The door would then be effectually closed against any apprehended mischief. He would name no man; but this he would say, that greater natural abilities, more acquired talents, finer skill, and, what he would very much dread to encounter in an opponent, nicer discretion, he never saw displayed, in a more extensive degree, than he saw those qualities displayed by those who now conducted the affairs of the Roman-catholics. He repeated, that men of greater talents-men of more information -men of more practised skill men possessing greater powers of self-command- -men actuated by the dictates of a more sound judgment, or distinguished by a finer sense of discretion, he had never seen. He spoke not merely from public reports, but also from private conviction. These were the elements of public power; men so accomplished-so richly endowed by nature-so much improved by study, backed by their countrymen (he cared not whether six, or five, or four millions) such men, it must be admitted, possessed power. That which he had described was power, or he knew not what power was. The power which those persons wielded was dreaded by the government. Why did he assert that it was dreaded? Because, to control that power, they broke through the principles of the constitution, and enacted mischievous and revolting laws. His (Mr. Brougham's) panacea was "Give to those people their birth-right: you thus take that power from them. Let the six millions be sixty millions; if they have no grievance, you have no cause of fear. Act thus,

and all this national talent, all this

acquired ability, all this practised skill, all this nicely-balanced discretion, will be exerted for your service-will no longer be wielded against you." The elements of strife and confusion were abroad. The energies which oftentimes accompanied political disappointment, and the fire which always attended religious zeal, and the discontent which a refusal of justice must ever engender, might, when combined, produce the most fearful effects. His remedy was plain and rational, "Take all those elements into your own hands; work them properly; control them, not by coercion, but by kindness; attract them to you by benefits, instead of repelling them by injuries; and no longer will you lie down under the influence of nightly insurrection." The right honourable gentleman (Mr. Peel) said, even if he were friend to this measure, he would not be frightened into it. This was the worst of all possible arguments. Why should any man say, "I will abstain from doing a right, because it is boldly demanded? Why should any man say, know that such an act is right; but as I am importuned to perform it, I will refuse, and thereby perpetuate wrong?" For a man to submit to do that which he ought not to do through fear, was lowering him in the scale of human society and was it not equally degrading when a man, from a principle of obstinacy, refused to do that which he ought to do? Was such a course respectable, or dignified, or intelligible, or one that could be mentioned with gravity? Why it was saying,

a

" I

Don't desire me to do a good act; for, if I am so counselled,

I shall

I shall certainly refuse." He knew that the right hon. gent. was not friendly to this proposition; but he put his argument of not being threatened into compliance, to those who were well-wishers to the measure. If those individuals adopted it, they would in effect say, "I know this is right; I wish to carry the measure; but, alas! you frighten me!". It was declaring neither more nor less than this: "We wish for the measure, and the legislature is bound to listen to the proposition; but they must also hearken to the calculation of danger. The present is a time of danger, and we will not concede this measure on compulsion." This, however, was a fallacy. No government, no legislature, need fear the attack of factious men, if justice were done to the community. There was no reason to fear assaults on the constitution; there was no reason to dread attacks on the establishments of the country. But that which was really formidable, that which the legislature ought to listen to, was the fear of doing wrong and injustice. Such acts were criminal in themselves; such acts were formidable, for they tended to produce discontent, with all its train of evils. He was a good counsellor who told them not to do that which was mean, and low, and oppressive, but who pointed out that which was noble and just, that which it was their duty to execute; one who showed them how, when the state was in danger, to take those steps by which that danger could best be removed. They stood in that place as the trustees for others, and they ought not to waste their time by a display of

1

their own individual feelings. Was it their own persons they were alarmed for? Did they dread personal danger? No, the danger of civil war was that which some of them seemed to apprehend. That danger ought to be prevented; and he had pointed out the sure way of setting to rest every apprehension on that point. Civil commotion was of all things the most to be dreaded; but it was their own fault if they did not, by liberal measures, dissipate any fear of danger of that description from Ireland. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) said that the Roman-catholics had already been favoured with concessions : and he quoted two instances. The answer to his statement was simply this the catholics were now asking for that which was reasonable; but, said the hon. gent., "if we grant this, they will ask for something that is unreasonable;"-then he would say, wait till they make the demand, and then refuse them; but do not reject a reasonable suit, from the fear that an unreasonable one, which might be rejected, should follow. It was feared, too, that the Roman-catholics would, if admitted to political power, interfere with the existing establishment. had not the fact been stated, on the most incontestable authority, that they did not wish to meddle with church property-that they had no desire to interfere with tithes-and that, least of all, had they any idea of transferring them to the catholic church. Why, then, he demanded, should not the legislature grant that which was unobjectionable, when they had the power of refusing whatever appeared improper? He was asto

But

nished when he heard the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) state that no mention was made of securities. He (Mr. Brougham) had distinctly heard his hon. friend say, that he would vote for no bill except it was stated in the preamble that the protestant church, as it now existed, in Ireland as in England, should be inviolably preserved. He understood him to say, that securities were to be introduced substantially the same as those which were attached to the former bill, and that a new one, and he conceived the best, would be added; namely, provision for the whole of the catholic clergy. Could this be proposed now? It was impossible. They could better ask the layman to be an apostate, than the clergyman. If the latter accepted any favour until emancipation were granted, he would be lost to his flock-he would be despised as one who had preferred his own interest to their welfare. What would render this step proper in the eyes both of the clergy and the laity, would be to give freedom to the laity; and then, and not till then, to offer to the clergy that provision which the wisdom and justice of parliament might deem expedient. They would receive it from the hands of the legislature thankfully, because, he conceived, they would then receive it honestly. But if they accepted of such a boon before emancipation, it would prove nothing but irretrievable despair. The course which he now advocated, he had suggested long before the Romancatholic Association was in being. If that course were pursued, he was sure the Roman-catholics would be satisfied, and that Ireland would be placed in a state of

safety. What might happen if this proposition were not agreed to, he could not say. He trusted the peace would be preserved, and the laws obeyed. He thought he might say that they would, from what he had seen of those individuals. He believed they would act like good subjects, and bow before the refusal of the legislature if their prayer was refused. But well he knew what dire effects were produced when those who had the power of conciliation in their hands, persisted eternally in perpetrating wrong, instead of doing justice; and when they considered the state of Ireland, and the deep anxiety which existed there for the accomplishment of that which their advocates had undertaken to procure-for the acquirement of that which the people then knew, and that house knew, ought to be granted to them-the legislature would pause before they refused their claims. If they found that the reward granted for the peace and tranquillity which Ireland had lately enjoyed, consisted in new rejections and new oppressions, without predicating the consequences, he might be allowed to say, that the experiment was an exceedingly dangerous one. He fervently hoped that by granting the boon called for by the Roman-catholics, they would place on a firm basis the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. The time had been objected to; and he was sorry that a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had expressed an opinion that the present was not a proper period for this concession. He must say, as this was the case, that if there was any thing wrong in pressing those claims forward at the present moment,

moment, he must take his full share of the blame. His entire belief was, that it was prudent to pursue this course; that it was, in fact, the most politic line of conduct that could be taken: and he thought that if the measure now proposed was not, carried, the peace of Ireland would be placed in jeopardy. He earnestly and solemnly entreated the house to take that opportunity while a measure of a different description was pending in another place, to adopt a line of policy which would improve the state of Ireland-would reconcile the catholic and protestant body, and would put an end to all those factions and dissensions which had so long distracted that country. That object could only be obtained by granting to the Romancatholics their just demands; and every measure having that object in view should meet with his most cordial concurrence.

Sir F. Burdett rose to reply. He assured the house that he would not detain them for many minutes. He would merely recall to the recollection of the house, that Ireland, in its present condition, was attended with danger, and was a disadvantage to us either in peace or war. The danger or inconvenience which would result from granting their claims was simply this-the admission into the house of commons of a few catholic gentlemen, and into the house of lords of a few catholic peers, and the giving to the crown the prerogative, if it thought fit to use it, of appointing individuals of that persuasion to what were considered the offices of state. Whilst he knew that this was all the danger-if danger it could be called— which could result from granting

his motion, he could not shut his eyes to the dangers which daily arose out of the present state of things.

The house then divided.-The numbers were-For the motion, 247; against it, 234-Majority, 13. -Adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

House of Lords, March 3.The Earl of Carnarvon moved, that counsel be heard against the Irish unlawful societies bill, which was negatived by 69 against 23.

The Earl of Liverpool proposed the second reading of the unlawful assemblies bill. He said he would call their lordships' attention to a few simple but important points upon which he thought the merits of this question really rested. He had no difficulty in the outset in distinguishing it from the larger question of what was called catholic emancipation, and which it was not necessary to touch on the present occasion; for the bill before the house rested on grounds so distinct and different, that he most sincerely declared, if he were the steadiest and most ardent friend of catholic emancipation in that house, he should still be prepared to say that this bill was in itself just and necessary. They had heard in the preliminary stages of their discussions, many observations made in one shape or another, relating to the general nature of this bill. this bill. A noble earl opposite (Earl Grey) had accused him of not taking a manly course of proceeding on the present occasion, inasmuch as he had not avowed that this bill was directed against the Catholic Association, but argued it as a general bill. Now, he was in the recollection of the house, whether he had not uni

formly

formly stated and avowed most distinctly, that the Catholic Association was the principal object of this bill; but he said now, as he had said before, that though a specific evil might be the cause of a particular measure, yet when that measure comprehended other objects besides one, it ought to be very differently considered as to its principle from a measure of single operation, and with a single object. There were strong reasons when they were to legislate against the Catholic Association, that they ought also to include all other societies having an illegal tendency, for instance, orange societies, and such, under whatever denomination, as were calculated to disturb the peace of Ireland. In that view, he submitted this bill to their lordships; he did not deny that the prominent object of the bill was directed against the proceedings of the Catholic Association, but it was coupled with a sweeping operation, which equally denounced all other bodies of men, acting upon a similar principle. The question, then, was to be taken in two ways: first, as to the support of the preamble, which recited the evasion of the convention act; and upon its own merits pointed at the dangers and inconvenience which must follow associations of this description. The palpable evasion of the convention act was in itself,he thought, a sufficient reason for this bill. In arguing this part of the question, he was quite ready to admit, that if the Catholic Association were in itself no evil, they had no right to extend against them the provisions of the convention act. Upon this point he thought the argument of his noble and learned

friend(the lord chancellor) was quite conclusive-namely, that if there was any sense or meaning in the convention act, the same principle ought to be applied in the one case as in the other, for the Catholic Convention and the Catholic Association were but different names for promoting the same end. He avowed himself to be one of those who, without at all desiring to speak harshly of the Catholic Association, had always thought such institutions as this— in such a country as Ireland, taking all its acts and circumstances into consideration-were utterly inconsistent with the peace and tranquillity of that, or indeed any other country in the world. He was equally prepared to deny, that this bill for the suppression of such societies was inconsistent with the free constitution of the kingdom. He admitted as broadly as any man, the right of the people to assemble for the purposes of petition-for the purposes of appealing to the legislature for a redress of grievances. He admitted as fully as any man, the right of the people to meet and state their opinions with the view of securing for their complaints, or petitions, a reasonable effect upon the minds of the constituted authorities to whom they were addressed. These rights he fully admitted, for they were among the most sacred privileges of the subjects of the British empire. But when he said this, he was equally prepared to assert, that an assembly, not meeting for the express purpose of petitioning-an assembly that had permanence for the character of its sittings, and a varied plan of organization, to redress unspecified grievances,

that