Mr. Abercromby said, that, as the right. hon. baronet was in the act of extolling the moderation of the good inhabitants of Londonderry, perhaps he would favour the House with an accurate report of the speeches delivered by some of those gentlemen previous to the voting that petition [hear].

Mr. Dawson said, that nothing could exceed the moderation and forbearance evinced by the Protestants of Londonderry. No single individual, holding the sentiments he did with respect to Catholic emancipation, had done a single act to cause a difference with their Catholic fellow-countrymen. As the Catholics themselves had thrown down the gauntlet, they must abide by the consequences. The Protestants remained tranquil, until the Catholic Association set on foot the collection of that abominable "rent" in Londonderry, and then they felt it their duty to come forward, to deny the bold and impudent assertion of the Catholic Association, that the Protestants of Ireland were favourable to their claims. The Protestant feeling was not in their favour. In Londonderry, for instance, the Protestants were, in point of numbers, two to one; and as to property, intelligence, and industry, they were a thousand to one; and, when the Catholics thought proper to make this boast, he felt it his duty boldly to proclaim, that the Protestant feeling of Ireland was decidedly opposed to any further concessions to the Catholics.

Sir H. Parnell said, he hoped the House would pause before they placed implicit confidence in the statements of the hon. member. The petition just presented was the only petition offered to the House on this subject from Ireland, and he was not aware that any other was in contemplation. The hon. member had thought proper to assert, that the Protestant feeling of Ireland was opposed to Catholic emancipation. It was painful to hear such assertions: but when they were made, he was under the necessity of rising to make an assertion of a completely opposite nature. Two thirds of the representatives of Ireland had voted for emancipation. Now, if they did not represent the feeling of the country, it cast a great stigma on the state of the representation in Ireland. And, with re

Mr. Maxwell said, in opposition to the statement of the hon. baronet, that he had presented a similar petition in the course of the evening, from his constituents, containing, 4,700 signatures.

Mr. Abercromby said, he had one remark to make, to which he should not add a single comment. A requisition had been presented to the sheriff of Waterford, containing, amongst others, the signatures of many respectable magistrates, calling upon him to convene a meeting for the purpose of petitioning in favour of Catholic emancipation. The sheriff refused to call the meeting, and it was for that gentleman to state his reasons for so doing.

Mr. Denis Browne said, the only permanent foundation for the prosperity of Ireland, was a total relinquishment of all civil distinctions founded upon religious differences. For a long period he had advised the Roman Catholics in his neighbourhood to place their trust in the wisdom of parliament. For some time they had done so; but at length, when the proposition for placing the Roman Catholics of England on the same footing with the Irish was rejected, they asked him how it was possible they could have a chance, when that measure failed, notwithstanding the support of the prime minister of England? He was unable to give them an answer, and they then joined the Catholic Association.

Ordered to lie on the table.

UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Goulbourn rose, pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland. He had truly felt, at the close of the last session, a most confident hope-a hope in which the House participated that from the character of the measures which the government pursued, and the parliament recommended-from the mild, and temperate, and impartial manner in which they executed the high trust reposed in them, and the result of which was practically felt in the most beneficial effects throughout Ireland; he had undoubtedly felt, as he before said, confident hopes, that a far different duty would have been imposed upon him than that which he then rose to discharge. He sincerely

regretted that circumstances had since arisen to interrupt the realization of these hopes. He regretted, that when the outrages which some time back disgraced a portion of Ireland, had altogether, or almost altogether, ceased-that when its agriculture was thriving and its trades in activity that when commercial establishments were about to be put in operation, heretofore unknown in that country-that when there existed generally an enjoyment of ease and comfort, indicating a more progressive increase; he regretted, he would say, sincerely, that another evil should have grown up, which demanded the vigilance of the government, and whose continuance was not only incon sistent with good government, but particularly opposed itself to the prosperity and improvement of Ireland. The House could not be ignorant of the circumstances to which he alluded. At the latter part of the last session, it was the expressed opinion of many of its members, that these circumstances demanded the peculiar vigilance of the Irish government; but with its characteristic forbearance, it was indisposed to any direct interposition, until it found the apprehended evil assume a formidable complexion. He said it with sorrow, that since that period the scene was changed. That assembly, which in its origin was doubtless an object of vigilance, had now assumed a character calculated to excite the highest degree of alarm, because the direct tendency of all its efforts was to deprive the country of the enjoyment of that returning peace and prosperity, which they were beginning to experience, and in place of rational authority, to substitute their wild and violent denunciations. There were two acts to which he should address himself particularly. They were the Irish act of 1793, and that which the House passed the year before last with the view of putting down secret societies. With respect to the first, known as the Convention act, it was historically true, that it was introduced to meet a case where the parties about to be convened were sup. posed by themselves, or at least assumed to represent the people of Ireland. Indeed, whoever turned his attention strictly to the proceedings of that country must be convinced that all conventions did assume a representative character. But, it would be a very wrong conclusion to draw, that the Convention act of 1793, had limited itself, at least in its spirit, to the mere

assumption of such bodies being a representative body. It was true the Irish parliament grappled with that assumption as its distinguishing feature. All such meetings had heretofore assumed the representative character, and the legislature thinking that designation at the time sufficient, believed that it could counteract all the other evils which were likely to follow such an assemblage. The particular assembly, however, to which the amendment he should propose was applicable, set out with the denial that they possessed any representative character; but it proceeded, nevertheless to acts which were equally incompatible with the principles of rational government. Indeed, it made a merit that it was a self-elected association-that it departed altogether from the representative character: but as it felt its way, it threw off all shackles, and exercised powers which it was within the scope and merit of the Convention act to declare illegal. The hon. and learned member (Mr. Brougham), whose opinions possessed, so deservedly, great weight in that House, had, on the discussion on his majesty's Speech, declared, that the Catholic Association virtually represented the Roman Catholic body. Was there not good reason, then, for the Irish government to call for the interposition of the legislature when they found an assembly setting out with a declaration, that they possessed no representative character; yet, as they proceeded in their course, assuming such a tone and complexion, as justified an hon. and learned defender of the Association, in that House, to recognise them as the virtual representatives of a great portion of the people of Ireland? Surely, the very power to effect virtually, what they could not do actually, without a violation of the law, was a justifiable ground for the Irish government to seek an amendment of an act of parliament thus evaded. If he virtually calumniated any man, and the effect was injurious, was he to be considered less reprehensible than if he had been guilty of a direct libel? He could not suppose that any one in that House would contend, that an assembly ought to be permitted to execute that virtually, which the law positively prohibited. It would be his duty that night to call upon the House, for the adoption of remedies adequate to meet the evil. As he trusted that evil was but temporary, he should have to propose only a temporary corrective. It had been the boast of the

Catholic Association that all their proceedings had been published. It had been their unceasing effort, by every means within the scope of human ingenuity, to have their discussions circulated in the widest manner possible, and obtruded on the notice of the world at large. The Catholic Association began to act in 1823; and in its first report it was declared, that its object was confined to the furtherance of the question of the Roman Catholic claims. It was to him a matter of perfect indifference whether its object was limited to that question, or whether, as was avowed in their debates, it embraced reform in parliament, and eventual separation with him it was no question; because it was no shield or security that the object was inoffensive, when the means of carrying that object into effect were incompatible with good government. In discussing the object and the proceedings of the Catholic Association, he felt the disagreeable necessity of adverting to transactions, with which the House was already acquainted, beshould endeavour to relieve them, as much as possible, by restricting himself to the general tenour and scope of their discussions, and decline individual quotations. The House would bear in mind that this Association, though a public body, differed from most public meetings in this point-that they were all of one mind. There was no competition of opinion no opposing voice was heard. Every speech was previously arranged, and every decision was unanimous. Indeed, if any unhappy adversary had the hardihood to present himself, he would most probably get a reception which would prevent any repetition. Formed as such a body was, there was a danger in the indefinite qualities of its constituency, and in its indefinite duration. Under different circumstances the fickleness of the multitude might operate as a check to the probable evil results of such an association; but he was compelled, with regret, to say, that a most influential body, whose duty it was to impart religious consolation, and to keep themselves apart from political contention; not only encouraged, but assumed a part of its powers. Next, in upholding that association were to be found men of disappointed ambition and considerable talents, who exerted themselves, no matter whether on real or imaginary grievances, in exciting the public feeling against the government; and in inflaming the population against

the laws, and what they described a prodigal and corrupt administration of them. It was of importance also to understand, that a union had taken place between the Association and the surviving members of the committee of 1793-that very committee against whose establishment the Convention act was enacted to provide.

These very men were now enlisted with the Association. There were to be found also men who were most familiar with the traitors of old timesTone, Russell, and Emmett-traitors who were arrayed against the strength of the government, and who were only put down by military force. It was, indeed, too true that in that Association were to be found also a great proportion of the Roman Catholic gentry and aristocracy. It was impossible, on looking at the situation of Ireland, not to feel that such a connection was not altogether voluntary on their part. A great number of that class were, he believed, as much alarmed at the proceedings of that Association as its most determined opponents in that House. They had been, however, led, either from a want of firmness of character, or a reluctance to lose the confidence of the people, to swell the triumph of that body. Though the Association avowed they were arrayed to obtain that which parliament had refused, they still condescended most strictly to imitate its forms. They appointed their committees of grievances of education also and of finance. They had almost copied verbatim the sessional orders of that House. In one point, indeed, they abstained from imitationthey had not appointed a Speaker; probably because in an assembly in which there existed such an universal ardour for speech-making, no candidate could be found who would pledge himself to be perpetually silent [a laugh]. It had been also the practice of that Association, from time to time, to convene aggregate meetings, as they were called, of the Roman Catholic body of Ireland, and these meetings were convoked in such a manner as to appear contra-distinguished to the Catholic Association. But of whom were those aggregate meetings composed? Principally of the very persons who belonged to the Catholic Association itself, and who played off this juggle upon the people, making them believe that the. proceedings of the aggregate meetings conveyed a distinct approbation of the conduct of the Catholic Association, the

fact being, that those proceedings were merely self-gratulatory and complimentary to the very individuals in whom they originated.

There were several important topics connected with this subject, to which he now felt it his duty to call the serious attention of the House. The first was that which, although by some it was supposed to be a voluntary contribution, was by many considered in the light of an onerous and grievous tax-he meant the Catholic Rent. The fact was, that, under this name, large sums of money were collected from the people of Ireland, no one could pretend to doubt. Now, he thought that no man who understood the constitution of the country, could contemplate the levying of money upon his majesty's subjects by an irresponsible body, to be applied to objects not previously defined, but at the discretion of the selfconstituted authority by which such money was called for, with any other feeling than that of unequivocal disapprobation? But, if the House went further, and looked into the details of this system, and the means resorted to by the inferior persons employed in its enforcement, they would find evil consequences and dangers far exceeding those which were to be apprehended from the appropriation of such funds being left in the hands of an irresponsible body. The order upon this subject emanated from the Association. The particular amount to be raised was not stated; that was left to depend on the liberality of the contributors, and on the exertions of those by whom the subscription was to be collected. The mandate of the Catholic Association was, however, issued to the priest of every parish in Ireland, calling upon him, in distinct terms, to use every means in his power to produce a large contribution. Besides furnishing him with the necessary instructions for this purpose, he was supplied with books to enrol the various contributions; and his ready acquiescence was secured, not only by the political ascendancy which the Association would naturally have over him, but by the subordination which, as a minister, he owed to his bishop. On the receipt of this mandate, the priest announced its contents from the altar of his chapel, as well as the names of the individuals on whom he fixed for payment; which individuals were, according to the duty imposed upon him, to have no option

on the subject. Cases however were not rare in which, the mandate of the Association having been issued, and some hesitation in its execution having been manifested on the part of the priest, he received a censure from the Association in terms too distinct to be misunderstood; and in some cases in which the priest had forborne to execute the orders sent to him, he had been held up to the congregation of his chapel as undeserving their confidence and attachment. The instructions to the priest went still further. He was told to enter into the books which were sent him the names of the individuals who contributed to the fund. Thus, the allies of the Association, those on whom they could call in any case of emergency, were recorded. But, that was not all.' What would the House think when they were informed that there was another book, in which the refusals to contribute were also recorded. Every man who dared to refuse, whether Roman Catholic or not, whatever might be the wants or necessities which prevented him, was comprehended in this register. But the Association went a step further. In a country in which the gentry were of different persuasions, it was obvious that some of them would consider themselves bound to oppose the collection of the Catholic Rent, conceiving that as the peasantry were in penury, and unable to provide for their families, it was their duty to advise them against this unnecessary expense. What was the consequence of this? That the Catholic Association actually wrote letters to the priests of the parishes, denouncing the individuals who thus acted, holding them up to reprobation and scorn; he would not say to vengeance [hear, hear!]. When the House came to look into the application of the money so raised; so torn from the people [cries of hear, hear!]-he begged to say a few words to the hon. gentleman, who by that cheer, seemed to think that the Catholic Rent was a voluntary subscription. Were they really so ignorant of the absolute power of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland as to doubt, that when their authority was exercised, especially over the lower and more ignorant portion of their flocks, it must prevail? Did they recollect the means which the priests possessed of enforcing their authority? Whether they had availed themselves of all these means in the present case was a