been in 1821 a wreck upon the breakers, he begged to say, that he could feel no such displeasure as the right honourable member (Mr. Tierney) seemed to suppose; for what was the fact? It was precisely in that year that he (Mr. Peel) accepted the office of secretary of state. It was true that he had been before secretary for Ireland; but he had quitted office ever since 1816. It had been his wish, in that office, to have remained in Ireland another year, till 1817. Perhaps he might be allowed to say, that when he quitted Ireland, she was in a state of perfect tranquillity; there was then no Catholic Association, no catholic board, nor any thing of the kind. Though he could not give himself any credit on the score of this tranquillity, yet he might be allowed to remark, that it was rather a remarkable coincidence that the country was then tranquil, and that there was little or nothing of that spirit of exacerbation which had since so much affected the minds of men there. With regard to what had fallen on a former night from the honourable and learned member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham), he (Mr. Peel) now wished to repeat, as, near as he could remember them, the very words he used in speaking of one of the most public and notorious acts of the Catholic Association. He said that they had committed an act of indiscretion, at least, by their address to Mr. Hamilton Rowan. He would now say, that to the speech of the hon, and learned gentleman in which that observation was commented on, he had listened with no feeling of hostility, and no other emotion but that of admiration for the

splendid talents which were evinced by the honourable and learned gentleman. The charge of indiscretion against the Catholic Association he (Mr. Peel) now repeated. The address made by them through their secretary on the same day with their address to the Roman-catholics of Ireland, was an act calculated to excite the alarm of all the protestant community of Ireland. The honourable and learned gentleman had expatiated on the excellent private character of Mr. Hamilton Rowan; contending that he was an excellent father, landlord, master-that he fulfilled with unimpeachable integrity all the duties of all the relations of private life. But had he (Mr. Peel) impugned the private virtues of Mr. Hamilton Rowan, or did the Catholic Association speak of them in their address to him? No ;and the Association addressed him as a man "whose life had been devoted, and almost sacrificed in the cause of his country." It was therefore of Mr. Rowan, in this public light, that he spoke. The right honourable gentleman then recapitulated the heads of Mr. Rowan's history, and the facts of its having appeared by the report of the secret committee of 1794, (which Mr. Peel had accidentally read,) that Rowan was accused of intercourse with an emissary from France, and of having plotted with him for the invasion of Ireland; of the manner in which his name was implicated on the trial of Jackson, though on that trial he had no opportunity of being heard in his defence; of his being charged and found guilty in 1794 of the publication of a seditious libel; that in the course of that imprisonment he was attainted for high

treason;

treason; that he fled to France, and was never brought to trial for that treason; that subsequently his Majesty was graciously pleased to give him a free pardon; and that Mr. Rowan, on being brought up for his discharge, made a powerful speech to the Court, in which he acknowledged with gratitude the royal benevolence, and the care with which his wife and children had been treated, particularly by Lord Clare-one of the members (Mr. Peel observed) of the much-calumniated government of Ireland of that dayduring his absence beyond seas. The hon. and learned gentleman argued, that though it was true that Mr. Rowan had been attainted, yet he had never been tried; that he was received into the best society of Dublin, and even by the lord-lieutenant, and noticed and confided in by those distinguished persons whom the hon. and learned gentleman chose to designate ironically as the pink of loyalty— Lord Manners and Mr. Saurin. The right hon. gentleman proceeded to read some passages from the "Letters of the United Irishmen to the Volunteers," the libel for publication of which Mr. Rowan was tried, and the address of the learned judge to the prisoner on passing sentence, in order to prove the dangerous and seditious character of the paper. The house would do well to refer to that sentence, as they might find it in Cobbett's State Trials. But the hon. and learned gentleman had asked him (Mr. Peel) in effect, how he, as a member of the government, durst say any thing against Mr. Hamilton Rowan, who was received and patronized by the Marquis Wellesley, by

Lord Manners, and Mr. Saurin, and retained even in the magistracy? Peculiar stress was laid on this-that he was a magistrate. The confidence with which this statement was made had induced him (Mr. Peel) to believe it.

But he had since referred to the Crown and Hanaper-office in Dublin, to ascertain whether such was the fact; and he had only today received an answer to his application. The reply was to this effect :-" On a search made, for the 20 years last past, in the records of this office, for all the counties of Ireland, it does not appear that there has been, during those 20 years, any person in the commission of the peace of the name of Hamilton Rowan." He would now appeal to the hon. and learned gentleman himself whether he had not thus dashed from his hand the poisoned chalice which the hon. gentleman had commended to his lips?

Mr. Brougham begged to remind the house of the former part of the right hon. gentleman's speech of that night. He had begun with a very candid appeal to him, and the recollection of the house, in respect to his own statement of the preceding Friday, and his (Mr. Brougham's) answer to that speech. He repeated the words then employed as nearly as he could remember them; which were, that the conduct of the association in the matter in question had been equivocal, rash, and indiscreet. And any one who had heard the speech referred to about Mr. Hamilton Rowan, and who did not take his knowledge of it only from the abstract which was thus a second time furnished to the house, must have felt that its

effect

effect was greatly exaggerated in the speech made this night by the right hon. gentleman. But still more must he have felt that the appeal which he (Mr. Brougham) on the former occasion had made to the candour and sympathy of the house, had been outrageously overcharged. But, in his recollection, there dwelt an impression of words used by that hon. gentleman in reference to the object of his (Mr. Brougham's) observations, so different in their spirit from the calm, the subdued, the very candid and plausible manner-so different from the tone of good feeling this night adopted by the right hon. gentleman-that in adverting to them he must declare that words less like than they were to what the right hon. gentleman now spoke of, he had never heard. "Would he (for that was the meaning of the right hon. gentleman's former appeal)-would he (Mr. Brougham) defend this Catholic Association, of which he professed himself to be the advocate and the champion, when in the very day of their declaration to the Roman-catholic population of Ireland, they issued an address, expressive of their love and veneration for an attainted traitor?" (Loud and continued cheering.) "Attainted traitor," those were the words that were employed. He appealed to the impartial, the calm-judging men of that house, who mingled neither with one side nor the other, whether such were not the right hon. gentleman's words?-the words uttered by him in the face of the country, without respect to the feelings of the individual, of his country, or his son? But he (Mr. Brougham) appealed to the better feelings

a

of the house-to the country, to the memory of the right honourable gentleman after one week's recollection of what he had said; he appealed to the right hon. gentleman, as placing himself in the situation of one of those gallant officers, whose distinguished bravery adorned service, of which to be even amongst its lowest members was in itself a very high honour-he meant no other than Captain Hamilton,-whether to hear it publicly, not privately, but in the face of parliament and of the country, represented that his own father was an attainted traitor, was just or proper? The hon. and learned gentleman then said, that passing over much detail, of which in this case he was comparatively ignorant, he asserted that he had, on a former night, defended Mr. H. Rowan, and to that defence he still adhered. He had defended the Catholic Association; and that defence he felt himself bound to renew. The hon. and learned gentleman then adverted to the case of Jackson, and ridiculed the notice of Mr.H.Rowan,who had not been tried on that occasion, being affected by any thing which might be supposed to implicate him, coming out in the trial of Jackson for a libel; and in a case upon which Mr. Hamilton was not heard in his own defence. Then as to the trial which Mr. Hamilton did undergo, and of which the right hon. gentleman said so much: was it for a great crime?—a felony?-for any thing infamous?for any thing that could justify another man in saying, under such circumstances, "that he was an attainted traitor ?" No such thing; but he was tried for a libel. The

right hon. gentleman must have reason to complain, if he thought that the course which was recommended so long ago, of seeking for redress of grievances and relief, was seditious; for it should seem that 30 years had not made the Irish any wiser. They now chose to intrust their petition into the hands of an hon. baronet, who was convicted of" seditious libel" on very similar grounds, by a justly-judging and correctly-feeling jury, who found him guilty of a libel of this sort; in consequence of which, he had been subjected to a long imprisonment, in the time of peace, on the very banks of that river that washed the walls within which they were now assembled. In farther allusion to the case of Mr. Hamilton Rowan, the honourable and learned gentleman observed, that in those troublous times to which the right hon. gentleman referred, the wisest of the sons of Ireland were uncertain of the course they should pursue, and might well be excused for any errors into which they fell in endeavouring to avert from their country the horrors of a civil war with which she was then threatened, and to which she must have been a prey had the system of that day prevailed much longer. Even Mr. Grattan was the object of secret proceedings in the privy council, as he believed. Consultations were held for his removal-for the removal of a man whose name was never mentioned even on the other (the ministerial) side of the house, without every expression of regard and veneration. The learned gentleman then entered more fully into a defence of Mr. H. Rowan's conduct, in reply to the animadversions of the right

At

honourable gentleman, but he was at last interrupted by a loud cry of " order!" He wished the hon. gent. who cried" order," would resume the deep slumber in which he must have been wrapped for the last half hour; for nobody who had been awake during that time, and had listened to the very important discussion which had been proceeding, could have thought of interrupting it by such a cry of "order." There were so many errors in public documents, that he might safely admit it to be possible that Mr. Rowan had not been in the commission for twenty years past. The clerk of the hanaper might be right, and his informants, three in number, might have innocently erred in their statement of that fact. any rate, he (Mr. Brougham) stood acquitted. He defied any man to hear that statement, and find it supported as he did, without at once receiving and confiding in it. There were other statements to which he felt bound to refer. The question of Mr. Rowan being a magistrate or not, was only one circumstance: that circumstance being excepted, his defence of that gentleman was left impregnable. He had been restored by a free pardon: was not that enough? He was re-admitted to his rights as a free subject: was not that enough? He was received at court: was that nothing? He was allowed to act upon the grand juries: was not that a function to give a man consideration-when he would have to sit upon criminal offences, perhaps in cases of high treason? He had been admitted at the levee: was that nothing? Did it speak nothing for a man's character, that he was well received at the Castle by

one

one lord-lieutenant after another? One of those noble personages who had held that distinguished post, who was not at all more interested, either from property or feeling, in the propagation of treason and disaffection, than the right hon. gentleman opposite, had authorised him to make use of a statement which he had made regarding the character of this gentleman. They, of course, considered themselves as the only legitimate defenders of the throne and the altar-they alone, so their manner would intimate, were the only ones who did not foster rebellion and sedition. It was his practice to believe that persons, like the Duke of Bedford, from the stake which they held in the country, and from their known and unquestioned loyalty, gave as sound pledges for themselves, and were as likely to be as earnest in their wishes to maintain the peace of Ireland, as any of the right hon. gentlemen opposite. These were the words of the Duke of Bedford: "One of the first of my official acts was to recommend to the crown to grant a free pardon to Mr. H. Rowan. No one act of my administration has ever given me more satisfaction, because I am convinced that a more honourable and respectable man does not exist in all Ireland." Be it known, then, that the most grievous charge against the associations amounted to this--that although he was no magistrate, they had pointedly shown their regard for a man, than whom a more honourable and respectable one could not be found in all Ireland. He would press this matter one step further. Who was entitled to call him traitor, if the sovereign who had pardoned

him, has since smiled upon him also? His Majesty himself did that very thing, for imitating which his Majesty's ministers accused the Catholic Association. When the sovereign had received him at the levee, no man living could charge, no man living ought to charge the association with the slightest degree of indiscretion, in manifesting their respect to him. He repeated his opinion, that this gentleman had been ungenerously, unnecessarily attacked, and he envied not the feelings of those who, perhaps to round a period, or at any rate to make an impression, could indulge in such a charge. "Yesreceived at court by the advice of the ministers themselves-but of that I take no advantage." One word as to the observations which he had made upon Baron M'Cleland. He had before given his reasons for believing in the statement made to him respecting those transactions: he still believed in that statement. He had his information from a gentleman whom he knew, who was of counsel in the cause. The answer of the learned baron was with respect to one of the cases specific-in the other, his reply was general and argumentative. He found nothing in either of the answers to alter his belief, or effectually to meet that statement. As to the character of the learned baron, he had been accused of using strong language-of attributing to him very extraordinary and almost indescribable baseness and cruelty. He appealed to the recollection of the house, if he was not wronged in the representation of what he had said. He had in the most marked manner introduced those expressions as some which were

applied