페이지 이미지

that it was quite clear, or that men could travel upon it without pain or cost; but where could they do this in England, or in any other country? After repeating that justice had been done in Ireland, and could still be done there, between man and man, without the aid of the Catholic Association, the hon. gentleman concluded by appealing to those who knew him, whether personal or political feel. ing had ever biassed him in the discharge of his duty 2 Mr. W. Courtenay said, that he had always voted in favour of catholic claims; and believed their grant to be most important to the well-being of Ireland. But he supported the motion before the house, because he thought the existence of a society like the Catholic Association one of the heaviest afflictions with which any country could be visited. The hon. gentleman proceeded to contend, that the effect of the association, as interfering with the regular course of justice, would be most injurious, if not checked by the present bill. He maintained that an association, acting as this had done, and possessing resources which no individual could possess, was incompatible with the spirit of the constitution, and ought to be put down. He could assure the house, that feeling as he did on the general question of catholic emancipation, he gave his vote for this bill with regret; but he felt convinced that the tranquillity of the country absolutely required it. There was only one part of the bill upon which he had any doubt, and the existence of which might have induced him to oppose it— he meant that clause which gave authority to a single magistrate to

enforce the provisions of the act; but on this point he felt himself relieved by an intimation from his right hon, friend (Mr. Goulburn), that it was his intention to alter that clause, and to make it necessary that there should be more than one magistrate present in certain proceedings under it. Mr. Sykes and Sir J. Nenport spoke in favour of the association. Mr. Goulburn said, he did not intend to delay the house by any lengthened observations, but he could not allow this last opportunity to pass without making a few remarks in reply to some of the objections which had been urged against the bill for the first time that evening. It had been asserted that this was partial legislation, and that the government had made no attempt to put down associations of a different description. He denied the fact, and he appealed to the statute-book for proof, that the house had legislated to put down other societies. Did hon. members forget the act passed in the year 1823, to put down associations of a particular description, by which orange societies, though not mentioned by name, were particularly aimed at? The honourable baronet (Sir J. Newport) had said that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor in Ireland. If that meant to convey to the house, that there was in that country, a denial of justice to the poor man, he begged to deny the fact; but if it meant only that great inconvenience was felt by a poor man in prosecuting a suit at law, it was no more than was felt in this country, and was incidental to the condition of the poor in every state. With respect to magistrates, he he would assert, and he defied contradiction, that there was no such thing as a disposition amongst them to take bribes for the administration of justice to the poor. There might have been cases of injustice and oppression on the part of magistrates; but whenever a case of the kind came fully before government, there was no indisposition to exercise the authority with which they were invested, of removing such persons from the commission. In cases which affected the conduct of magistrates, and which became the subject of judicial inquiry, it was the constant practice of the Lord Chancellor to inquire into the merits of the case by taking the report of the learned judge who tried it, and to act by his opinion. This was done in the case of “Lawrence and Dempster.” The right hon. gentleman then went on to contend for the necessity of such a measure as the present, to put down an association having a very dangerous tendency, and against which the existing laws afforded no sufficient protection. It had been said that the giving the power to a single magistrate to enforce this act in particular instances was without precedent; but did hon. members recollect that the convention act gave power, not only to a single magistrate, but even to a peaceofficer, to prevent or stop a meeting held contrary to the clauses of that act? In the present act no such power was given, except to a magistrate. Yet even on this point he was ready to attend to the suggestions which had been thrown out, and to make the presence of more than one magistrate necessary in certain cases; and he

assured hon. members opposite, that from the first he was prepared to give his most patient attention to every suggestion by which the severity of this act might be mitigated as much as possible, without destroying its effect. He then proceeded to show that the statement made by the hon. member for Winchelsea, regarding the conduct of Baron M'Cleland on one of the recent trials in Ireland, was utterly without foundation. The hon. and learned member had stated, that the acquittal of the soldier was attributable to the interference of the learned judge in preventing one of the witnesses giving an answer to the question why he had omitted to state at the coroner's inquest that which he was then stating to the court. Since that statement had been made, he had received one communication from the learned judge whose conduct was impeached by it, and another from two of the counsel employed for the prosecution. Now, on the authority of the counsel, he could inform the house, that no such question had been proposed to the witness as was stated to have been objected to ; and on the authority of the learned judge, that he had not put any stop to such investigation. The right hon, secretary here read Baron M'Cleland's letter to the effect we have stated; and then added, that he had the satisfaction of announcing to the house, that he had recently become acquainted with another proof the soldier's innocence. The learned judge had summed up the evidence on this indictment with so much minuteness, that in the course of it the counsel for the prosecution had said to a gentleman who sat next

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][graphic]

him, “I wonder why the judge should give himself the trouble of charging on a case upon which there has been the necessity of a clear acquittal from the beginning.” The hon. and learned gentleman had also made, upon what authority he knew not, another charge against the learned judge. Mr. Brougham.—I made the charges on the authority of one of the counsel for the prosecution. Mr. Goulburn.—The hon. and learned gentleman had said that the learned judge had not only forborne to defer a trial, the name of which was not mentioned, till the counsel engaged in it was sent for from another court, but had also refused to read over to him the evidence of the witnesses who had been examined previously to his coming into it. The right hon. gentleman here read a letter from the learned baron, stating, that as the name of the case had not been mentioned, he could not meet the charge made against him with as positive a denial as he had done the former charge, but adding, that he had no recollection of such a circumstance having occurred on the circuit, and that he believed that no such circumstance had occurred, as it was in direct contravention to the conduct which he had long been in the habit of pursuing towards the bar. After such a statement, he did not suppose that any body would again impute to the learned baron the glaring and criminal misconduct which had been attributed to him by the hon. and learned gentleman. He was sure that the hon.

and learned gentlemen would be

the first to regret that he had been led by false information to employ the weight of his great eloquence

in bringing such unfounded accusations against a judicial character, and he trusted that it would teach him to abstain from depicting him in future as a person who was half a tiger and half another animal which the hon, and learned gentleman had named, though unfortunately the word had not reached his ears. Such language was scarcely defensible when used towards an individual convicted of crime, but was quite unwarrantable when used towards an individual of the learned baron's high station and character. He was sure those that knew him would agree with him when he stated, that no individual discharged his functions more impartially, or oftener interfered to prevent the recurrence of the violent party disputes which so frequently came

before the tribunals of Ireland. Mr. Denman had waited with impatience for some explanation of the learned baron's conduct in the two cases which had been brought before the notice of the house; and now that the explanation had been given, he must observe that to him it appeared to be any thing but satisfactory. The learned baron had met the first charge with a positive denial. This was no more than might naturally be expected from a person in his situation. A learned counsel had, however, pledged his professional fortunes to the truth. of the charge; and he could not see any reason why the judge was to be credited merely because he was on the bench, or why the barristershould be disbelieved because he was below it. If a man were to be considered innocent merely because he denied the accusation brought against him, why should not

not the Catholic Association have the benefit of the same doctrine ! It had certainly every claim upon their indulgence; it had challenged inquiry into its conduct— it had offered evidence of its proceedings—that evidence had been rejected, and its guilt had been taken for granted, not only without producing any facts to establish it, but after shutting out from the public view every document except those miserable papers which were now poured in from every quarter to blacken the conduct and objects of the Catholic Association. Gentlemen on the other side had told them that they ought not to attack the absent. He wished that they would follow the advice they gave ; and before they poured the vials of their wrath on the Catholic Association, would recollect that they had driven its members from their bar, and had not allowed them to refute the charges which they had produced against them. It was, however, quite ridiculous to talk of not attacking the absent, when it was of chancellors and of judges that they had to speak. Those persons could not hold seats in that house; but it was the duty of those who could hold them to remark, and to remark by name on their conduct if it were objectionable. Now, when he found the noble lord who filled the office of chancellor, acting as the head of administration, and putting language into the mouth of his colleagues which filled the country with astonishment, he should not be deterred by any invidious sarcasms from declaring his opinion of that noble lord's political proceedings. They were told that the noble lord, if his colleagues

would not adopt his language, intended to resign. When gentlemen on his side of the house intimated their doubts as to that point, they were told immediately, “It must be so, for the noble lord is a man of honour and integrity." And yet the men who told them so, were themselves men of honour and integrity, who agreed to adopt language as their own which they disapproved, rather than resign the good things of office. The hon. and learned member then proceeded at considerable length to argue against this bill, as one that was calculated to excite lasting discontent in Ireland; and implored the house, if it wished to re-establish itself in the confidence of the population of that country, to put down this association, not by the enactment of fresh penal laws, but by the repeal of those which already existed. Colonel Forde bore testimony to the high character and impartial conduct of Baron M'Cleland as a judge, and declared his intention of supporting this bill. Mr. C. Hutchinson proceeded to address the house, but was inaudible for the greater part of his speech, owing to the noise and coughing in the body of the house. The first words that we caught of his speech were these—“Gentlemen, you shall hear what it is my leasure to submit to the house. ou will only compel me to be ten times as tedious as I otherwise should be by attempting to cough me down. I trust, however, for the honour of the house, that you will hear me, for I represent a large body of men, who deem this question of vital importance to the interests of Ireland.” The hon. member then proceeded, amid much much confusion, to reiterate his opposition to this abominable measure, which he considered to be full of mockery and insult to the catholics of Ireland. He trusted that if it were carried into a law in that house, the catholics would not only petition the house of lords to throw it out, but in case it passed there, would petition the throne to withhold from it the royal assent. After some further observations, he proceeded to remark, that he could not suppose that Lord Wellesley had the littleness of mind to be envious of the fame which the Catholic Association had already acquired. He would beg to ask the secretary at war, why, in a time of peace, the house were, in a few days, to be called upon to vote 15,000 additional men to the army? It had been already stated, that government wanted but 5,000 men for India. What service, then, were the other 10,000 required for ? Did they apprehend that there was anything in the presentaspect of the continental powers to call for such a vast increase? If not, he would ask whether ministers had purposely selected such a moment for insulting a catholic population of 7,000,000 of souls 7 Mr. Peel assured the house that he would detain them but for a very short period indeed, if they would bear with him for that time. He was anxious to set himself right in some points, wherein what he had stated on a former night was more or less directly concerned. In the first place, he entirely acquitted the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hutchinson) of any intention to intimidate him personally, on a former night; and when the hon. gentleman threatened to bring all

the members, almost, on his (Mr. Peel's) side of the house to the block, he (Mr. Peel) never supposed for a moment that he meant any thing more than to speak of them in a general way, as in their capacity of ministers. . But, most undoubtedly, in whatever way the threatening was meant, it would certainly never have the effect of making him swerve from that which he might conceive to be his line of public duty. It was impossible that he (Mr. Peel) should disregard an appeal which had been made to him also, by the honourable member for Taunton, in these discussions; for he had the highest respect for that honourable gentleman, who had raised himself to high rank and influence solely by his own great exertions, his talents, and his integrity. But the hon. member would pardon him for saying, that as in a very few days the catholic question must, in some shape or other, be forced upon the attention of parliament, he should decline, for the present, being tempted into any discussion on that measure, on the army estimates, or any other of the questions to which the honourable gentleman's speech had related. Differing as he did from so many of his hon. friends on the general question, he had yet supported concessions to the English catholics in the course of last session, and all his subsequent experience had confirmed him in the propriety of the step he had then taken. With respect to a question put to him on a former evening by the right honourable gentleman opposite (Mr. Tierney), as to what he (Mr. Peel) must have felt on hearing a right honourable friend describe Ireland to have


« 이전계속 »