The great fallacy of the argument consists in regarding the fact of subscription to the rent as the cause of the unindifferency, instead of being merely the sign. The cause is a previous bias in the mind of the subscriber, in favour of the Association and its measures; that bias induced him to subscribe, and that subscription is merely the outward sign of the previous internal sentiment,-" the very fact of his subscription was a proof of his unindifferency." Every person then, who entertained these sentiments, was already disqualified, and the effect of forbidding further subscription, would be to deprive parties of that "proof of his unindifferency" of a just cause of challenge; to leave the juror's mind in the same biassed and disqualifying condition, and take from the parties the only means by which they could ascertain that fact.

In the course of the debate, it was repeatedly intimated that many persons had been unwilling or forced contributors; if this were so, the sources of justice could not have been tainted by them.

Another charge against the Association was so effectually refuted by Mr. Hobhouse, on principles similar to those adopted in this work, that it is necessary merely to transcribe his argument:

"The honourable and learned gentleman opposite, had said a great deal with respect to the effect of the Catholic Association in interfering with judicial proceedings, and prejudging the case of individuals who might be prosecuted by its influence. The most erroneous notions prevailed, however, with respect to what was called prejudging the case of individuals. What was the constant practice of Parliament? In the case of the Manchester riots, were not the character and conduct of Mr. Hunt canvassed again and again in the most inflammatory discussions, months before he was brought to trial? In cases of libel, where a criminal information was filed, was not the opinion of four judges, that the writing in question was a libel, published in all the newspapers, and could it be doubted that that opinion frequently had a great effect upon the jury when the individual was brought to trial? The Coroner's inquest, the finding of a bill by the grand jury, the ordering of a prosecution by that House-all these proceedings were, to a certain degree, pre-judgments.'

The accusation of making courts of justice an arena for harsh disputation and angry feelings, admits of but few remarks. Are courts of justice often otherwise? It is seldom found that those who enter them leave the bitterness of their animosities at the threshold. This will perhaps be

Freeman's Journal, February 22, 1825. This speech was made on 18th February, on Mr. Brougham's motion that Counsel and Witnesses for the Association should be heard at the Bar of the House.

granted, but it will be replied, that there can be no reason for exasperating that bitterness, by mingling political rancour with private calamities and crimes. The value of that argument depends upon this consideration; whether those private calamities and crimes have or have not originated in the rancour of political hostility. That fact can be determined only by an examination of each particular case, an examination that does not come within the design of this work, even were the cases all known.

It does not seem possible to devest the parties of those political feelings which originally caused the abuse or outrage. The Courts cannot be open to complaints and wrongs, but closed against the passions that prompted them, or those they have engendered: by denying the combat under the laws and in the lists of justice, they may obtain a sickly repose, but will not terminate the strife of those passions, whose character of angry litigation will be exchanged for one of fraud, licentiousness, and hardening cruelty. When crimes have been committed under the influence of religious or political animosity, the injured person must be admitted to the Courts of justice, aud though it were possible to devest his mind of all feelings, except the desire of obtaining mere justice, how can that of the aggressor be purified? Can it be expected, that the man whose passions have urged him to criminal deeds, will relinquish those passions on his defence: that, the original motive to crime being political, the legal pursuit and defence of it should not partake of the same nature? The most the judicial power can hope to accomplish, is to restrain those passions from breaking forth into action, or, into such intemperance of language, as to violate the rational dignity, that is, impair the just authority, of the Courts. But though it be impossible, entirely to control those angry feelings, it is surely desirable to turn them into the least pernicious channel. It is better they should "speak daggers," than use them. Those who composed the Association may say to the people, "Your wrongs were frequent and oppressive, but you took an improper course to correct the evil: you returned insult for insult, outrage for outrage, and you shed blood for blood. We knew that there were better remedies in the law of your country, though its paths are somewhat intricate, and access to it difficult; but we undertook to guide your steps and facilitate your approach, being well assured, that you would soon find, and acknowledge it to be, a more effectual protection than private vengeance can ever.

H

be. But we may no longer assist you. The law is still open to you, but each man must find his own way to it." Among a peasantry, who have never felt much reverence for the law, what sentiments would naturally arise from such a communication? They would not and could not enter into an inquiry, respecting the reason for precluding them from this assistance, but would say, "If the law mean to protect us, why does it forbid our friends helping us to appeal to it?" With such suspicion, their appeal will rather be to the more certain and summary jurisdiction of revenge.

In several of the principal speeches under consideration, contradictory opinions are expressed, respecting the chief evils and dangers produced, or to be apprehended, from the Association; and could the accuracy of the reports be depended on, it might fairly be argued, that the reality and amount of those evils and dangers had not been clearly ascertained in the minds of the speakers; but, having examined the main arguments, it becomes unnecessary to draw collateral inferences, which possibly may rest only on the inaccuracy of the reports.

son.

Mr. North is reported to have blamed the Association for not following the advice of Mr. Cobbett, who "recom"mended the Association more than two months ago, to "draw up an account of every individual case of oppression, "and submit the account to the consideration of the En"glish people; that, he said, would make a more powerful "appeal, than a much greater quantity of declamatory mat"ter. This was a sensible call on the Association, but it "was a call that had not been obeyed." It is strange that this remark should have proceeded from such an acute perHad that account been drawn up and published, would there not have been a general outcry at the injustice of the proceeding,-" an ex-parte statement, calumniating individuals, and vilifying public officers"? It would have been said, "Why have not these calumniators applied to the law, if such injustice really existed? The law is open to them." Another objection to the measure proposed, is, that it might justly expose them to criminal informations and actions for libel. Instead of taking this step, the Association proceeded to inquire into all the cases of abuse or outrage that were brought before them, and then did apply to the law; thus endeavouring, both to give publicity to their grievances, and to establish the truth of their complaints in the fairest and most solemn manner. In fact, every prosecution, every application to the law and the pub

lic authorities, was an item in the account, Mr. North censures them for not having drawn up. They complied with the beneficial part of the advice, omitting only that part which would have been exclaimed against as imprudent and unjust.

It may be proper to add a few remarks upon the several -acts of the Association mentioned in the debate, to shew that it did not exercise its power so as to interfere with the functions of Government. The two cases brought forward by Mr. Goulburn to prove the misconduct of the Association, and the effect of its interference in corrupting justice, ended in the acquittal of the accused persons: to these may be added four cases mentioned by Sir Henry Parnell.* In the first, it appears by his statement, that Mr. Kiernan, the Catholic Barrister employed, so far from obstructing Mr. Blackburn, whom Government sent down to investigate the original outrage, gave him all the assistance in his power, and "reported most favourably of Mr. Blackburn's conduct "in regard to the previous inquiry, and afterwards men"tioned in the highest terms of panegyric the conduct of "Mr. Justice Moore." He also, in the Association, "ad"vised the matter to be left to his Majesty's Attorney-Ge"neral, and that the Association should not proceed unless "the Government declined to do so." In the second case, it appears that the complaint made by the Association was so far established, as to induce Government to remove the person complained of from his situation in that part of the county. In the third case, after obtaining one verdict, Mr. Bric, the barrister employed by the Association, relinquished, in compliance with the wishes of the Magistrates, many other suits brought by Catholics against Orangemen. In the fourth case, the result appears to have been, that "the "first set of prisoners, the Orangemen, who were put upon "their trial, were acquitted. The second set, the Catho"lics, after a sort of reconciliation, were discharged." It is difficult to conceive how, in any of the above cases, the part taken by the Association could have obstructed the functions of Government; while it appears that in several, the object was to assist, and, at the same time, exhibit a marked deference to its authority. Neither did the conduct of the Association towards Mr. Augustus Cavendish, indicate any desire to interfere with the power of Government, since it applied to that very power for redress. Taking the case as

* See a corrected report of his speech, published by Ridgway.

stated in Mr. Peel's speech, there seems no doubt, but that harsh and hasty measures were adopted towards Mr. Cavendish.

Professing to examine merely the general reasons on which the suppression of the Association was justified, only the general principles and practices of that body have been considered, with the hope of shewing, that they were neither pernicious, nor unknown to the constitution: at variance, neither with those of legitimate government, nor with national usage; and that its imperfections and irregularities were the necessary consequences of the feelings an oppressed condition had engendered: a defence, therefore, of any particular act would be here misplaced, even if the writer possessed materials for making a successful one. If Mr. Cavendish were rashly or intemperately accused, condemned without proof and unheard, there would be neither credit nor success, in seeking to vindicate such a proceeding by reference to any constitutional doctrines. But the doctrines of the constitution, and the history of the country, have not always run in corresponding columns: they have not always maintained the relation of text and commentary; and, if only the spirit of censure were to be obeyed, it would not be difficult to point out instances of injustice, alike in principle, but more injurious to the victims in effect. The history of the very subject under discussion discloses some startling circumstances. A Bill framed upon the doctrine, that "notoriety is a ground upon which legislation may be founded," was proposed for the specific purpose of suppressing a particular assembly of the people; for that was the object, notwithstanding the slender pretext of its being designed against all similar associations. Because the existence of the body was notorious-that its existence must be an evil, was assumed to be equally so. Upon this ground of legislation, a penal act was passed, not only in principle restrictive of popular rights, but immediately restraining a large portion of the community from their actual exercise. The leaders of that body, some by name, all by implication, as well as the whole assembly, were arraigned and condemned with sarcasm, invective, scorn, and indignation; their principles and practices were said to be as mischievous as they were notorious, and so notorious as to require no proof—that is, no rigid or legal proof; for such proofs as the private information of members, the substance of unproduced documents,

See Mr. Canning's Speech above cited.