and in 1810 the Catholic Board was set up. All these assemblies had been reduced by the exertion of a proper firmness on the part of Go

vernment.

Mr J. Williams said, that as he had heard nothing that afforded a prospect of composing and conciliating Ireland, he felt it necessary to oppose the bill in its very first stage. Upon what principle did the right honourable gentleman proceed? Whence did the excesses of the Catholics, supposing them to have been committed, arise? Was there nothing to account for them in the severity of disappointment? Had no expectations been held out? Had the House of Commons never encouraged them, by the result of its own votes, to expect the boon they asked for? Was the grant of that boon never held out to them, even in the Cabinet; or had no portion of his Majesty's ministers encouraged their hopes? He would embellish his speech by higher authority than any reasoning which he could bring to the subject. In a discussion in 1813, when misconduct had been imputed to the Catholics-when "particular circumstances" existed— when the Catholics had assumed a threatening attitude,-the right honourable person he alluded to (Mr Plunkett) delivered this sentence:"Sir, it appears to me most unfair to visit on the Roman Catholics the opinions and the conduct of such assemblies as profess to act for them. If they labour under a real and a continued grievance, which justifies, on their part, a continued claim, they must act through the medium of popular assemblies, and must of course be exposed to all the inconveniences which attend discussion in such assemblies. In all such places, we know that unbounded applause attends the man who occupies the extreme positions of opinion, and that the extravagance of his expression will not dimi

nish it. In such an assembly, there may be many individuals anxious to promote their own consequence, at the expense of the party whose interests they profess to advocate; and amongst those who are sincere in the cause, much may be attributed to the effects of disappointed hope-much to the resentment excited and justified by insolent and virulent opposition. But I should unworthily shrink from my duty, if I were not to avow my opinion, that the unfortunate state of the public mind in Ireland is, above all things, imputable to the conduct of the Government" (loud cheering). He would ask, Is it right that Ireland should continue in its present state, having its feelings trifled with-its expectations excited by one part of the Cabinet, and taunted by the other? If he were called upon to answer this grave question, he should answer, No. He should say, that to waste time in dividing and cavilling would be to surrender the best interests of the country. As long as this hesitation prevailed, what was to be expected in Ireland but that fever, that heart-burning to which the right honourable gentleman had alluded? Did ministers imagine, that if they could succeed in putting down the Association, they would put down all other organs of complaint? Nolet it not be supposed that this bill would be effectual in Ireland. To give it effect, force must be employed; and upon this principle the proposed enlargement of our army was intelligible enough (hear, hear). Government have begun at the wrong end, and must retrace their steps, instead of persevering in the system of penal laws.

Mr Peel rose to state a few of those grave considerations by which his vote would be directed. He would first notice an argument of a learned member who had said that he would not vindicate the acts of the Association, and could not stand forward as their

advocate, but still he conceived that these people laboured under such a grievance as took from the House all right of interference with their proceedings. That was not his reading of the law. On subjects of grievance, the Parliament of England was the sole constitutional judge (hear, hear). Those who might think themselves aggrieved would have a right to their constitutional remedy by petition; and their petitions would be considered; but they must not act independently of Parliament. He should, therefore, unhesitatingly call for the interference of Parliament, if it could be shown that the proceedings of this Association were at variance with the constitution. This he would consider, in the first place, as a body interfering with the administration of justice. He would refer to certain doctrines that had been mooted with respect to a confederacy which was formed about three years ago, and which called itself "The Constitutional Association;" but which, by those who in that house were the advocates for decency and decorum, both in act and language, was termed "The Bridge-Street Gang" (a laugh). Although he had never patronized that society, he saw a marked distinction between that and the Catholic Association. He should now begin by quoting, with respect to such associations, the words of one whose name was dear to every friend of liberty, and one that he mentioned with that respect which was due to his private character and public consistency, although he differed from almost the whole tenor of his public life,-he meant Mr Whitbread (hear, hear):"He did not pretend to any deep knowledge of the law, but he would contend that the Association was formed against the common law of the land, and in opposition to the Act of Maintenance. That act was passed to prevent oppression; and he thought that

:

subscribing to prosecute individuals at the suit of the King came under the description of maintenance, and within the contemplation of the act" (cheers). He did not know whether the Catholic Association were aware of this act or not; but if this doctrine were true, that confederacy came within it. But he would resort to legal authorities; and would first refer the House to a learned civilian (Dr Lushington), who was reported to have "commented upon the difficulty which persons, if maliciously prosecuted by the Constitutional Association, would have in recovering damages from the society. If counterassociations should be resorted to, nothing but dissension and ill-will would be seen, instead of that peace and quiet to which the country was so anxiously looking." (The right honourable gentleman proceeded to quote opinions hostile to the Constitutional Association, delivered by other learned members of the Opposition.) Having, then, these concurrent opinions from the other side of the House, that an Association founded upon such principles, was, if legal, at any rate unconstitutional; that its proceedings were fatal to the impartial administration of justice-seeing that all the arguments which applied to the Constitutional, applied with still greater force to the Catholic Association-had he not gone a great way to prove that the House ought not to reject a remedy for so acknowledged an evil? (loud cheers). He must now notice the discussion which took place in the Court of King's Bench, respecting the legality of the Constitutional Association: he need scarcely observe how strongly it bore upon the present question. A prosecution had been instituted by the Constitutional Association against Dolby, for libel. The Sheriff, Mr Garratt, who had been a subscriber to that Association, had returned the panel from which the jury were to be chosen. A chal

lenge was made to the array. It was objected to this challenge by the sheriff, that he had withdrawn from the Association, and that he had publicly declared so, in a letter to its secretary, at the time of his being elected sheriff; yet, as he had paid his subscription, the Court held that he was disqualified. In the course of the trial his evidence was rejected on the same ground-that he was not indifferent. The same objection would apply with greater force, if a person in Mr Garratt's circumstances had been a juror. Now, apply this rule to the Catholic Association. Was not every Catholic who had subscribed one farthing to this Association disqualified from sitting as a juror on any prosecution which it might institute? They had been told that evening that every peasant in Ireland was a member of the Association. If this were so, was not justice likely to be tainted, (cheers,) when nearly every person qualified to sit upon a jury was disqualified by his own act? Parliament had recently enabled Catholics to act as jurors and grand jurors; and yet here was an act of their own body which set them aside as jurors if they had subscribed to the Catholic rent (loud cheers). For the vindication of the magistracy-for the maintenance of the laws-for the impartial administration of justice, he called upon the House to apply some remedy to this afflicting evil (loud cheers). He would proceed to call to their recollection the political nature of this body, which had now been in existence for more than a year, under the pretence of preparing a Catholic petition to Parliament. That body imitated, or, he should rather say, travestied the proceedings of that House -a matter of little importance in itself, but which, combined with others, assumed a certain degree of consequence. Its meetings were followed by alarm throughout the country; an

VOL. XVI. PART I.

alarm which an honourable baronet had attributed to the Bible Societies and missionary preachers. The strange notion of the honourable baronet, recalled to his mind a fable, in which it was represented that a great pestilence had fallen on the beasts, and that they had an association to inquire into the cause.

The lion, the tiger, and

the other animals that delighted in blood, all asserted that they could have nothing to do with it; but having discovered that an ass had eaten a thistle on the Sabbath, they agreed that the ass must have been the animal that had called down the anger of Heaven, and sacrificed him to appease its vengeance (laughter). Did the honourable baronet make nothing of that address which had been so often quoted ? Could he find nothing in it to excite alarm in the breast of every Protestant, when he found the Catholics adjured to unanimity by their hatred to Orangemen?-a phrase which meant all the Protestants of Ireland (cheers). He did not mean to say that this body was expressly organized for the purpose of mischief; but it was calculated to excite suspicion. It had its agents in every parish, and its correspondent in every town. With such machinery, how easily might it be converted into, an engine of the greatest mischief? They declared it to be their intention to raise L.40 or L.50,000 a-year. Of this sum L.5000 was to be employed in enlightening the public press of England; L.5000 in preparing petitions to Parliament. Then part was to be expended in keeping an agent in England; L.5000 in sending priests to North America; and L.5000 more for the conversion of their haughty and heretical neighbours in England (laughter and cheers). Then it had its committees of finance, of grievance, and of education! The assumption of such powers was, in his opinion, inconsistent with public liberty. The House was

C

accustomed to admire the popular part of its constitution; but with what checks was it hedged round! They had their freedom of speech from the Crown, which could suspend it at any moment. If the House wished to prosecute an individual, it was done by addressing the Crown. But the Catholic Association was under no control as to its debates; and it instituted its own prosecutions, and even went to create prejudices against the accused by distributing ex parte statements of the evidence to be produced against him. It appeared, therefore, to him, both with reference to the political mischief, and the corruption in the administration of justice which this Association was calculated to create, that the House was bound to apply the remedy which his right honourable friend had proposed (loud cheering).

Mr Denman said, that he had been so far misled as to suppose that the argument attempted to be drawn from the Constitutional Association had been completely disposed of on a former evening. The right honourable gentleman had referred to the manner in which he expressed himself three years ago on the Constitutional Association. Did that Association meet to repel attacks made on itself, or to complain of the unequal administration of justice among its own members (hear, hear); or to volunteer the office of Attorney-General, and to undertake the prosecution of state-offences (cheering)? They acted as if the AttorneyGeneral were either blind, or negligent, or inadequate to his duty; and thinking themselves very superior persons, when, in point of fact, they were very inferior ones, instituted a series of jobs (great cheering), which they called prosecutions against individuals for offences, for which, if they had been guilty, they ought to have been attacked with ex officio informations (cheers). The

Catholic Association, on the contrary, subscribed only to prosecute those who had injured Catholics, and to repel aggressions, under which he trusted that no class would ever rest quiet (hear, hear). They had, therefore, subscribed to repel injury and to organize a system of defence. The learned gentleman proceeded, in the same line of argument, to show that the Constitutional Association was essentially unconstitutional, which the other was not; but, continued be, with respect to the Constitutional Association, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench had laid it down, that it was competent for any body of men to prosecute offenders as they had done. Then why not for the Catholic Association? Had they not societies for the protection of religious liberty, formed by congregations of Dissenters, who co-operated to protect the law of toleration from being violated, and which, at every assize, were found conducting prosecutions for an obstruction of the right of worship, carrying them on with the greatest moderation and propriety, and raising money for defraying the expenses of such proceedings? They all knew what the Methodists had done, and the money they had raised, when in 1811 and 1812 Lord Sidmouth wanted to qualify the right of preaching in the Methodist congregations; and were the Catholics alone to be denied the privilege of complaint? There was no necessity, which he had heard stated, to call for a revision of the Convention Act, that consummation of legislative absurdity; an act in which a clause was inserted to put down all representative bodies, excepting the two Houses of Parliament and Convocation, and certain corporations. Although why the House of Commons should have been excepted, he could not conceive, as no man could have accused it of representing any part of the people (a laugh). The act

deprived the people of the natural vent for their complaints. They then met in secret clubs and cabals, and a political explosion was the consequence. He hoped Parliament would profit by their example, and avoid this precipitate legislation. Why did the right honourable gentleman (Mr Peel) deprecate legislative interference with the tremendous Orange Associations, and now call for penalties and coercion against the oppressed? It was time that Parliament should seek for some other remedy for the evils of Ireland than the augmentation of penal statutes. Why not try the only remedyEmancipation? Let them not be met by excuses about the unfitness of the time. Was the time less fit now than it was two or three years ago, when the right honourable gentleman (Mr Canning) introduced his bill of relief for Catholic Peers? What right had that right honourable gentleman to say that the labours of Fox and Grattan had wrought no conviction upon the British mind respecting this measure? Was the proof of his opinion to be found in the increasing votes of Parliament? He admitted that the rotten boroughs had sent forth opponents to the question. He found such among those who represented nobody, except the treasury, the peerage, or their own pockets. He knew, indeed, that the Church, with the exception of its most enlightened members, was opposed to the Catholic claims; and if he looked round, he found them as active in get ting up petitions as the other clergy were represented to be in collecting the Catholic rent (a laugh). He was not surprised at this in the Church, which, as a great chartered body, that had separated from its elder sister, was of course tenacious of its monopoly. How they flung at obnoxious tenets in the religious belief of their opponents! Thus, they had a great objection to its arrogating the power of ab

solution. Now, where was the great difference, after all, between this branch of the doctrine of the two churches? In the ordination of the Protestant priests nearly the same form of ritual was observed. The Established Church formed a compact extensive body, which presented a dangerous hostility in such a cause; and there was a similar hostility in another high quarter in the state-he meant the Lord Chancellor, an eminent and illustrious man, remarkable for the ability with which he had succeeded in securing to himself for twenty-five years the honours and emoluments of the state-a man who had law in his voice and fortune in his hand, and who, whether he opposed the schemes of liberal feeling at home or abroad, was undoubtedly a formidable opponent. But why was the successful exercise of such power permitted, when justice, and the tranquillity of the country, required concession and liberality? He was astonished that the right honourable Secretary (Mr Canning) could consent to accommodate his sentiments upon subjects of vital importance to the taste of such a person. But the cause of Emancipation had been betrayed throughout by its official advocates. The AttorneyGeneral for Ireland had introduced the measure with his customary pomp of eloquence, and carried it through that House with his customary power of persuasion. A few months after, that learned gentleman slipped into office without the slightest stipulation for the Catho lics. The Marquis Wellesley was their firm and steady friend. But no sooner was he appointed, than his Government was neutralized, and deprived of all masculine power (loud laughter), by the addition of a Secretary who was totally opposed to liberality. Another party, the Grenvilles, who had honourably sacrificed office, in conjunction with Mr Fox, rather than give up the Catholic question, had, in the