bill were general in their nature, and applicable to all societies that assumed or exercised the powers which it described. The petition, therefore, demanding to be heard against it, was contrary to all precedent; and if granted, would open the door to great delays and inconvenience. But, he would go further, and say, that if ever there was a case in which no ground could be stated for a departure from the common rules, this was that case. It was well known to their lordships that his majesty's ministers had concurred in the wisdom and utility of a general inquiry into the situation of Ireland. A committee had been appointed for conducting that inquiry by each House of parliament; and he would ask all those who were acquainted with the manner in which that committee conducted its proceedings, whether the best disposition was not shown to go into the investigation fully, fairly, and impartially—to hear all the evidence that was likely to be useful, and to receive every piece of information that was likely to enlighten the committee on the subjects which came before it? A more full and extensive inquiry, he believed, never was instituted; and though some inconveniences resulted from its very general character, and its facility in admitting all kinds of evidence, still he thought it better to submit to those inconveniences, than to have a partial and limited investigation. To that committee persons of all parties were invited; and if any other inquiry were instituted with a reference to the bill before the House, he did not see why the members of the Catholic Association alone should be heard. A noble friend of his had presented a petition from certain Protestants of Ireland, called Orangemen, who prayed likewise to be heard at the bar of the House respecting this bill; and he did not see how their prayer could be resisted, if that of the Catholic Association were granted. Both sides were invited to come before the committee of either
862
House now sitting, and they would be heard. Before the committee of the other House, a gentleman who took a leading part in the Catholic Association had had a full opportunity of communicating all the information which he possessed. If the same gentleman would offer himself to their lordships' committee, his evidence would not be rejected. That committee wished to hear every one connected with Ireland, or acquainted with its situation, so far as could conduce to the beneficial result of its inquiry; nor was there any restriction with respect to the cause which the witness espoused, or the view of politics which he entertained. He knew it would be urged, that this would be hearing evidence after passing the bill, and therefore could not be said to be a compliance with the prayer of the petitioners. This he admitted; and he did not mention the hearing of evidence before the committee as having any reference to the bill, the policy of which rested on the notoriety of the facts; but to show that there was no backwardness to give the petitioners an opportunity of stating their views, or vindicating their intentions. Considering, then, that there was no ground laid for compliance with this petition; that the provisions of the bill were of a general character, against which no man's particular interest entitled him to be heard; that the notoriety of the facts was sufficient to warrant the legislature in its proceeding, he did not see why their lordships should establish an inconvenient precedent, which could not in this case lead to advantage; and which might be claimed in favour of all parties as well as of one. He should therefore resist the motion.
Earl Greysaid, that if he could conceive with the noble earl, that no ground had been laid by his noble friend for the present motion, he should also refuse his concurrence in consequence of such defect. But, feeling as he did, that a stronger appeal had never been made to that House and to English justice, upon the well-known maxim of English law, that no man should be punished without previous trial and inquiry, he did not hesitate to give his most cordial support to the motion, borne out, as it had been, by arguments the most indisputable. The noble earl had much surprised him by taking what he must consider a no very manly ground; and in proceeding to offer his remarks upon that subject, he wished

863
to allude to the argument which represented the bill as a general measure, and, for that reason, excluded the Catholics from being heard by counsel. The noble earl had contended, that as the Association was not named, the petitioners had, technically and formally, no ground of complaint. This was not a manly course of proceeding, and he was surprised at it, particularly as coming from the noble earl. He knew that, upon former occasions, societies had been named in bills, which, unfortunately for the liberty of the subject, had obtained the sanction of parliament. It would have been better to have adopted such precedents in the present case, than to have omitted the name in a proceeding which was directly against the Catholic Association; as was evident from every thing that had passed upon the subject. He would ask whether, if the Catholics had been named, the petitioners would have a right to be heard [the earl of Liverpool answered in the negative, across the table]? He was aware that must have been the answer of the noble earl, in order to sustain his argument; but he hoped to be able to show that, without being named, they were entitled to be heard. How, then, did matters stand? The Catholic Association was not named; but would any noble lord stand up in his place and say, that the bill was not directed against them? Could any man shut his eyes against the fact, that but for them it would never have been introduced? Then, what became of the argument built upon the circumstance of their not having been named? Was it not to be collected from every speech that was made, from every petition that was presented, from every charge that was brought forward, and from every reply to that charge, in short, from the tone adopted upon all sides, both in and out of parliament, that the Catholic Association was the exclusive object of the measure? Did not the petitions in favour of the bill, pray for it as for a law to put down the Catholic Association? What, then, became of the miserable quibble which the noble earl had set up, in answer to the arguments of his noble friend? The Orange Societies were not named; and so little objection had they to the bill, which was said to affect all societies alike, that they did not think it necessary to oppose it. In fact, looking at the question in any point of view, the general feeling and understanding of mankind
864
must be, that the Catholic Association was the particular object of the measure.—He now came to consider what that measure was. Did the noble earl mean to deny, that it was a new and severe restriction on popular right; applying, if he would have it so, to the whole of Ireland, but inflicted for conduct ascribed to the Catholic Association, which they were anxious for an opportunity of disproving? They were charged with usurping the powers of parliament—with assuming a representative character—with levying taxes on their fellow-subjects, and interfering in the conduct of judicial proceedings. When the case was thus stated against them, and no precedents were brought forward, which limited the power of the House, so as to prevent them from hearing the petitioners—what claim, more just or more forcible, could be stated in favour of their being heard, than the existence of such charges, coupled with the penalty in which not only they, but all their Irish fellow-subjects, were involved? Here was a bill, affecting the whole body of the people, in consequence of the alleged delinquency of a portion of that people; and then the noble earl had said, that if any single fact respecting the Catholic Association should be denied, he would give up that fact, and still proceed to legislate. But, the petitioners had come forward to deny all the facts. They had complained that they were misrepresented and calumniated; and asked only as free subjects, from the justice of the House, that they should be permitted to prove that none of the allegations against them could be maintained upon investigation. His noble friend had truly told them, that they could not deprive an individual of the most trivial right of common, without hearing him in defence of his claims. Would they then insult a whole people, by depriving them of their rights, in consequence of the alleged conduct of certain individuals, and press a measure of that importance, without allowing the individuals to rebut those charges, as they professed themselves ready to do, if permitted? They would find it stated in the king's speech, and in other speeches, that the conduct of the Association had produced great alarm; that it was calculated to inflame religious animosities, and prevent the course of national improvement. Were such statements to be taken for granted against any set of men—of men who denied them—who said that there

865
was no alarm—that the population was never so united—that if there was any alarm, it existed only amongst interested persons, who misrepresented their proceedings—and that they were not disturbers of the peace of Ireland, which never was more tranquil than at the present moment? Many of those statements were acknowledged in the king's speech, which described Ireland as not only at peace, but in a condition of increasing prosperity. In support of the general charges, particular facts had been adduced. The one that was most dwelt upon was that of the levying of taxes on their fellow-subjects. But, how did the Association reply to them? They said, that they levied no tax; that they merely collected contributions from a willing people, in a manner consistent with the principles of the constitution. But, the advocates of the bill said, No! They affirmed, that there were two books, a red book and a black book, in which the names of subscribers and non-subscribers were set down; and from thence the inference was drawn, that the contributions were not voluntary. The Catholic Association denied that fact most emphatically; and desired that they might have leave to disprove it at the bar of the House. When conduct was imputed to individuals which called upon the government to abridge the rights of the subject, it was impossible to refuse a hearing, consistently with the common principles of justice. But, the noble earl had said, that the committee of Irish inquiry was going on, and that Mr. O'Connell, and other gentlemen of the Association, might be heard in that committee. In the meanwhile, however, the bill would be going forward; and before the investigation concluded, it would have passed into a law. The noble earl had alluded to other bills which had abridged the civil liberty of the subject, and inflicted a lasting stain on the government of the country. The noble earl said, let the bill pass, and be content with inquiry afterwards. But, was that a rational way of conducting an inquiry, from which no effect could be produced upon the measure to which it referred? The object of former inquiries was, to enable parliament to ascertain, whether there existed sufficient grounds to justify them in passing the law. As for the committee now sitting, it appeared to him to be unprecedented in its nature; it was directed to no definite object, as far as he could
866
comprehend, nor was it founded upon any recommendation that he was aware of. If the noble earl would consent to suspend the bill, until the committee had time to make its report, he should be perfectly satisfied; but, it was a mockery and an insult, to tell the House that they should punish first, and afterwards try; that they should judge at once, and at a future opportunity proceed to hear evidence. Suppose it should turn out before the committee, that all the charges against the Catholic Association were false and unjust, and that they were to report to that effect to the House—in what a situation would parliament be placed! Would it be consulting their dignity, for which the noble earl had always professed so high an esteem, to induce them to pass a bill, imposing new and arbitrary restrictions on the liberty of the subject, which, after inquiry, might prove to be as unnecessary as they were obnoxious?—He would now say a few words on the noble lord's general principle. The argument was, that no particular individuals had a right to be heard against a general measure: but this argument did not apply to the case before the House. The rights of the petitioners were affected; and the justice of their demand to be heard was not lessened by the extension of the evil to others. To this the noble earl replied, that in cases of urgency, legislation would be useless, if delay was incurred for the purpose of hearing all the parties interested. But, did the noble earl pretend that this was a case of urgency, or that any danger would be likely to spring from delay? Was not more evil to be apprehended from legislating in the dark, than from the postponement of the measure till the House was informed? The petitioners pledged themselves to disprove the allegations on which, not only their own rights were curtailed, but those of the people at large, which had remained untouched since the Revolution. He was satisfied that there never was a clearer case of justice pressed upon their lordships; that there never was one in which they were called upon, by so many powerful considerations, to listen to the prayer of the petitioners; and therefore he would give his cordial support to the motion.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that rumour had described the bill under their lordships' consideration as one that had emanated from a certain learned lord in that House; but rumour was never more mis-

867
taken than in attributing it to him. Until within about eight hours ago, he had never seen it; though he was ready to confess that, having seen it, the bill had his complete concurrence. There was an act in force called the Convention act, with which the present measure was directly connected. What the law of Ireland might be with respect to the proceedings which those bills were intended to affect, he did not presume to know: but, he desired not to be considered as one of those who thought that in England such proceedings were legal. He stated this, because he wished to guard himself against being supposed to pretend to a knowledge of the law of Ireland, or to admit, in deference to any opinion, that if a body in England assumed to itself the powers of parliament, or attempted to overrule it, that body could be considered legal. The Convention act declared, that persons should not be delegated by any portion of the people to act upon their part. But, where was the difference; or what did it signify, whether they were antecedently elected, or whether, after assuming to act, they were approved of by the persons whom they professed to represent? The evil was the same to society, whether appointment in the first instance, or assent in the last, gave them the authority against which parliament had undertaken to legislate. He agreed with the noble earl who spoke last, in thinking that, if this bill was meant only to put down the Catholic Association, the name of the Association ought to be inserted. That he did not deny; and, if the conduct of the Association had been such as was described in the enactments of the measure, he would be justified in assuming, that such was the intention. When, upon a well-known occasion, he had introduced a bill into the House of Commons for the purpose of putting down Corresponding societies—which was his bill, though the present bill was not—he had introduced the names of those societies. The present bill enacted, that the Associations to which it referred should be illegal, though no antecedent delegation could be proved to have taken place. Now, if it could be shown, that they had assumed a representative character—that they had not only done that, but proceeded to tax the people of Ireland—if they also exercised a control over the administration of justice, which was a thing not to be tolerated in any country—if that, or any
868
other such body, assumed so great an influence over six millions of people, let the House only reflect what the consequence must be, and especially in such a country as Ireland. If it was done by the Catholics, the same might be done by the Protestants; and in that case, what sort of justice could any individual hope to obtain? With respect to the prayer of the petition, this act proceeded to legislate upon a general principle; and the general rule in such cases was, that no man could be heard upon petition, unless in cases where his own particular interests were affected. If he was asked, whether there were not exceptions to this rule, he would say, that he believed there were many; but it was always at the discretion of parliament, whether they would preserve the rule or act on the exception. Cases might be adduced, in which bills on the demand of extraordinary exigency, had passed in the course of one day, which would subject the parties to the greatest possible punishment. This was a departure from the usual practice of the constitution; it would be easy to suppose a situation in which much danger would result from allowing the process of deliberation to go on; and the measure itself might come too late to remedy the evil against which it was directed. If the general measure applied to the proceedings of the Roman Catholic Association, it would put an end to them. If it did not apply, they might go on. Acting upon the general rule, he would say, that it was necessary the bill should pass, without hearing the petitioners. If it affected them, it could only affect them because they had done what they ought not to do. He would say, if the preamble could be proved; if societies were formed, so as to evade the operation of the Convention act, their lordships were bound to pass the bill, and to pass it, as far as he could judge, without any preliminary investigation.
Lord Hollandexpressed his concurrence in the statement of the noble and learned lord, that he was not the originator of the bill. The moment he had read the enactments, he was satisfied it was not the production of the noble and learned lord. Had he taken but one day to consider it,-it would have come out of his hands in a very, different state. After bearing the speech in which the noble and learned lord had disclaimed it, he was disposed to believe, not only that the bill was not his,

869
but that he had never read it. The noble and learned lord had given them the construction of an act of parliament, and had alarmed them with a description of societies over-ruling parliament itself. If that was the case, let them not be called upon to vote for inadequate bills of that nature, but to arm government at once with powers to put down their presumption. The bill described certain practices as indicative of unlawful assemblies; auch as the assumption of delegated powers, and the exercise of the power of taxation. But, the question before the House was, whether the petitioners should be heard against it or not? It would be for the petitioners to shew that they did not overrule parliament; that their proceedings were directed to lawful and laudable purposes. If the precedents against heating them were so strict as the noble earl had described, there could not have been so many exceptions as the noble and learned lord had admitted. According to the noble and learned lord, the deviations from the rule were numerous: the door was frequently open, and from a sense of substantial justice, of legislative prudence, and above all, from a predilection which he had for the direct and honest course of proceeding, he would call upon them to depart, in the present instance, from the strict letter of their forms, to give an opportunity to the accused to defend themselves. Whatever precedents might exist in that, or in the other house of parliament, the whole stream of precedents in Ireland was in favour of hearing the petitioners. Even on the enactment of the penal laws, sir Toby Butler, counsellor Malone, and sir Stephen Rice were heard at the bar of the House in favour, not only of the Catholics, but of all the dissenters in that country, as persons likely to be affected by the bill then before the Irish parliament. He recollected when the bill for putting down combinations of workmen, so judiciously repealed in the last session, was introduced into parliament. That was a bill proceeding upon general, principles, and recommended by its advocates as necessary to prevent a variety of fatal consequences, connected with the existing French revolution. The calico-printers petitioned to be heard against that bill. Their petition was presented before the bill had passed through the committee. Their lordships, however, allowed the bill to go through the committee (which they certainly would not
870
have done had it been supposed that it was against the details, rather than against the general principle of the bill, that the petition was directed), and, on the third reading, he had heard an hon. and learned gentleman, Mr. Gurney, support, at the bar, the prayer of the petition, in a very forcible and eloquent speech. The principle on which he supported the prayer of the petitioners, on the present occasion, was, not that of generosity or kindness, but substantial justice. And here he must observe, that it sounded rather hypocritically—far, however, was he from suspecting the noble earl of hypocrisy—but, it sounded rather hypocritically, to shew the slightest hesitation to declare at once, that the Catholic Association was the object of the bill in progress through the House. Their lordships were called upon to deal with matters of great importance, to decide upon a subject interesting to millions and millions, to pronounce upon a question in which the feelings of a whole people were excited and agitated. They were told that notoriety, that newspaper notoriety, was a sufficient ground for the measure submitted for their adoption. When, however, the Catholic Association begged to be permitted to be heard against the allegations of their adversaries, it certainly had the semblance of hypocrisy to turn round and say, "The Catholic Association! God bless me! there is nothing about them in the bill: it is a general bill; its object is, to preserve the public peace, and its provisions are applicable, not to any particular body, but to all his majesty's subjects indifferently." And this was the more remarkable, as the learned lord had at once declared, that even if the Catholic Association had been named in the bill, he should still have resisted the prayer of that Association to be heard at the bar of their House. Why did not the noble earl make the same declaration? unless, indeed, he would not have resisted the prayer of the petitioners, if they had been specifically named in the measure. The noble earl declared, that the Catholic Association were not named in the bill. If they had been named in the bill, and if the noble earl, like the learned lord, would nevertheless have refused to hear them at the bar, what was the use of his telling their lordships, that the Catholic Association were not so named? He by no means charged the noble earl with having any undue purpose. But, suppose

871
a man were to say "I mean to put clown this Association, under whatever false pretences and allegations. If they are allowed to appear at the bar, and to call witnesses, they will disprove the ground on which my measure is founded. I must, therefore, contrive to bring the bill in such a shape, that they shall have no right to be heard; and by that means I shall accomplish my nefarious object"—it was evident, that such a man would take precisely the course that had been taken by the noble earl. He maintained, that, in substantial justice, the Association were entitled to be heard, both from their numbers, and from the extreme importance of the subject. They were the more entitled to be heard, because no documents had been produced; and the bill against them was founded on loose reports, under the specious name of notoriety. It was not, however, on the ground of substantial justice only, but also on the ground of prudence, that he was anxious they should be heard. He entertained a high opinion of the talents of the learned gentleman who had been alluded to in the course of the debate, as one of the principal organs of the Association; and he was not unwilling to believe that that learned gentleman, if he were heard at the bar, might produce a considerable impression. At least, to allow him to be so heard would give satisfaction to the millions who were interested on the question. But, he could not pay so high a compliment to the eloquence of the learned gentleman even were it equal to that of the great orator who shook Greece to its centre—he could not pay so high a compliment to the learned gentleman, even had he the eloquence of Demosthenes, united to the incendiary intentions of Catiline, as to believe that he could do so much mischief to the connexion between England and Ireland, and to the great objects of all good government, by being permitted to be heard at that bar, as would be produced by their lordships' rejecting his claim to be so heard. If he (lord Holland) were a man who wished to deluge Ireland with blood; if he were a man who wished to wrest her from her connexion with England, he should rejoice, as the great Franklin immediately before the American revolution rejoiced, at being sent from their lordships' bar, unheard and insulted. If their lordships wished to silence the voice of distraction, they would listen to the petitioners. If
872
they wished to conciliate, they would be kind, indulgent, and generous; and not on groundless, flimsy, or unintelligible pretences, deprive any of his majesty's subjects of their right, not to be condemned unheard.
The Earl of Darnleysaid, he should support the motion. When their lordships saw, on the steps of the throne a noble duke, the premier peer of England, (the duke of Norfolk) who ought to be in the body of the House, it should at once impress them with the injustice which the Catholics were sustaining. If their lordships rejected the motion, they would drive from their bar the representatives of that large and important body of his majesty's subjects, the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland. He was persuaded, however, that the eyes of the country would be speedily opened to the real merits of the case, and that it would be found that the danger was on the side where it was not apprehended by the enemies of Catholic emancipation.
The House then divided:—for lord Carnarvon's motion 23, against it 69; majority 46.
The order of the day being then read, that the Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill be read a second time,
The Earl of Liverpoolspoke to the following effect:—The grounds, my lords, on which this bill rests, are few and simple. It rests on grounds altogether different from the grounds on which the expediency of Catholic concession is denied; so different, that I have no hesitation in saying that, were I the most ardent friend of Catholic concession, I should still think this bill just and necessary. Nay, I do not know, that in that case I should not think it more necessary than I think it at present. We have already heard some thing of the general nature of the bill, in the course of the discussion which has just taken place. The noble earl opposite accused me of not taking a manly course, in saying that the Catholic Association was not named in the bill, which was a general and not a specific measure, when all the world knew that that Association was, in fact, the principal object of the measure. The noble earl forgot, that, in a subsequent part of my speech I distinctly avowed that the Catholic Association was the principal object of the measure. But, my lords, although a specific evil may actually be the cause of any measure, yet, if the measure when brought

873
forward, applies not to that specific evil only, but to all evils of a similar character, the case is very different from what it would have been, if the measure had applied to the specific evil alone. The inference is this—that, although the necessity of legislating was produced by the immediate conduct of the Catholic Association, the introduction into the legislative measure of the Orange and other societies, takes away from it all imputation of partiality or injustice. It was in that view that I stated the question. But I never for a moment denied, that the proceedings of the Catholic Association formed the principal object of the bill. The question, my lords, may be considered in two ways. It may be considered in conformity to the declaration in the preamble, as a means of preventing the evasion of the Convention act; or it may be considered upon its own merits; namely the danger and inconvenience of such Associations. I am perfectly ready, however, to allow, that the first of these views, however important, would not be conclusive. For if, in the opinion of your lordships, no evil can result from the continued existence of the Association, then its mere contravention of the spirit of the Convention act would be an inadequate justification of this measure. But, I cannot believe that this is your lordships' opinion. I certainly think the argument of my noble and learned friend perfectly satisfactory, that whatever sound principle was applicable to the suppression of the Convention, is equally applicable to the suppression of the Association. Of the Catholic Association I am by no means disposed to speak harshly; but I am unequivocally of opinion, that the existence of such an Association is, at all points, perfectly incompatible with the tranquillity of Ireland, or of any country in the world. I as unequivocally deny the position of the noble earl, that the existence of such an Association is consistent with the principles of the Protestant constitution. That the right to assemble to petition, to state their opinions to parliament, and to adopt all legal means of insuring a compliance with their wishes, is among the most sacred rights of the people, I admit as broadly as any man. But I deny that an assembly convened, not merely for the purpose of petitioning—an assembly having a character of permanency—an assembly acting by subordinate agents—an assembly raising (whether
874
voluntary or not, I will say a word or two upon by-and-by) sums over the whole country—an assembly interfering (whether beneficially or not has nothing to do with the question) with the administration of justice—my lords, I deny that such an assembly can be considered in any other light than as utterly inconsistent with the maintenance, not only of the government of Ireland, but of any established government in any country in the world. My lords, it is impossible to consider this question, without looking a little at the circumstances under which this Association has been formed. The people of Ireland may naturally enough think that they have grievances; and, so thinking, they have an undoubted right to complain of them. The people of Ireland may be dissatisfied that parliament have refused them the political rights which they require. The people of Ireland may fairly, properly, and justly, come to your bar, and to the bar of the House of Commons, in order to make their case known. But, my lords, has nothing been done for Ireland? Has not, during the last few years, more been done for the peace, the prosperity, and the happiness of Ireland, than was done for centuries before? Every complaint of every kind has been heard. The whole revenue system of Ireland has been reformed; and reformed in a manner that has given general satisfaction. Taxation in Ireland has been reduced to an unparalleled extent; England having taken the debt of Ireland upon herself, and so reduced her taxation, that she pays no direct taxes, and less taxes of any kind than any country in Europe; being still on equal terms with England in every respect-Added to all this, the administration of justice in Ireland has been corrected by wise and salutary laws. The magistracy has been reformed by the establishment of petty sessions. Every disposition has been evinced by his majesty's government in Ireland, to put down all societies and combinations calculated to produce dissention and alarm. My lords, I state these things as proofs of the kind, the generous, and affectionate disposition of the government of the united kingdom to the people of Ireland; as proofs that they have been treated, not with justice and fairness merely, but with indulgence and favour Whether or not the remainder of that which they require should be granted them is a distinct question. I only state what has been already done, as a proof of the kind

875
disposition of the British government to the Irish people. I am not saying that we ought or ought not to grant what is yet desired; but I do say, that there is nothing in the existing circumstances of Ireland, which demands so violent a remedy for any evils of which she may have to complain as the establishment of the Catholic Association. Yet, in the midst of prosperity and tranquillity, this Association has assumed a character more important and imposing, than that of any society by which it has been preceded, and is attended with all the bad effects of the Convention. As my learned friend so well stated it, the distinguishing evil of the Convention was not its antecedent delegation. The evil of that body was its character. If the Association -have the same end in view as the Convention had, then it must be followed by the same effects, and ought to be met by the same legislative extinction.—My lords, I shall not have occasion to trespass so long on your lordships' patience as I might otherwise have found it necessary to do, because I mean to spare you the fatigue of listening to any discussion on my part, as to the particular proceedings of this Catholic Association. I believe the Catholic Association to be constituted much in the same way as that in which any body of that sort would most naturally be constituted. I believe their proceedings to have been much the same as the proceedings of such a body would have been under any circumstances. I believe there are many innocent, many well-disposed, members of that Association. I believe that the great majority of the Association do not see the dangers which they are bringing on their country. But, my objection to the Catholic Association is this, that no such body can exist in any nation, or under any state of things, without the production of the greatest evils. I impute no especial blame to the Catholic Association, as distinguished from all similar bodies. I allow, that if we analyse the speeches, the resolutions, the proceedings of any body so constituted, we shall find much to censure and lament. It is not, therefore, the conduct of the Catholic Association to which I wish to call your lordships' attention, or on which I am anxious to fasten. I well know what any men so associated will do and say; of how much intemperance they must necessarily be guilty; of what endless evils their combi-
876
nation must be productive. I shall, therefore, not dwell on this part of the subject, but shall content myself with a general reference to those resolutions and declarations of the Association, the only effect of which must be, to augment all the animosities which unfortunately prevail in Ireland. My lords, I will not believe that there is a single man who hears me that thinks such an assembly could exist, for any length of time, without the most serious consequences to the country in which it was permitted. For a while, it may be defended by those who are friendly to what is called the Catholic Question, as a good instrument for carrying it. But I am convinced that, if contemplated as a permanent body, there is not a noble lord who will not readily acknowledge its danger. We cannot say that we will equalize the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland, and that then we shall have done with the Catholic Association. On the contrary, they tell us that they have other objects in view. It is said, that a communication has been made somewhere else, but from whom I know not, that if Catholic concession would satisfy the Association, they might be satisfied. I do not know where this was said; but. I have been told the answer was, that the concession of the Catholic Question would not satisfy them. My lords, do we know, if concession were to be granted to-morrow, that the Association would not remain embodied for further objects? I therefore say, without reference to the expediency, or inexpediency of giving to the Catholics of Ireland privileges equal to those possessed by the Protestants, that this Association is an evil such as has never yet been permitted to exist, and such as ought never to be permitted to exist. I defy any noble lord to show, in the history of this country, a single instance of the continued existence of such an evil; taking it in all its parts and all its bearings.—Having thus, my lords, passed by all detail of the proceedings of the Association, I now wish to say a few words on a very important branch of the subject; I mean that which the Association themselves call the Roman Catholic rent. That is their term for it. The term rent implies previous obligation; something essentially different from subscription: and therefore I do not think it applicable in this case. But, call it rent, or subscription, or what you will, it is produced by a communication kept up by

877
the Association with every parish in Ireland, for the purpose of raising money from the whole of the Catholic population of that country. Now, in the first place, my lords, I maintain, that such a mode of raising money, let it be called by what name it may, cannot, in the nature of things, be voluntary. It may be termed voluntary. Those who raise it, have unquestionably no legal right to do so. But, when a country is so divided as Ireland is, into parties and factions, even an appeal to the sincerity of those who compose any of those parties and factions may be considered as compulsory. But let us look at the instruments which are employed to raise this money, and at the places in which it is raised. The instruments are the Roman Catholic clergy; the places of collection are the Roman Catholic chapels. Is there any man who can doubt, knowing, as he must know, the connexion that exists between the priest and his flock, what the nature of this subscription is? I have heard something like a statement, that, in one instance, the parties attempted to distrain for the rent, and actually brought the matter before the quarter sessions. I will not dwell on this point: but I say generally, that when I am told of the existence of such a body in a country, I want to know nothing more, I do not want to know whether they keep red books or black books. I know that they obtain information of all that takes place; and I know that, under such circumstances, applying, as in some instances they do, to religious, and in all to political feelings, nine out of ten contribute to the rent from fear; from their dislike to being regarded with an evil eye by their fellow-citizen; from a variety of motives, having the character of control, and not of free will. I rest, therefore, on no particular facts, but on the very nature of things, for the proof of my assertion, that the money raised by the Catholic Association is not raised voluntarily.—Now, my lords, let us see what are the purposes of this assembly, so constituted; with permanence for their character, with a revenue at their disposal, and with an avowed determination to interfere with the administration of justice. It has been said, that those purposes may be innocent, and even laudable, I reply, that the purposes of such a body can never be innocent, and much Jess laudable. In the first place, recollect how numerous this association is I remember,
878
my lords, a saying of Mr. Fox, in the House of Commons, which appeared to me, when he uttered it, to be infinitely wise, and which I have kept in my mind from that time to the present. It was when the question regarding the Dissenters was under the consideration of the House. On that occasion Mr. Fox said, "I hate the tyranny of the few over the many; but I abhor still more the tyranny of the many over the few." This, my lords, I have always considered as a maxim of wisdom. Now, a more numerous, a more formidable body, one whose continuance is more incompatible with a sound state of society, never existed than this Catholic Association. It has' been defended on two grounds; the one negative, the other positive. In the first: place, it is said, that it leads to no harm; in the second place, that it does good by tranquillizing the people of Ireland. With regard to the first point, I would ask those who live in Ireland, and who entertain opinions different from those of the Association, whether in the alarm they feel, and the exasperation which is generated between opposite parties, there is no harm; and whether the measures pursued by the Catholic Association do not increase those evils? As to the Catholic Association having done good by tranquillizing the country, I am prepared to deny the fact. But I say, that even if they have done so, I do not consider then the less dangerous on that account. If, such a body can promote the tranquillity of a country, the means which they have used to promote that tranquillity, may, at some future period, be used by them to effect the disturbance of the country. I, for one, my lord, do not choose that the peace of the state should be left in such hands. I do not accuse the Catholic Association, or any of the persons who are connected with the Association, of wishing to disturb the tranquillity of Ireland; but, if I could suppose that they had objects different from those they profess, I am not aware of any course they could pursue better calculated to attain them. For this I know full well, that if there existed in any country a body of persons determined if possible to overthrow the government of that country, and destroy its Constitution, by eventually unfurling the banner of rebellion; their first object would be to preach peace, and even to promote it. Nothing is so fatal to insurrection as a premature rising. Why, what has been

879
the case with respect to Ireland? Let your lordships recollect the year 1798. If you refer to the history of that time, you will find that both parties, both those who were engaged in the rebellion and those who exerted themselves to suppress it, were unanimously of opinion, that the unfortunate issue of that rebellion as it was considered by one party and the fortunate issue of it as it was considered by the other party, was principally attributable to the premature rising. I remember that one hon. gentleman in the Irish House of Commons took credit to himself for having produced the rebellion before it was ripe. As to the real causes of the present tranquillity in Ireland, I believe they are to be found, in some degree, in the measures of the Irish government; in no respect to the efforts of the Catholic Association; but chiefly to the returning prosperity of the country. We all know that in England, but two or three years ago, when the pressure of distress was felt with some severity, it was declared, that every thing must be changed, that parliament must be reformed, and that all our other institutions must undergo extensive modifications. With returning prosperity all these gloomy forebodings were forgotten. The same, although on a more limited scale, will be the case in Ireland. In Ireland there are more causes of depression than ever existed in England. In that country, I well know that idleness, which I consider the groundwork of discontent, exists in a much greater degree than is to be found here; and therefore it is, that I anticipate, that in proportion to its removal, in consequence of increased agriculture and commercial prosperity, that evil will be removed, and that returning good order must be the result. I am aware also of the difficulties that present themselves to the adequate execution of any legislative enactment; and therefore it is, that I am not sure that this, or any other measure proposed with the same view, will be found effectual for its purpose. But, admitting that, I consider it no reason why this House should not grapple with the evil. I have heard the same objections made to bills brought before the legislature under a great public emergency. When, in 1796, a bill was introduced into the House of Commons to repress the evil of that day—I mean the existence of seditious illegal assemblies—I well remember that, on the discussion of that
880
measure, a most able and ingenious speech was made by the late Mr. Sheridan, for the purpose of shewing how the provisions of the law could be evaded, and the whole enactment be rendered nugatory. The objection at the time I felt to be a very strong one. But, what was the fact? No attempt was ever made to evade the law; and its provisions were found fully effectual to the intended purpose. The same anticipations were offered on the discussion of the six acts; and yet experience proved, that they were fully adequate to their object. I cannot suppose, that it would be different in the present instance. I cannot believe, when the parliament shall have pronounced its opinion, and by its vote given vigour and efficiency to the law, that its enactments will be evaded. I will go further and say, that even were it likely to prove ineffectual, I still should press its adoption. I know well the consequences of not putting down this Association. If it should be allowed to continue, other and opposed bodies will also associate. If the Catholics are to be allowed to associate, who will say that the Protestants of Ireland will not also unite? Let us not suppose, however numerous the Catholics are represented, that the Protestants are so contemptible in point of numbers, wealth, intelligence, and character, as not to constitute a formidable party. It is the natural course of things. Combination necessarily leads to counter-combinations. How, under such circumstances, is justice to be administered in Ireland? What must be the lamentable result? Nothing less, my lords, than an aggravation of all the evils which Ireland has suffered. Nothing less than to give strength and efficiency to all those feelings by which dissention will be fomented, and religious animosities increased. Either, then, you must be prepared to put down all associations or permit this. If you are prepared to legislate for the tranquillity of Ireland, and take the steps necessary to obtain that end, then you will have the satisfaction of feeling that you have rendered justice to all parties. It has been urged against the bill, that though directed against the Catholic Association, it did not specify that body; and it appears, from what has fallen from my noble and learned friend, that he would have liked the bill better if the Catholic Association had been named in its preamble. It might, indeed, seem, at first sight, the

881
more manly course to have specified that body as its proceedings were more immediately affected. But, after the most mature consideration that I have been able to bestow on the subject, I still retain the opinion, that the better course was, not to name any particular association. It is not in special hostility to any party in Ireland that the measure is introduced. It is brought forward to mark the course that parliament is determined to take, with respect to all Associations; for, as I before said, if all are not put down, all must be suffered to exist.
Lord Kingsaid, he could not see the force of the arguments urged in support of this measure. The noble earl had contended, that the Association was dangerous, because it seemed peaceably disposed—because it had contributed to produce tranquillity in Ireland. This reminded him of what he was informed had somewhere taken place during the rebellion; namely, that sometimes persons had been hanged for saving the lives of others, because from that it was concluded, that they must, have influence with their party, and were therefore equally guilty. From the observations of the noble earl, one would be led to conclude, that the Irish code was one of perfection, and most exemplary mildness. For his own part, he differed totally in opinion with the noble earl. It appeared to him, that Ireland would bear a resemblance to hell if this act should pass; for what could be more fiend-like than deny to millions their just rights, and to take away from the oppressed even the power of complaint? He lamented to see parliament year after year adding one law to another, accumulating penal enactment on penal enactment, for the purpose, as it was pretended, of tranquillizing Ireland; when the only way to tranquillize that country was, to repeal the whole of them. He entertained no such doubts as the noble earl had expressed, upon the efficacy of this bill. Those who suggested it had been too long in the habit of making such laws; they knew their business too well, to propose the enactment of any useless, inoperative measure. He was sorry to see parliament once more in battle array against the people of Ireland. He could assure the noble earl that they did not view the measures of government in the same light as the noble earl did. They could not see that so much had been done for their benefit: nor could that country ever be tranquil, until
882
the just demands of the Catholics were complied with. If Europe should again become convulsed, and this country be once more assailed by dangers, ministers themselves would be the first to come down and propose the measure of relief which they now so pertinaciously refused. It was remarkable, that the noble earl had studiously avoided to mention any particular instance of misconduct or abuse, on the part of the Catholic Association. And yet, from what had passed in the other House, it was clear, that its necessity was endeavoured to be established on such alleged misconduct. What became of the Ballybeg case, on which such stress had been laid? The noble earl had given it up entirely. He acted most judiciously. He knew, notwithstanding the great dependance that the originator of the bill placed upon it, that it was blown into the air—there was not one word of truth in it from the beginning to the end. But, then, the whole of our conduct towards Ireland was one of marked conciliation. Conciliation, forsooth! As a proof of that conciliatory treatment, he would refer their lordships to a paper on their table. It appeared from that document, that, in the year 1823, the number of persons committed under the Insurrection act, in the county of Tipperary, was 497; and that of these, 462 were acquitted even by Irish justice. Taking the number of persons committed in that year, throughout all Ireland, it appeared that the number imprisoned was 1707, and that of these 1466 were acquitted. But it would seem, from the statement of the noble earl, that such was the pure administration of justice in Ireland, that the Catholic Association had no pretence for interference. Why, it was only that evening that he himself laid on their table a petition from three individuals, who declared that they had been deprived of their just rights of admission to the corporation; and were only enabled, though their fathers and grandfathers had been freemen, to obtain that admission through the interposition of the Catholic Association. We knew from the highest authority that there were two great parties in that country; the one, predominant and oppressive; the other, on all occasions obliged to give way. Indeed, a noble and high authority (lord Redesdale) had declared, that in Ireland there existed one law for the rich, and another for the poor, and that both were equally bad. The noble earl had quoted a passage from a

883
speech of Mr. Fox. The sentiment it contained was just and wise; but he would ask, whether in Ireland it was not the tyranny of the few over the many, and not of the many over the few. He defied the ingenuity of the most subtle reasoner to make out that the Orange body was the most numerous. It would be the excess of injustice, under such circumstances, to legislate against the claims of the weak, when they associated for the purposes of mutual protection. Who were the authors of that injustice? Their lordships; who refused to the people of Ireland that relief from restrictions which necessarily Jed to a denial of justice. Was it for that House to complain of Catholic Associations? As well might the wolf complain of the sheep who collected together to prevent themselves from being individually eaten up. We had now, for the last twenty-five years, been called upon, session after session, to give the Catholics of Ireland a just participation in the blessings of the constitution. The question had, indeed, assumed the complexion of a Chancery suit; and there was manifested an equal callousness and insensibility to the prayers of the suitors. To carry on the analogy, the present measure was very like what was called in Chancery a cross-bill; and if persevered in, he was disposed to believe that they would both terminate, as Chancery suits generally ended, in the ruin of both parties. But, the whole of the evils which afflicted Ireland might be attributed to the divisions that existed in the cabinet of this country. And yet it was strange, that though on the recognition of South American independence, and on the claims of the Catholics they were divided, yet, when an addition was to be made to the penal laws—when some inroad on the rights of the people was to be carried—they were all unanimous. They illustrated what was too common in life—that when there was a mixture of the good and the bad, the evil principle too frequently predominated.
Lord Teynhamsaid, he should support the bill. The Catholic Association was most dangerous, and ministers would not do their duty, if they did not put it down.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, he differed, toto cælo, from the noble earl who advocated the present measure. It was impossible, he thought, to agree in the propriety of passing the present measure, unless it was coupled with one to conciliate the Catholics of Ireland. He did hope that their
884
lordships would feel the necessity of at least postponing the bill, until some resolution was passed., having for its object the restoration of the Catholic body to the enjoyment of their civil rights. No great interval of time could elapse, before such a proposition would be submitted to their consideration. He knew, indeed, that there were some of their lordships who believed, that the concurrence of a measure of conciliation with the present penal enactment, would not have the effect of neutralizing the evil, which the latter was calculated to produce. He differed from those who entertained such an opinion; and he had some reason to know, that if the measure of Catholic conciliation was coupled with the penal law, the Catholic Association would itself be perfectly satisfied. When the noble earl proposed, at the beginning of the session, to re-appoint the committee of inquiry into the state of Ireland, he felt disposed to object to it, unless the committee should be authorized to direct their attention to the great question of emancipation. The noble earl, it was true, said, that that question might be considered by the committee, though not referred to them specifically. But, that was a poor way, indeed, of treating so important a subject. It was a delusion to suppose that any great good would result from a committee so circumstanced. The influx of capital, and the existence of tranquillity were essential to the happiness of Ireland. But, how was capital to go there? Unless they had recourse to some measure of conciliation, it would be mere delusion to expect that capital should find its way into Ireland, or that tranquillity could exist in that country. If this measure came recommended from the Irish government, it was impossible that the noble marquis at the head of that government, should not have coupled it with some recommendation of another kind, favourable to the Catholics. This was the natural conclusion to be drawn from the known sentiments of the noble marquis, who had entrusted the noble earl who, the other night, presented a petition signed by a hundred thousand Roman Catholics, with his proxy, in favour of their claims. In withholding that information from the House, he could not help thinking that his majesty's ministers had exercised a very large discretion. He did not believe that the law, if passed, would be evaded. On the contrary, it was his

885
impression, that no such intention on the part of the Catholics existed. At the same time, while the disabilities existed, he did believe, that, instead of an extinguisher being put on the exertions of the Catholic body, it would make them more firm and compact, more decided and energetic. What had the Association done to excite all that hostility? It had been over and over again stated, that to the Catholic question, save those who might obtain a few seats in both Houses of parliament, the great body of the Catholics were indifferent. At least, the Catholic Association have disproved that objection. Then, with respect to the rent—that much commented upon rent. It was said that it was not a voluntary grant, but a compulsory enforcement. Nothing of the kind was proved. As to the circumstance alluded to by the noble earl, of a man being distrained upon for the rent, he had been given to understand, that no such process had ever issued. "But then," said the noble earl, "the Catholic priesthood have been the persons engaged in collecting it." What of that? He did believe that cases could be found in this country, where the Protestant clergy, demanding what was called voluntary subscriptions, had so pressed the claim, that many persons felt it to be compulsory upon them. Indeed, they thought they would be what was called "marked men" unless they subscribed. The Catholics said, they were oppressed and ill treated by the Orange party, and that they collected money for the purpose of procuring justice for such of their brethren as could not afford to go to law themselves. This appeared to him a very fair and legitimate object. The money was raised only for the purpose of procuring justice; and in the case where the society had prosecuted the soldier, the judge himself had complimented them on their moderation. He could not see any reason why the Catholic Association should be viewed with so much terror and alarm. Its proceedings were open. Every facility was given to the reporters attending them; so much so, that it was upon the evidence of a reporter that the Attorney-general for Ireland had attempted to get up a case against its leader, Mr. O'Connell. Was that gentleman, he would ask, punished, convicted, or even brought to trial, for the language he had used? No such thing. The bill against him was ignored, even upon the evidence tendered by the Attorney-general. This
886
was decisive proof that there was nothing faulty in the conduct of the Catholic Association. As, therefore, no fault could be found with its actions, those who disliked its proceedings looked to its words; and having found the unfortunate words "By your hate to Orangemen," in a long and able address which it had put forth, seized upon it with the utmost exultation. He fully agreed with a noble lord, that the words in question meant little more than "by your hatred to persecution;" and if so, nothing could be more harmless than the adjuration which they contained. He was happy to see, that notwithstanding the efforts which had been made to excite the prejudices of the people against Catholic emancipation, they had been attended with imperfect success; and had dwindled into insignificance, when compared with their violence some years ago. At that time, every nook and corner of our streets bore the mark of "No popery;" and, unfortunately for the cause of religion, the feeling of the people went along with that infuriated cry. At present, the same hand-writing was on the wall, but the people cared little or nothing about it. Day and Martin, Dr. Eady, and Hunt, with his roasted corn and matchless blacking, beat it fairly from the field. He verily believed, that if their lordships were to pass a bill granting perfect emancipation to the Catholics, it would either make no impression on the country, or be received as a great and positive blessing. For his own part, he could not speak with common patience of the conduct of his majesty's ministers on this important question. That portion of them which wielded the lightning and guided the thunder of the state, which directed its energies and commanded its bayonets—that portion of them, he was sorry to say, was decidedly anti-Catholic. It was not enough, however, for the cabinet to differ from itself, it differed also from its royal master, and by its obstinacy placed him in a most distressing situation. As king of Hanover, he was all conciliation; as king of Ireland he was all coercion. To the Catholics of Hanover, he said "aye;" to the Catholics of Ireland, he said "no," upon the very same subject. It was true, that his majesty had it in his power to dismiss such advisers whenever he thought proper. "A breath could make them as a breath has made." It was said, however, that it would be impossible to get an

887
administration which would act with unanimity on this question; that it would be as difficult to form a cabinet that was wholly anti-Catholic, as one that was wholly Catholic in its politics. He did not know how that might be; but of this he was sure, that a ministry which was entirely anti-Catholic would not be able to continue in office for a single session. He was sure that the question of emancipation might be carried with ease by any ministry that would act upon it with sincerity and open-heartedness. He knew of no event which would create more satisfaction in Ireland, than such a consummation to the wishes of its Catholic population. It would call forth the shout of "Io triumphe!" and "Io Pæan," in every direction, and would unite our Catholic brethren to our side, in the strongest bonds of amity and affection. Capital would then flow from every side into that country, which had been so long blest by the bounty of Heaven, and cursed by the misgovemment of man: tranquillity would be restored; confidence would be revived; and comfort would be introduced to the fire-sides of a brave and contented population. The general exclamation would be "Nunc est bibendum; nunc pede libero pulsanda tellus." [a laugh] Noble lords might smile, but the people of Ireland, though they drank deeply now, would fill their bumpers still higher than before, in honour of so great and glorious a consummation. That it might not be long delayed, was his ardent and his constant wish; for he did not know any measure which would tend more to increase the power and consolidate the stability of the British empire.
Lord Gosfordsaid:—I cannot reconcile it to myself to give a silent vote on the present occasion. I disapprove of many acts of the Association as much as any of your lordships can do; nay, further, I wish it had never existed; but it is impossible for me to express surprise at the existence of such a society, when I reflect on the conduct of the government and parliament towards the Roman Catholics—expectations at one time raised to the highest pitch, and invariably followed by disappointment. Is it, I would ask any noble lord, in human nature to suppose that a people would be quiet and contented undersuch treatment? With respect to the bill now before the House, I am persuaded it will fail in producing the effect proposed by it. Had the Association been let alone,
888
it would, I think, have died a natural death: the people would have been tired of paying the rent, and in all probability those who attempted to enforce it, would have lost their influence and the confidence of the people—but if this measure should pass, you will have all the cunning mischievous people and pettyfogging attornies at work in devising means to evade it. With these impressions, I think the remedy proposed will prove worse than the disease, involving, as it does also, such an attack on the general liberty of the subject. My lords, knowing Ireland, as I think I ought to do, having lived almost all my life in it, and after the most deliberate consideration I can give the subject, I am firmly persuaded nothing can produce permanent tranquillity and peace in it, until further concessions are granted to the Roman Catholics. To do real and substantial good to that distracted country, this must be the basis; any superstructure, or any other foundation, will have, in my opinion, if any, but a temporary effect. With this conviction, and seeing the road so plain and direct before me, I cannot allow myself to be led into a narrow intricate path, such as I consider the present measure to be, and thus be turned aside from the only course that can lead to real, solid, and permanent good. Treat Ireland with liberality and kindness, and you will find her return it with gratitude, and become an effective part of the empire, contributing to its strength and welfare. With these sentiments I shall give my decided negative to the present measure.
Lord Long fordthought, that the Catholic Association ought to be suppressed, as it was an enemy to the public peace of Ireland, He approved of the present bill; and he could assure the House, that a large and powerful body in Ireland viewed the measure not as a coercive, but a protective one. The Catholic Association was an irresponsible body, conducting itself in an unconstitutional manner. Its acts did not tend to conciliate. It held up whole classes of the community as objects of hatred, and endeavoured to perpetuate the ill feelings that were unfortunately engendered in that unhappy country.
The Duke of Sussexsaid, that though he always felt considerable embarrassment in addressing their lordships, he had never felt greater embarrassment than he then did, in declaring, his decided opposition to

889
the present motion. The duty which he owed to his country compelled him to stand up as the opponent of the present measure; which he conceived to be utterly inconsistent both with the principles and with the practice of liberty. No reasons had been shown for passing it. Information had been asked for; but none had been given. The Speech from the throne had told them, that it was expedient that such a law should be enacted; but no mention had been made of any of the circumstances on which the necessity for it depended. The only reason given for it was, the notoriety of the evil it was intended to put down. He begged their lordships to consider what notoriety was. It was something or nothing; it was every body's, and therefore nobody's business. The information it conveyed was mere hearsay, and was evidence which would not be received in any court of justice in the country. Ought it, therefore, to be admitted by their lordships in so important a case as the present, where the liberty of the subject was so materially concerned? A noble lord opposite had illustrated the argument he had just used, in a surprisingly happy manner. The noble lord had said, that he had been told that the Catholics would not be satisfied, even if emancipation were granted to them. Were their lordships to be satisfied of the truth of that assertion on mere hearsay evidence? Certainly not He, therefore, contended, that if the Catholic Association must be put down, evidence should be offered in support of the various accusations which had been made against it. He agreed with a noble lord who had preceded him, that the easiest way of putting down this Association would be by granting the object for which it petitioned. The noble earl opposite might smile, if he pleased, at that declaration; but in uttering it, he spoke the Conviction of his mind, founded upon the experience of history, which showed that complaint always ceased as soon as grievance was redressed. He had heard with regret the observation of a noble earl, that this Association, though it had done much good, might have done much harm. He would advise the noble earl to look to facts rather than to probabilities. The noble earl had endeavoured to illustrate his argument by saying, that a candle was very useful in its way, but was very dangerous when placed too near a muslin Curtain. He allowed it to be so, but he would not on that account
890
extinguish the candle and leave the room in utter darkness. The noble earl, in arguing the propriety of this measure, had touched lightly on the Catholic question. Now, he believed that the propriety of this measure could not be properly discussed without entering at some length into that question, which was closely connected with it. Since the year 1778, great privileges had been granted to the Catholics; and he believed that those grants, so far from inflicting any harm, had conferred great benefit on the country. He had bestowed much pains upon the consideration of this question, and he was convinced, from the various debates which had taken place upon it, that it had been the intention of the legislature to throw open the door of the constitution to all classes of his majesty's subjects, as soon as it could be done without difficulty and danger. He was convinced that the sooner the Catholics were admitted within the pale of the constitution, the better would it be for the tranquillity and stability of the empire. He made that statement from a recollection of the grateful manner in which former concessions had been received by the Catholics of Ireland. As soon as the first concessions were made, in 1778, Ireland furnished us with 82,000 seamen, and thereby enabled us to recover our superiority on the ocean, from which we had been driven to the shelter and confinement of our ports. When he recollected that circumstance—when he looked to the immense force which we now kept up in Ireland—when he considered that measures of conciliation would tranquillize Ireland, and enable them to dispense with that force altogether, or to employ it in some other portion of the empire—when he reflected that economy was the order of the day, and that the people had a right to expect some further reduction of the taxation which the war had entailed upon them, he could see many reasons why the House should emancipate the Catholics, and not one reason to the contrary. He was prepared to contend, that the laws which had deprived the Catholics of the political privileges which belonged to their Protestant fellow-subjects were introduced originally for very wise political reasons. The pope was at that time possessed of considerable power. There was a Catholic sovereign in existence, who had been very properly driven from the throne on account of his arbitrary notions. That sovereign, on

891
retiring to Ireland, had obtained support from the Catholics of that country—a circumstance which naturally excited great jealousy in the minds of the people of England. The penal laws against the Catholics were therefore dictated by the paramount necessity of securing the liberty of the country, by placing a Protestant succession on the throne. The danger, however, which had led to the enactment of those laws had now disappeared, and the laws ought to disappear with it. There was now no Popish aspirant to the throne. The political consequence of the Pope was gone; and, in spite of what was now doing on the continent, would never again attain sufficient strength to become formidable. He recollected the noble earl opposite saying, during the war, "We must not grant emancipation now, because the Pope is in the clutches of Napoleon, and may be compelled to use his influence against our interests." He had laughed at the argument at that time, as unworthy of serious consideration; and he must now laugh at the argument which had succeeded it, because, though dissimilar in its nature, it was equally ridiculous in its consequence. The noble earl now said, "We must be afraid of the Pope, because the sovereigns who form the Holy Alliance have restored him to his dominions, and given him back a portion of his former power." He would allow, that those sovereigns had recently paid much court to his holiness; but, he now stated what he had stated before, that they did it not so much for the sake of the Pope, as for the sake of securing their own power by his influence. The first moment that they chose, they could crush into nothing the idol they had created. His opinion was, that if the restrictions which now pressed heavily on the Catholics were taken off them, we should be able to bid defiance to a world in arms, and to take care of our own liberties—a circumstance which we ought not to treat with indifference, since he believed, upon his honour, that if we did not take care of them ourselves, nobody would take care of them for us. He should watch over this bill in all its future stages, and give it his most strenuous opposition; if on no other account, at least to show the good will he bore to Catholic emancipation.
Lord Carberymade a few observations in support of the bill; contending, that the Association ought to be put down.
Lord Kingstonwished to make one ob-
892
servation on a case which had been alluded to by a noble earl. He had been on the bench, when the man came to swear that his sheep had been taken under a distress, for the non-payment of the Catholic rent. Inquiry was instantly made into the complaint, and it was found, that the sheep had been distrained, not for any Catholic rent, but for breaking into a turnip-field of one of the man's neighbours.
The Marquis of Lansdowncomplained, that, after his majesty's ministers had refused to give them any information as to the extent of the evil which they sought to put down by this bill, and after their lordships had determined to reject the evidence tendered at their bar, to prove the non existence of that evil, their lordships were called upon to give it their sanction upon a solitary fact, which had no sooner been stated, than it had met with a positive contradiction. He should give his vote against this measure; and if he were asked for his reasons for so doing, he would refer to those which were contained in the short but solid and constitutional speech of the royal duke who had so recently addressed them—a speech in the whole of which he fully concurred, and which pointed out a much safer and more constitutional course, than that which his majesty's ministers seemed inclined to pursue. Before, however, he proceeded to discuss the details of this bill, he should beg leave shortly to allude to the topics with which the noble earl had prefaced his motion. The noble earl had called the attention of their lordships to the great improvement which ministers had effected in the condition of Ireland. That improvement was rather of a late description. Tax had been imposed after tax, upon that devoted country, until it was found that the tripled and quadrupled tax, produced less to the revenue than the original impost. After they had achieved that discovery, ministers determined to repeal that tax, and to see whether the revenue could not be increased by doing a simple act of justice. With respect to the administration of justice, he was sorry to state, that he was more confident than ever he had been of its imperfect and partial condition. The proofs of that condition were now, or would very shortly be, before the public; and were such as, while they called aloud for a remedy of the evil, admitted of no contradiction. With this conviction, then, he would never endure to hear it said, that the adoption of

893
any better system was an indulgence to the people of Ireland, or that it was any thing but an act of justice which had already been too long delayed. Still he was grateful for it; and tardy as it was, he hailed it as a proof that some consideration was given to the subject; as a token, that the complaints which had been so long and so completely urged, were not breathed into ears wholly deaf to them. He now came to the particular measure before the House. He did not attempt to deny that the circumstances of Ireland were such as required great vigilance on the part of the government. No reflecting man could contemplate those circumstances, without deep and well-founded anxiety. When he saw the extraordinary, but not by him unlooked-for, appearance, which the country exhibited, it was impossible not to apprehend that a rivalry, or—perhaps, he might rather be justified in saying—a conflict would arise between the power of the government and that power which had grown out of the actual circumstances of Ireland, which might lead to consequences full of danger. For this state of things he confessed that some remedy, some prompt and vigorous remedy, was necessary. But, while he admitted this, he was bound to see, with no less caution, that the remedy proposed was sufficient for the purpose it sought to accomplish. He was obliged to inquire, and to ask whether, when it should be passed, the danger would remain or not; or if the degree of irritation which might be produced by it, would not induce a worse, and not less fatal, because a new danger. But the noble earl said, that even if it should be shown that this measure was insufficient, still he would propose it; and he gave a most singular reason for doing so: namely, that though it should prove ineffectual in putting down the Catholic Association, it would show that the efforts of government were equally ineffectual in attempting to put down their enemies. This, would, indeed, be a notable enactment, and a worthy result of the grave labours of the government. This was, in effect, the argument of the noble earl. But, did he think that it would be likely, among its other effects, to increase the respect of the people for the measures of parliament, because it taught them that they need not obey, unless they should be disposed—that the power of the parliament was insufficient to compass its ends—that the law
894
might be evaded, and treated with indifference, if not with contempt? Surely this proof that the government was "willing to wound, but yet afraid to strike," would have no other effect than that of alienating the minds of the people from them—But, what was it that the present measure proposed to do, as against the Roman Catholics? He did not find that there was any intention—and God forbid there should be!—to put down the meetings of the Roman Catholics. He perceived there was in the bill, among other clauses, an elaborate provision, that any society which should continue to meet after the period mentioned, should incur—what penalty did their lordships think? Why, that such refractory society should not have the power of adjournment. A provision like this was worse than ineffectual; it threw an air of ridicule over its own avowed weakness. He professed a sincere respect for the order and form of the proceedings of that House: but he apprehended, that if assemblies should continue to be held after the passing of this bill, the provisions he had alluded to would hardly have any effect in checking them. Was it not obvious, then, that if the power of meeting at all should be left to the Roman Catholics (and God forbid that such should ever be taken away), the disposition would be in no way lessened by such a provision—that the excitement would rather be increased, and that all the dangers which were apprehended from such meetings would exist in their full force, just as if no such restriction on their power to adjourn had ever been enacted?—He would next advert to the subject of the rent, with respect to which so much had been said. He was free to confess, he thought the name ill chosen and objectionable. But, when this had been admitted, he asked their lordships, whether it became them to pass such a bill, merely on account of an improper phrase. The real question was, not what it was called, but whether any improper power, any undue violence, had been used to collect that rent. If any authority had been exercised, if any attempt in the nature of a distress had been made to enforce the payment of that rent, then, indeed, something like a case would have been made out by those who supported the measure. But he had also to complain, that there was something like special pleading in the terms of the bill with respect to this. The

895
words used were "levy and receive." These two words, the meaning of which were wholly different, were coupled together, if not with an insidious intent, at least so as to produce an unfair effect. To levy money in any way but by the authority of parliament was unquestionably illegal; but this the Catholic Association had not done, and had not attempted to do. To prevent money from being received, while one party was willing to pay and the other to receive, was wholly beyond the authority of parliament. He would ask, whether by any stretch of human ingenuity, by any species of inquisition more searching and more rigorous than had been invented in the most bigotted country that the world ever yet contained, an accurate account could be extorted of every shilling that had been received, from whom it had been received, and to what purposes it had been applied?—He would not detain their lordships by going into a consideration of the various means by which the provisions of the bill before them could be evaded. It was enough that it was obvious, that it could be so evaded. The bill, to be effectual, must take away from the Catholics the disposition or the power to do as they had hitherto done; and since it was in every way impossible for the authority of the legislature to effect this, the matter which it affected to remedy would be worse after it had passed than it had been before. The evil was deeply and firmly fixed; its root was in the state of society in Ireland. Everybody knew that whole nations and communities might be held under an arbitrary domination—that the influence of power might wither and extinguish all the reeling and desires which tended to exalt and improve human nature—that men might be held in a state of servitude, and even reconciled to the loss of all their civil rights and privileges. This might be done—this had been done: but what arbitrary power could not do was, to keep a nation (and the Catholics of Ireland might, with reference to their numbers, be called a nation) in a state of deprivation of their natural rights, while they were intermixed with another people who were in the full enjoyment of all the blessings of civil liberty. All the ingenuity of the most learned lawyers—all the penal statutes which might be heaped upon the table of the House—could not shut the door against the influence of such freedom, could not intercept the feelings which
896
must arise from the interchanges of sentiments, the communication of wealth, between the nation in thraldom and the nation which was free. The very blemishes and defects—the very excesses to which the enjoyment of liberty sometimes led, would be loud and convincing exhortations to those who were without their fair share of its blessings, never to cease struggling for them until they were obtained. Their very obedience to the laws would teach them that the reward of that obedience was the enjoyment of the rights of which it was the purchase. If the enjoyment of those rights were withheld—still more, if the attempt to obtain them on the part of those from whom they were withheld was punished by penal statutes—the legislature ought not to be surprised, that discontent and disorder were the consequences. If they still resolved to withhold from the Catholics the light and warmth of the sun of the British constitution, they must not be surprised that in their despair they sought the assistance of those wandering lights, which fitfully and partially illumined the atmosphere in which they lived. Let their lordships consider to what manner of nation it was that they were asked to apply this rigorous and unnecessary restriction. It was a nation which he hardly felt himself able to describe, and to which he should therefore apply the words of a writer, who was not less famed for the force and beauty of his prose writings than for the inimitable excellence of his poetry—Milton, in speaking of the English nation, and addressing its rulers, said, "Lords and Commons of England! consider what nation it is whereof ye are the governors: a nation not slow and dull, but of a quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit; acute to invent, subtle and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point, the that human capacity can soar to. a nation did he (lord L.) think Ireland was. He besought the House to remember, that over this nation there was exerted that most tremendous engine of modern times—the press, a—power which, like electricity, roused the latent fire which existed in every part of the national economy, woke every sympathy of human nature to the keen enjoyment of the advantages which existed for the universal good of society. The people of Ireland were invited to participate in all the enterprises which England undertook; they were invited to participate in the advantages of

897
the extensive commerce which was one of the chief distinctions of England amongst the other nations of the world, and in all the hopes of higher and more noble things to which that commerce gave birth; they were invited to enter the army and the navy, and they were taught to imbibe a love of honour, and to seek for its reward; they were invited to become the possessors of landed property—(in a few days he should take occasion to show the House to what extent they had accepted this invitation)—and, consequently, to encourage a wish to cultivate those honourable relations, and to obtain that distinction, to which the possession of landed property naturally led them to look, and which would alone enable them to make to their country a fit return for those honours. After these feelings had been excited—after these hopes had been encouraged—did their lordships think that, by penal acts of parliament, they could stifle the discontent which disappointment had engendered, or cure the sickness which was the consequence of hopes delayed? It was not by making, but by repealing, penal statutes, that they could hope to effect such a purpose. Such instruments were wholly unequal and unfitted for the purpose—
——"The elements
Of which your swords are temper'd, may as well
Wound the loud winds, or with be-mocked-at stabs
Kill the still-closing waters."
They must remove the necessity for such meetings as that against which the bill was levelled. That alone would extinguish the mischief, and annihilate the necessity of attempting to put down discontents. Since this bill had been laid upon their lordships' table, he entertained additional hopes that those discontents would be for ever composed. A circumstance had occurred within the last eight-and-forty hours, which, if he knew any thing of the Catholic body, must teach them the policy of suspending, for a time at least, the angry feelings which they, not without reason, entertained. They had now much to hope for. He conscientiously believed, that in this, as well as in the other House of parliament, there were many persons who had voted, or who were about to vote, for the bill before them, but who were nevertheless as warm friends to their cause, as any persons in this world. This he wished the Catholics to be convinced of; and he wished them, moreover, to place their full confidence
898
in those who were their real friends. He believed the bill could not succeed in the object which it had in view, for the grounds he had stated; and that it would never be called into action, because it would be evaded, or rendered unnecessary. In this belief, he concluded what he had to say. Having stated his objections to the bill, he should not oppose it in its future stages with so much pertinacity as he should otherwise have felt it his duty to display: and he sat down in the fervent hope, that the measure to which he had alluded, might have the effect of restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, he could not collect, from what had fallen from the noble marquis, that the Catholic Association ought not, in his opinion, to be put down. The whole of his arguments went no further than to shew, that the measure about to be enforced was not calculated to produce the intended effect. Now, his objection to the Association was, that it tended to keep up perpetual irritation; that it had the effect of raising blister after blister, until the whole body became one mass of ulceration. It had been said, that the Catholic Rent had not been collected compulsorily, but was a free gift on the part of the people. To this his answer was, that the voice of the priest in collecting that rent was equally, if not more powerful, than the voice of the tax-gatherer. He was the more anxious to give his support to this bill, because he felt, that, the moment the Catholic Association was declared by parliament to be illegal, it would discontinue its operations. That Association had existed for eighteen months. Government were told, that they ought not to interfere hastily for its suppression, but wait for time and circumstances before they put it down. They had waited; and it was not until imperiously called upon, that they now interfered for its suppression. The noble marquis contended, that other measures might be introduced which would effectually remove the discontent of the Roman Catholics. That might be true; but still it was no reason against the suppression of the Catholic Association. If that Association were allowed to take its course, who could doubt that it would be met by another Association?—who could doubt, in the state of alarm, whether real or imaginary, in which a portion of the people of that country were, that that would

899
take place which his majesty's government had been so anxious to prevent; namely, an open contest between the two parties? He was of opinion, that this bill ought to pass, as he conceived it necessary, under existing circumstances, to the tranquillity of Ireland. When he advocated the cause of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he did so, not because he looked to their interests alone, but from a conviction that, in doing so, he was equally advocating the cause of his fellow Protestants in Ireland: and, as they were about to enter on the discussion of that great question, he was most anxious to approach it with every possible advantage in its favour. Therefore it was, that he had tortured his invention, in order to produce some palliation of what he could not help calling the deliberate resolutions to which the Catholic Association had come, and which, he was sorry to say, had been productive of serious injury to the cause of the Roman Catholics generally. He wished to tell those who doubted the loyalty and good disposition of the Roman Catholics, that however ill-advised they might have been; whatever steps might have been taken to lead them into tracks which they would, in cooler moments shudder to approach, they were ready, the moment the voice of parliament was pronounced, to obey it, and to give up, not their claims or their petitions, but those meetings of the Catholic Association, which the legislature had found it necessary to suppress. He, and those noble lords—who with him supported the claims of the Roman Catholics, were anxious that they should shew their obedience to the law. He wished that their admission to a participation in the legislature of the country should be softened and smoothed down, instead of having the appearance of being forcibly and violently obtained. It was because he entertained this feeling—it was because he was sincere in his wish to emancipate the Roman Catholics—that he gave his decided support to this bill.
The House then divided on the second reading of the bill: Contents 146; Not-contents 44; Majority 102.