collected facts for the purpose of laying them before the proper tribunal for decision. Looking at the general conduct of the Association, if he had been called upon when the question was first put to give his opinion, he would have said that, whatever other Cathoics might do, the Association would not oppose the measure. But he had that evening come to the House armed with the answer of the Association itself to this question. They would submit implicitly to the measure when it passed-they would enter into no unseemly conduct respecting it-they would give no opposition to the act of the legislature but in declaring this, they expressed an humble hope, that, before the measure passed into a law, they might be heard at the bar of the House. In justice to them he had made this statement, and he trusted that, from its own sense of justice, the House would grant the request. The right honourable Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the learned AttorneyGeneral for Ireland, had both, as friends to the Catholics, expressed their anxiety to get rid of the Association as an incubus upon the Catholics of Ireland. He would ask the right honourable gentleman where he could have dwelt, to be ignorant of the sentiments of the Irish people in that respect? Was it possible that Gloucester-Lodge was so secluded from the world, as to be impervious to what was passing in it on so important a question? Had he dwelt in such Cimmerian darkness, as not to see that which was visible to all others in the country? If he had, let his darkness be enlightened by his learned friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, who had stated the fact that the Association owed its origin to the confidence of the Irish people. Was it not strange that such a difference should exist between two members of the same cabinet on a fact so notorious? He would wish to impress upon the House that this was not an Irish question; it was an English one; it applied as much to meetings in Yorkshire as to those in Dublin; its influence would be felt in one part of the empire as well as in the other. The object was to put down certain associations; but the Catholic Association was particularly aimed at. Why condemn this Association as illegal? Was it so in itself, or was it so in its acts? An association might be legal, and its acts illegal. A legal assembly might be guilty of illegal acts. Now, on which of those grounds was this objectionable? The Attorney-General for Ireland had never attempted to disturb it on the ground of its illegality, but he had tried it by the acts of one of its members, and a jury of their country had declared, by their verdict, that there was no ground for the charge. On what ground, then, was it attempted to be put down? On the ground of its illegal tendency-on the ground that it might have an injurious effect hereafter? This was nonsense-a childish tampering with the liberty of the subject, which no liberal policy should ever countenance. The language which ministers had used in stating those views was any thing but the language of wise and able statesmen. They said, forsooth, that they would not allow themselves to be bullied into the granting of the Catholic claims !-to be bullied into doing an act of justice! Mr. Canning divided the subject of debate into four parts :-the first, the immediate subject of the discussion, the Catholic Association; the second, the subject connected with it, the Catholic question; the third, the conduct of government; and the fourth, his own personal conduct. With respect to the first, the question which the House had to decide was properly this whether, having received a description of the evil from the Crown, and having pledged themselves to consider of the means of remedying it, they would now proceed, he would not say to adopt, for that would be a question they had afterwards to consider, but to receive for their consideration, the means that the government had devised; or, whether they would turn round upon their former pledge, and say, "We have, on deliberation, determined that the Crown has been deceivedthat the description in the speech is altogether unfounded that true it is, that certain associations do exist; but untrue it is that they are either hostile to the spirit of the constitution, or productive of animosities or obstacles to the natural improvement of the country; that the Crown has been misled when it gave us the advice contained in the speech and our duty is to leave the evil, which it stated to exist, without remedy, and to establish, confirm, and strengthen these associations in the exercise of all the power which at this moment they are said to enjoy." With respect to the Catholic Association, he would ask, whether any other epithet could be so fit as that of unconstitutional, when it was recollected that it was a self-elected, a self-appointed, a self-controlled, and a selfadjourned association; acknowledging no equal, and admitting no superior; levying money on the people by the force of its resolutions; interfering, laudably according to some, criminally according to others, with the administration of justice; prejudging-no, he must not say that, but-condemning beforehand, in published debates, individuals whom it was going to submit to trials in the various courts of justice; and in some cases, where individuals whom it accused had been acquitted, revising the judgement of the court, and condemning those whom the law had acquitted of all crime! If such were the character of the Association, which was complained of in the King's speech; and if they were of opinion that such a character could be reconciled with the spirit of our constitution, then they must have formed a very different idea of the constitution from that which he had formed, and must have read its history in very different volumes from those which he had perused. The next question to be considered was, did the Catholic Association promote animosity? Upon this subject he must beg leave to advert to an expression which he had been the first person to bring under the notice of the House, but which had since been frequently referred to in the debate— he meant the expression-" By your hate of Orangemen," which was contained in the Address to the Catholics of Ireland, which had issued from the Catholic Association. It had been said, that it was unfair to fix upon a particular expression, and to give a character from it to all the proceedings of a public body. Granted, if the expression had slipped out in the warmth of debate, if it had been generated by the collision of argument, if it had issued in haste, and had been afterwards recalled; but if it were found in a document which had been prepared with care, and considered with deliberation if it were notorious, from the published debates of the body who used it, that it had been pointed out to them as objectionable, and had yet been retained-then they were justified in considering it as an expression which showed at least the animus of those who had used it. The next question which the House had to consider was whether the Catholic Association was conducive to the prosperity of Ireland, or whether it retarded the progress of its improvement. Was it possible to entertain two opinions upon this question? The indications of the prosperity of Ireland were known to the inhabitants of that country, and through them to the inhabitants of England; but did that circumstance prevent the existence of an evil which retarded the increase of that prosperity, by rendering its continuance doubtful-which destroyed tranquillity for the present, and confidence for the future, by setting neighbour against neighbour, and arming the prejudices of one class of the inhabitants against those of the other, and which thus diverted from Ireland all the superabundant capital of England, by which it might make the most rapid advances in agriculture, in manufactures, in commercial wealth, and in all the arts which civilize and dignify social life? His learned friend knew well, that the tide of English prosperity had been lately setting strongly towards Ireland, and must see that this Association was at present acting as an obstacle to stem its force, if not totally to divert it. Was it not then the duty of the House to remove this obstacle, and to restore the natural course of things which was so well calculated to raise Ireland in the scale of nations?-Mr Canning said he would have concluded his speech at that point, upon the conviction that the House had no choice as to the course which it ought to adopt, and which it was imperiously called upon to adopt, in consequence of the information which had been given by Sir Francis Burdett-had it not been that the Catholic question had been mentioned in the course of the debate, and therefore it behoved him to state his opinion upon it. He thought that the assertion of putting forth this society as the depository of the opinions of the Catholics was the most fatal thing for Catholic emancipation that could have been said. Another thing which had made the cause of the Catholics retrograde in this country was the introduction of bills into that House declaring that the church property in Ireland was public property, under the control of the legislature, and recommending an inquiry into the expediency of reducing the number of churchmen in Ireland. These proposals, Mr Canning contended, had indicated a disposition to go beyond the principle laid down by Mr Grattan-that of inviolability to the established church in Ireland; and he warned those who desired the carrying of the Catholic question, that if the preamble should not manifest the most anxious regard for the safety and inviolability of that church, they could not hope to carry the question. And with regard to the divisions in the cabinet, it was singular that those of 1825 should be fastened on, when similar divisions had lasted during the whole period of the Union. During Lord Sidmouth's and Mr Pitt's administrations, there was a bond of union, which effectually silenced all speculative differences among the individuals composing those administrations. During the administrations of Lord Grenville and Mr Fox, there were two persons in the cabinet the most adverse to the Catholic claims that could have been selected. These individuals were sought out; the one of them was Lord Sidmouth, and the other, as if to show how determined that administration was in discountenancing the question, was taken from the Court of King's Bench-a quarter in which he hoped a member of the cabinet would never again be sought. In the administrations of the Duke of Portland and Mr Perceval, there were similar divisions. When, in 1812, the restrictions were taken off the Regency, Mr Canning supposed that his colleagues would have felt themselves as unfettered on this question as he did; but he found that not to be the case, went out of office, and when office was again proposed to him, refused to accept it, upon receiving the same answer to the same question. At no period of his life would office have been such a temptation to him as that very period when he so refused it. He had been in of fice before; he had been the author, in a great measure, and in that House, the responsible defender, of the Spanish war; had borne all the reproaches that had been heaped upon ministers on account of the reverses which attended its commencement. In 1812 the prospect began to brighten; and he would ask every honourable member who had the spirit of an English gentleman within him, whether greater temptation could possibly be held out to any man than was then extended to him when he might have reaped the fruits of what he had sown under such discouraging circumstances? He complained of the disingenuous inference drawn from his refusal to accept office in 1812, namely, that such refusal was a virtual pledge never to enter office until the cabinet was agreed as to the Catholic claims. Why, were it so, what madness was it, within one fortnight after, to endeavour to form an administration which would have been divided upon that question? These were the circumstances which preceded his motion upon the Catholic question, which was carried by a majority-would to God he could see it again!-of 129. A similar motion, made a fortnight after, in the House of Lords, by Lord Wellesley, was lost only by a majority of one. Since then the cabinet had gone on acting upon the same basis, with respect to this question; and he agreed to its principles. The right honourable gentleman observed, that to be taunted with a want of feeling for the claims of the Catholics, when he thought he merited their gratitude, was a species of treatment which called upon tameness itself to vindicate its claims; and he concluded by cautioning Mr Brougham against supposing that he would enhance his popularity by identifying himself with the Catholic Association. Differing, as he did, from the learned gentleman as to that Association, he would, for the sake of the Catholic question itself, take his firm stand by the present measure. Mr Brougham stood before the House as the defender of the Catholic Association; as the advocate of the right of the Irish people to meet, to consult, to petition, to remonstrate, ay, and to demand; and he would declare his solemn opinion, which, he hoped, would reach the whole of Ireland, that the firmer and stronger their remon strances were, provided they were peaceable, the greater would be their prospect of success. He would now proceed to advert to the first and gravest of those charges against the Catholic Association-namely, that they interfered, mischievously interfered, with the administration of justice. Had they really interfered with any effect? Their offences in this way were limited by the honourable and right honourable gentlemen to two cases, in neither of which had their attempts been successful. He came to other charges against their proceedings. The first of these was, that they were a body acting openly and without reserve, showing their designs and intentions in the face of day. Now, if they had skulked from the public eye, and carried on their proceedings in secret meetings, would they not have heard the opposite charge, that their designs must be dangerous, because they were secret? Boldness and impudence were now ascribed: then it would have been perfidy and fraud. They were accused of aping and emulating the forms of Parliament-those solemn and authoritative forms which were so often the theme of praise. Had they done otherwise, would not the charge have been inverted? They would then have been accused of the love of innovation, of showing in the very order of their proceedings the revolutionary spirit, of imitating the French Convention, and envying its powers. But now-astonishing impudence!-they encroached upon Parliament-they borrowed and abused its forms-they made orders, they raised money-they, who represented six millions of people only virtually, though really, while the House represented twelve millions, the greater part of whom happened to differ from them continually. The Association did contribute to the tranquillity of Ireland, and that, too, without exercising any other control than the fair exercise of their talents by men who sympathised with the people in opinion, who participated in their sufferings, and felt their wrongs-men who were the most considerable for rank and intellect in the country. Was the House really afraid of them, as it affected to be? He could tell how to annihilate them in an hour. Ere the morrow of that evening in which he was speaking, they might be scattered and heard of no more. Take the advice of the Attorney-General of Ireland-his opinion might have more authority. Take away the grievance which oppressed Ireland. Though late, yet there was time: let them begin to do justice. The Catholic Association would vanish, and Ireland would bless them, as she would curse them if they began at the wrong end,-if, instead of redress, they rivetted their fetters. As to the expression in their proclamation, which had given so much offence, he would not defend it or special plead it away: it contained no unchristian nor illegal meaning. One great objection to the Catholic Association was that they collected rent; that they were a self-constituted body, and had the audacity to collect revenue. When this statement was made, it was loudly cheered. He would ask, how was revenue collected by any body of private individuals, except by the mode which that body adopted? It was a voluntary subscription. A man paid his penny, or if he could not afford that amount, his halfpenny; he paid his shilling, but if that were not convenient, his sixpence was not unacceptable. And if he paid nothing at all, he still received the advantage of the funds of those who were able to advance a trifle. With their money he was defended from unjust prosecution-with their money he was enabled to bring his oppressor to justice. Such was the system on which these men acted; such was the compulsory manner in which these funds were collected. He called upon the members of the government, by the responsibility of their stations, by their characters as statesmen, by every principle of policy and prudence, to deal with the Catholics, not by feelings of hatred but of charity-not by measures of oppression but of conciliation; and to reflect, ere it was too late, on the consequences which must result from the passing of this bill. It would alienate the Catholics from them for ever. It would turn discontent to rage, and it would arm rage with new weapons. "On your head," said Mr Brougham, addressing himself to the ministerial benches, " on your head be the conse quences of this misguided policy; and you, not we, must have to answer for it, if your present measures should have, as they must have, the effect of tearing Ireland from this country." This debate having been protracted till past three o'clock, no further adjournment was proposed, and the members divided; for the motion 278against it 123-majority in favour of bringing in the bill 155; and the bill was brought in accordingly, and read a first time. Friday, February 18. Mr Brougham, having presented a petition to that effect from the delegates of the Catholic Association, moved that those delegates should, previous to the bill's passing into a law, be heard at the bar of the House by themselves, their counsel, agents, and witnesses. He concluded that the question which he submitted to the House stood upon grounds so distinct and clear, that he trusted that even those |