{"1": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3510", "width": "2042", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0001.jp2"}, "2": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0002.jp2"}, "3": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0003.jp2"}, "4": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0004.jp2"}, "5": {"fulltext": "SPEECHES\\nAT\\nTHE BAR AND IN THE SENATE,\\nBY THE EIGHT HONOURABLE\\nWM. CONYNGIIAM, LORD PLUNKET,\\nLORD HIGH CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.\\nEDITED,\\nWITH A MEMOIR AND HISTORICAL NOTICES,\\nBY JOHN CASHEL HOEY.\\nDUBLIN:\\nJAMES DUFFY, WELLINGTON QUAY,\\nAND\\n22, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.\\n1865.\\nL.\\n(A", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0005.jp2"}, "6": {"fulltext": "Dublin: Frinted by Pattison Jolly,\\n22, Essex-at. West,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0006.jp2"}, "7": {"fulltext": "PREFACE,\\nThis is the first collection of Lord Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Speeches that has beer,\\npublished, and is, I believe, the most complete that could be raado\\ninjustice to his fame, from the materials that are extant.\\nWhen I undertook the task of editing them, I found the general\\nimpression, among persons well acquainted with his lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ncareer, to be, that it would be impossible to procure reliable reports of\\nany, but a very few, of his great orations. In two of the best memoirs\\nof him, that in Mr. D. Owen Madden\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Ireland and its Rulers,\\nand that which appeared after his lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s decease, in the Times\\nnewspaper, it was positively asserted, that there were only two or\\nthree, that could at all be considered accurate; and that even the best\\nreport gave but a dull shadow of his extraordinary eloquence. I can\\nwell believe this to be the case. It is the concurrent-testimony of the\\ngreatest cotemporary critics, and of his rivals as well as his colleagues.\\nIt is true too, that the ordinary reports of Hansard and the news\u00c2\u00ac\\npapers\u00e2\u0080\u0094like all other reports, in the period before short-band had\\nbeen earned to a perfection equal to that of the photograph, are but\\nslow and meagre transcripts. I take it, however, that there is in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrinsic evidence enough to show, that the majority of the speeches\\nwhich I have printed in this volume, are authentic versions of the very\\nwords used by Plunket, on the most memorable occasions that he\\nappeared in public and that at least a dozen of them fully sustain\\nhis fame. The only credit I claim for my share in the book is, that\\nI have taken some pains in searching and collating, in order to verify,\\nwhatever reports I could depend upon, as exhibiting marks of his\\n$wn revision or if not, as being the fullest and most careful extant.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0007.jp2"}, "8": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0008.jp2"}, "9": {"fulltext": "I DEDICATE THIS BOOK,\\nTO MY FRIEND,\\nCHARLES GAYAN DUFFY,\\nMEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR THE BOROUGH OF NEW ROSS,\\nTHE BEST MAN AND THE BEST IRISHMAN\\nI HAVE EVER KNOWN,\\nIN FAREWELL MEMORIAL\\nOF HAFFY DAYS THAT ARE NO MORE,\\nAND OF ALL THAT I OWE TO HIS COUNSEL, EXAMPLE;\\nAND AFFECTION.\\nNovember, 13 35.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0009.jp2"}, "10": {"fulltext": "N", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0010.jp2"}, "11": {"fulltext": "CONTENTS\\nMemoir\\nThe Press, March 3, 1798\\nThe State of the Nation, March 5, 1798\\nThe Sheares\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Case, July 4, 1798\\nThe Union, December 9, 1798\\nThe Union, January 22, 1799\\nhe Union, January 28, 1799\\n*ie Place Bill, May 1G, 1799\\nThe Union, May 18, 1799\\nThe Union, January 15, 1800\\nr he Union May 26, 1800\\nAlbert Emmet, September 19, 1803\\nThe Threshers, December 5, 1806\\nCatholic Relief, April 9, 1807\\nThe Catholic Claims, February 25, 1813\\nThe Speaker s Address to the Regent, April 22, 1814\\nThe War of 1815, May 25, 1815\\nThe Navy Estimates, March 27, 1816\\nThe State of Ireland, April 26, 1816\\nThe Window Tax, April 21, 1818\\nThe Peterloo Massacre, November 23, 1819\\nThe Seditious Meetings\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Bill, December 13, 1819\\nReply to Brougham, December 22, 1819\\nDublin City Election, June 24, 1820\\nCatholic Relief, February 28, 1821\\nDoctor Milner, March 16, 1821\\nThe Catholic Bills, March 16, 1821\\nThe State of Ireland, April 22, 1822\\nI\u00e2\u0080\u0099AGK\\n3\\n25\\n30\\n35\\n39\\n40\\n52\\n53\\n56\\n58\\n75\\n82\\n96\\n106\\n111\\n135\\n143\\n147\\n150\\n157\\n161\\n174\\n180\\n183\\n187\\n221\\n223\\n238", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0011.jp2"}, "12": {"fulltext": "11\\nCONTENTS.\\nPAGK\\nThe Bottle Riot, February 3, 1823 246\\nEx officio Informations, April 15, 1823 271\\nThe Roman Catholic Question, April 17, 1823 291\\nThe Sheriff of Dublin, April 22, 1823 304\\nEx officio Informations, May 2, 1823 308\\nIrish Insurrection Act, May 12, 1823 310\\nBurials in Ireland, March 22, 1824 313\\nUnlawful Societies in Ireland Bill, February 11, 1825 324\\nThe Catholic Claims, February 28, 1825 343\\nElective Franchise in Ireland Bill, April 26, 1825 354\\nCatholic Relief, June 10, 1828 365\\nRoman Catholic Oaths, March 13, 1829 381\\nCatholic Relief Bill, April 4, 1829 389\\nParliamentary Reform, March 28, 1831 409\\nParliamentary Reform, October 6, 1831 416\\nTithes, February 27, 1832 433\\nThe Lord Chancellor of Ireland, March 2, 1831 435\\nFarewell to the Bar, June 21, 1841 440\\nAitendix \u00e2\u0080\u0094The King against Waller O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Grady 443", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0012.jp2"}, "13": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR\\nThe heralds and annalists tell us that among the Danes of Dublin who min\u00c2\u00ac\\ngled with our Norman conquerors and helped them to carry their castles\\nand their marchmen to the very edge of Ulster, within a few years after\\nStrongbow\u00e2\u0080\u0099s landing, was an Ostman chief, named Plunkett of Bewley.\\nThe name meets us often in the early chronicles of the Pale\u00e2\u0080\u0094now in bor\u00c2\u00ac\\nder battles with the Clan Colla, or the Iriar.s of Dalaradia, now in high\\nadministrative and judicial office at the Castle. Three peerages, the baro-\\nries of Killeen (merged in the earldom of Fingall), of Dunsany, and of Louth,\\nhad ennobled the old Norse blood with honours as ample as their estates, whicli\\ndotted the whole country from the fair margin of Lough Crew, to the low park\\nlands of the City\u00e2\u0080\u0094when in the reign of King Henry the Eighth, Sir Patrick\\nPlunkett, a knight of the house of Louth, married the grand-daughter of the\\nLord High Chancellor, Sir William Welles/ From one scion of their family the\\nmartyr primate, Oliver Plunkett of Armagh, derived the innocent blood shed\\non Tyburn HilL From a younger son of the same Sir Patrick, the Reverend\\nPatrick Plunket of Glennan, in the county of Monaghan, more than a century\\nago, claimed descent. The particulars of the pedigree baffle Ulster King-at-\\nArms, but it rests, to the family satisfaction, at either end on the Chancery-\\nwoolsack.\\nA son was bom to fhe Rev. Patrick Plunket in 1725, and entered upon the\\nPresbyterian ministry by license of the presbytery of Monaghan in the year 1747.\\nThe following year the young Levite was unanimously called to the congregation\\nof Enniskillen. He was early distinguished among his brethren for the keen,\\nwiry wit, the subtle, hard-headed logic, and the free-thinking turn which are\\ncharacteristic of the Ulster Presbyterians, and for twenty years he preached the\\ngospel, with occasional Socinian strictures, in the chief kirk of Fermanagh.\\nThere he married Mary, sister of Redmond Conyngham, Esq.,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and there, in ihe\\nyear 1750, was bom, his son Patrick, afterwards as eminent in physic as Wil\u00c2\u00ac\\nliam was in politics and law. In July, 1764, while the minister and his wife\\nwere on one of those long excursions which the duties of a yet neglected minis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry sometimes entailed, late at night Mrs. Plunket was taken ill in a co untry\\npart of Fermanagh, fortunately within reach of the manse of a brother minis\u00c2\u00ac\\nter, and there delivered safely of the son, w ho was afterwards named William\\nConyngham Plunket.\\nNext door, under the same roof with the minister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s house in Enniskillen, was\\nthe house of a Protestant burgess named Magee, to whose wife was born a son at\\nthe same time. The two children were often nursed at the same breast, shut\\nBurke s Pceraee", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0013.jp2"}, "14": {"fulltext": "IV\\nMEMOIR.\\nmarbles, pegged tops, learned the rudiments and the humanities, entered college,\\nand proceeded pari passu faithful friends and steadfast allies through life to\u00c2\u00ac\\ngether, to the highest dignities of the Anglo-Irish constitution in Church and\\nState. This young William Magee, with the hot no-Popery blood of the Innis-\\nkilling Dragoons in his veins, was aftef wards Archbishop of Dublin, and author of\\nthe famous Protestant tractate on the Atonement\\nIn the year 1768, the Rev. Thomas Plunket obeyed a call from Strand-street con\u00c2\u00ac\\ngregation, the oldest of the Irish Socinian chapels, and shifted his pulpit to Dublin.\\nThe memoirs mention his intimacy with the eccentric, benevolent parson, Premium\\nMadden, and with that gentle genius, his curate, Philip Skelton and that he was\\nparticularly appreciated and courted bv all the wits and politicians of the time of\\nCharles Lucas and Anthony Malone. He died poor in 1778, and his congregation\\nundertook the charge of his family. From the subscription raised, all the minister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nlittle debts were paid off and the cost of his funeral defrayed; and with the balance\\nof the fund his widow and daughters established a quiet tea warehouse, patronised\\nby pious elders and the Strand-street matrons, on the profits of which the family\\nwas decently maintained and the sons liberally educated. After they had become\\nwealthy and famous, their sisters still, with true northern independence, kept the\\nlittle shop, and sold the best Bohea in Dublin.\\nIn 1779, William Magee and William Plunket stood for sizarship together in\\nTrinity College, and -were rejected, but entered as non-decremented pensioners,\\nand chummed during their college course. In the same examination Mr. Sealy\\nTownsend, afterwards Master in Chancery, and Dr. Miller, the gifted author of\\nHistory Philosophically considered,\u00e2\u0080\u009d were candidates.* Townsend took the\\nfirst place, Plunket the third or fourth, Miller the fifth\u00e2\u0080\u0094neither was so distin\u00c2\u00ac\\nguished during the under-graduate course as Townsend, until the second exami\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation of the fourth year when Plunket stopped his certificate on equal answer\u00c2\u00ac\\ning. He is said to have been dull in the college course; but it was not in the lec\u00c2\u00ac\\nture-hall or the tutor\u00e2\u0080\u0099s room that the students of Trinity then received the most\\nvaluable elements of that education, which for half a century afterwards sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nplied Ireland with so distinguished a list of lawyers, politicians, and preachers.\\nIt was in the gallery of the House of Commons where Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s glorious elo\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence was preaching the new born nationality. It was in the Historical\\nSociety, where the rights of man and the principles of history were debated\\nwith a force and a fire which their practical application to a revolutionary period\\ninspired and made real among a generation of young men, perhaps the most\\nsplendid in abilities and acquirements who have ever studied together in Ireland.\\nA grand group might be selected from any seance of the Historical Society in these\\ndays of the triumphant Volunteers. A versatile, impetuous revolutionist, intensely\\ninsubordinate, always meditating love or murder, with a reputation for military,\\npolitical, literary, any and every kind of talent, when he pleases to apply it, which\\nis by no means perpetually\u00e2\u0080\u0094him they call Theobald Wolfe Tone. A gentle youth,\\nfresh from the country, with softly winning manners, and a tongue from which\\nlanguage flows with a peculiar happy murmur, is named Charles Kendal Bushe.\\nA calm, self-possessed, young citizen, with a Spartan purity of character, and a\\nserene loftiness of intellect, which exercises a strange sway over all his comrades\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094this is Addis Emmet, younger brother of the great dead lion of the Historical\\nSociety, Temple Emmet. Philosophic Miller, ready of speech, racy of hard\\nstudy, but never dull with it, for his brain was an alembic able to fuse any sub-\\nMemoir of Dr. Miller in the Dublin University Magazine.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0014.jp2"}, "15": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nV\\nject. Honest Peter Burrowes, who, when his generous human heart was stirred\\nto its tranquil depths (seldom, indeed, it must be allowed) could utter beyond\\nany other man among them what would make you burn or shudder with genuine\\npassion. Whitley Stokes, of a most amiable nature, and a beautifully classic\\nand cultivated mind. Magee, who rushed into a controversy at a charge,\\ntrusting to the sheer force of his intellect and character to carry him through.\\nWild Tom Goold, acting the admirable Crichton, flirting for half a day in Sack-\\nville-street with all his heart, and then giving half an hour and half his head\\nto astrology, Roman law, or some equally useless abstruse and absurd study.\\nSaurin, somewhat senior to the rest, with his dry and unrelenting logic, which\\nyou saw cut in every line of that hard Huguenot head.* The heads were all heads\\nof mark indeed, and there were more of as good quality, some of which were\\nlifted dripping on the gibbet twenty years afterwards, some of which wore\\njudges\u00e2\u0080\u0099 wigs or bishops\u00e2\u0080\u0099 mitres, and one or two in Spanish breaches, waved cocked\\nhats with the tricolour and eagle of Napoleon\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Irish Legion on them. But all\\nthese young men admitted one master mind in the grand game of debate.\\nNone of his cotemporaries has challenged the supremacy of Plunket in the talent\\nof oratory. As it is said now that his reported speeches are nothing to what they\\nwere when delivered, so it was long before his youthful comrades could be in\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced to admit that his finest efforts at the Bar or even in Parliament could be\\ncompared to the impromptu sallies of that earlier and more familiar forum.\\nEven then they spoke, not so much of the figurative brilliancy and poetic har\u00c2\u00ac\\nmony of his language, which young men most admire in eloquence, and which,\\nin Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s dithyrambic days were all the fashion, as of an irresistible roll of;\\nargument which swelled like wave after wave, clear, rapid, and overwhelming. 1\\nIt was vain to play rhetorical fireworks against such an element. Then you\\naroused the keen excoriating irony which flowed like bile off his vigorous intellect.\\nPlunket entered Lincoln\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Inn in 1784, and was called to the Bar in 1787.\\ni Old attorneys say, that his circuit practice at first was of a humble class, and of\\na popular character; and that he began by moving Civil Bills at Trim, where\\nthe northern circuit then commenced for half-guinea fees\u00e2\u0080\u0094according to the cus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntom of the junior bar before assistant barristers were known. He was so poor\\nthat he had to sell his gold medal, and rode his first circuit on a horse lent for\\nthe service by Peter Burrowes. In these early difficult days, he lodged with a\\nyoung Catholic merchant from Monaghan, in Eccles-street, and in the faithful\\nintimacy which he always maintained with his old friends, in after days of pride\\nand place, often said, half in jest and half in earnest, that the Catholics of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland owed much of the service he gave to their cause, to his ancient regard for\\nhonest Michael Hughes. The following anecdote tells the accident which is said\\nto have first revealed his particular power as a pleader:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cWhile yet unknown, he happened to be acquainted with a gentleman who\\nconducted the business of an eminent solicitor. The proprietor gave his man of\\nbusiness instructions for a bill in a very heavy suit, who, trusting to the abilities of\\nhis young friend, gave him the instruction and the fee. The bill, a voluminous one,\\nwas quickly despatched; the name of the pleader was inquired and introduced;\\nhe became the confidential adviser and constant guest of the solicitor, and a\\nconnexion of a closer nature soon followed.\u00e2\u0080\u009d!\\nHereby we learn how Plunket came to marry into the house of John M*Caus-\\nJournals of the Historical Society.\\nt A valuable Memoir in the Metropolitan Magazine, by John O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donoghue, Esq., of the\\nIrish Bar.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0015.jp2"}, "16": {"fulltext": "VI\\nMEMOIR.\\nland, the great northern solicitor, and to devote himself at so early a period to the\\npractice of the Equity Courts.\\nMagee and Bushe, Tone and Burrowes, all rising young men, were of his\\nmore particular friendship in these days; and although he did not join the little\\nPolitical Club in which Tone brought together the rest of his college mates, with\\nhis adjutant Tom Russell, and his reformed aristocrat Sir Lawrence Parsons,\\nand the rising national writers, Drennan and Pollock, yet there seems to have\\nbeen between the two young men a racy, hearty appreciation and genuine\\nregard for each other. One day in November Term, 1792, Tone, who has been\\nworking the Catholic cause with an ardour, activity, and courage, quite new in\\nthe councils of the committee, walks down from their office to the hall of tho\\nFour Courts to take note of the vane of opinion there. Wonderful,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he writes\\nin that wonderful journal of his, wonderful to see the rapid change in the\\nminds of the bar on the Catholic question almost every body favourable. Some\\nfor an immediate abolition of all Penal laws; certainly the most magnanimous\\nmode, and the wisest. All sorts of men, and especially lawyer Plunket, take a\\npleasure in girding at Mr. Hutton (himself), 1 who takes at once all their seven\\npoints on his buckler, thus!\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Exceeding good laughing. Mr. Hutton called\\nMarat. Sundry barristers apply to him for protection in the approaching rebel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlion. Lawyer Plunket applies for Carton, which Mr. Hutton refuses, inasmuch\\nas the Duke of Leinster is his friend, but offers him Curraghmore, the seat of the\\nMarquis of Waterford. This Mr. Hutton does to have a rise out of Marcus\\nBeresford, who is at his elbow listening. Great laughter thereat.\u00e2\u0080\u009d A few years\\nafterwards, it was one of the same Beresfords whose black and brutal heart sug\u00c2\u00ac\\ngested to the Castle the too atroeious idea, that Tone should be dragged out\\nwhile life was yet oozing through the unhappy death wound he had inflicted,\\nand hanged in his very agony according to the letter of the law.\\nEven so soon a vast difference of opinion was beginning to exhibit itself\\namong the generation of young men who had worshipped Grattan and Liberty at\\ncollege, and who had been proud to couple the names of George Washington and\\nEdmund Burke together. The French Revolution had been for several years in\\naction, and was fast erupting into anarchy and general dissolution of law, order,\\nand religion; spreading, by a kind of volcanic sympathy, into all surrounding\\nnations. Edmund Burke had taken his memorable stand against demo\u00c2\u00ac\\ncracy, far in advance of the general opinions of his party, but was gratified to find\\nthat his doctrines had found several zealous disciples among the rising young\\nmen of his native country. Bushe, who had lived a little in France, wrote a\\npamphlet to sustain his side of the controversy; so did Goold. Tone at once\\ntook the opposite side, and vowed that Pains was the prophet. Plunket was\\nearly in his life and to its last day in all his politics a disciple of Burke, tempered\\nby Blackstone. He hated despotism much, but he hated anarchy more. He\\nhad a great and equal antipathy to the constructiveness and to the destructive\u00c2\u00ac\\nness of democracy\u00e2\u0080\u0094the antipathy to ancient establishments, and the rage for\\nsystem-building which it engendered. He saw in the English constitution re\u00c2\u00ac\\nformed and unclogged as it had been by the early American republicans, the\\nideal of a great system of political dynamics, in whose careful balance of powers,\\na civilized and Christian community might hope to enjoy all the happiness and\\nliberty which government can confer. He added to these principles intelii-\\ngence and the reverence of a constitutional lawyer for a stat^ system, to whica\\nso much had been contributed by the sagest authorities of hi\u00c2\u00bb owr profession.\\nAnd he believed that if the parliamentary patriots of Ireland, undazzled by re-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0016.jp2"}, "17": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nVH\\n*ent democratic conquests in America and France, and undismayed by the ter\u00c2\u00ac\\nrorism and corruption which rendered the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government scandalous, should\\ntake their stand upon the concessions compelled by Grattan, they might in time\\nsucceed in widening the basis of the constitution of \u00e2\u0080\u009982, so as to admit all its\\nsubjects to equal rights and franchises, and to perfectly conserve the estates of\\nthe realm in just and co-ordinate relations, by gradual internal reform. All his\\ninterests and ambition went the same way. His daily business was with rights\\nand properties, which had grown with or under the existing system. His ambi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion was the same which had raised Pery and Burgh, Wolfe and Yelverton, to\\nfame, office, and fortune. Tone on the other hand was a thorough revolutionist\\nby nature, station, and ambition. From his boyhood, revolt had been the very\\nbreath of his being\u00e2\u0080\u0094now and then against his father whom withal he so tenderly\\nloved, but who would insist upon the boy\u00e2\u0080\u0099s wearing a wig or a fellow\u00e2\u0080\u0099s gown in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstead of a shako; against the Provost and Fellows, against the Benchers and\\nBar; but above all, against the atrocious injustice which was then denominated\\nGovernment in Ireland. He detested his profession. The existing system afforded\\nhim no other fixed arena for his eminent and various abilities\u00e2\u0080\u0094abilities equal to\\nany of the positions which daily fell to men of his genre in the democratic coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntries compared to which any position he could hope to attain in Ireland was a\\nmere vegetation. But ardent as his ambition was, it is only just to him to say\\nthat he never allowed it to have more than a secondary influence in his plans for\\nthe subversion of the English government. With all his heart and soul, he\\nabominated the loathsome corruption and the unmerciful tyranny of that sys\u00c2\u00ac\\ntem. At the time it presented to the view a suspicious and ferocious executive;\\na parliament, powerless unless for shame or evil, and as much a byeword for cor\u00c2\u00ac\\nruption as any bagnio in the city; the ascendancy political and religious, there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore social also, and in all the three aspects intolerant and intolerable, of a small\\nprivileged sect over two vast segments of the population, the Catholics and the\\nDissenters, who had no communion in the constitution, and hardly the least in\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluence with the administration. Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s constitutional revolution had utterly\\nfailed to remedy this system. The government of Ireland had relapsed into a\\nworse state than the state before \u00e2\u0080\u009982. If it could by possibility be destroyed\\nby an unconstitutional revolution, any result whatever could hardly have failed\\nto be more gratifying to God and man. The people failing, the English minister\\ndid, in fact, effect a result as extreme by an unconstitutional counter-revolution,\\nthe Union. Such results as America, Holland, and even France, before the\\nbloody era of Robespiere, had attained, by armed revolutions, it was Tone\u00e2\u0080\u0099s am\u00c2\u00ac\\nbition and mission to produce in Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094Republican Institutions based upon a\\nDeclaration of the Rights of Man, guided by the patriotic elements youth and\\ngenius, and fortified by a vigorous military spirit.\\nIt is right to remember, in judging Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subsequent conduct, especially\\nat the time of Robert Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s trial, that at so early a period and with a man\\nwhom he regarded so highly as he did Tone, right or wrong, he had taken de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncided issue against the Irish republicans.\\nLong before Tone was obliged to leave Ireland, the political opposition had\\neven bred a personal estrangement between the two friends. One day after a long\\nsuccessful interview with my friend, citizen Carnot, the organiser of victory,\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nTone writes in his journal, Well, my friend, Plunket, (but I sincerely forgive\\nhim) and my friend Magee, whom I have not yet forgiven, would not speak to\\nme in Ireland because I was a Republican. Sink or swim, I stand to-day on\\nas high ground as either of them.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099^Indeed Tone always speaks of Plunket with", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0017.jp2"}, "18": {"fulltext": "Mil\\nMEMOIR.\\nsuch a fondness as shows that he believed in the perfect sincerity of his convic\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions and on the very eve of Tone\u00e2\u0080\u0099s exile, Plunket writes to him thus:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nDear Tone :\u00e2\u0080\u0094I embrace with great pleasure the idea and opportunity of re\u00c2\u00ac\\nnewing our old habits of intimacy and friendship. Long as they have been\\ninterrupted, I can assure you that no hostile sentiment towards you ever found\\nadmittance into my mind. Regret, allow me the expression, on your account,\\napprehension for the public, and great pain at being deprived of the social, happy,\\nand unrestrained intercourse which had for so many years subsisted between us,\\nwere the sum of my feelings. Some of them, perhaps, were mistaken, but there\\ncan be no use now in any retrospect of that kind. It is not without a degree of\\nmelancholy I reflect that your present destination makes it probable that we may\\nnever meet again, and talk and laugh together, as we used to do, though it is\\ndifficult to determine whether these jumbling times might not again bring us\\ntogether. In all events, I shall be most happy to hear from you, and write to\\nyou, often and fully, and to hear of your well being, wherever you may be. If\\nI had known your departure was to have been so very immediate, 1 would not\\nhave suffered you to slip away without a personal meeting. I shall hope to hear\\nfrom you as soon as you get to America. 1 formerly had friends there. The\\nunfortunate death of my brother you have probably heard of; perhaps however,\\nI may still have some there who might be useful to you. Let me know where,\\nand in what line you think of settling, and, if any of my connections can be of\\nuse, I will write to them warmly.\u00e2\u0080\u00941 beg you will give my best regards to Mrs.\\nTone, and believe me, dear Tone, with great truth, your friend,\\nW. Pluxket.\\nMay 29th, 1795.\\nTone sailed for America, thence to France, and within the next three\\nyears, had engaged the French and Dutch governments to direct three expedi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions to the shores of Ireland; had served with the French army as adjutant-\\ngeneral; was acting in confidential council with Hoche, Bonaparte, Carnot,\\nand as well known and accredited in the bureaux of the Directory and at\\nthe Hague, as the official of any regular legation. Three years of miraculous\\nwork! While Bushe lamented in the House of Commons that he should be\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cwasting on the desert air of an American plantation, the brightest talents\\nthat I ever knew a man to be gifted with\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094doubting withal, perhaps, if in such\\nquick and teeming times, the elements of a revolutionary statesman and soldier,\\nwere indeed or would long remain mouldering among Yankee maize and tobacco.\\nPlunket lived in Dominick-street; sat under Chancellor Clare as regularly a 9\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2his register; got his silk gown, and among the innumerable titles, mortgages,\\njointures, attainders, remainders, and reversions, with which five or six genera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions of good old Irish gentlemen, rake-helly, and rapacious, had incumbered\\ntheir rights of property, made much money and a great name in equity. When\\nthe Rebellion of \u00e2\u0080\u009998 broke out, he subscribed to the Patriotic Fund; and on\\nthat famous night, when the rebels were to have taken Dublin, and General\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0Craig packed all the lawyers and attorneys in Smithfield to meet the first\\nrush of the Kildare pikes, I\u00e2\u0080\u0099luuket was out in battle array, like the rest of\\nCaptain Saurin\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Lawyeis\u00e2\u0080\u0099 corps Once he emerged from his pleadings, while\\nthat other battle, fiercer than any that General Craig commanded was going\\non between the lawyers and the rebels\u00e2\u0080\u0094venue changed from Smithfield to\\nKilmaiuham. He was counsel with Curran for Henry Sheares, and did kb", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0018.jp2"}, "19": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR,\\nIX\\nduty well: but when Curran, that same sad winter, made such a gallant effort\\nto ?-ave Tone from the hangman, it is gratefully told by the patriot\u00e2\u0080\u0099s son, that/\\nl\u00e2\u0080\u0099eter Burrowes* ably exerted himself\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094and there is no mention made ofl\\nPlunkor.\\nHe had entered parliament in the spring of that awful year for the borough of\\nCharlemont. At the time there was no more honoured constituency in all Ireland,\\nthan the tidy village which rests under Mountjoy\u00e2\u0080\u0099s old fort, beside the Northern\\nBlnckwater. The good old lord, who took his title thence, throughout his life\\nhad exercised his conge d elire as a trust for the people, and was always proud\\nto award its honours -where he saw, or fancied he saw, genius, patriotism,\\nand youth struggling into public life, under the discouraging auspices of a sys\u00c2\u00ac\\ntem in which counties were family appanages, and boroughs cost i J 4000 a seat\\nGrattan had entered Parliament as member for Charlemont, and represented it\\nwhen he carried the revolution of \u00e2\u0080\u009982. Among the names which we find on its\\nlist of burgesses, is that of Sheridan, a cousin of Richard Brinsley, to whom the\\nearl, struck on a short acquaintance, by the brilliant wit and high ideality which\\nbelong to that old Celtic blood, forthwith offered a seat in Parliament. He died\\nyoung; and then Lawyer Jephson, full of parliamentary promise, is spoken of with\\na proper pater patrice pride but ungrateful Lawyer Jephson took a judgeship at\\nGibraltar. Lord Caulfield and he had occupied the two seats from the general elec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of 1797, until parliament met in the following February. Then the viscount,\\nelected to sit for the county of Armagh, by which he had also been returned;\\nJephson took office; the Speaker\u00e2\u0080\u0099s writ was moved, and the answer that\\ncame to it was\u00e2\u0080\u0094that Francis Dobbs, Esquire, Barrister-at-Law, and William\\nConyngham Plunket, Esquire, one of his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s counsel, had been duly\\nelected by the Portreeve and burgesses of the Borough of Charlemont to serve\\nin the Commons house of Parliament.!\\nWhen Plunket entered parliament, the patriot party had dwindled to a mise\u00c2\u00ac\\nrable minority of seven or eight steady votes, and about twice as many fluctu\u00c2\u00ac\\nating tallies. The great assembly, which as Grattan told the English Commons,\\nhad in fourteen years acquired for Ireland what you did not acquire for Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland in a century\u00e2\u0080\u0094freedom of trade, independency of the judges, restoration of\\nthe final judicature, repeal of a perpetual mutiny bill, habeas corpus act, nullum\\ntenfpus act,\u00e2\u0080\u009d had, since the secession of the opposition, sunk into a mere divan\\nof the minister. With whatever ambitious anxiety the honourable member for\\nCharlemont may have looked forward to his entrance upon that high arena, he\\nmust have felt the position a forlorn hope as he looked round the splendid cham\u00c2\u00ac\\nber, from whose gallery he had often longingly gazed upon the assembled\\nmagnates of Ireland. The seats of the opposition were almost vacant. Grattan,\\nunder his beloved oaks of Tinnehinch, chafed like some war-worn soldier, bound\\nby parole, while the trumpet of his cause called all good men and true to the\\nrescue. Curran stood day after day in the bloody assize of the rebellion, plead\u00c2\u00ac\\ning in such tones of courage, pity, and wrath, as never were addressed to any tri\u00c2\u00ac\\nbunal on the earth before for mercy to the young, the gilted, and the true\u00e2\u0080\u0094as\\nwell ask mercy from the famished tiger. The familiar faces that used to cluster\\nround Grattan were gone\u00e2\u0080\u0094some dead and gone, and their ancient places knew\\nthem no more. Tone\u00e2\u0080\u0099s old friend, Sir Laurence Parsons, still kept his seat, and\\nBurrowes prepared Tone\u00e2\u0080\u0099s defence before the court-martial. I owe this mf.er63ii:ig\\nfact, never before published, to my friend. Waldron Burrowes.\\nt Hardy\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Charlemont.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Journals of the House of Commons.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0019.jp2"}, "20": {"fulltext": "X\\nMEMOIR,\\noccasionally harrassed Mr. Pelham. George Ponsonbv frequently attended, and\\nhis upright character, high connexion, and trained capacity were always an\\nhonour to his party. Bushe had been for some months in the House, and was\\ncreating a sensation by his elegant and spirited eloquence. Tighe of Wicklow,\\nStewart of Killymoon, O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell of Donegal, and a few more of the country\\ngentry remained faithful. But parliament was hardly attended during the ses\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of \u00e2\u0080\u009998, by the squires. They were busy in their counties; some were dra\u00c2\u00ac\\ngooning the rebels, others had grown indifferent to the character of parliament\\nsince Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s retirement. A herd of colonels, commissaries, revenue commis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsioners, members of ballast boards, and barrack boards, castle clerks, and black\\nleg barristers, composed the ministerial majority\u00e2\u0080\u0094suppressed the constitution\\nwhenever they were bid, and boasted they had been sent into parliament to\\nput an end to it. The task of the little opposition during this dreary period con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsisted in an ineffectual effort to thwart and mitigate Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Thorough \u00e2\u0080\u0094the policy\\nbayonet in one hand and bribe in the other, by which he was preparing for the\\nUnion. After a few months more the Union itself roused all Ireland like the\\naound of the last trumpet.\\nOn the 16th of November, 1798, Mr. Pitt writes to Lord Cornwallis enclosing\\na rough draft of the articles of Union, and appointing Viscount Castlereagh\\nChief Secretary for Ireland.* On the same day, the late Lord Lieutenant, Earl\\nCamden, congratulates the young minister, his nephew; and begs he will write\\nletters frequently, as Mr. Pitt has confidentially complained that the Lord Lieu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntenant is rather remiss in correspondence\u00e2\u0080\u0094write long letters often, and make\\nhis excellency sign them. Neither Mr. Pitt nor Earl Camden seems to have per\u00c2\u00ac\\nfectly discerned the amazing elements of power which lay latent in this extraor\u00c2\u00ac\\ndinary young man. Who indeed could have believed that under that bland ado\u00c2\u00ac\\nlescent air, that lithe and dazzling front, and, stranger still, that tongue so awk\u00c2\u00ac\\nward and maladroit, were hidden a heart as subtle, a will as truculent, a\\ncourage as cold, and a conscience as unscrupulous as Caesar Borgia\u00e2\u0080\u0099s. For a\\nmodel of Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s character, we naturally refer not to the generous ambi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions, and the gallant rivalries of the British parliament; but to the crafty, im\u00c2\u00ac\\npassable, and implacable ideal of Machiavelli\u00e2\u0080\u00993 Prince, or the inexorable voli\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, passionless wisdom, and atrocious cold blood of the Third Napoleon. He\\nwas then not quite thirty years of age, and wore them with such a blooming, pa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrician beauty, that it was the custom of the opposition to speak of the secretary\\nas a smooth-faced minion of Mr. Pitt. He had that order of mind, difficult and\\nungraceful of display in the liberal air of public assemblies which men of intel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlect,\u00e2\u0080\u009d^?* excellence are always so vain to contemn. To the last days of his\\nlife, Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s mixed metaphors and rigmarole reasoning were the sport of the\\nwits of opposition. But sneer, stricture, and invective, alike glanced aside from\\nhis imperturbable, polite placidity, and his callous pluck. Few men have ever\\npossessed such extraordinary executive faculties, such reticence, tact, and du\u00c2\u00ac\\nplicity, such-skill in deceiving, and such address in managing men, and so\\nintense and even an energy in the conduct of great affairs.\\nIn a few months he earned a name the most hateful in Ireland since Crom\u00c2\u00ac\\nwell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s. During the last months of the rebellion, acting as secretary, ad interim\\nhe had served a rapid noviciate in the corrupt system of the castle at one of its\\nworst periods. Bloody Carhampton, domineering Clare, and Toler, a fero\u00c2\u00ac\\ncious vampire, composed the real executive of the country at the time. At such\\nThe Castlereagh Correspondence.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0020.jp2"}, "21": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nXI\\na council board lie learned to dabble his sleek young hands in Erin\u00e2\u0080\u0099s gore\u00e2\u0080\u009d_\\nand learned the lesson with all the rancorous zeal of a renegade for a very few\\nyears before his lordship had been a very ultra-democratic Northern Whig.\\nAlready an audacious and unscrupulous ambition possessed him. It was said\\nthat he even ventured to emulate the fame, and imitate the methods of Mr.\\nPitt. But perhaps the brilliant success, which another young Irish noble, Lord\\nMornington, had rapidly won in the wider field of imperial politics, obtained a\\nmore natural incentive for him. Fifteen years afterwards, he and the two bro\u00c2\u00ac\\nthers Wellesley concluded that awful contest, in which Pitt himself had suc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncumbed. Its secret history is that of an alliance between these three Irish ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nventurers. It was Castlereagh who appointed and maintained the Duke of Wel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlington as British generalissimo\u00e2\u0080\u0094Wellesley who suggested and Castlereagh\\nwho conducted the diplomatic arrangements which banded all Europe against\\nNapoleon at the congress of Vienna.\\nYet had the young Secretary been of a less aspiring and active temper, there\\nsat in his office an old familiar of the Castle, whose mind took a perfectly Satanic\\npleasure in the arts of intrigue and the darker passions of power, and whose in\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluence he could hardly have escaped. It is likely that Edward Cooke had quite\\nas much to do with the formation of Lord Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s character as either nature\\nor accident. In the correspondence of that strange being, we observe an intel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlect of keen, cold, wily energy; a heart without passion, prejudice, or scruple;\\na temperament of preternatural activity, but which loved to sit still in the shade\\nand move men about like puppets. To prompt an informer; to instruct a spy;\\nto know the precise price of every member in the House; how to manage the\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cPopish titulars;\u00e2\u0080\u009d how to infuriate the Orange Lodges; how to master the\\nweak points by which the Lord Lieutenant and the Lord Chancellor, and the Lord\\nChief Justice, and the Attorney-General and the Secretary could all be moved so\\nas to be of one purpose (his, Edward Cooke\u00e2\u0080\u0099s purpose)\u00e2\u0080\u0094such were the arts which\\ndie loved and in which he was versed beyond any man who has filled his office\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0099before or since. Into Castlereagh he infused, with the zeal of a master who\\nhas at last found a fit pupil in the rare art he loves, all the tortuous schemes\\n.and all the dark experience of his life.\\nA rival is almost as essential to the passion of ambition, as a mistress is to\\nthat of love. Almost from the very hour he entered the house, Plunket pitted\\nhimself against the secretary. There was no extremity of insult to which he did\\nnot proceed, in speeches, to which every man who listened must have felt that\\nthey were destined to live as long as Irish history and the English language.\\nTheir honest passion and fertile eloquence, hardly redeem passages of that sur\u00c2\u00ac\\npassing invective from the character of unjustifiable vituperation. But the\\nSecretary sat silent\u00e2\u0080\u0094perhaps stunned before it all. There is no doubt whatever\\nthat Castlereagh was a man of courage.\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nFearless, because no feeling dwells In ice,\\nHis very, courage stagnates to a vice.\\nBut he neither ventured to reply to those savage onslaughts, nor to seek the\\ncoarser and in those days common satisfaction of the duel. It is perhaps the most\\nextraordinary proof we possess of the Secretary\u00e2\u0080\u0099s elaborately stern and thick-skin\u00c2\u00ac\\nned nature that then or afterwards he never resented all th s deadly animosity.\\nWhen Plunket entered the English House of Commons, Castlereagh was one of\\nthe first to hail his success in terms of unstinted admiration. On the questions\\nof the war and the Peterloo Massacre, he led the Irish lawyer, yet independent", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0021.jp2"}, "22": {"fulltext": "XU\\nMKMUR.\\nof government, and an important parliamentary personage away from hia party.\\nAnd afterwards when Plunket took office, he speaks of C astlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s influence\\nupon him in such terms as these His friendship and confidence were the\\nprime causes which induced his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government to desire my services and\\nI can truly add that my unreserved reliance on the cordiality of his feelings to\u00c2\u00ac\\nwards me, joined to my perfect knowledge of the wisdom and liberality of all his\\npublic objects and opinions, were the principal causes which induced me to ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncept the honour which was proposed to me. Nothing can ever occur to me in\\npolitical life so calamitous as the event, which, in common with all his country\\nand Europe, I so deeply deplore.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This was written to the Marquis of London\u00c2\u00ac\\nderry a few days after the minister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s suicide.\\nPlunket appears to have entered upon the contest of the Union at first with\\ndespondency. Cooke writes of the Bar Meeting, that Plunket was cunning,\\nand changed his ground from the violence he had used in a former debate to a\\ntone of moderation, and by that device had good effect.\u00e2\u0080\u009d A very good effect in\\nMr. Cooke\u00e2\u0080\u0099s mind\u00e2\u0080\u0094for he frankly declared his decided belief that the Union\\nwould be carried! Fear, animosity, a want of time to consider coolly the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsequences, and 40,000 British bayonets will carry it.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He might have added\\nthe chronic apathy which had affected the national parliamentarists ever since\\nGrattan had withdrawn from public life; he might have added, but his audience\\nwould have laughed the assertion to scorn that grand cause, which Grattan after\u00c2\u00ac\\nwards admitted in the most memorable words he ever spoke to the British Par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c When the Irish Parliament rejected the Catholic Petition, on that\\nday she voted the Union; many good and pious reasons she gave, and she lies\\nthere with her many good and her pious reasons.\u00e2\u0080\u009d As the session of 1799 ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvanced, the lobbies and galleries of the houses and the closets of the castle became as\\nbusy as the Stock Exchange, with peerages and boroughs to be bought and sold, ap\u00c2\u00ac\\nplications for the escheatorships, tenders for the manufacture of situations and sine\u00c2\u00ac\\ncures, and applications now seldom neglected for places of every species by per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons of all possible denominations. When Mr. Cooke has a little leisure, we find\\nhim writing to Doctor Troy to ascertain if any more of his brother Titulars have\\ngiven in their adhesion; and by return the comharba of Saint Laurence writes\\nback to the castle, to say that all is right in Armagh, that he is almost sure of\\nTuam, and that his own priests have got the hint. At last the old fire began to\\nkindle into a flame. When the measure of the Union was really revealed,\\nfirst consternation, then wrath spread from man to man, and shore to shore.\\nTwo classes were foremost to combine and resist\u00e2\u0080\u0094the independent country gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntlemen old volunteer colonels, toparchs of their counties, and owners of boroughs,\\nwho anticipated not merely the national dishonour, but the injury of their influ\u00c2\u00ac\\nence and property. It afterwards cost at least two millions of money, not to\\nspeak of titles and places, to buy their acquiescence. The second class was the\\nBar, then the most powerful, influential, and intellectual order in Irish society,\\nand having even stronger obvious motives of interest, honour, and ambition,\\nthan the gentry in the maintenance of a national legislature. The most conside\u00c2\u00ac\\nrable men of the first class in parliament were the Speaker Foster, Sir Laurence\\nParsons, Sir Henry Parnell, Sir Edward O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Brien, Tighe of Wicklow, and Ste\u00c2\u00ac\\nwart of Killymoon. To the second class, the Prime Sergeant Fitzgerald, George\\nPonsonby, Saurin, Bushe, Goold, Barrington, and Plunket belonged.\\nBut in that brief parliament no man, squire, lawyer, or minister made such a\\nfigure as Plunket. The debates were generally led by Parsons or Ponsonby;\\nhe was always content to follow, but he invariably spoke the speech of the night,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0022.jp2"}, "23": {"fulltext": "St MOU?.\\nxiii\\na:xl Grattan significantly recognized the place he had attained, by taking hin\\nseat next to him when he re-entered parliament. Ilis later efforts never ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncelled these grand orations. The sceva indignatio \u00e2\u0080\u0094the pestering sarcasm that\\natung like a swarm of hornets, the clear, icy irony that flayed its adversary\\nlike a razor, and the fiery factfull invective that riddled a reputation like grape-\\nfiiot\u00e2\u0080\u0094the classic structure, the stately, luminous, and ample language of these\\nmagnificent speeches are unsurpassed in oratory\u00e2\u0080\u0094but these were only tlieorna\\nments or variations of argument that has all the accuracy of mathematical proof-,\\nin which every word is a link of one perfect chain; in which all the ingenuity\\nof logic cannot suggest one superfluous sentence. And there is great moral gran- 1\\ndeur in the attitude which he sustains throughout\u00e2\u0080\u0094that of a jurist pleading\\nbefore the High Court of Parliament, for the constitution of which it is the de\u00c2\u00ac\\npository, and which it is bound to guard against the lawless violence of the\\nminister as well as of the mob. Even in the utmost length to which he carried\\nthe doctrine of the incompetency of Parliament to enact the articles of Union,\\nwe observe that there is not a syllable of sympathy with the attempts lately\\nmade by the people against the constitution, lie treats the rebel in the same\\ncategory with the minister, and when he justifies a resort to the ultima ratio\\nas he very plainly does, it is on the same constitutional principle as applied\\nto an abuse of parliamentary authority, that justified the English Revolution\\nf 1688, in consequence of a malfeasance of the sovereign power. How far he\\nurged this doctrine, the following passage, taken from one of the speeches of\\nwhich only a fragmentary report is extant, will tell:\\n1 boldly assert, staking whatever professional character I may possess as a\\nconstitutional lawyer, that if the parliament of Ireland pass this measure against\\nthe consent of the people of Ireland, their act will want all the attributes of a\\nlaw. This is a plain, simple proposition, which I am ready to maintain, and I\\ncall on any learned or honourable gentleman in this house to contradict it. It\\nis said by gentlemen on the other side, that Parliament is omnipotent. Sir, the\\nomnipotence of parliament, if literally understood, is impious blasphemy, and it\\nit be understood with limitations, it proves nothing for the gentlemen of the other\\nside, for it implies a limit to its omnipotence. Sir, there are acts which but to\\nname, proves that no parliament can be authorised to perform them\u00e2\u0080\u0094acts, to\\nwhich no authority can give the force of laws, and which all mankind are justi\u00c2\u00ac\\nfied in resisting. It is true indeed, that under and within the constitution, there\\ncan be no power to control the legislature, because the legislature is the higher\\npower known to the constitution; but who is the driveller will say, that there\\nfore any act of that legislature, however contrary to national justice, or incon\u00c2\u00ac\\nsistent with the constitution itself, is rightful, and that they have a legal compe\u00c2\u00ac\\ntency to perform them. If then there are acts which no power in the state is\\ncompetent to, it remains only to ask is this not one of them\u00e2\u0080\u0094I contend that it\\nis, because it is an act which goes to alter the constitution.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAt the close of the same speech, he says in a spirit only too prophetic:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nWho will say, that when the imperial parliament shall have got an uncon\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrolled power over Ireland, that they will not make local laws for the govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of this country Who will answer that when the Habeas Coi pus shall be\\nsuspended in Ireland, it shall also be suspended in Great Britain Who will\\nsay, that the miserable inhabitants of this remote and barbarous province shall\\nnot be smarting under the fetter and the whip, while the British Parliament, in\\nits imperial dignity, shall sit unconcerned at our sufferings and out of the reach\\nof our cries\\nB", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0023.jp2"}, "24": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nxiv\\nHe lived to see the full extent of all he had foreseen. The last words, spoken\\nagainst the Union in the Irish Commons, say the reports, were spoken by Plun-\\nket and Goold\u00e2\u0080\u0094 words of what anguish and indignation we can faintly conceive.\\nWith the fall of Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0099s independence, the grand ambition of his life, and\\nof all the great Irishmen of that day, seemed tosuccumb. To Plunket especially,\\nthe shock must have been terrible. Had the minister been defeated, such a\\ncareer lay before him, as no Irishman had yet attempted. He had acquired in\\na few months, a rank in parliament equally splendid and solid. It is hardly an\\nexaggeration to say, that he stood in a position to fulfil Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s labom-s, and\\nto anticipate O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s. To resume the old policy of the opposition, to reform\\nthe House of Commons, to emancipate the Catholics and the Dissenters, to erect\\na popular ministry in the Castle, and in the fulness of time, make himself its\\nChancellor\u00e2\u0080\u0094such might have seemed a not unreasonable ambition, for the man\\nwho had so easily attained such an ascendancy in his native legislature. In\u00c2\u00ac\\nstead of a destiny so brilliant, only the dull and daily-degenerating routine of an\\nIrish practising barrister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s life awaited him. One of the first curses of the Union,\\nwas that it subverted the natural order of legal promotion, and for twenty years\\nafterwards filled the Benches of the Four Courts with judges, who had no claim to\\nthe ermine, but that of having corruptly opposed the leaders of their profession on\\nthe question of national independence. To an Irish barrister without office or pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvate fortune, a seat in the British Commons was the road to ruin, in times when\\nall the expenses and troubles of a parliamentary life may be epitomised in the\\nfact, that the mail took four days to go from London to Dublin. Even in the\\npresent age of cheap and easy communication, it is in some cases a rather risky\\nspeculation for honourable and learned members who have got a country to sell\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094the competition is so undue, and the first self-denying pangs of a lessening fee\\nbook so sharp. In despair, it is said, Plunket meditated for a time emigration\\nto England or the United States. Finally, he settled down to make the leading\\nand most lucrative practice at the Irish Bar\u00e2\u0080\u0094to make money\u00e2\u0080\u0094to watch oppor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntunities of making power. Already it was said that he was far fonder of money\\nawl of power than of mere fame.\\nThe next time he appeared in public life, it was to cloud in an unaccountable\\nhour his character as an Irish patriot and as an advocate, with that merciless\\nspeech for the Crown, in the case of Robert Emmet. No palliation can mitigate\\nthe simple censure, that his speech to evidence upon that occasion was a cruel\\nand uncalled for assault upon a young heroic martyr, who had already surren\u00c2\u00ac\\ndered himself frankly to his doom. But the publicists of the day, who sympa\u00c2\u00ac\\nthised with Emmet, or who, like Cobbett, hated Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s party or person, did\\nimt rest there. They declared that Emmet had attacked Plunket from t he dock\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094which was a lie; that Plunket had been under the deepest obligations to\\nbmmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s father and brother\u00e2\u0080\u0094which was also a lie and that Emmet declared\\nhe had imbibed the opinions upon which he had acted from Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s teaching\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nopinions, now abandoned by Plunket for corrupt motives. This also is an asser\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion equally without foundation but which has never yet been properly met by\\nthe apologists of Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s conduct. There is to it one simple and sufficient an\u00c2\u00ac\\nswer. Ten years before, towards Tone, Plunket had evinced precisely the same\\nsentiments. Violent and unfeeling as he was in their utterance, it is impossible\\nt\u00c2\u00bb deny that they were in perfect consistency with the settled opinious which he\\nhad for many years held and expressed. In everyone of his Union speeches, he\\nspeaks of the attempt of the United Irishmen and the attempt of the minister\\nwith equal abhorrence. There can hardly be a doubt that he regarded Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0024.jp2"}, "25": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nXV\\nexperiment, as one more dangerous in every sense than even that of \u00e2\u0080\u009998\u00e2\u0080\u0094more\\nikely, but for the merest chance, to have succeeded, and certain to have led to\\nan atrocious anarchy, or a French deputy-despotism, if it had. It was now not\\nmerely horror of democracy\u00e2\u0080\u0094horror of Bonaparte too had seized upon men\u00e2\u0080\u0099s minds.\\nAnd those who doubt the extent to which both feelings may have fairly influ\u00c2\u00ac\\nenced Plunket in warning the country against such designs, will find that Cur-\\nan, speaking not for the Crown, but for the defence of one of Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s partisans,\\n)\\\\ven Kirwan, a few months afterwards, med language of the same spirit, and if\\npossible, more vehement. Perhaps, too, the very sense that the rebellion had\\nconsiderably contributed to aid the minister in carrying the Union,* added its\\nrankling bitterness to the animosity which he exhibited against all who had\\nhand, act, or part in this last attempt of the United Irishmen.\\nIt is certain, however, that Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech against Emmet had the effect of\\nestablishing good relations between him and the government, and led directly to\\nbis acceptance of office under Mr. Addington\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministry. He became Solicitor-\\nGeneral in October, 1803, on the promotion of Standish O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Grady to the Court\\nof Exchequer; Attorney-General under Mr. Pitt, in 1805 and retained office\\nwith Bushe as his colleague under the Cabinet of all the talents,\u00e2\u0080\u009d worthily sus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntaining their intellectual reputation in Ireland. They gave him an English seat,\\nand tempted him, not reluctant, to a British ambition. Ilis brief career in Par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament at this time, bred in him an extraordinary attachment to that high and\\nselect party, of which Earl Grenville was the head. He followed the Stowe sect\\never afterwards. Nor is it difficult to conceive, what an effect the influence of\\nthat family of statesmen, by birth and profession, aristocrats in the noblest sense\\nof the word, and engaged to the public service with a zealous, unselfish, and in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndustrious devotion\u00e2\u0080\u0094must have had upon a man, fresh from the Union\u00e2\u0080\u0099s experi\u00c2\u00ac\\nence of borough-inongering rotteness in the lower House, and miserable self-\\nemasculation in the upper. In their resolute sincerity for the Catholics, and\\nagainst the French, he founded the basis of his future political career. He left\\noffice honestly with them, in 1807, gave up his seat, and came home to make a\\nfortune sufficient to enable him to live^ independently in Parliament; showing,\\nas Grattan said, a contempt for salary equal to his regard for law.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 There is\\nno doubt that at the time he could have continued to hold his office, as Bushe\\ndid, and secured to himself the fifteen years of absolute power and unlimited\\nlucre upon which his rival, Saurin, then entered.\\nThis is a view of him, at the height of his fame as a lawyer, in the period\\nwhich followed, from the vivid pen of William Henry Curran:\\nOf all the eminent lawyers I have heard, he seemed to me to be the most admi\u00c2\u00ac\\nrably qualified for the department of his profession in which he shines. His mind\\nis at once snbtle and comprehensive; his language clear, copious, and condensed;\\nhis powers of reasoning are altogether wonderful. Give him the most compli\u00c2\u00ac\\ncated and doubtful case to support\u00e2\u0080\u0094with an array of apparently hostile decisior/\\nto oppose him at every step\u00e2\u0080\u0094the previous discussion of the question has probably\\nsatisfied you, that the arguments of his antagonists are neither to be answered or\\nevaded_they have fenced round the rights of their clients with all the great\\nnames in equity\u00e2\u0080\u0094Hardwicke, Camden, Thurlow, Eldon :\u00e2\u0080\u0094Mr. Plunket rises:\\nIf Mr. Pitt is firm, he will meet with no difficulty; the misfortunes of the present\\ntime are much in favour towards carrying the present point on the same grounds that\\nthe rebellion assisted in carrying the Union. Timid men will not venture on any change\\nof system however wise and just, unless their fears are alarmed by pressing dangers\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094Lord Cornwallis to Lord Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0094 Casti ebe/gh Corrksfokckmce, voL iv., p. 20.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0025.jp2"}, "26": {"fulltext": "XVI\\nMEMOIR.\\nyou are deeply attentive, rather from curiosity to witness a display of hopdese\\ndexterity, than from any uncertainty about the event. He commences by sou***\\ngeneral, undisputed .principle of law, that seems, perhaps, at the first view not\\nto bear the remotest relation to the matter in controversy; but to this he appends\\nanother and another, until, by a regular series of connected propositions, be\\nbrings it down to the very point before the Court, and insists, nay, demonstrate-*,\\nthat the Court cannot decide against him without violating one of its own most\\nvenerated maxims.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cIn this respect, I look upon Mr. Plunket, going through a long and importau\\nargument in the Court cf Chancery, to be a most extraordinary exhibition m\\nhuman intellect. For hours he will go on and on, with unwearied rapidity, ar\u00c2\u00ac\\nguing, defining, illustrating, separating intricate facts, laying down subtle dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinctions, prostrating an objection here, pouncing upon a fallacy there, then re\u00c2\u00ac\\ntracing his steps and re-stating in some original point of view his general propo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition then flying off again to the outskirts of the question, and dealing his\\ndesultory blows with merciless reiteration, wherever an inch of ground remaiur\\nto be cleared and during the whole of this, not only does not his vigour flag for\\na single instant, but his mind does not even pause, for a topic, an idea, or an ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npression.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nIn 1812, Plunket re-entered parliament, as member for Trinity College; at*\\nhonour for which he was almost absolutely indebted to the energetic friendship\\nof Magee, then Senior Fellow, and the most potential partizan in the Univer\u00c2\u00ac\\nsity. He had waited long, and his patience had its reward. His position was\\none of perfeot independence, and of high prestige. His professional savings baa\\nalready laid the foundation of an affluent fortune. By his brother, Dr. Patrick\\nPluuket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s death, he inherited the ample sum of ^60,000. Thus the essential\\nbasis was secure, and he could afford to abandon himself to his ambition\u00e2\u0080\u0094for the\\nman was in one sense like Virgil\u00e2\u0080\u0099s giant, whose head was in the skies, but whose\\nfeet touched the earth and made very sure indeed that they touched it ere he\\nmoved. He goes, said Curran, finely from the Newry hustings, like Gylippus,\\nwhom the Spartans sent alone as a reinforcement to their distressed ally\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nGylippus, in whom was concentrated all the energies and all the talents of hie\\ncountry.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He was already favourably known to the House of Commons. His\\nsingle speech in the session of 1807 must have created a considerable sensation,\\nwhen we find Whitbread next year speaking of it, as one that would neve*\\nbe forgotten.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Thus, in easy circumstances, member for his university, with\\nthe fame of his former political career, of his present professional pre-eminencw,\\nand of his austere and dignified ambition, preceding him, he took his seat unde,\\nenviable auspices.\\nThe time too was propitious of opportunity. He came in the Interval of two\\ngreat parliamentar} r eras\u00e2\u0080\u0094while the cotemporaries of Pitt and Fox were gradu\u00c2\u00ac\\nally retreating from public life, and before Peel, Canning, or Brougham had yet\\nrisen to the full perfection of their powers. The Irish character never stood in\\nhigher repute. For fifty years before, almost the greatest names which illumi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnated the history of the Commons had been Irish. There were dozens of old\\nmembers, anxious to hear the new orator, who had listened to the inspired, majes.\\ntic, and opulent wisdom of Burke, to the popular vigour of Barre, to the splendid\\npassion of Sheridan, to the savage satire of Francis. Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s lustrous energy,\\nPonsonby\u00e2\u0080\u0099s manly sense, Tierney\u00e2\u0080\u0099s trenchant irony, Canning\u00e2\u0080\u0099s classic tropes and\\nelegant sarcasm, were, at the time, the greatest intellectual attractions \u00c2\u00abf the\\nHouse. Plunket spoke to them in a new *rud unexpected strain, in what h*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0026.jp2"}, "27": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nXV] l\\na mos,t elaborate logic, a rare depth of meditation, and an austere gravity\\not tone, half statesmanlike, half judicial, were splendidly combined with a singu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlar purity and precision ot language, and an extraordinary, vehement, and un\u00c2\u00ac\\nflagging intensity of expression. It was more like the language of some great\\nnoble of the robe, speaking with the sense that the estates of the realm really\\nhung upon his words, than the common partisan declamation of the House of\\nCommons, which has no horizon but the opposite benches and the reporter\u00e2\u0080\u0099s gal\u00c2\u00ac\\nlery. The greatest authorities in and out of the House, declared that he reached\\nthe very highest style of parliamentary oratory\u00e2\u0080\u0094a style in comparison with\\nwhich Canning\u00e2\u0080\u0099s was flashy, and Brougham\u00e2\u0080\u0099s coarse, and Peel\u00e2\u0080\u0099s thin. Old\\nCharles Butler had sat in the gallery of the House from far-back penal days,\\nwhen there was not a flicker of hope for the Catholics. He had heard Chatham,\\nhiorth, Pitt, Fox, Burke, speak their greatest speeches, with a fastidiously criti\u00c2\u00ac\\ncal ear; and he declared that Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech of 1821 had never been sur\u00c2\u00ac\\npassed in the British Senate. Of his very first appearance, it was unanimously\\nadmitted that no such speech had been heard in the House of Commons since She\u00c2\u00ac\\nridan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Begum oration. Lord Dudley\u00e2\u0080\u0099s was an opinion upon political talents and\\neffects equal to Horace Walpole\u00e2\u0080\u0099s upon vertu and belles letlres \u00e2\u0080\u0094he repeatedly de\u00c2\u00ac\\nclared that for its gravity and sagacity, its energy and intensity, its exactitude,\\nits sober and stately grace, he preferred Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s to all other styles that he had\\nknown or read of. 1 wish you had heard him,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he wrote of the Peterloo Speech,\\nin answer to Mackintosh. He assailed the fabric of his adversary, not by\\nan irregular damaging fire that left parts of it standing, but by a complete rapid\\nprocess of demolition that did not let one stone continue standing upon an\u00c2\u00ac\\nother.*\u00e2\u0080\u0099 That single speech admittedly saved the Cabinet. It w T as Mackintosh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nown admission, that if Plunket had been regularly bred to Parliament, he would\\nhave made the first public figure of the period. All the great Commoners of his\\nera admitted his supremacy as freely as had his old mates of the Historical\\nSociety. Last, and most marvellous tribute of all, hardly credible of the House\\nof Commons! He is said, on several of the Catholic Claims\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Debates, to have\\nconverted various votes to his side, (so many as six, it is alleged, upon one oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncasion,) by very dint of conscientious conviction.\\nAt fifty years of age, he was in the full maturity of his powers. The long in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterruption of his public career, had not in any way dulled or frustrated the tine\\npolitical faculties he had displayed in the Irish House. The rolling vehemence\\nand impatient fire of his earlier invective had subsided indeed, but so had the\\npassions which prompted them. His satire had become as serious and mordant\\nas Swift\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\u00e2\u0080\u0094his reasoning as strict, lucid, and close as Locke\u00e2\u0080\u0099s or Suarez\u00e2\u0080\u0099. There\\nwas something inspired and august in his tone when he addressed the House;\\nihey were flattered to feel that he raised them to the level of his own genius.\\nHis person and physiognomy fully sustained his character. He was of more than\\nthe middle height, built of big bones and massive muscles, with a deep full chest,\\nfrom which issued a voice of powerful metallic tones, slightly marked by the\\nextra-emphatic accent of Ulster. His head has been perpetuated by the masterly\\nchisel of Christopher Moore. It is the same head that our ethnologists assign to\\nthe old Irish of Armagh. The brow rises like a dome over features of coarse and\\ncrooked outline. The sides of the head are like walls\u00e2\u0080\u0094there is a lofty and well-\\narched span from ear to ear\u00e2\u0080\u0094a heavy arrear of animal energy behind. The\\njaws were immense. The lips, long and convex, looked as if language would over\u00c2\u00ac\\nflow from them. The eyes shone with calm, stern lustre, under a forehead craggy\\nwith manifold organs, lined with innumerable, long, parallel wrinkles, and from", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0027.jp2"}, "28": {"fulltext": "xvm\\nMEMOIR.\\nwhich a perpetual pallor overspread the whole visage. While he pleaded before\\nthe Bench, there was a natural authority about him, that embarrassed the Chan\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellor on his wool-sack. He lorded it over Mr. Speaker, too, and chained the\\nCommons when he rose. His manner had the same austere energy and studious\\nsimplicity as his language. It was perfectly natural and unaffected the\\nouly peculiarity of his delivery on record is, that as he reached each climax of\\nhis statement, point after point, he would raise his two hands gradually above\\nhis head, and then suddenly swing them down, as though he would drive the\\nargument home with a sledge-hammer. It was a singular gesture, and almost\\nseem si to say quod erat demonstrandum.\\nPlunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s course in British politics illustrated the principles of Btrke, and was\\nidentified with the party of Earl Grenville. He was an Anti-Jacobin Whig.\\nIn 1813, we find him in savage attack upon the Liverpool Cabinet for compromis\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the Catholic Question; but in 1815, he sustains the same cabinet against Earl\\nGrey and the Gallican Whigs, upon the question of renewing the war. The\\nfollowing year, we find him again in violent opposition to the financial measures\\nof the ministry. But when the discontents which ensued upon those very mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsures assumed a revolutionary character, he gave to Lord Castlereagh all the\\nimmense aid of his ability, his independent position, and his forensic fame. His\\nspeech upon the Peterloo massacre had the same result, in opening direct rela\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions between him and the government, that had followed his speech in Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ncase. He saved the cabinet by that one speech,\u00e2\u0080\u0099 said one of the ablest and\\nmost critical of the Whigs.\u00e2\u0080\u009d 1 The Cabinet were more than willing to acknow\u00c2\u00ac\\nledge the obligation\u00e2\u0080\u0094but Plunket was slow to admit an interested adhesion. He\\nwould not even accommodate them with a full report of his Peterloo speech.\\nNevertheless, he was heartily abused as a corrupt deserter by Earl Grey in the\\nHouse of Lords, and by the advanced Reformers in and out of Parliament. There\\nwas now, indeed, an open breach in the ranks of the opposition. The structure of\\nthe Cabinet had also considerably changed. It contained at once the most unre\u00c2\u00ac\\nlenting enemies and the most eminent advocates of Emancipation in the house.\\nIndeed there never was a cabinet in England, not even Chatham\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, which\\nso completely deserved the epithet of a Patch-work Cabinet as that which is\\ncalled Lord Liverpool\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, from the year 1812 to the year 1827, but which in reality\\nconsisted of the same integral elements, for five years before, and for three\\nyears after that statesman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s premiership. It had originally been formed on a\\npledge to the king, never to propose any redress to the Catholic Claims\u00e2\u0080\u0094and\\nconsisted on the one hand of ministers like Perceval and Eldon, who were his\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s particular advisers in this question, and on the other hand, of Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\npeculiar disciples, the young Tory tribunes, Canning and Castlereagh, who ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncepted his design of emancipating the Irish Catholics as a doctrine of imperial\\npolicy. One could not by possibility traverse a wider difference of view upon\\nthis subject, than existed between the minister who kept the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s conscience,\\nand the minister who stood next to the people, between the liberal zeal of\\nPlunket, and the incurable bigotry of Eldon. By its later Irish appointments,\\nthi3 government had adopted a system, which amounted to a precursorship of\\nemancipation. But whenever the question came into the House of Commons,\\nthe opposition could afford to look on, and halloo one set o f his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s minis\u00c2\u00ac\\nters against the other. Imagine such a debate as this! The Irish Attorney-\\nGeneral rises to present the petition of the Catholic Association, and to de-\\nMr. Ovrea-Madyn s Ireland and Its Rulers.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0028.jp2"}, "29": {"fulltext": "MEMlIR.\\nXIX\\ndare that the laws affecting Catholics are an unconstitutional, impolitic, and use\u00c2\u00ac\\nless injustice. The Secretary for the Home Department denounces the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic Association as the greatest peril of the public peace, and the Catholic Claims\\nas incompatible with the system and institutions of the empire. The Secretary\\nfor Foreign Affairs has comedown to the house on crutches, to declare his solemn\\nbelief, that England will forfeit her position in Europe, if she persists in refus\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to do justice to her Irih subjects. The Irish Chief Secretary assures honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable gentlemen, that the Irish people are a rabid and rebellious horde, who\\nwill only swamp the State if admitted. Finally, the minister who carried the\\nUnion, and who has the most profound experience of the policy of the Castle,\\ntakes a last opportunity of assuring the house, before his elevation to the peer\u00c2\u00ac\\nage, that this measure must sooner or later be passed, and the sooner the\\nbetter. What is his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s opposition to do while his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers\\nare at such cross-purposes? The House of Lords with calm contempt listens\\nto this exterior uproar; but Eldon, on his woolsack, that had almost become a\\nsecond throne, now and then shudders with a foreboding terror; hearing afar\\noff the tramp of seven millions of men.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThere i3 no more signal retribution in all history, than that which has followed\\nthe cruel and impious inj ustice of the Irish Penal Laws. Despised and persecuted,\\nthe miserable Celtic Papist pursued the British minister like the monster of\\nFrankenstein, breathing perpetual vengeance, and harassing his policy at every\\npoint. A tithe of the armies that met his generals in Flanders or Spain was re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncruited at the mass houses of Connaught and Munster. It was the arm of the Irish\\nCatholic in the enemy Vuuiform, which covered the retreat of Ramillies and de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncided the victory of Fontenoy. The most dangerous antagonist of the English\\nconquest in India was one of the expatriated, Lally Tollendal. It was a Munster\\nPapist who led the Russian arms to the spot where Sebastopol lately stood. In\\nail the armies and courts of Europe, thi3 outlawed and excommunicated\\nPariah disgraced the policy of England, by his heroic valour, his loyalty in\\nservice, and his capacity in command. At home, meantime, he kept the Ascen\u00c2\u00ac\\ndancy which liad been established over him, in constant terror of a war at once\\nservile, civil, religious, of property, and of the succession. He was by turns a\\nJacobite and a Jacobin. When the Ascendancy took up arms against England,\\ntheir citizen array rested on the unarmed masses, who hated their Irish\\nmasters much, but their English enemy far more. When the Ascendancy refused\\nthe Catholic petition, they revenged the wrong by that passive attitude which al\u00c2\u00ac\\nlowed the Union to be carried. Then they shared the prostration which befel their\\ncountry but although apparently insignificant in the policy of the empire, the\\ndead weight of their pressure mysteriously destroyed its equilibrium. In 1801,\\nin 1807, long before O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell had elevated them into a political power, Pitc\\nand Grenville, the two ablest ministers of the two greatest parties in England, had\\nto abdicate office, because the conscience of a British statesman could no longer\\ntolerate the indefensible injustice of their position. They cowed Wellington\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthey checkmated Peel. The Irish Catholics have wrecked more ministries since\\nthe Union than all other political questions and parties put together. The ok.\\nking, George the Third, had, with a dogged and malignant bigotry devoted ali\\nhis authority to maintain his hostility to their claims; but in the end the task\\nbroke his brain. The Duke of York publicly declared that the Catholic Question\\nhad driven his father mad. The crown at last had to give way before that mon-\\ni trous moral force, filled with such spirit and sulidarite. George the Fourth, with\\nIdars, told the Irish Protestant Bishops that \u00e2\u0080\u009cthey had done their duty\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099in assuring", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0029.jp2"}, "30": {"fulltext": "Xx\\nmemoir.\\nhim be was about to break his coronation oath, \u00e2\u0080\u009cbut what could he do?\\nHe could not command a ministry capable of conducting affairs in the position\\nto which they had come.\u00e2\u0080\u009d To this conclusion it had come at last; and largely\\nowing to Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s endeavours.\\nLord Plunket was, in my opinion, the most powerful and able advocate the\\nCatholics ever had. 1 will say, that he, more than any other man, contributed\\nto the success of the Roman Catholic Question.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Such is the striking testimony\\nof Sir Robert Peel, expressed when an interval of nearly twenty years had cast\\nthe sober hue of history between him and that momentous political crisis.\\nSuch too was the emphatic and authoritative testimony of Canning And\\nit is true testimony. We, Irish Catholics, are wont to regard our extraordinary\\nagitation with its plenary arrogation of the functions of government, its weekly\\nparliament in the Corn Exchange, its exchequer of Catholic rent, its arbitration\\ncourts of justice, its omnipotent tribune, and bis brilliant staff of orators\u00e2\u0080\u0094his\\nskilful application of the administrative mechanism of the church\u00e2\u0080\u0094his masses of\\npassive-obedient or stormy-passionate peasantry\u00e2\u0080\u0094all culminating to thegrand co\u00c2\u00ab/\\nwhich completely clogged the Protestant Constitution at Clare we are too much\\naccustomed to treat these things as the whole of the history of Catholic liberty.\\nBut it had a splendid parliamentary history besides\u00e2\u0080\u0094and to parliament Plunket\\nimpersonated the cause as completely as O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell did to the people fie d more\\nto reconcile the mind of the House to the policy and justice of the Catholic\\nClaims than any other, than all the other advocates of them. His clear, calm,\\nlofty argument reads strangely beside the passionate appeals, the clamorous com\u00c2\u00ac\\nplaints, the taunts and threats of the Catholic Association. The grand grounds\\nof that argument were: I. That the Catholics were not slaves at all; that they\\nwere already practically admitted to the substantial privileges of the Constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, and only denied its honours in such a way as to offend their loyalty without\\nlessening their power. II. That the machinery of exclusion by oath under\\nthe Test and Corporation Acts was immoral, imperfect, and inconsistent in itself,\\nand with all the internal and external polity of England. III. That the true\\nsafety of the Church Establishment consisted in a generous policy, whereas its\\nidentification with the existing system of civil disabilities exposed it to the peri\u00c2\u00ac\\nlous enmity of a whole people. IV. That a system of religious disabilities was\\nalien to the spirit of the British Constitution, and had only been provisionallj\\nattached to the legislation of the empire, under circumstances which had gra-\\ndually expired\u00e2\u0080\u0094sustaining this branch of his argument by a masterly historical\\nstudy of the progress of penal religious legislation from the Reformation to\\nthe Revolution, and the re-actionary tendency towards a total repeal of the pecu\u00c2\u00ac\\nliarly Protestant laws afterwards. V. That the safety of Church and St.it*\\nagainst Popery might in the present fige be amply provided for by accompany\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the grant of civil privileges to the laity with a system of administrative re\u00c2\u00ac\\nlations with the clergy; a concordat\u00e2\u0080\u0094the Veto, the Pension, what the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics called the Wings.\\nThe House had been in the habit of considering Catholic Relief merely as n\\nmeasure of expediency, and even of an immoral and unconstitutional expediency.\\nArguments so different from those which it was in the habit of hearing\u00e2\u0080\u0094argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nments which rested the case of the Catholics upon an indisputably constitutions\\nbasis, created, we may well believe, a profound and original sensation. Plunke\\nhas obtained the whole glory of this unrivalled political pleading. But Plunke\\nperhaps unconsciously had drawn its leading principles and method from tlia\\ngrand depository of political wisdom, the writings of Edmund Burke. Tb", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0030.jp2"}, "31": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nTrncts ami Letters of that master of statesmen on the Catholic Disabilities\u00e2\u0080\u0094.\\nalthough loosely and hastily written, and, like his other Irish political studies,\\nnlinost forgotten in the fame of his labours for the people of India and America,\\nand against the principles of the French Revolution\u00e2\u0080\u0094had long jefore exhausted\\nthe subject, and left only corollaries and deducibles for those who followed in his\\nrear. He \u00e2\u0080\u009cwho saw everything and foresaw everything,\u00e2\u0080\u009d had from the first\\nmoment that his splendid mind surveyed the condition of \u00e2\u0080\u009cthat municipal coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry in which he was proud to have been born,\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 urged that the civil emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the Catholics and the freedom of their Church from the influence of thi\\nstate, were essential principles of imperial policy and Irish government.\\nOn the latter point, the question of the independence of the Catholic Church,\\nBurke stands honourably alone among British statesmen. Upon this point the\\nparliamentary question and the popular agitation moved always aloof, and yet\\nalways approaching to each other. British statesmen and the British Parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment world gladly have conceded civil privileges to the laity at any time,\\nprovided they obtained an influence over the Church. Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s plan contemplated\\nthe reduction of the Irish bishops and clergy to a state of dependence upon the\\ncrown as complete as that of the Established Church and Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s was the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nject of law which his successors always contemplated. Even the liberal Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant body, even l\u00e2\u0080\u0099lunket and Grattan, were anxious, while they conceded\\nfull political rights to the laity to encourage them to what they conceived an\\nindependent use of them by weakening the influence of the clergy. It would\\nseem to have been by a special Providence that legislation upon the question\\nwas so long delayed for had it taken place at any earlier date or under any\\nother ministry, the old national Church of Ireland should inevitably have been\\nthe subject of a department in the Castle Pitt had perfected all his arrange\u00c2\u00ac\\nments with the principal bishops and the leading aristocrats of the Catholic\\nbody. A strong body of the laitv, a strong body of the bishops for many years\\nafterwards eagerly supported the Vito. Immortal honour to Daniel O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell\\nand to the faithful Catholic instinct of the people, who sustained him in repudiat\u00c2\u00ac\\ning any concession that would have brought the taint of a state connection\\nupon the free Church of St. Patrick and St. Laurence! For years of patient\\nhope deferred, of glorious indefatigable effort, they laboured not in vain they\\nhad at last so widened the breach and weakened the enemy, that the final effort\\ncarried the question by storm, and ministers had to surrender Wings and\\nall. The history of these persistent parliamentary approaches is the history of\\nl\u00e2\u0080\u0099lunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s career in the British House of Commons, lie moved with the progress\\nand grew with the growth of the Catholic question. It made his fame as the\\nfirst parliamentary orator of his period. He went into office, with it and Lord\\nWellesley. He went on the English Bench as Sir William Plunket, Master of\\nthe Rolls, when Canning\u00e2\u0080\u0099s premiership denoted another advance in the ministe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrial dispositions to concession. Finally, he went to the House of Lords with the\\ncertainty that it was safe in the Commons, and sat by the Duke of Wellington\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nside, watching every turn of the debate, and not less impressive in that cold and\\nstately atmosphere, than he had been among the knights and bftrgesses of the\\nthree kingdoms.\\nAnd with the enactment of Catholic Emancipation, Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s political\\ncareer maybe said to terminate. His arguments in the Upper House are as\\npowerful, as profound, as well adapted to his audience, as those which for year(\\nhe had addressed to the Commons. But after he came home with that great\\nmeasure of peace and good-will, he seldom reappeared in the political arena", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0031.jp2"}, "32": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nxxii\\nHe did, indeed, once or twice put forth the old lustre and vigour of his mind in\\nthat matchless debate in which, with him, the great law lords, Lyndhurst, and\\nEldon, and Brougham, closed in the lists of Reform. But his speaking, which was\\nfrequent for several years after 1829, was generally upon Irish business, and\\nwas only a superior order of common-place.\\nHis career in office was distinguished by a high-minded fearlessness and im\u00c2\u00ac\\npartiality. He gave the example of a crown prosecutor, who, in the most violent\\ntimes, was never known to pack a jury. If he strained the authority of his\\noffice in the Bottle Riot prosecution, we are bound to remember the position in\\nwhich the first officer of the law was then placed in Ireland. He stood between two\\nfactions, which equally domineered over the law in their respective spheres; and he\\nhad determined to try issue with both. He had to deal with Orange judges, sheriffs,\\njuries, and officials upon the one hand\u00e2\u0080\u0094he had to assail a cause indentified with\\nhis own personal predilections and antecedents upon the other. He failed in both.\\nWhat could he hope to do against the Orange Ascendancy, pleading in a hostile\\ncourt, before a packed jury, with Mr. Solicitor-General, a well-known partizan of\\nthe prisoners at the Bar\u00e2\u0080\u0094and scandalously deserted by ministers when the case\\nafterwards came before the Commons! If ever a man was justified in pushing\\nauthority to the extreme, it was in such a position. We may be sure that he\\nsecretly rejoiced when the counter-prosecutions which he undertook against Sheil\\nand O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell also failed: and may well fancy his feelings realised in Sheil\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\npassionate appeal;\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nWhen Mr. Plunket read the words attributed to Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell, did he ask\\nhimself\u00e2\u0080\u0094What is the provocation given to this man? Who is he, and what\\narn I Who is His Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Attorney-General, the Right Honourable William\\nConyngham Plunket? I know not whether he administered that personal in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterrogatory to himself; but if he did, this should have been the answer. \u00e2\u0080\u0098I\\nraised myself from a comparatively humble station by the force of my own\\ntalents to the first eminence in the state. In my profession I am without an\\nequal. In parliament I had once no superior. When out of office, I kindled\\nthe popular, passion\u00e2\u0080\u0094I was fierce, violent, vituperative; at last 1 have won the\\nobject of my life; I am Attorney-General for Ireland; I possess great wealth,\\ngreat power, great dignity, and great patronage. If I had been a Roman\\nCatholic instead of an enfranchised Presbyterian, what should I have been\\nI can tell him. He would have carried up and down a discontented and re\u00c2\u00ac\\npining spirit;\u00e2\u0080\u0099 he would have felt like a man with large limbs who could not\\nstand erect; his vast faculties would have been cribbed and cabined in; and how\\nwould he haveborne his political humiliation Would he have been tame and\\nabject, servile and sycophantic Look at him, and say, how would that lofty\\nforehead have borne the brand of 4 popery How would that high demeanour\\nhave worn the stoop of the slave No, he would have been the chief demagogue,\\nthe most angry, tumultuous, and virulent tribune of the people\u00e2\u0080\u0094he would have\\nsuperadded the honest gall of his own nature to the bitterness of political resent\u00c2\u00ac\\nment\u00e2\u0080\u0094he would have given utterance to ardent feelings in burning words; and\\nin all the force of passion, he would have gnawed the chain from which he could\\nnot break. And is this the man who prosecutes for words If the tables were\\nturned; if Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell were Attorney-General, and Mr. Plunket were the\\ngreat leader of the people; if Antony were Brutus, and Brutus Antony, how\\nwould the public mind have been inflamed what exciting matter would havj?\\nbeen flung amongst the people? What lava would have been poured forth!*\\n1 The very stones would rise in mutiny.\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Would to Heaven, that not only Me", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0032.jp2"}, "33": {"fulltext": "MEMOIR.\\nXXill\\nPlunket, but every other Protestant that deplores our imprudence in the\\nspirit of a fastidious patronage, would adopt the simple test of nature, and make\\nour case his own, and he would confess that, if similarly situated, he would givo\\nvent to his emotions in phrases as exasperated, and participate in the feelings\\nwhich agitate the disfranchised community to which it would be his misfortune\\nto belong.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099*\\nlie was not a great judge in the opinion of the Four Courts\u00e2\u0080\u0094rather, be it\\nsaid, he was not so great a judge as his former fame had led men to expect he\\nwould prove. But after a position at the Bar, in which his character had toweri d\\nby its moral and intellectual elevation, over a bench filled by much inferior mm,\\nand after the illustrious and powerful station which he had so long occupied in the\\nsenate, it is easy enough to understand tjiat neither the Common Pleas nor tha\\nCourt of Chancery was likely to excite his faculties, or administer a fresh im\u00c2\u00ac\\npulse to his ambition. As he grew old, it began to be observed that he was of\\nan intensely indolent disposition. r lhe three score years and ten allotted to\\nman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s life had almost elapsed ere he reached the woolsack\u00e2\u0080\u0094and, spent in such\\narduous and unremitting exertion, might well have wearied and worn away even\\nthat massive intellect and those athletic energies. In his most vigorous days,\\nindeed, it is said that his best work was the fruit of rapid, ready, and intense\\neffort rather than the result of patient and plodding industry. Old attorneys say\\nthat he was seldom known to note a brief, and that he digested his business as\\nhe drove into town from the beloved shades of Old Connaught. Of the method\\nof his public speaking he told Sheil, who told George Henry Moore (so that the\\ntradition reaches us through a line of orators accomplished in the art) that ho\\nalways carefully prepared to the very syllable the best passages and the best\\nonly of his great speeches, and used these as a kind of rhetorical stepping stones,\\ntrusting to his native fluency and force for sustaining the style. Sheil said,\\nwhat all who ever heard and all who read Plunket will confirm, that so consum\u00c2\u00ac\\nmate was the art with which this was done, one could never discern where the\\nprepared was welded into the extemporaneous. But certain it is believed to be,\\nthat many of his great sentences\u00e2\u0080\u0094that for instance in which he did not say that\\nHistory was no better than an old Almanack\u00e2\u0080\u0094had been carefully constructed\\nand finished ad unguem long before the occasions came upon which they were\\napplied. It is easier to believe this of a style with the corruscating brilliancy of\\nGrattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s than of one with such a stately and sustained rhythm, and out of\\nwhose own innate and vivid vitality, the grand, simple figures seem to flash. Of\\nhis wit,f Parliament seldom saw a specimen but some of the best anecdotes of\\nthe Four Courts are those which record its virile ease and attic finish.\\nHis later life preached two striking political morals. One was reflected from\\nthe passionate nationality of his early life. He had submitted to the Union he\\nhad devoted his mighty talents to the service of the empire he had become a\\nWest Briton to all intents and purposes. But the curse of Swift was on him\\nwithal Being an Irishman, he was used while he was useful, and afterwards\\nflung aside with indignity. When he was appointed Master of the Rolls in Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland by Canning_the first attempt that had been made to place an Irish Bar\u00c2\u00ac\\nrister on the English Bench\u00e2\u0080\u0094the Bar of England rose in rebellion at the outrage\\nto their nationality, and the minister was obliged to cancel the appointment. So\\nSpeech in Catholic Association, 8th January, 1825.\\nt I may be excused for mentioning here, the last witticism of Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s of which ther 9\\nis record. What is the tone of the Nation to day, my lord asked some one in 43. Oh,\\nWolfe Tone, of course,\u00e2\u0080\u009d was hi* answer.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0033.jp2"}, "34": {"fulltext": "XXIV\\nMEMOIR.\\nmuch for the reality of the Union But when in his old age, the Whigs wanted\\nget the Irish woolsack for Sir John (afterwards Lord) Campbell, Lord Plunket\\nwas disgracefully hustled into a reluctant resignation. He had thus lived to ap-\\nr ovo in his own person the prophetic spirit of his earlier days. There was another\\nmoral too in this later life of his\u00e2\u0080\u0094his price. When he did sell himself, it was\\nHi the grand scale of his character. After making, as it was believed, \u00c2\u00a3120,000\\nat the Bar, he took, one after another, the most honourable and productive offices\\ni f his profession, and the British Peerage. He made one son a Bishop, another\\na Chairman of a County, a third Commissioner of Bankrupt*, a fourth Vicar of\\n]*ray\u00e2\u0080\u0094and scattered the spolia opima of Church and State among a clan of\\nhmsmen to the third and the fourth degree.\\nIn private life, among the few to whom he opened his heart, he was greatly\\noeloved always. The affection which Peter Burrowes had for him was womanly\\nin its fondness, and childish in its simplicity. Between him and Bushe, and\\nMagee, and Millar, and the surviving few of his early circle of college friends, to\\nthe last a loyal and generous friendship subsisted. Of them all, he remained\\nalone and the last, and his heart seemed to grow stern and gloomy, and the bright\\nlight of his intellect to fade, as one by one they fell around him, and he remained\\nweathering year after year like an old oak, the last of a forest\u00e2\u0080\u0094and going, as\\nthe stern cynic, to whom he was much alike in many of his moods, said of\\nhimself, going atop.\\nDecay first crept into his frame through the subtle valves of the intellect.\\nFor years before his decease, he had sat in the valley of the shadow of death.\\nMournfully the once giant intellect dwindled away, and his last days were like\\nthose of Swift, Moore, and O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell. In one of the wayward moods of these later\\ndays, he is said to have destroyed all his political papers. He often drove from\\nOld Connaught, along the margin of the bay, towards the city that had once been\\nthe arena of his ambition, and that had proudly hailed every phase of his for\u00c2\u00ac\\ntunes\u00e2\u0080\u0094and a last trait told of him by one bright-eyed girl, who loved the white-\\nhair ec old man eloquent,\u00e2\u0080\u009d is, that he was very gentle with children, and stop\u00c2\u00ac\\nped to speak with them always\u00e2\u0080\u0094a child himself again of the second childhood;\\nlie whose manhood had been of so stately and masculine a mould. At last, on\\nthe 5th of January, 1854, came the merciful release of death, startling rather\\nthan saddening all who heard the news for the name of Plunket had long been\\nirrevocably blended with the past. He sleeps in the Cemetery of Mount Jerome,\\nunder a massive altar-base of granite, beside a walk that leads from the old\\nlawn of John Keogh, and that was familiar many and many a long year ago to\\nthe footsteps of Tone in the gay and brilliant days, when Lawyer Pluukct and\\nhe began the warfare of the worid.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0034.jp2"}, "35": {"fulltext": "THE SELECT SPEECHES\\nOF\\nWILLIAM CONYNGHAM PLUNKET.\\nTHE PRESS.\\nMarch 3 1798\\nThe last of the Irish parliaments assembled on the 9th of January, 1798\\nl\u00e2\u0080\u0099lunket took the oaths and his seat on the 6th of February. It is mentioned\\nin the Journals that having been named on an election committee \u00e2\u0096\u00a0within the\\nfollowing week, he claimed, and obtained exemption in consequence of his recent\\nreturn. His name appears in the Debates for the first time on the 3rd of March,\\nin committee on a bill for amending the act of the 23d and 24th of George\\nHI., for securing the liberty of the press by preventing the abuses arising from\\nthe publication of traitorous, seditious, false, and scandalous libels by persons\\nunknown. 1\\nThe express design of this bill was to suppress the Press newspaper, the or: .an\\nof the United Irishmen. The Press had been started in the autumn of 1797,\\nwith funds supplied by Arthur O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor, and with the aid and inspiration ot\\nAddis Emmett, MacNevin, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and, in fact, the r\\\\ hole\\nDublin directory of the United Irishmen. It was written from the first number\\nto the last with a daring and eloquence unknown in Irish journalism since the\\ndays of the Drapier. It probably furni hed a model for Mr. Mitchels Unit el\\nIrishman. The leader was ordinarily a philippic at the Lord Lieutenant. The\\nmoderates, Grattan and his party, were stigmatised or ridiculed. Every article\\nwas in red ink.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Press would not condescend to report the debates in\\nparliament\u00e2\u0080\u0094even the debates in which its own existence was decided\u00e2\u0080\u0094and\\ntotally ignored that institution, until one morning Major Sirr and his myrmidons\\ninarched into the office, carried off their type cases, and smashed their presses.\\nThe principal writers were Sampson, formerly of the Northern Star O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor,\\nEmmett, Deane Swift, and, it was suspected, Dr. Drennan.\\nU. the course of February, Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell, of Donegal, moved for a committee\\nto examine into the character of certain articles recoil v published and attacked", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0035.jp2"}, "36": {"fulltext": "PLUNK ET S SPEECHES.\\n26\\nthe government for not prosecuting. The articles which lie ju- tpil rather\\nstrong One of them dared Major Sirr to say in their office at Abbey-street\\nwhat he was reported to have said elsewhere of the writers of the Press, and\\npromised him a horsewhipping if he should. Another begged to inform a noble\\npeer that if he should desire to apply more .particularly the general censure he\\nhad lately passed upon the society of United Irishmen, there were gentlemen,\\nnay men of his own rank, to be heard of in Abbey-street, who would be pleased\\nto treat such reflections as personal. The attorney-general (Toler), in reply,\\nstated that there was no lack of inclination to prosecute; but the state of the\\nlaw precluded his proceeding. The statute gave no remedy, unless against the\\nregistered publisher, and that individual had left the country.\\nArthur O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor was at this date the registered publisher. Peter Finnerty\\nwho first filled that dangerous post, had been set in the pillory\u00e2\u0080\u0094on which occa\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion Lord Edward Fitzgerald and Arthur O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor took their places at his side\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094and sent to gaol the previous Christmas. Samuel Neilson, who succeeded\\nhim, was also instantly arrested and prosecuted Then O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor avowed him\u00c2\u00ac\\nself proprietor and editor; but went to England a few days afterwards, and on\\nhis way to France was arrested on the charge of high treason, upon which he\\nwas afterwards tried at Maidstone. Meantime there was no way of instituting\\na prosecution in Ireland. The registered proprietor was the person properly in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndictable, and he was out of the realm.\\nMr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s committee recommended an abominable bill. Besides im\u00c2\u00ac\\nposing the obligation of large securities upon newspaper proprietors, it enabled\\ngrand juries to present newspapers containing seditious or libellous matter as\\nnuisances; and empowered magistrates, upon such presentation, to seize and\\ndestroy the printing materials and suppress the publication of such newspapers.\\nThe opposition to it was quite insignificant, however. Mr. Tighe, of Wicklow,\\nriunket, and his colleague, Francis Dobbs, were the only members who took\\npart in it. They succeeded in diminishing the stringency of particular provi\u00c2\u00ac\\nsions, but not in spoiling the main force of the measure.\\nOn the 3rd of March, the house resolved into committee on the third reading.\\nThe attorney-general moved a clause making it necessary for the publisher of a\\nnewspaper to give securities, to be approved by the authorities, himself in \u00c2\u00a31000\\nand two or three others in the like sum. Mr. Tighe spoke against this clause\\nwith great spirit, on the ground that it would give the minister almost an arbi-\\ntiary power of fixing who should or who should not publish a newspaper. \u00e2\u0080\u0098\u00e2\u0080\u0098At\\n]*reseut,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he continued, the jealousy of government with respect to libels and\\nslanderous publications seemed to be entirely at one side; for though publica-\\ntions of that kind appeared perhaps in all the public prints, yet none but tbo-ie\\nwhose politics were of a certain cast were ever noticed by them: he instanced\\nthe Dublin Journal in which there frequently appeared the most gross and scan\u00c2\u00ac\\ndalous libels on the best and brightest characters of both countries\u00e2\u0080\u0094libels in\\nwhich the first nd most respectable men in the community were falsely, basely,\\nf dishly, and meanly aspersed, for no other reason but because they did not pour\\nfulsome adulation and undeserved praise upon the ministers. This paper was in\\nthe pay of administration, and for aught he knew administration, if they were\\ncapable of writing their thoughts, conveyed them through this foul channel to\\nthe public.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nToler replied, declaring that all the government wanted was securities. Let\\nthe journalist print treason, sedition, or scandal if he pleased, but let him be\\nproperly responsible, amenable, and liable for it. What, he would ask, was\\nvbe satisfaction to that society which might be injured by the promulgation of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0036.jp2"}, "37": {"fulltext": "THE PRESS.\\n27\\nseditions, or to the individuals whose good fame should be blasted by the publi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation of the most foul and unfounded calumnies, if the printers and publishers\\nof such mischievous publications were either men destitute of property or fuga\u00c2\u00ac\\ncious in their persons?\u00e2\u0080\u009d He would be no party to reducing the amount of se\u00c2\u00ac\\ncurity.\\nPlunket followed him:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nFinding from the tendency of every clause in the bill, that it went,\\nnot to restrain the licentiousness of the press, but to restrict its liberty,\\nhe gave his opposition to the whole of it. The bill, he understood,\\nhad originally been called for by a case which had occurred where the\\nprinter of a paper was not responsible. So far as any measure went\\nto provide for that case, and make the printers of newspapers respon\u00c2\u00ac\\nsible for what they published, he would support it. But this bill\\nwent not merely to that point\u00e2\u0080\u0094its great object seemed to be to lay\\nsuch previous restraints on the liberty of publishing as would, in his\\nmind, utterly abolish that liberty.\\nSo far as he had been able to learn in what the liberty of the press\\nconsisted, he had always believed that it consisted in this\u00e2\u0080\u0094that every\\nman should have full liberty to communicate his sentiments to the\\npublic, without any restriction whatever but that if he published\\nanything inconsistent with the peace, good order, or morals of society,\\nor anything tending to injure others in their property, persons, or\\ncharacter, he should be liable to such punishment as the law should\\ninflict for such misconduct. Nor was this merely his private sense\\non the subject; it was corroborated by one of the highest authorities\\nwho had ever written on the laws and constitutions of these coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntries. Speaking of the liberty of the press, that great man said:\\nThe liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free\\nstate; but this liberty consists in laying no previous restraints upon\\npublications.\u00e2\u0080\u009d u Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay\\nwhat sentiments he pleases before the public, and to forbid this is\\nto destroy the freedom of the press.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And to this we may add,\\nthat the only plausible argument heretofore used for restraining the\\njust freedom of the press, that it was necessary to prevent its daily\\nabuse,\u00e2\u0080\u0099 will entirely lose its force when it is shown by a seasonable\\nexertion of the laws that the press cannot be abused to any bad pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose, without incurring a suitable punishment.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Such was the opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnion of Justice Blackstone.\\nDid the present bill, then, lay any previous restraint on publication\\nCertainly it did. What else can it be considered to prevent a man\\nfrom publishing until he gets security to the amount of \u00c2\u00a32000.\\nJustice Blackstone says, every freeman has a right to lay his senti\u00c2\u00ac\\nments before the public. This bill says no man shall lay any senti-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0037.jp2"}, "38": {"fulltext": "28\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nment before the public unless he be worth \u00c2\u00a32000. Was not\\nthis curtailing the liberty of the press 1\\nBut who were the men that were called on to find security\\nfor so large a sum 1 Not certainly a very wealthy class of men,\\nwho could be supposed to be able to find it without inconvenience.\\nThey were printers a business not in the very highest degree\\nof repute, probably not so high as it ought. They were men\\nwho entered into the business of news printing to make a live\u00c2\u00ac\\nlihood, and who generally began with little or no property, and\\nmade a living of it principally by their manual labour. If such\\nmen were called on to give security to the amount of \u00c2\u00a32000 they\\nwould be compelled to resign the business. Even of men worth\\nthat sum, the minister might refuse the securities at his discre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, while the favourite print might be suffered to publish without\\nany security at all. Thus the liberty of the press in Ireland would\\nreceive a vital wound. Every channel of communication with\\nthe great bulk of the people would be shut up, except those\\nwhich government might think proper to keep open to blazon\\ntheir own praise and their own virtues. There would reign\\nthroughout the country a deadly silence, except where the venal\\nvoice of some hireling print might break in upon it by muti\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated and false statements of facts, by misrepresentation of prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples, or by base and servile adulation of its masters\\nWhat was the occasion of introducing a bill thus aiming at\\nthe vital essence of the liberty of the press It was that some\\npublications had appeared aspersing the government, and tend\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to excite disaffection and sedition. Why had not the law\\nofficers of the crown noticed them then, and applied to the law\\nof the land for punishment 1\\n[Here it was said by some gentlemen on the other side of the house that they\\nhad done so.]\\nI believe gentlemen will find themselves mistaken on this\\nsubject. The prosecution which has been instituted against Mr.\\nO\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor is for an offence committed long prior to his becoming\\nthe proprietor of The Press; and though so many complaints\\nhave been made of the publications in that paper, within the\\nlast five or six weeks, I have the best reason\u00e2\u0080\u0099 to believe that no\\nsteps whatsoever have been taken to prosecute him or them.\\nIt will be said he is not in toe kingdom\u00e2\u0080\u0094true but he has\\na ready given security for his appearance to the full amount\\nbribed by this bill, so, that if any argument can be diawu", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0038.jp2"}, "39": {"fulltext": "the press.\\n29\\nfrom the situation of Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connor, that argument must bear\\nagainst the bill, as it appears the government have already the\\nsame hold of him which this bill would give them. And vet\\nthey complain that he evades justice.\\nThe licentiousness of the press has been complained of: I will\\ntell government a better remedy against it than this bill affords\\nthem. Let them act in such a manner as to be above its oblo\u00c2\u00ac\\nquy. Let them restore the constitution. Let them reform the\\nabuses which pollute every department. Let them reform the\\nparliament. Let them mitigate their system of coercion. Let\\nthem conciliate the people. Then may they laugh at the slan\u00c2\u00ac\\nders of a licentious press. They will have a better defence\\nagainst its malice than this unconstitutional measure can afford\\nthem. If they want proof of the efficacy of this remedy, I refer\\nthem to what has occurred on the case of that unfortunate man,\\nWilliam Orr, of which so much has been said. The falsest calum\u00c2\u00ac\\nnies have been thrown on the judges who presided at that trial.\\nDo the public believe those calumnies? Are the names of\\nYelverton or Chamberlaine less loved and revered because they\\nhave been thus calumniated No The shafts of malice have\\nbeen blunted by the virtue, the integrity, the humanity of those\\nlearned and upright men so will they ever fall innoxious from\\nthe seven-fold shield of public and private virtue! Sir, the\\nconstitution of these countries rests on two great pillars\u00e2\u0080\u0094the\\nliberty of the press and the trial by jury. The imperious neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsity of the times (a necessity of which the existence cannot be\\ndenied, but into the causes of which it is not now time to in\u00c2\u00ac\\nquire) has made it necessary to suspend for a time the trial by\\njury. If the liberty of the press is also to be given up, in what\\nsituation will this country be 1 What security any longer re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmains to the people to guard them against the encroachments\\nof power 1 what vestige of constitution or liberty On broad\\nprinciples I oppose this bill altogether\u00e2\u0080\u0094I decline to go into ob\u00c2\u00ac\\njections to particular clauses.\\nThis speech appears to have startled ministers. The chief secretary himself,\\nMr. Pelham, replied. He shirked the broad principles,\u00e2\u0080\u009d canvassed any de\u00c2\u00ac\\ntails to which Plunket had alluded, and ended by advising his right honourable\\nfriend, Mr. Attorney-General, to concede the principal point, the amount of secu\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity. The security was accordingly reduced to \u00c2\u00a3500.\\nA swarm of speakers followed, defending the principle of the bill, wholly on\\naccount of the intolerable audacity of the Press which treated College-green\\nquite as ill as Cork-liill, and either side of the house as if it were no better than\\nthe other. There was no further resistance, and the bill passed.\\nC", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0039.jp2"}, "40": {"fulltext": "30\\nPLUNKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099S SPEECHES.\\nAfterwards, the Press was forcibly stopped. A curious fact may be men\u00c2\u00ac\\ntioned here\u00e2\u0080\u0094that one of the printers in the Press office on that occasion, Mr.\\nT. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Flanagan, was also in the Nation office fifty years afterwards, when the\\nauthorities effected a similar exploit.\\nTHE STATE OF THE NATION.\\nMarch 5, 1798.\\nThe ambition of Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Irish policy was the Union. In more peaceful times he\\nmight, perhaps, have attempted it by raising the Catholic element against the\\nparliament, as he afterwards half reconciled the leading Catholics to the sacrifice\\nof national independence by promising emancipation. But when he found the\\nFrench Republic really determined upon dismembering the British empire by\\nrevolutionising Ireland, it became necessary to precipitate his designs. On the\\none hand, therefore, he utterly destroyed the character and acquired the control\\nof the parliament by the most open and infamous corruption. On the other,\\nhe tried a policy as wicked as Alva\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, to drive the people into a premature rebel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlion. Thus the state at which Ireland had arrived, in 1797, was the most exe\u00c2\u00ac\\ncrable that could be conceived. The patriot opposition, headed by Grattan, had\\ntormally seceded from parliament in disgust with its corruption and slavishness.\\nMartial law was proclaimed throughout the country, and this martial law wat\\nadministered by an army which, in the words of its own general, Sir Raipb\\nAbercrombie, was in such a state of licentiousness, as to render it formidable\\nto every one but the enemy.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nA convulsion was evidently imminent. The Irish Whigs made a last effort\\nafter the meeting of the new parliament to avert it, in which they were aided\\nby Fox and his friends, in the English Commons, and Lord Moira came over\\nexpressly to move conciliation in the Irish House of Lords.\\nHe lost no time, but early in the session attacked the government for the\\npolicy they had during the previous year pursued towards the people. He re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncapitulated the abominable acts of cruelty and torture, flogging, picketing, and\\nsalf-hanging, by which the confession of crimes had, in innumerable instances,\\n^en extorted from persons against whom no legal evidence could be adduced,\\nj.id no reasonable cause even of suspicion\u00e2\u0080\u0094persons who, unless under the momen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntary pressure of excruciating agony, still persisted in the avowal of their inno\u00c2\u00ac\\ncence. He declared his intention, if his statement of facts was denied, to move\\nfor the examination of witnesses at the bar of the house. He admitted the\\nprobable existence of conspiracy in the kingdom: but asked were they on\\na loose charge of partial transgression, to inflict punishment on a whole commu\u00c2\u00ac\\nnity. The state of society was dreadful, indeed, when the safety of every man was\\ntt the mercy of a secret informer; when the cupidity, the malevolence, or the\\nerroneous suspicions of an individual were sufficient to destroy his neighbour.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nHis lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s humane and able speech was concluded by moving an address to\\nthe Lord Lieutenant, praying for conciliatory measures but after a long debate\\nthe motion was, of course, rejected by a large majority.\\nOn the 5th of March Sir Lawrence Parsons introduced a similar motion in\\nthe House of Commons. Parsons was one of the more liberal of the Irish\\naristocrats, who had been bitten in their youth with the political doctrines of the\\nFrench revolution. He was a friend of Tone, and in parliament had always", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0040.jp2"}, "41": {"fulltext": "STATE OF THE NATION.\\n31\\necn an advocate of the most sweeping reform. In the absence of Grattan and\\n.lie old parliamentary opposition, he round himself, for a short time, in the lead\\nof that side of the house, and spoke upon this occasion, as upon several others,\\nwhere pluck and power were called for, with an energetic and vehement elo\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence. The substance of his speech is given in the following passage:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThe distractions of the country were too obvious and too lamentable for him\\nto dwell on its circumstances: but he called upon the house, by the motion\\nwhich he was about to make, to inquire into the causes of that distraction, to\\nexamine into the demands of the people; it was their duty, as representatives\\nof that pcopie, to conciliate that people, by conceding those demands, if they\\nwere just, or convincing them by argument, if they were inadmissible. This\\nwould be adopting a conduct worthy of the representatives ot the people: this\\nwould be better than continuing a system of coercion which had failed, or\\nbranding a whole people as factiously and irreconcileably turbulent.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nIlis motion, seconded by Lord Caulfield (son ot the Earl of Charlemont) wa3\u00e2\u0080\u0094.\\nThat this house do forthwith resolve itself into a committee of the whole\\nhouse, to consider whence the present discontents in this country arise, and what\\nare the most effectual means of allaying the same.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nLord Castlereagh flatly opposed the motion, declaring that the United Irish\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen were not men to be contented or conciliated by any measures of concession\\nshort of a separation from Ireland, and fraternity with the French Republic;\\nthat they were in open rebellion, and therefore only to be met by force; that\\nthe coercive measures of the government had been the consequences, *nbt the\\ncauses of the discontents; and that the excesses charged on the soldiery were\\nnaturally to be expected from this state of things.\\nNo fewer than twenty-nine speakers followed on the government side. The\\nopposition could only command nineteen votes. Dr. Browne, member for the\\ncollege, Tighe, of Wicklow, Newenham, author of the View oj Ireland Hans\\nHamilton, of Dublin county, and a few more, briefly gave their reasons for sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nporting the motion, which was attacked by several of the government members,\\nas an exhibition of disaffection. Plunket also spoke as follows:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nIt is contrary to my original intention, that I rise to say a\\nfew words on this question nor should I have risen at all, but\\nbecause it is made incumbent on every man who intends to vote\\nlor the motion to state his reasons for doing so. Such has been\\nthe obloquy that has been thrown on those who support it.\\nSir, I feel as strongly as any man can the awful situation ol\\nthis country; and I feel as much detestation for the wicked\\ncombination which has brought it into that situation as any\\ngentleman who has spoken this night. If I could more emphati\u00c2\u00ac\\ncally express that detestation than they have done, I would do it.\\nThat situation, however, it is which imposes on the house a pe\u00c2\u00ac\\nculiar and imperious necessity of adopting every fair and hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable measure which may probably lead to lessen or avert the\\ndifficulties which press upon the state; and could I believe that\\nby any sentiment which I shall utter this night those difficul\u00c2\u00ac\\nties or the discontent of the country would be in any degree", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0041.jp2"}, "42": {"fulltext": "32\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches\\naggravated, my lips should be closed. No wish can be farther\\nfrom my heart than to say anything which by possibility may\\nhave such a consequence.\\nIt has been said by an honourable gentleman in the course of\\nthis debate [Mr. Daly], that there exist in Ireland only two\\nparties\u00e2\u0080\u0094those who distrust and those who support the laws.\\nThe state of Ireland is not such as this division insinuates; for\\nif it means anything, it must mean that there are only two par\u00c2\u00ac\\nties in the country, one who support and the other who oppose\\nthe government. I say there are in this country hundreds of\\nthousands who, though they are neither in favour with the ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nministration nor friends to their measures, but, on the contrary,\\ndislike their principles and their system, yet are not with the\\nUnited Irishmen, but entertain a more strong disapprobation of\\nthem and their plots. In the north of Ireland there are num\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers of men who understand the constitution as well as any of\\nthe respectable assembly whom I address\u00e2\u0080\u0094men who not only\\nknow the constitution, but the best interests of this country\\nbetter than any man who hears me, because their understand\u00c2\u00ac\\nings are unsophisticated by that prejudice which I suppose it\\nwill not be denied is the natural result of peculiar situations\\nand peculiar interests. These men are not combined with the\\ntraitors of the society of United Irishmen, and yet these men,\\nhowever well inclined they may be to the British constitution,\\nmay entertain a very strong dislike to government and to their\\nmeasures. If they see seats in this house bought and sold\u00e2\u0080\u0094if\\nthey not only see them bought, but made a retailable commodity\\nin which government traffics\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n[Mr. Plunket was called to order by Mr. Bagwell, who said such language\\nwas unparliamentary, and ought not to be tolerated.]\\nSir, the honourable member quite mistakes my meaning.\\nI am as confident as the right hon. gentleman I address that no\\nseat in this house was ever bought or sold. No member in the\\nhouse knows that this is impossible better than I do. But, sir,\\nsuppose those ignorant and foolish people of the north, of wnom\\nI have been speaking, were told, among many other equally\\nialse and slanderous tales that are every day circulated against\\nour innocent government, and against this most honourable and\\nimmaculate assembly\u00e2\u0080\u0094suppose they were told that seats were\\nreally bought and sold, and suppose they should be foolish\\neiicugh to believe the story, what conclusion must they not", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0042.jp2"}, "43": {"fulltext": "STATE OF THE NATION.\\n33\\ndraw from these premises 1 The learned members of this house\\nwho know what is meant by knowledge of the world\u00e2\u0080\u009d and\\nthe usage of parliament,\u00e2\u0080\u009d probably would call this practice by\\na soft name, but those unpolished people would certainly cab\\nsuch a traffic base. They would, no doubt, say it was a viola\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the constitutional rights of the subject, a shameful de\u00c2\u00ac\\nbauchery of the morality of the nation, a scandalous departure\\nfrom morals, the commencement of a crime among the higher\\nranks, which must soon descend with accelerated velocity to the\\nlower orders, where it will vitiate whatever is sound in then-\\nprinciples, and make loyalty itself venal. If such errors can\\npossibly have crept among any class of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects,\\nwould it not be wise to conciliate such men, and make so many\\nhonest, intelligent men fast friends to the constitution and the\\ngovernment, instead of leaving them to vibrate between loyalty\\nand disaffection\u00e2\u0080\u0094a prize to reward the industry of sedition i\\nWill you freeze that blood which, if you act as you ought, ia\\nready to flow for your state\\nLet me not be told that to agree to a motion of this kind ia\\nto conciliate traitors. Give me leave to tell you, sir, that the\\nUnited Irishmen dread nothing so much as your granting such\\na measure\u00e2\u0080\u0094they tremble lest you should, because if you do you\\ntear off the mask with which they have hitherto covered them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves, and strip them of those pretexts by which they have\\ncrowded their ranks. It is by this mode you must put them\\ndown. The rebellion of the mind, by which you are assaulted,\\nis dreadful, and not to be combated by force. You have tried\\nthat remedy for three years, and the experiment has failed.\\nYou have stopped the mouth of the public by a convention bill\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094have committed the property and liberty of the people to the\\nmagistrate by the insurrection act\u00e2\u0080\u0094you have suspended the\\nHabeas Corpus act\u00e2\u0080\u0094you have had, and you have used a strong\\nmilitary force\u00e2\u0080\u0094as great a force as you could call for and there\\nhas been nothing that could tend to strengthen your hands or\\nenable you to beat down this formidable conspiracy that you\\nhave not been invested with. What effect has your system pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced Discontent and sedition have grown threefold under\\nyour management. What objection, then, can you urge against\\ntrying another mode 1 If on trial it shall not be found to do\\ngood, you are only where you were. If it succeed, you have\\nsecured an inestimable benefit. Do not let me be understood\\naa if I meant to withdraw from the hand c5 government any ol", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0043.jp2"}, "44": {"fulltext": "34\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthe strength which they possess at this moment. No, if more\\nwere wanted I would give it, if the traitors could be put down\\nby it; but while you go with the sword in one hand, I would\\nhave you carry the olive in the other.\\nGentlemen have talked of French principles. These principles\\nhave grown indeed, but it is because they were not resisted by\\nproper means. I wonder not that when assailed by these prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples, the rotten fabric of the French monarchy tumbled into\\natoms nor do I wonder that they carried terror and destruc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion through the despotisms of Europe. But I did hope that\\nwhen the hollow spectre of French democracy approached the\\nmild and chaste dignity of the British constitution, it would\\nhave fled before it. It would have done so had you not de\u00c2\u00ac\\nstroyed the British constitution before it reached us. You op\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed it then with force, and its progress grew upon you. Restore\\nthe constitution, and it will defend you from this monster. Re\u00c2\u00ac\\nform your parliament. Cease to bestow upon the worthless the\\nwealth you extract from the bowels of your people. Let the prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples of that revolution, which you profess to admire, regulate\\nyour conduct, and the horrid shade will melt into air before you.\\nYou complain that French principles have taken hold of\\nUlster. The connexion then must have been forced, for they\\nare not congenial. The people of the North are an industrious,\\nplain, and sensible people. They have acquired property, aiid\\nthey know the worth of it. They have got a religious educa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, and they know the value of it. What have the atheism\\nand frippery of France to do with such a people What volun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntary connection would the religious people of the North have\\nwith the mad wickedness of those who have pulled down God\\nIrom Heaven to establish anarchy upon earth? I warn the\\nminister not to treat this as a mere colonial question it is one\\nin which the interests of the empire are deeply concerned. He\\nhas already passed a bill of indemnity for crimes committed\\nagainst the people. It is now time he should pass one for the\\nnation. I call on him to recollect how severely be will be liable\\nto account to his country and to his own conscience, if he suf\u00c2\u00ac\\nfers this question to be made an instrument to separate the\\ntwo countries.\\nIsaac Cony, afterwards Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Chancellor of the Exchequer, replied,\\nwith a malicious, but clumsy inuendo. To whatever barristers and Presby\u00c2\u00ac\\nterian ministers it applied, it certainly touched neither Plunket nor his father.\\nThe horn gentleman who s^oke last^he said) had stated that there were huu.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0044.jp2"}, "45": {"fulltext": "THE SHEARES CASE.\\n35\\ndrcds and thousands among the industrious and sensible people of the North,\\nwho were intent only on reform, and were not involved in the conspiracy. He\\nwondered where the learned gentleman found those men; he knew some of a\\nlearned profession there who were among the first that engaged in that conspi\u00c2\u00ac\\nracy\u00e2\u0080\u0094he knew others in a sacred profession, who had gone so far as to abuse\\ntheir pulpits for the purpose of treason.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe motion was negatived by 156 to 19,\\nTHE SHEARES CASE.\\nJuly 4, 1798.\\nThe only case in which Plunket appeared during the rebellion was that of the\\nbrothers Sheares, in which he was second to Curran. 1 refer the reader to\\nDavis\u00e2\u0080\u0099s edition of Curran for a graphic sketch of the trial. Plunket opened for\\nHenry Sheares. Half of his speech is an argument on points of law, which 1\\nomit, and as Curran was to follow, he allowed himself little latitude to expa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntiate on the general merits of the case; but the following passage on Armstrong\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nevidence is in his most trenchant style. The evidence against Henry Sheares\\nwas very slight. The only evidence, in fact, was that of Captain Armstrong;\\nand at the interview which took place with that miserable informer,. John\\nSheares, the ablest and boldest of the brothers, was always spokesman. Henry\\nonly listened and assented.\\nA vert few observations remain in point of fact. What I\\nhave hitherto said applies to both the prisoners, so far as respects\\nthe law of the case. But with regard to the facts, I must trouble\\nyou, upon the case of Mr. Henry Sheares, much less indeed\\nthan I would otherwise do, if I was not to be followed by a very\\nable advocate, who will speak to the evidence.\\nWith regard to Mr. Henry Sheares, the evidence against him\\njests upon the testimony of Captain Armstrong alone. As to\\nt he law stated by Mr. Ponsonby, of two witnesses being neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary, I will not give any positive opinion upon it. I do not\\npretend to say whether the statute in England enacted a new\\nlaw, or only declared the old. There are great authorities, who\\nsay it is only a declaratory statute\u00e2\u0080\u0094among others, Lord Coke\\nsays, two witnesses were necessary by the common law. If he\\nbe right, we are entitled to the benefit of the common law, and\\nwill claim it. But I throw that out of the case\u00e2\u0080\u0094not concluded\\nindeed but supposing that, in point of law, the testimony of\\none witness is sufficient to convict, I beg leave to observe upon\\nthe nature of that testimony. What the kind of story it is\\nwhich fell from the lips of the witness\u00e2\u0080\u0094how far it is natural or", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0045.jp2"}, "46": {"fulltext": "36\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nprobable, or entitled to credit, merits your consideration, when\\ncompared with your observance upon life and manners. That\\nso rash and indiscreet a confidence should be reposed in this\\nstripling, without any previous acquaintance of himself, his\\nlife, or manners\u00e2\u0080\u0094without any pledge of secrecy\u00e2\u0080\u0094but rashly\\nand suddenly, as if he had fallen in love with him upon first\\ninterview\u00e2\u0080\u0094is matter for your conjecture. How far it was an\\nhonourable ministry, is for your judgment.\\nIn the case of a common informer, his evidence is weighed\\nwith caution. Every circumstance throwing a doubt upon it is\\nto be attended to. If the testimony exceeds the common rules\\nof life and course of experience, the j ury are cautious in admit\u00c2\u00ac\\nting it. But this is not the case of a common informer. It is\\nnot the case of an accomplice, who repents of his crime. That\\nmight be the fate of an honourable mind. A man may be in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolved in the guilt of conspiring or treason, and retrieve him\u00c2\u00ac\\nself nobly by making an atonement to his country and his God,\\nby a fair and full confession of the crime. But that is not the\\ncase here. This is the case of a man going for the purpose of\\ncreating and producing guilt, that he might make discovery of\\nit. Does it not appear that the conception of the guilt was\\nentertained in the mind, if not fomented by the witness. You\\nare to consider the different motives and movements of the\\nhuman heart, and how wavering dispositions may be taken ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvantage of, and urged on by dexterous persuasion to a conduct\\nwhich the seduced may abhor. You are not now trying whether\\nthe prisoner be a man of strong frame\u00e2\u0080\u0094of firm nerves and\\nmind, capable of resisting allurements of guilt aud temptation\\nto vice. But you are to try whether the evidence has satisfied\\nyou that he has been guilty of treason.\\nSuppose now the evidence to be true would it not shake the\\nmind of an ordinary man, not of the most strong and firm dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nposition, if he saw an officer of the camp making declarations\\nhostile to government\u00e2\u0080\u0094making a sacrifice of his situation, say\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, I will betray the camp which I am appointed to guard\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he goes and persecutes another with his volunteering trea\u00c2\u00ac\\nson, fastens upon him in the streets, follows him abroad, and\\nhaunts him at his house I say, are you surprised at seeing the\\nother listen for a moment to the temptation, when he perceives\\nthat the man whose more immediate duty it is to resist the\\ntreason, has adopted it I say this, supposing for a moment\\nthat the evidence is true: I will show you presently it is not.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0046.jp2"}, "47": {"fulltext": "37\\nTHE SIIEARES CASE.\\nWas it the part of an honest man to seek repeated interviews\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094to follow the other to his house and into the bosom of his\\nfamily, until at last he lodged him in a gaol Did he know\\nthe prisoners before ?\u00e2\u0080\u0094was he acquainted with their lives and\\ncharacters No; but, seized with a sudden zeal of turning in\u00c2\u00ac\\nformer against them, he insinuates himself into their acquain\u00c2\u00ac\\ntance. I can conceive the zeal of an honest mind in the moment\\nof mistaken enthusiasm to be led into an act of vice to save his\\ncountry. I can conceive an exertion of Roman virtue flinging\\nmorals into the gulf as a sacrifice to patriotism. But what a\\nlife must there have been to claim praise for that act of enthu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsiastic ardour There must have been a life of religious feel\u00c2\u00ac\\nings, of continued virtue, and disinterested, honourable views.\\nIn such a case you can, by exerting your imagination, account\\nfor an act of perfidy to save the country. But does this wit\u00c2\u00ac\\nness stand in that point of view No, gentlemen, by his own\\nconfession he is convicted, and we shall show by a crowd of wit\u00c2\u00ac\\nnesses, whose characters are above imputation, that he does not\\nbelieve in the existence of a God, or a future state of rewards and\\npunishments\u00e2\u0080\u0094that he is a notorious republican, and devoid of\\nthe principles of loyalty. Hear his own account. Was he a\\nman of decided loyalty\u00e2\u0080\u0094attached to his king and country 1 No;\\nhe confessed he had been in the habit of reading Paine\u00e2\u0080\u0099s pamphlets\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094his Rights of Man and his A ge of Reason \u00e2\u0080\u0094his creed was founded\\nupon these, and he drinks republicanism as a toast\u00e2\u0080\u0094and this man,\\nthe companion of Byrne, and who had been foolishly democratic,\\nengages in conference with Mr. Sheares, and enters upon the\\nnew office of informer for the good of his country l It is\\nsurprising that between the violence of republicanism and the\\nzeal of an informer for the crown, the mean proportion of vir\u00c2\u00ac\\ntuous patriotism could not be found The friend of Mr.\\nPatrick Byrne\u00e2\u0080\u0094the drinker of republican toasts, suddenly be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncomes a spy for the good of his country You see, gentlemen,\\nthe evidence which has been laid before you. Is there any one\\nfact brought forward, except the naked testimony of this in\u00c2\u00ac\\nformer, to fasten guilt upon Mr. Henry Sheares He has chosen\\nhis time of interview with great discretion no person has been\\npresent at the conversations, but the prisoners, who cannot give\\nevidence for each other. Has the person who introduced them\\nbeen brought forward, or the seijeant of the militia? They are\\nin the power of the crown; or did the counsel for the prosecu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion conceive this witness to be feo immaculate, that he could not", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0047.jp2"}, "48": {"fulltext": "38\\nplcnket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nbe impeached, and not necessary to be supported t Why not\\nproduce Connors He is in the barrack. Why not produce\\nByrne He is in prison. Why not produce Fannan Why\\nnot produce any one to give steadiness to the tottering evidence\\nof this man\\nGentlemen, as to the proclamation which has been commented\\nupon, it is not in the handwriting of the prisoner, Mr. Henry\\nSheares. It was not in his possession he knew nothing of it;\\nhe had an opportunity of destroying it, if he chose, or knew of\\nit. Whatever the effect of it may be, as applying to the other\\nprisoner, I meddle not with it. But I do not think it affects\\nthe other, and most certainly, gentlemen, the court will tell you,\\nthat this evidence is not to weigh a feather upon your minds in\\ndetermining the case of one man, to whom it does not apply,\\nalthough it may be thought to have some relation to another.\\nIt is an unpublished, blotted, and unfinished paper. The mere\\ncircumstance of that blotted paper being found in the house of\\nMr. Henry Sheares, where Mr. John Sheares resorted\u00e2\u0080\u0094not re\u00c2\u00ac\\nceived by Mr. Henry Sheares, not acknowledged by him; on the\\ncontrary, from the evidence you must infer he knew nothing\\nabout it\u00e2\u0080\u0094cannot weigh with you, nor affect his life. Is it\\nproved that Mr. Henry Sheares did any act\u00e2\u0080\u0094corrupted any man\\nor frequented any society, or took any political step, beyond\\nthe mere colouring which Captain Armstrong gives to the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nversation between them And how is that, with regard to\\nMr. Henry Sheares? Did he appear eager to gain proselytes!\\nAt the first interview, Mr. Henry Sheares declined to say any\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing he departed, and did not return that day. Did that\\nbhow an eagerness to gain a proselyte? He deserted Captain\\nArmstrong, is hunted and persecuted by him; he infests the\\nsociety of his wife and children\u00e2\u0080\u0094still no act is done it rests\\niu conversation not a single act done; no men corrupted; no\\nsocieties frequented, arms taken up, or furnished to others; no\\nnet countenancing rebellion, or hostility to the crown.\\nGentlemen, we will prove by a crowd of. witnesses that this\\ngentleman, Mr. Henry Sheares, has been unconnected with and\\nunconcerned in politics, devoted to pursuits of a different nature,\\nto literature, to science, an attention to private affairs; enjoy\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the society of an amiable wife and children, beyond whose\\ncompany he sought no pleasure. You certainly are not to be\\ninfluenced by humanity. But your verdict must bo founded\\nin justice and in truth. You cannot suppose that a man in", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0048.jp2"}, "49": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n59\\npossession of every comfort and enjoyment, with a wife and six\\nchildren, would voluntarily engage in treason; would rashly\\nconfide his life, his fortune, and his family to this stripling of\\nan informer, whom he never before beheld.\\nGentlemen, I have troubled you too long. I now conclude,\\nand with a firm hope, I trust my client to your hands.\\nOn the following morning, the brothers walked hand in hand to the gibbet\\nTHE UNION.\\nDecember 9, 1798.\\nThe rebellion had been completely crashed. Its leaders had been exiled\\nor executed The last French expedition had failed. The insurgents had all\\nsurrendered, save a few outlying rapparees in the Wicklow mountains. The\\ncountry lay palpitating under a reign of terror as suspicious and remorseless as\\nRobespierre\u00e2\u0080\u0099s. So the time had come to moot the Union. So strong, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never, was the feeling against annexation to England, that the first rumour which\\nappeared upon the subject in the newspaper press Evening Post Oct. 13, 1798)\\nwas couched in the following daring terms:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009cThe public ear has been filled\\nfor three days past with the report of a meditated Union; but, although we\\ncannot wholly pass unnoticed a subject so much engaging the public attention,\\nyet we do not deem ourselves authorised to treat it as an admitted fact; or by a\\nbase and coward compliance to the times, or an honest and dangerous expression\\nof resentment, seem for a moment to accredit what, according to the established\\nlaws and constitution of this kingdom, must be high treason in the person who\\nshould propose it.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe rumour grew, however. Soon appeared the Castle pamphlet, Argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nments for and against an Union,\u00e2\u0080\u009d written by the Under-Secretary Cooke.\\nIIushe replied in the witty brochure, \u00e2\u0080\u009cCease your funning.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Thenceforth the\\npress teemed with pamphlets. Above a hundred remain on library shelves, the\\nrelics of that momentous controversy.\\nThe first meeting of any national importance was that of the Irish bar, called\\nby requisition which fourteen of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s counsel signed. Saurin opened an\\nanimated debate by moving, That the measure of a legislative Union of this\\nkingdom and Great Britain is an innovation, which it would be highly dangerous\\nand improper to propose at the present juncture in this country.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Mr. St. George\\nDaly moved an adjournment. In the course of the debate,\\nMr. Plunket urged the extreme danger and impropriety of agi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntating the question of Union at such a time as the present. Should\\nthe administration however propose a Union now, he had no doubt\\nbut it would be carried. Fear, animosity, a want of time to consider\\ncoolly its consequences, and forty thousand British troops in Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, would carry the measure. But, in a little time the people\\nwould awaken as from a dream, and what consequences would", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0049.jp2"}, "50": {"fulltext": "40\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nthen follow, he trembled to think. For himself, he declared that he\\nopposed an union, principally because he was convinced it would\\naccelerate a total separation of the two countries. He dissuaded\\nthe meeting from adopting the motion of adjournment, because\\nit would give a handle for further misrepresentation to those\\nlibellers who had already dared to misrepresent the motives and\\nconduct of the bar. It would give them an opportunity to say\\nthat the adjournment of the question argued the sense of the\\nbar to be for a Union. Those audacious libellers had already\\nventured to misrepresent, in a public print, the meeting of the\\nbar as a military body on Friday last. He could not believe the\\ninsolent libeller was one of the body. But some person, within\\nor without, had taken occasion in ten minutes after that meet\u00c2\u00ac\\ning was held to carry to the Castle the falsehood, that the meet\u00c2\u00ac\\ning broke up because the good sense of the bar thought it not\\nright in them to agitate in any manner the question of an\\nUnion.\\nThe original resolution was carried by 166 votes to 32. Of these 32, every\\nman was afterwards promoted at the expense of tws seniors and superiors in the\\nprofession. St. George Daly, of whom it was said that his first brief was the\\nUnion, was immediately appointed to the prime sergeantcy (then the highest law\\noffice in Ireland), from which Mr. Fitzgerald was dismissed for his hostility to the\\nmeasure. He and seven of his supporters were subsequently made judges\u00e2\u0080\u0094fifteen\\nassistant-barristers, and the other ten appointed to valuable commissionerships\\nor legal offices.\\nTHE UNION.\\nJanuary 22, 1799.\\nThf. first of the Union debates occurred upon the occasion of the Viceroy s\\nspeech in opening the session of 1799. During the previous six weeks, the\\ncountry had been full of agitation and anxiety, the Castle busy with intrigue\\nand corruption. After the bar meeting, the City of Dublin, the University,\\nthe freeholders of Galway, Westmeath, Louth, and Dublin counties declared\\nagainst the Union. The opposition began to concert their tactique, the govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment to purchase every vote they could, and to intimidate where they could not\\nhope to buy. The prime sergeant, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the chancellor of the\\nexchequer, Sir John Parnell, the most respectable members of the Irish admi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnistration, were dismissed on avowing themselves anti-Unionists, and threats of\\ndischarge were held over all office-holders who should dare to oppose the govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment.\\nIn the following passage of his speech, Lord Cornwallis raised the question\\nbefore parliament", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0050.jp2"}, "51": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n1\\nM The more I have reflected on the situation and circumstances of thi*\\nkingdom, considering on the one hand the strength and stability of Great Bri\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain, and on the other, these divisions which have shaken Ireland to its founda\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, the more anxious I am for some permanent adjustment which may ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ntend the advantages enjoyed by our sister kingdom to every part of the island.\\nThe unremitting industry with which our enemies persevere in their avowed ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nject of endeavouring to effect a separation of this kingdom from Great Britain\\nmust have engaged your particular attention, and his majesty commands me to\\nexpress his anxious hope that this consideration, joined to the sentiment of mu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntual affection and common interest, may dispose the parliaments in both king\u00c2\u00ac\\ndoms to provide the most effectual means of maintaining and improving a con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexion essential to their common security and of consolidating, as far as possi\u00c2\u00ac\\nble, into one firm and lasting fabric, the strength, the powers, and the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nsources of the British empire n\\nA most animated and protracted debate followed, continuing for twenty-two\\nhours, from 1 o\u00e2\u0080\u0099clock on the 22nd to 11 o\u00e2\u0080\u0099clock on the 23rd.\\nSir John Parnell opened the opposition in a vigorous and statesmanlike argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. He was followed by Mr. Tighe, who, on objecting to concur in the\\naddress as a Unionist document, was assured by Lord Castlereagh that an\\nacquiescence in the address did not at all involve an approbation of legislative\\nUnion. It only premised that the house would. deliberate on the best means of\\nimproving the connexion. George Ponsonbv spoke next, the leading speech of\\nthe anti-unionists, and ended a trenchant attack upon the measure and the\\nministry by moving as an amendment, that the house would maintain the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution of 1782. Sir Lawrence Parsons, Mr. F. Falkiner, Lord Clements, Mr.\\nl itzgerald (late prime sergeant), Colonel Vereker, Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Hara, Mr. Lee, Mr.\\nOrookshank, Colonel Maxwell, and Colonel Archdall followed in support of the\\namendment, in speeches that, as the debate tolled deep into the night, seemed to\\nrise with every speaker and every sentence into bolder and loftier peals of elo\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence. In a speech of a few sentences, Colonel Archdall declared that nothing\\ncould induce him, or, as he believed, any man in the north-west of Ireland, to\\nvote for so infamous a measure. Mr. Jonah Barrington followed. The only\\nspeakers upon the government side to this stage of the debate had been St-\\nGeorge Daly, Sir Boyle Roche, and the Knight of Kerry; and none of them\\nhad dared to treat the opposition offensively or to openly avow the design of\\ngovernment. Castlereagh, who had occupied himself during the debate with\\ncompleting the purchase of some of his doubtful votes, appears at this stage\\nto have perceived that it was necessary to stop the victorious career of the\\nopposition, and accordingly, Avlien Barrington stated that corrupt and uncon\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitutional means had been used by the government to carry the measure, he\\nat once changed his course, assumed the insolent and defiant tone which he pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nserved through the subsequent debates called Barrington to order, and threatened\\nto have his words taken down. On the instant Plunket addressed the Speaker,\\nreiterated Barrington\u00e2\u0080\u0099s words as expressing his opinions also, and said that if the\\nnoble lord was in a humour of taking down words he would give him an opportu\u00c2\u00ac\\nnity, as it was his intention before the debate closed to use the same language and\\nstronger. On this, Castlereagh did not press the question, and Barrington con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinued his speech in the same tone. He was followed by Francis Dobbs, George\\nKnox, Sir J. Freke, and Hans Hamilton against, and by Sir J. Blaquiere for the\\nJnion.\\nAt last Castlereagh rose, and said that he trusted no man would decide on\\ni measure of such importance as that in part before the house, on private or", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0051.jp2"}, "52": {"fulltext": "i2\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\npersonal motives; for it a decision were thus to be influenced, ft would be the\\nmost unfortunate that could ever affect the country. What was the object of\\nthis measure but such as every loyal man, who really loved his country, must\\nfeel the strongest attachment to. By an incorporation of our legislature with\\nthat of Great Britain, it would not only consolidate the strength and glory of\\nthe empire, but it would change our internal and local government to a system\\not strength and calm security, instead of being a garrison in the island. Here\\nwas but a part of many and numerous advantages, which the stage of the business\\ndid not then render necessary to be entered into, and which would come more\\nsuitably at a future period. As to the argument of the parliament\u00e2\u0080\u0099s incompe\u00c2\u00ac\\ntence to entertain the question, he did not expect to hear such an argument from\\nconstitutional lawyers, or to hear advanced the position, that a legislature was\\nnot at all times competent to do that foi which it could only have been instituted\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094the adoption of the best means to promote the general happiness and prospe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity. After the pielancholy state to which this country had been reduced, his\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s minister^ would feel that they abdicated their duty to the empire, if\\nthey did not seriously consider that state, and adopt the best remedy for the evils\\nwhich it comprised. It was the misfortune of this country to have in it no fixed\\nprinciples on which the human mind could rest\u00e2\u0080\u0094no one standard to which the\\ndifferent prejudices of the country could be accommodated. What was the price\\nof connection at present with Great Britain A military establishment far be\u00c2\u00ac\\nyond our natural means to support, and for which we are indebted to Great\\nBritain, who is also obliged to guarantee our public loans. It is not by flattery\\nthat the country could be saved\u00e2\u0080\u0094truths, however disagreeable, must be told\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nand if Ireland did not boldly look her situation in the face and accept that Union\\nwhich would strengthen and secure her, she would perhaps have no alternative\\nbut to sink into the embrace o; French fraternity. You talk, said his lordship,\\nof national pride and independence, but where is the solidity of this boast You\\nhave not the British constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor can you have it consistently with your\\npresent species of connection with Great Britain: that constitution does not\\nrecognise two separate and independent legislatures under one crown\u00e2\u0080\u0094the greater\\ncountry mus. lead\u00e2\u0080\u0094the lesser naturally follow, and must be practically subordi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnate in imperial concerns; but this necessary and beneficial operation of the\\ngeneral will must be preceded by establishing one common interest.\\nAs the pride of this country advances with her wealth, it may happen that\\nyou will not join Great Britain in her wars\u00e2\u0080\u0094it is only a common polity that\\nwill make that certain. Incorporate with Great Britain, and you have a common\\ninterest and common means. If Great Britain calls for your subjection, resist\\nit; but if she wishes to unite with you on terms of equality, \u00e2\u0080\u0099tis madness not\\nto accent the offer.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nPlunket, who had apparently been waiting for an opportunity of reply to the\\nSecretary, followed in a speech of which Sir Jonah Barrington speaks in terms\\nthat are hardly an exaggeration;\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nAt length Mr. Plunket arose, and in the ablest speech ever heard by any\\nmember in that parliament, went at once to the grand and decisive point, the\\nincompetence of parliament: he could go no further on principle than Mr. Pon-\\nsonby, but his language was irresistible, and he left nothing to be urged. It\\nwas perfect in eloquence, and unanswerable in reasoning. Its effect was inde\u00c2\u00ac\\nscribable and Lord Castlereagh, whom he personally assailed, seemed to shrink\\nfrom the encounter. That speech was of great weight, and it proved the elo\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence, the sincerity, and the fortitude of the speaker.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nJ udging from the length of the preceding debate, this speech must have been\\nspoken after daybreak on the morning of the 23rd.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0052.jp2"}, "53": {"fulltext": "YHK UNION.\\n43\\nSin, I shall make no apology for troubling you at this late hour, ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nhausted though I am, in mind and body, and suffering, though you\\nmust be, under a similar pressure. This is a subject which must\\narouse the slumbering, and might almost reanimate the dead. It is\\na question whether Ireland shall cease to be free. It is a question in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolving our dearest interests and for ever.\\nSir, I congratulate the house on the manly temper with which this\\nmeasure has been discussed: I congratulate them on the victory,\\nwhidi I already see they have obtained; a victory which I antici\u00c2\u00ac\\npate from the bold and generous sentiments which have been ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressed on this side of the house, and which I see confirmed in the\\ndoleful and discomfited visages of the miserable group whom I see\\nbefore me. Sir, I congratulate you on the candid avowal of the\\nnoble lord who has just sat down. He has exposed this project in\\nits naked hideousness and deformity. He has told us that the ne\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessity of sacrificing our independence flows from the nature of our\\nconnexion. It is now avowed that this measure does not flow from\\nany temporary cause; that it is not produced in consequence of any\\nlate rebellion, or accidental disturbance in the country; that its necessity\\ndoes not arise from the danger of modern political innovations, or from\\nrecent attempts of wicked men to separate this country from Great\\nBritain. No; we are now informed by the noble lord, that the condition\\nof our slavery is engrafted on the principle of our connexion, and that\\nby the decrees of fate, Ireland has been doomed a dependant colonj,\\nfrom her cradle.\\nI trust that after this barefaced avowal there can be little differ\u00c2\u00ac\\nence of opinion. I trust that every honest man who regards the free\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom of Ireland, or who regards the connexion with England, will, by\\nhis vote on this night, refute this unfounded and seditious doctrine.\\nGood God, sir, have I borne arms to crush the wretches who propa\u00c2\u00ac\\ngated the false and wicked creed, that British connexion was hos\u00c2\u00ac\\ntile to Irish freedom,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and am I now bound to combat it, coming\\nfrom the lips of the noble lord who is at the head of our administra\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion.\\nBut, sir, in answer to the assertion of the noble lord, I will quote\\nthe authority of the Duke of Portland, in his speech from the throne,\\nat the end of the session, 1782, that the two kingdoms are now\\none, indissoluble, connected by unity of constitution and unity of\\ninterest, thafr the danger and security, the prosperity and calamity of\\nJhe one must mutually affect the other; that they stand and fall to\u00c2\u00ac\\ngether.\u00e2\u0080\u009d I will quote the authority of the king, lords, and com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons of Ireland, who asserted and established the constitution of o", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0053.jp2"}, "54": {"fulltext": "u\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nindependent parliament founded on that connexion; and the authority\\nof the king, lords, and commons of Great Britain, who adopted and\\nconfirmed it. With as little prospect of persuasion has the noble\\nlord cited to us the example of Scotland; and as little am I tempted\\nto purchase, at the expense of two bloody rebellions, a state of\\npoverty and vassalage, at which Ireland, at her worst state, before\\nshe attained a free trade or a free constitution, would have spurned.\\nBut, sir, the noble lord does not seem to repose very implicit con\u00c2\u00ac\\nfidence in his own arguments, and he amuses you by saying, that in\\nadopting this address you do not pledge yourselves to a support of\\nthe measure in any future stage. Beware of this delusion. If you\\nadopt this aculress, you sacrifice your constitution. You concede the\\nprinciple, and any future inquiries can only be as to the terms. Foi\\nthem you need entertain no solicitude, on the terms you can never\\ndisagree. Give up your independence, and Great Britain will grant\\nyou whatever terms you desire. Give her the key, and she will con\u00c2\u00ac\\nfide everything to its protection. There are no advantages you can\\nask which she will not grant, exactly for the same reason that the\\nunprincipled spendthrift will subscribe, without reading it, the bond\\nwhich he has no intention of ever discharging. I say, therefore, that\\nif you ever mean to make a stand for the liberties of Ireland, now,\\nand now only, is the moment for doing it.\\nBut, sir, the freedom of discussion which has taken place on this\\nside of the house has, it seems, given great offence to gentlemen on\\nthe treasury bench. They are men of nice and punctilious honour,\\nand they will not endure that anything should be said which implies\\na reflection on their untainted and virgin integrity. They threatened\\nto take down the words of an honourable gentleman who spoke before\\nme, because they conveyed an insinuation; and I promised them on\\nthat occasion, that if the fancy for taking down words continued, I\\nwould indulge them in it to the top of their bent. Sir, I am deter\u00c2\u00ac\\nmined to keep my word with them, and I now will not insinuate, but\\nI will directly assert, that base and wicked as is the object proposed,\\nthe means used to effect it have been more flagitious and abominable.\\nDo ou choose to take down my words Do you dare me to the\\nproof?\\nSir, I had been induced to think that we had at the head of the\\nexecutive government of this country a plain, honest soldier, unac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncustomed to, and disdaining the intrigues of politics, and who, as an\\nadditional evidence of the directness and purity of his views, had\\nchosen for his secretary a simple and modest youth, puer ingenux\\nvuUus ingenuigue pudoris whose inexperience was the voucher ot", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0054.jp2"}, "55": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n45\\nhis innocence; and yet I will be bold to say, that dining the vice\u00c2\u00ac\\nroyalty of this unspotted veteran, and during the administration of\\nthis unassuming stripling\u00e2\u0080\u0094within these last six weeks, a system oi\\nblack corruption has been carried on within the walls of the castle\\nwhich would disgrace the annals of the worst period of the kistc~y\\nof either country.\\nDo you choose to take down my words\\nI need call no witness to your bar to prove them. I see two right\\nhonourable gentlemen sitting within your walls, who had long and\\nfaithfully served the crown, and who have been dismissed, because\\nthey dared to express a sentiment in favour of the freedom of their\\ncountry. I see another honourable gentleman, who has been forced\\nto resign his place as commissioner of the revenue because he ref used\\nto co-operate in this dirty job of a dirty administration.\\nDo you dare to deny this\\nI say that at this moment the threat of dismissal from office i 3\\nsuspended over the heads of the members who now sit around me,\\nin order to influence their votes on the question of this night, involv\u00c2\u00ac\\ning everything that can be sacred or dear to man.\\nDo you desire to take down my words? Utter the desire, and I\\nwill prove the truth of them at your bar.\\nSir, I would warn you against the consequences of carrying this\\nmeasure by such means as this, but that I see the necessary defeat\\nof it in the honest and universal indignation which the adoption of\\nsuch means excites. I see the protection against the wickedness of\\nthe plan in the imbecility of its execution and I congratulate my\\ncountry, that when a design was formed against her liberties, the\\nprosecution of it was intrusted to such hands as it is now placed\\nin.\\nThe example of the prime minister of England, imitable in its\\nvices, may deceive the noble lord. The minister of England has his\\nfaults. He abandoned in his latter years the principle of reform, by\\nprofessing which he had attained the early confidence of the people\\nof England, and in the whole of his political conduct he has shown\\nhimself haughty and intractable; but it must be admitted that he\\nis endowed by nature with a towering and trauscendent intellect, and\\nthat the vastness of his resources keeps pace with the magnificence\\nand unboundedness of his projects. I thank God, that it is much\\nmore easy for him to transfer his apostacy and his insolence than his\\ncomprehension and his sagacity; and I feel the safety of my country\\nin the wretched feebleness of her enemy. I cannot fear that the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution which has been founded by *he wisdom of sages, and cemen-\\nD", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0055.jp2"}, "56": {"fulltext": "PLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\n46\\nted by the blood of patriots and of heroes, is to be smitten to its\\ncentre by such a green and sapless twig as this.\\nSir, the noble lord has shown much surprise that he should hear\\na doubt expressed concerning the competence of parliament to do\\nthis act. I am sorry that I also must contribute to increase the\\nsurprise of the noble lord. If I mistake not, his surprise will be much\\naugmented before this question shall be disposed of; he shall see and\\nhear what he has never before seen or heard, and be made acquainted\\nwith sentiments to which, probably, his heart has been a stranger.\\nSir, I, in the most express terms, deny the competency of parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment to do this act. I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on\\nthe constitution. I tell you, that if, circumstanced as you are, you\\npass this act, it will be a nullity, and that no man in Ireland will be\\nbound to obey it. I make the assertion deliberately\u00e2\u0080\u0094I repeat it,\\nand I call on any man who hears me to take down my words. You\\nhave not been elected for this purpose. You are appointed to make\\nlaws, and not legislatures. You are appointed to act under the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution, not to alter it. You are appointed to exercise the func\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions of legislators, and not to transfer them. And if you do so your\\nact is a dissolution ot the government. You resolve society into its\\noriginal elements, and no man in the land is bound to obey you.\\nSir, I state doctrines which are not merely founded in the immutable\\nlaws ot justice and of truth. I state not merely the opinions of the\\nablest men who have written on the science of government, but I\\nstate the practice oi our constitution as settled at the era of the revo\u00c2\u00ac\\nlution, and I state the doctrine uuder which the house of Hanover\\nderives its title to the throne. Has the king a right to transfer his\\ncrowm Is he competent to annex it to the crown of Spain or any\\nother country No\u00e2\u0080\u0094but he may abdicate it and every man who\\nknows the constitution knows the consequence, the right reverts\\nto the next in succession\u00e2\u0080\u0094if they all abdicate, it reverts to the\\npeople. The man who questions this doctrine, in the same breath\\nmust arraign the sovereign on the throne as an usurper. Are you\\ncompetent to transfer your legislative rights to the French council ot\\nfive hundred Are you competent to transfer them to the British\\nparliament? I answer, no. When you transfer you abdicate, and\\nthe great original trust reverts to the people from whom it issued.\\nYourselves you may extinguish, but parliament you cannot extinguish\\nIt is enthroned in the hearts of the people. It is enshrined in tht\\nsanctuary of the constitution. It is immortal as the island wdiich it\\nprotects. As well might the frantic suicide hope that the act which\\ndestroys his miserable body should extinguish his eternal soul. Again,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0056.jp2"}, "57": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n47\\nI therefore warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on tne constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion it is above your power.\\nSir, I do not say that the parliament and the people, by mutual con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent and co-operation, may not change the form of the constitution.\\nWhenever such a case arises it must be decided on its own merits_\\nbut that is not this case. If government considers this a season pecu\u00c2\u00ac\\nliarly fitted tor experiments on the constitution, they may call on the\\npeople. I ask you are you ready to do so Are you ready to abide\\nthe event of such an appeal What is it you must, in that event,\\nsubmit to the people Not this particular project; for if you dissolve\\nthe present form of government, they become free to choose any other\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094you fling them to the fury of the tempest\u00e2\u0080\u0094you must call on them\\nto unhouse themselves of the established constitution, and to fashion\\nto themselves another. I ask again, is this the time for an experi\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of that nature Thank God, the people have manitested no\\nsuch wish\u00e2\u0080\u0094so far as they have spoken, their voice is decidedly against\\nthis daring innovation. You kuow that no voice has been uttered\\nin its favour, and you cannot be infatuated enough to take confidence\\nfrom the silence which prevails in some parts of the kingdom if you\\nknow how to appreciate that silence, it is more formidable than the\\nmost clamorous opposition\u00e2\u0080\u0094you may be rived and shivered by the\\nlightning before you hear the peal of the thunder\\nBut, sir, we are told that we should discuss this question with\\ncalmness and composure. I am called on to surrender my birth-right\\nand my honour, and I am told I should be calm and should be com\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed. National pride! Independence of our country! These, we\\nare tv. .d by the minister, are only vulgar topics fitted for the meridian\\nof the mob, but unworthy to be mentioned to such an enlightened\\nassembly as this; they are trinkets and gewgaws fit to catch the\\nfancy of childish and unthinking people like you, sir, or like your\\npredecessor in that chair, but utterly unworthy the consideration of\\nthis house, or of the matured understanding of the noble lord who\\ncondescends to instruct it! Gracious God! We see a Pery re-ascend\u00c2\u00ac\\ning from the tomb, and raising his awful voice to warn us against\\nthe surrender of our freedom, and we see that the proud and virtuous\\nfeelings which warmed the breast of that aged and venerable man are\\nonly calculated to excite the contempt of this young philosopher, who\\nhas been transplanted from the nursery to the cabinet to outrage the\\nfeelings and understanding of the country.\\nBut, sir, I will be schooled, and I will endeavour to argue this ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion as calmly and frigidly as I am desired to do; and since we are\\ntold that this is a measure intended for our benefit, and that it is", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0057.jp2"}, "58": {"fulltext": "48\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthrough mere kindness to us that all these extraordinary means have\\nbeen resorted to, I will beg to ask, how are we to be benefited Is\\nit commercial benefit that we are to obtain I will not detain the\\nhouse with a minute detail on this part of the subject. It has been\\nfully discussed by able men, and it is well known that we are already\\npossessed of everything material which could be desired in that re\u00c2\u00ac\\nspect. But I shall submit some obvious considerations.\\nI waive the consideration, that under any union of legislatures the\\nconditions as to trade between the two countries must be, either\\nfree ports, which would be ruinous to Ireland; or equal duties, which\\nwould be ruinous to Ireland; or the present duties made perpetual,\\nwhich would be ruinous to Ireland; or that the duties must be left\\nopen to regulation from time to time by the united parliament, which\\nwould leave us at the mercy of Great Britain. I will waive the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsideration, that the minister has not thought fit to tell us what wo\\nare to get, and, what is still stronger, that no man amongst us has\\nany definite idea of what we are to ask and I will content myself\\nwith asking this question\u00e2\u0080\u0094is your commerce in such a declining, des\u00c2\u00ac\\nperate state, that you are obliged to resort to irrevocable measures in\\norder to retract it Or is it at the very moment when it is advanc\u00c2\u00ac\\ning with rapid prosperity, beyond all example and above all hope\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nis it, I say, at such a time that you think it wise to bring your con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution to market, and offer it to sale, in order to obtain advantages,\\nthe aid of which you do not require, and of the nature of which you\\nhave not any definite idea.\\nA word more, and 1 have done as to commerce. Supposing great\\nadvantages were to be obtained, and that they were specified and\\nstipulated for what is your security that the stipulation will be ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nserved Is it the faith of treaties What treaty more solemn than\\nthe final constitutional treaty between the two kingdoms in 1782,\\nwhich you are now called on to violate Is it not a mockery to say\\nthat the parliament of Ireland is competent to annul itself, and to\\ndestroy the original compact with the people and the final compact of\\n1782, and that the parliament of the empire will not be competent\\nto annul any commercial regulation of the articles of Union And here,\\nsir, I take leave of this part of the question indeed, it is only justice\\nto government to acknowledge that they do not much rely on the\\ncommercial benefits to be obtained by the Union\u00e2\u0080\u0094they have been\\nrather held out in the way of innocent artifice, to delude the people\\nfor their own good; but the real objects are different, though still\\nmerely for the advantage of Ireland.\\nWhat are those other objects To prevent the recurrence of re-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0058.jp2"}, "59": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n40\\nbullion, and to put an end to domestic dissensions Give me leave\\nto ask, sir, how was the rebellion excited I will not inquire into\\nits remote causes; I do not wish to revive unpleasant recollections, or\\nto say anything which might be considered as invidious to the govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of the country but how was it immediately excited By the\\nagency of a party of levellers actuated by French principles, insti-\\ngited by French intrigues, and supported by the promise of French\\nco-operation. This party, I hesitate not to say, was in itself con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntemptible. How did it become formidable By operating on the\\nwealthy, well-informed, and moral inhabitants of the north, and per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsuading them that they had no constitution and by instilling palata\u00c2\u00ac\\nble poisons into the minds of the rabble of the south; which were\\nprepared to receive them by being in a state of utter ignorance and\\nwretchedness. How will an Union effect those pre-disponent causes\\nWill you conciliate the mind of the northern by caricaturing all the\\ndefects of the constitution, and then extinguishing it, by draining his\\nwealth to supply the contributions levied by an imperial parliament,\\nand by outraging all his religious and moral feelings by the means\\nwhich you use to accomplish this abominable project; and will you\\nnot, by encouraging the drain of absentees, and taking away the in\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluence and example of resident gentlemen, do everything in your\\npov\\\\er to aggravate the poverty, and to sublimate the ignorance and\\nbigotry of the south\\nLet me ask again, how was the rebellion put down By the zeal\\nand loyalty of the gentlemen of Ireland rallying round\u00e2\u0080\u0094what a reed\\nshaken by the winds a wretched apology for a minister, who neither\\nknew how to give nor where to seek protection No! but round\\nthe laws and constitution and independence of the country. What\\nwere the affections and motives that called us into action To pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntect our families, our properties, and our liberties. What were the\\nantipathies by which we were excited Our abhorrence of French\\nprinciples and French ambition. What was it to us that France was\\na republic I rather rejoiced when I saw the ancient despotism ot\\nFrance put down. What was it to us that she dethroned her mon\u00c2\u00ac\\narch I admired the virtues and wept for the sufferings of the man\\nbut as a nation it affected us not. The reason I took up arms, and\\nam ready still to bear them against France, is because she intruded\\nherself upon our domestic concerns\u00e2\u0080\u0094because with the rights of man\\nand the love of freedom on her tongue, I see that she has the lust of\\ndominion in her heart\u00e2\u0080\u0094because wherever she has placed her foot, she\\nhas erected her throne; and to be her friend or her ally is to be her tri\u00c2\u00ac\\nbutary or her slave.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0059.jp2"}, "60": {"fulltext": "50\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nLet me ask, is the present conduct of the British minister calculated\\nto augment or to transfer that antipathy No, sir, I will be bold to\\nsay, that licentious and impious France, in all the unrestrained ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncesses which anarchy and atheism have given birth to, has not com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted a more insidious act against her enemy than is now attempted\\nby the professed champion of civilized Europe against a friend and\\nan ally in the hour of her calamity and distress\u00e2\u0080\u0094at a moment when\\nour country is filled with British troops\u00e2\u0080\u0094when the loyal men of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland are fatigued with their exertions to put down rebellion; efforts\\nin which they had succeeded before these troops arrived\u00e2\u0080\u0094whilst our\\nHabeas Corpus Act is suspended\u00e2\u0080\u0094whilst trials by court martial are\\ncarrying on in many parts of the kingdom\u00e2\u0080\u0094whilst the people are\\ntaught to think that they have no right to meet or to deliberate, and\\nwhilst the great body of them are so palsied by their fears, and worn\\ndown by their exertions, that even this vital question is scarcely able\\nto rouse them from their lethargy\u00e2\u0080\u0094at the moment when we are dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntracted by domestic dissensions\u00e2\u0080\u0094dissensions artfully kept alive as\\nthe pretext tor our present subjugation and the instiument of our\\nfuture thraldom\\nYet, sir, I thank administration for this measure. They are, with\u00c2\u00ac\\nout intending it, putting an end to our dissensions\u00e2\u0080\u0094through this\\nblack cloud which they have collected over us, I see the light break\u00c2\u00ac\\ning in upon this unfortunate country. They have composed our dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsensions\u00e2\u0080\u0094not by fomenting the embers of a lingering and subdued\\nrebellion\u00e2\u0080\u0094not by hallooing the Protestant against the Catholic and\\nthe Catholic against the Protestant\u00e2\u0080\u0094not by committing the north\\nagainst the south\u00e2\u0080\u0094not by inconsistent appeals to local or to party\\nprejudices; no\u00e2\u0080\u0094but by the avowal of this atrocious conspiracy against\\nthe liberties of Ireland, they have subdued every petty and subordi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnate distinction. They have united every rank and description of\\nmen by the pressure of this grand and momentous subject; and I tell\\nthem that they will see every honest and independent man in Ireland\\nrally round her constitution, and merge every other consideration in\\nhis opposition to this ungenerous and odious measure. For my own\\npart, I will resist it to the last gasp of my existence and with the\\nlast drop of my blood, and when I feel the hour of my dissolution\\napproaching, I will, like the father of Hannibal, take my children to\\nthe altar and swear them to eternal hostility against the invaders of\\ntheir country\u00e2\u0080\u0099s freedom.\\nSir, I shall not detain you by pursuing this question through the\\ntopics which it so abundantly offers. I shall be proud to think my\\nname may be handed down to posterity in the same roll with these (lis-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0060.jp2"}, "61": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n51\\ninterested patriots who have successfully resisted the enemies of their\\ncountry. Successfully I trust it will be. Iu all events, I have my\\nexceeding great reward; I shall bear in my heart the conscious\u00c2\u00ac\\nness of having done my duty, and in the hour of death I shall not\\nbe haunted by the reflection of having basely sold or meanly aban\u00c2\u00ac\\ndoned the liberties of my native land. Can every man who gives\\nhis vote on the other side this night lay his hand upon his heart and\\nmake the same declaration I hope so. Jt will be well for his own\\npeace. The indignation and abhorrence of his countrymen will not\\naccompany him through life, and the curses of his children will not\\nfollow him to his grave.\\nMr. Ball and Mr. Arthur Moore, two of the most eminent of the Irish bar,\\nDr. Browne, and the Hon. Mr. Knox, members for Trinity College, Lord Cony,\\nColonel O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell, Sir Edward O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Brien, Colonel Bagwell, Mr. Stewart of Kiliv-\\nmoon, Mr. Richard Dawson, and several of the highest of the country gentry,\\nfollowed against the Union. The Attorney-General, Sergeant Stanley, the\\nChancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. William Smith, were the chief .speakers\\nupon the side of government. In all, upwards of sixty members had spoken,\\nwhen, at eleven o\u00e2\u0080\u0099clock a.m. the house divided, and Mr. Ponsonby\u00e2\u0080\u0099s amendment\\nwas defeated by a majority of one\u00e2\u0080\u0094which majority was obtained by the pur\u00c2\u00ac\\nchase, a few hours before, in the very house, of two members. One of them,\\nMr. Trench, of Woodlawn, afterwards Lord Ashtown, had actually spoken\\nagainst the Union early in the debate; the other was Mr. Luke Fox, afterwards\\njudge, who, having by mistake gone into the opposition lobby, would, had he\\nbeen counted, have made the numbers equal for and against the government, in\\nwhich case the Speaker\u00e2\u0080\u0099s casting vote would have dismissed the question. Driven\\nto his wits\u00e2\u0080\u0099 end, Fox declared, upon his honour, that he had accepted the Es-\\ncheatorship of Munster (the Irish Chiltem Hundreds), and accordingly had no\\nright to vote. The statement was false, as subsequent reference to the record\\nproved, but it sufficed for the night to give ministers the majority.\\nThe debate was renewed on the report of the address two days afterwards,\\nand after again lasting until near noon of the following day, ministers were de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfeated on Sir Laurence Parsons\u00e2\u0080\u0099 amendment to expunge the paragraph of the\\naddress relating to the Union, by a majority of five. Through these wintry\\nnights College-green, and all the avenues of the house, were crowded with people,\\nand the moment the ministers\u00e2\u0080\u0099 defeat was announced from the chair, the cheers\\nof the opposition were re-echoed at every corner of the city. A due sense of\\ndecorum,\u00e2\u0080\u009d it is said, \u00e2\u0080\u009crestrained the galleries within proper bounds;\u00e2\u0080\u009d but\\nSergeant-at-arms tried in vain to still the triumphant treble of the ladies.\\nSir Jonah Barrington\u00e2\u0080\u0099s narrative of those memorable nights is very graphic, but\\nnot literally accurate in the ordsr which he gives of the debates. For instance,\\nhe states that Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech of the 22nd was spoken on the 24th, in reply to\\nCastlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s seond speech, in which, abandoning all restraint, the secretary\\ndenounced the opposition as a desperate faction,\u00e2\u0080\u009d led by levellers and petti\u00c2\u00ac\\nfoggers,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and trading on the prejudices of a \u00e2\u0080\u009cbarbarous and ignorant people;\u00e2\u0080\u009d and\\nbe proceeds to account for the unusual vehemence and asperity of Castlereagb\u00e2\u0080\u0099a\\ntone by the severe attack which Ponsonby had made upon him. Now the fact\\nis, according to all the regular reports of the debates, that Castlereagh spoke\\nsecond and Ponsonby third in the debate of the 24th, and that Ponsonby\u00e2\u0080\u0099e", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0061.jp2"}, "62": {"fulltext": "52\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nattack upon the ministers did not provoke, but was in answe. to Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ninsolent strictures upon the opposition. The speech which Castlereagh really\\ntried to answer was evidently Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s terrible philippic, under which he\\nquailed at the time, and which, two days afterwards, he hesitates directly to\\nrefer to, though every sentence of his speech is evidently aimed at it.\\nOne withering allusion, which was said to have stung the Secretary to the\\nquick, is interpreted in a memoir of Lord Plunket which appeared in the Uni\u00c2\u00ac\\nversity Magazine. The passage referred to is that in which he calls Castlereagh\\na green and sapless twig\u00e2\u0080\u009d:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c This last stroke w r as felt at the time to have\\nmore in it than met the eye. Lady Castlereagh, who was remarkable for her\\nbeauty, was sitting in the gallery, and although married for some years, it was\\nLord Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s misfortune to be childless. Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s tomahawk sarcasm\\nwas felt to bear not merely upon his imputed political, but upon his suspected\\npersonal imbecility.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the revised report the phrase is green and limber\\ntwig,\u00e2\u0080\u009d but I believe the traditional version is correct.\\nTHE UNION.\\nJanuary 28, 1799.\\nMeantime the Union had been discussed in the British Houses of Parliament\\nSheridan heading the opposition in a speech full of Irish feeling, and of his cha\u00c2\u00ac\\nracteristic loftiness, vigour, and brilliancy. \u00e2\u0080\u009cMy country,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he nobly ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaimed, has claims upon me which J am not more proud to acknowledge than\\nready to liquidate to the full measure of my ability.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He was replied to with\\nalmost equal power by George Canning; and the debate on Irish independence\\nwas, in fact, a duel between the two great Irish orators, until Pitt rose and de\u00c2\u00ac\\nveloped his plan of consolidating the empire, in a long and magnificent speech,\\nending by a declaration of his intention to carry the Union at all hazards.\\nMeanwhile, however, contrary to his expectation, the Irish cabinet had been\\nbeaten upon the address. On the 28th, Lord Castlereagh moved an adjourn\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of the house until the 7th of February, in order to obtain advices from\\nEngland. In the course of debate,\\nMb. Plunket condemned the declaration of the British minister,\\nwhich was made under the influence of ignorance and delusion, as to\\nwhat were the real sentiments of the parliament and people of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland on the subject of Union. He must suppose that the British\\nminister had been taught to reckon upon the certain and infallible\\nsuccess of his project for influencing the Irish parliament, and he could\\nnot have discovered his error in the decision of that parliament, when\\nlie had the temerity to utter the speech alluded to, and of the authen\u00c2\u00ac\\nticity of which there was pretty good evidence in a confidential paper\\nof the minister (the Sun). The public mind (as the honourable mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber had observed) stood in need of repose after so much agitation as\\nit had recently sustained upon this topic, and therefore he should not\\noppose the motion for adjournment; but if it should appear on the\\nnext meeting of the house, that the British minister still persisted in", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0062.jp2"}, "63": {"fulltext": "THE FLACE BILL.\\n53\\nhis rash design, he would call upon every gentleman on this side of\\nthe house who had already voted against the measure, and upon any\\ngentleman on the other side, who, through false delicacy, had not re-\\ns sted the proposal for entertaining it, to come forward in vindication\\nof the honour, the dignity, and the independence of the Irish parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment and the Irish nation, and by some strong and decided declara\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion put an extinguisher upon this odious and abominable measure.\\nThe noble lord had intimated that the time might come when the\\nparliament and the country would be glad to solicit the measure, as\\nthe only means of effectually securing tranquillity. He hoped the\\nnoble lord did not mean to insinuate that measures would be adopted\\nto produce such a situation in the country as would create the neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsity of such a solution, in order that what was spokeu by the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nphets might be fulfilled.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He was not over fond to see a minister\\nruling the country, who seemed to have a taste for verifying his own\\npredictions as to the necessity he foretold; and he wished to see that\\nminister and his British colleague removed from office, a circumstance\\nwhich could not much affect them, as they seemed too cool to feel for\\nany event.\\nTHE PLACE BILL.\\nMay 16, 1799.\\nThe proceedings during the rest of the session were unimportant. In a discus\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion having reference to the number of seats vacated under the place bill, by\\nwhich memis ministers were gradually making a Unionist majority, Plunket\\nsaid:\\nSir, I think that the question put to the noble lord by my honourable\\nfriend (Mr. Dawson), was put with such candour and moderation,\\nthat it merited a respectful answer, instead ot being treated, as it\\nhas been, with contemptuous silence. But as I find that the noble\\nlord has yielded to the all-powerful and eloquent injunction of his\\nlearned friend the prime-serjeant (Mr. St. George Daly), 1 am jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntified in supposing that no answer could have been given, but such as\\nwould confirm the house in an opinion of the justness of the obser\u00c2\u00ac\\nvations made by my honourable friend.\\nBut what stuff, sir, does the noble lord think this house and the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry made of,that they should bear with such contemptuous silence\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nwith a treatment so insulting It has been said that the question", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0063.jp2"}, "64": {"fulltext": "54\\nPLUNKETT S SPEECHES.\\nof Union ought not to have been introduced into the discussion but\\nI must say, that the question before the house is intimately connected\\nwith that of a legislative Union, because the noble lord is making\\nuse of the prerogative of the crown as a means and instrument of\\nfilling the benches of this house with the supporters of his favourite\\nmeasure.\\nBaffled in this house at the time that the question of Union was\\nopenly brought forward, administration have now recourse to other\\nmodes; and every little means, artifice, and agency, is made use of\\nindirectly to attain those ends which the minister wants only tho\\nmockery of an artificial majority in parliament to sanction in order\\nthen to enforce.\\nSir, how has the measure of a Union been introduced into this\\nhouse Have the inducements of office been held out to any mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber on this side of it Have the old and faithful servants of the\\ncrown been dismissed and their places pointed to in order to tempt\\nthe integrity of political virtue Have bribery and corruption\\nbeen resorted to for the purpose of making that majority which tho\\nunbiassed play of honest principle would never make? Sir, let the\\nminister answer, for he is one of those who can best tell; but thus\\nmuch, sir, I will say, that nor piao^, nor power, nor bribery, nor\\ncorruption influenced any man who voted against the minister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure, but in the strength of honest principle was it rejected.\\nThe true sense of parliament has been declared; it is mani\u00c2\u00ac\\nfested to the world. The uubought sense of parliament has been\\ndeclared; and that virtue which protected the independence of\\nthis house and of this kingdom, will again save it, should auy\\nministry foolishly and wickedly persist in hostility against them. I\\nwould then warn the noble lord how he again attempts the liberties\\nof his country. 1 would warn the noble lord to profit of the expe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrience which he has already had, and not court another defeat and\\nanother shame. I would warn that minister who exhibits a political\\nphenomenon in this house, who, contrary to every precedent after\\nhaving failed in measures odious to his country, odious to parliament,\\nand injurious to his sovereign, yet retains his place and has not\\nsought refuge from public notice in private situation. I would warn\\nhim not to persist in his destructive course, or continue to urge a\\nmeasure which the people of Ireland never will accept; and which,\\nit forced on them, will, to use the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s own words, be the\\nmost rash, fatal, and unfortunate conduct, that ever has been adopted\\nby any minister?\\nit is meanly and insidiously attempted to impute motives of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0064.jp2"}, "65": {"fulltext": "THE PLACE BILL.\\n55\\npersonal interest to gentlemen at this side of the house, for the part\\nthey have taken on the question of the legislative Union. The odium of\\ncorrupt motives is attempted to be divided; but I will ask is there\\none instance\u00e2\u0080\u0094one solitary instance that can be pointed out\\nYes,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said Mr. Martin, from the other side of the house.\\nLet me hear that name then.\\nHere Mr. Martin cried out that he was ready. But he was stopped by a\\ngeneral exclamation of \u00e2\u0080\u009cShame, shame!\u00e2\u0080\u009d and a cry of \u00e2\u0080\u009cproceed\u00e2\u0080\u009d addressed to\\nMr. Plunket.\\nI waited, Mr. Speaker, to hear the solitary name of him who on\\nthis side of the house in opposing the Union had acted on any mo\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive of interest, but that which he felt in common with his country.\\n1 have heard of 116 placemen and pensioners; I will not say whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther any of these voted for it, but I am sure if any independent gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntleman has given his support to the measure, he has been betrayed\\ninto that support by circumstances, acting not on his conviction, but\\non those temporary feelings which they have excited and, sir, 1\\nhail, as most propitious to the freedom of this country, the successes\\nof his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s allies on the Continent; because, I hope, they will\\nlead to a speedy peace. When fears of invasion and rebellion are re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmoved, I am sure there will not be found a single independent gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman in this country to support the minister in this abominable measure.\\nSir, I have heard the opposers of Union, branded also with the\\nname of faction. But who are they who form this faction It is\\nthey who have put down rebellion. It is these men who, even in\\nthe young memory of a young minister, have saved this country, and\\nto whom it is owing, that the connexion between it and Great Britain\\nsubsists at this moment.\\nSir, it is a fact, and I speak it under correction of the noble lord\\nif 1 am wrong, that he has said that none shall vacate their seats in\\nthis house, whose successors will not support the measure of a Union.\\nAnd it is another fact, sir, which the minister may contradict if he\\ncan, that in almost every instance since the commencement of the\\npresent session, the escheatorship of Munster has been given to mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers whose only qualification for the office has been, that their suc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessors were conditioned to vote for an Union. This condition the\\nhonourable colonel, whose case has given rise to the present discussion,\\nwould not, could not make for his successor. On the contrary, it was\\nknown that his intended successor was one who, like himself, loved\\nthe free constitution of Ireland, and therefore it was that the colonel", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0065.jp2"}, "66": {"fulltext": "56\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nwas refused, and the escheatorship of Munster for the first time con*\\nverted into an instrument of prerogative, injurious to parliament and\\nto the people. The noble lord has professed\u00e2\u0080\u0094every man in thi^\\nhouse has heard him profess\u00e2\u0080\u0094that he will carry the measure of Union\\nonly ly the free consent of parliament and of the country has this\\nrefusal of the escheatorship of Munster been a consequence of tha\\nprofession Have the instructions given to sheriffs not to call meet*\\nings of their counties been in conformity with that profession Is it\\nto carry the Union by the free consent and unbiassed judgment of\\nthe people that all the public prints have been bought up, and either\\nbribed to silence on the subject of Union, or filled with publications\\nin support of it? Sir, it is very easy for a minister to clasp his hands\\nand to implore the house to refrain from pledging itself on the mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure of a legislative Union until the sense of the country shall bo\\nknown. It is very easy thus to implore parliament, and set this en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntreaty to notes of most pathetical cadence, but acts are the strong* st\\ntestimonies of intention\u00e2\u0080\u0094the strongest witnesses of motives, and the\\nactions of the noble lord, loudly speaking against his professions, can\u00c2\u00ac\\nnot be misunderstood by any man who is not senseless and heartless\\nto the interests of his country, against which the noble lord has\\nairayed himself in sincere, but I trust futile hostility.\\nTHE UNION\\nMay 18, 1799.\\nTowards the close of the session, one day St. George Daly summoned up cou-\\nmge, made a furious attack upon the opposition in general, and the opposition\\nbarristers in particular; had ventured a savage onslaught upon Bushe, and was\\nproceeding to assail Flunket, when the latter, who happened to sit near him,\\ncaught his eye, and, as it were, shot him through with one keen glance of mer\u00c2\u00ac\\nciless scorn. Daly faltered, stammered, and after a few awkward struggles to\\nregain the flow of his speech, sat down. Plunket followed him, and these are\\nhis last words to the government in the session of 1799\\nYou, Mr. Speaker, have already, on a former occasion, proved a\\nUnion to be inconsistent with the interests of the people of Ireland,\\nand the honourable gentleman who spoke last but two has proved\\nit to be inconsistent with the interests of any member of this house,\\nand of every Irish gentleman of \u00c2\u00a33000 a-year; and after this 1\\ntrust there can be but one sentiment in execration of this abominable\\nmeasure. Another learned gentlauum has expressed much indigna*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0066.jp2"}, "67": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n57\\ntion at the language used at this side of the house; and when he\\narose, I was afraid that his indignation would have hurried him be\u00c2\u00ac\\nyond the bounds of prudence but very seasonably he happened to\\nbe \u00e2\u0080\u009cso angry that he could not speak,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and thus he found a tolerably\\ngood chance of not being able to offend. I wish, however, that he\\nhad bestowed some of his indignation on the conduct which gave\\nrise to the present debate; and if a conduct the most base and fla\u00c2\u00ac\\ngrant could inspire terms of disapprobation, the honourable and\\nlearned member must certainly have recovered the use of his tongue.\\nHe would then have to reprobate the most shameful hypoomv\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthe most scandalous effrontery; and the warmth of his eloquence\\nand the freedom of his manner would be well employed in repre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhending the conduct of a minister who had not only tlircwn away\\nthe substance, but the semblance of virtue.\\nThe honourable and learned member has asked why the house does\\nnot now act with that cordiality in support of government which it\\ndid last session, and most pathetically he asks if the spirit of loyalty\\nhas fled from this house. I will tell the honourable gentleman why\\ngovernment does not find that warm support in this house which it\\nwas wont to do. It is because the conduct of the administration has\\nbeen such as to freeze the warm blood of loyalty\u00e2\u0080\u0094and if it should\\nagain dilute at the approach of public danger, it will not be owing\\nto that administration, which did all it could to put down the loyalty\\nof the country. Sir, the conduct of the noble lord this night, and ot\\nhis friends, has proved that although the administration may wish to\\ndo mischief, it has not talents sufficient to effect it, and I warn the\\nnoble lord how he proceeds in such a line of conduct. I warfi him\\nhow he shovTs to the people of Ireland that the question of Union is\\nto be carried by force or fraud, and as far as my humble voice can\\ngo, I take this last opportunity of cautioning the people and ministry\\nof England how they suffer themselves to be deceived by the false\\nrepresentations of the noble lord. After the boasts with which he\\nushered in the question at the commencement of the session, it was\\nrejected with ignominy and disgrace: the same cant is used now.\\nThe people are said to be changing their minds. The members of\\nthis house are said to be changing their minds but 1 challenge the\\ntreasury bench to name the man w 7 ho has changed his mind. Agaiir\\nand again I do remind the noble lord of the weight of responsibility\\nwhich rests on him, if by misrepresentation he commits.the two coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntries on this subject. On his head will be the consequences\u00e2\u0080\u0094and\\npoor indeed will ihat compensation be which such a head can make\\ntor the public evils which its errors may create.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0067.jp2"}, "68": {"fulltext": "58\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nTHE UNION.\\nJanuary 15, 1800.\\nThe government were busily occupied during the parliamentary recess. Lord\\nCornwallis made a tour of the country, carefully selecting places where lie could\\nelicit a semblance of public opinion in favour of the Union. His progress was\\nlike the canvass of a potwalloping borough. Country gentlemen were promised\\ntitles, public functionaries promotion, the Catholics emancipation, the Protestants\\nascendancy; the s/ieteen-keeper was licensed, and the prisoner pardoned it he\\nwould only agree to support the Union. The Lord Lieutenant was all things to\\nall men.\\nThe Secretary and Under-Secretary were equally active in operating upon the\\nparliament. Peerages and pensions were scattered like largesse. Honourable\\nmembers who would not sell their votes could sell their seats. Thus between actual\\npurchases and changes in the representation, Castlereagh carried off forty-three\\nvotes from tbe opposition in the course of 1799.\\nParliament met on the 15th of January, 1800 and to the great surprise of\\nthe opposition, the Viceroy\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech had no allusion direct or indirect to the\\nUnion. The address was moved by Viscount Loftus and seconded by Colonel\\nCrosbie\u00e2\u0080\u0094yet no reference whatever by either speaker to the ministerial policy.\\nSir Laurence Parsons then rose; called upon the clerk to read the Lord Lieu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntenant s speech at the close of last session, in which the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s recommendation\\nof an incorporating Union was embodied; lamented that the sudden prorogation\\nhad then unfairly prevented the house from giving a suitable answer to his\\nmajesty; and said the same object was now aimed at by a studious omission of\\nthe subject from the opening speech. His speech ended by an amendment to\\nthe address, declaratory of the house\u00e2\u0080\u0099s adherence to the constitution of \u00e2\u0080\u009982. In\\nthe course of his reply, which was a malignant attack upon opposition, Castle\u00c2\u00ac\\nreagh stated that it was his intention to have moved a call of the house for that day\\nfortnight, in order to consider the formal proposition of an Union. After this decla\u00c2\u00ac\\nration the debate proceeded in regular order\u00e2\u0080\u0094the Right Hon. David Latouche,\\nthe Right Hon. Denis Browne, the Attorney-General, Sir John Blaquiere, and\\na few minor stars of the treasury bench on the side of government. The speak\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of the opposition was all powerful and impassioned; and Bushe\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, Pon-\\nsonby\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, and O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches were of a high order of eloquence. Plunket\\nspoke late in the night. Doctor Browne, an American by birth, and member for\\nTrinity College, whom Castlereagh had converted during the recess from a vio\u00c2\u00ac\\nlent anti-Unionist into a proselyte of the Castle, preceded him, and thus met\\nthe rough edge of his wrath:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nSir, I have no right to sit in judgment on the motives of the hon.\\nmember who has just sat down. The secrets of his heart and the\\nsprings of his conduct must be left to the great Searcher of hearts\\nbut by his public actions his public character is to be judged, and\\non those I will beg leave freely to comment. He has stated his rea\u00c2\u00ac\\nson for refusing to concur in the amendment of the hon. baronet to\\nbe, that it would pledge him irretrievably against the measure of a\\nLegislative Union how would that concurrence pledge him more\\nsolemuly than the amendment of the last session, proposed by my", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0068.jp2"}, "69": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n59\\nhon. friend (Mr. G. Ponsonby), in which he then concurred That\\nwas a resolution, that we would support our free constitution as\\nfinally established in 1782. This is a resolution declaring that wc\\nare in possession of that constitution, and that it is the wish am/\\ninterest of his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Irish subjects to remain in possession of tha*\\nconstitution, and in the state of union and amity with Great Britain\\nwdiich we now enjoy. What has happened to change the sentiments\\not the hon. gentleman I have heard that when he was elected to\\nthe dignified situation which he now fills, representative of the uni\u00c2\u00ac\\nversity of Dublin, he declared to his constituents that only one pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsible event could make him harbour the idea of an Union, and that\\nwas, to save this country from a separation.\\nCries of hear, hear,\u00e2\u0080\u009d from the treasury benches.\\nI am glad the new friends of the hon. gentleman have found an\\nexcuse for him which he did not suggest for himself; if they do not\\nfurnish him with an argument, they must relieve him from an anxiety\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094he was much alarmed, because he knew his opinions would be\\nunpalatable to both sides of the house but whatever sentiments they\\nmay have excited amongst us, they certainly have been received\\nwith acclamation by the minister. The hon. gentleman departs from\\nthe pledge which he entered into to his constituents, not because he\\napprehends any separation between the countries, but because so\\nmuch corruption has taken place in parliament, in the course of tho\\nlast session, and so many bad laws have been passed, that he really\\nfeels the constitution not worth preserving. Will the hon. gentleman\\nrecollect, that in the last session he not only declared against tho\\nmeasure, but argued with much ability that parliament was incom\u00c2\u00ac\\npetent to adopt it. What has done away their incompetence\\nTheir corruption! He then believed them incapable of sanction\u00c2\u00ac\\ning this measure, and he now rises to pronounce a libel on the par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament and on the strength of their iniquities, for which he arraigns\\nthem, he declares them armed with authority to dispose of the liber\u00c2\u00ac\\nties of Ireland. Not of his country\u00e2\u0080\u0094I rejoice that he has no claim\\nto the name of Irishman. He has been raised into station by the\\nbounty of the country, and he shows his gratitude by conspiring for\\nthe destruction of her liberties. So much for the hon. gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nto the comfort of his own reflections, and to the gratitude of his con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstituents I consign him. But whilst I express an honest indignation\\nagainst those who have left our cause, and whilst I turn back to\\nshed a tear of regret over the tomb of an honourable and honest man\\nwho is now no more (I mean Colonel O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell, the late member", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0069.jp2"}, "70": {"fulltext": "CO\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nfor Donegal), I must congratulate the relations of that gallant man\\nthat a phoenix has risen from his ashes\u00e2\u0080\u0094I must congratulate the\\ncountry on that splendid blaze of eloquence with which his successor\\nhas this night delighted and illuminated the house.\\nSir, I feel no ordinary sensation on this question being again in*\\ntroduced to the consideration of parliament. It was ushered into\\nthe last parliament with the same boyish boasting which now accom\u00c2\u00ac\\npanies it, and rejected with the same contumely which ultimately\\nawaits it. Without any change in the circumstances of the country,\\nwithout the production of any new argument, the same men who\\nfled like detected thieves at the close of the last session, and who in\\nthe precipitance of their flight stumbled over and overturned all pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic decency aud parliamentary decorum, now exhibit themselves to\\nchallenge the national observation, and to brand with the name of\\nfaction every man who has honesty aud courage to spurn their de\u00c2\u00ac\\ngrading purposes. What change has taken place Has the mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure changed its nature, or the minister his objects, or the countries\\ntheir relations No, you shall know the changes which have taken\\nplace\u00e2\u0080\u0094I will unmask the men who have dared to come into the\\nmidst of parliament and people to pamper their liberties by sordid\\nbribery and to subdue their spirits by lawless force, and if I cannot\\nexcite the feelings of honour or virtue in their hearts I will call the\\nblooming blush of shame into their cheeks.\\nYou are told with puny sophistry that you ought at least to dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncuss the question. What is meant by this That you should dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncuss the principle You have already done so; no principle ever\\nunderwent a more ample discussion in parliament, and after examin\u00c2\u00ac\\ning it for two entire days in all its relations, and after supposing all\\nthe details the most favourable which possibly could be offered to\\nIreland, the principle was rejected by a majority not only free from\\nany influence, but resisting every influence. If by discussion is\\nmeant that we should discuss the detail without examining the prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple, I utterly refuse it. We now stand on the high ground of\\nnational independence, secured by solemn compact; and we aro\\ncalled on to declare our readiness to surrender that independence\\nand relinquish that compact, for the purpose of treating about we\\nknow not what possible advantages, and this is called discussion.\\nIn answer to this demand, I say, first, you have not stated any one\\ndefinite advantage which Ireland can gain, or evil which she can\\navoid, to induce her to relinquish guaranteed independence. Tue\\nmeasure has now been agitated above a year, and we have not to\\nthii hour heard stated in definite terms, such as a plain understand-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0070.jp2"}, "71": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\nG1\\nioi? can comprehend, any one specific advantage which we are to\\ngain, or any one evil which we are to escape, by its adoption. We\\nhave heard a deal of lofty language\u00e2\u0080\u0094increased resources and conso\u00c2\u00ac\\nlidated strength\u00e2\u0080\u0094wealth and morals of England imported\u00e2\u0080\u0094present\\nbenefits from England secured\u00e2\u0080\u0094possible evils deprecated\u00e2\u0080\u0094corrup\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of our own parliament destroyed\u00e2\u0080\u0094to be made partakers with\\nthe most dignified assembly in the world\u00e2\u0080\u0094danger of separation to\\nbe avoided\u00e2\u0080\u0094and political and religious differences closed for ever.\\nThis all sounds magnificently; but analyse it, and where a definite\\nmeaning can be extracted, no man pretends to say how an Union\\ncan forward the thing meant.\\nAgain, I will not admit the principle, because it is a barter of\\nliberty for money, even supposing your advantages as real as they\\nare visionary. The nation which enters into such a traffic is besot\u00c2\u00ac\\nted. Freedom is the parent of wealth, and it is an act of parricide\\nto sacrifice the constitution which generates and nourishes your com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmerce for the supposed improvement of that commerce. This is,\\nindeed, under all its circumstances, the most extravagant demand\\never made by one nation from another. Ireland, a happy little\\nisland, with a population of between four and five millions of people\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094hardy, gallant, and enthusiastic\u00e2\u0080\u0094possessed of all the means of\\ncivilization\u00e2\u0080\u0094agriculture and commerce well pursued aud understood\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094laws well arranged and administered\u00e2\u0080\u0094a constitution fully recog\u00c2\u00ac\\nnised and established\u00e2\u0080\u0094her revenues, her trade, her manufactures\\nthriving beyond the hope or example of any other country of her\\nextent, within these few years advancing with a rapidity astonishing\\neven to herself; not complaining of her deficiency in any of these\\nrespects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity\u00e2\u0080\u0094is called on\\nto surrender them all, to the control of whom To a great and\\npowerful continent, to which nature intended her as an appendage\\nTo a mighty people, totally exceeding her in all calculation of terri\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory and population No, but to another happy little island placed\\nbeside her in the bosom of the Atlantic, of little more than double\\nher territory and population, and possessing resources not nearly so\\nsuperior to her wants; and this, too, an island which has grown\\ngreat, and prosperous, and happy by the very same advantages which\\nIreland enjoys\u00e2\u0080\u0094a free and independent constitution, and the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntection of a domestic, superintendent parliament. The wealth, and\\npower, aud dignity of Great Britain (of which no man rejoices more sin\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerely than I do) are the most irresistible arguments against an Union,\\nA little clod of earth, by the enjoyment of freedom, has generated\\nstrength, and wealth, and majesty. She has reared her head above", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0071.jp2"}, "72": {"fulltext": "62\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nthe waters, and has dictated to the unwieldy, lethargic despotisms,\\nand to the unripened, fertile dependencies of Europe. And does she\\ntherefore call upon Ireland to cast from her her constitution, and to\\nresign the same never*failing means to the same ends? No. I\\nmust take leave to consider the example of Britain more persuasive\\nand more disinterested than her advice. Further, we are called on\\nby this sister island not to connect ourselves in alliance with her\\nwe have already done so in the most indissoluble way the crown\\nof Ireland necessarily annexed to the crown of England, and the\\nresponsibility of the British minister as a pledge for their continu\u00c2\u00ac\\nance not like Scotland, where the crowns were accidentally united\\nin the person of the reigning monarch, and where the parliament\\nhad proceeded to sever that solitary bond of connexion; not like\\nScotland, where a Jacobite parliament had proposed to appoint a\\nking not only different from the king of England, but actually\\nclaiming title to the English throne against the lawful monarch not\\nlike Scotland, thus put into a state of war with England, with her\\nshores blockaded, and her trade interdicted but with full and per\u00c2\u00ac\\nfect alliance, founded on unity of executive, unity of interest, and\\nsimilarity of constitution and all of them not only uninvaded by,\\nbut uniformly strengthened and secured by, the parliament of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland.\\nAgain, sir, I will not admit the principle of Union, because we\\nare not only called on to abandon our tried prosperity and the free\\nconstitution which gave birth to it, and without any necessity for so\\ndoing, or any specific advantage to be derived; but we are called on\\nto do so on the faith of compact, and by the very persons who, in\\nmaking the demand, violate the most solemn of all possible com\u00c2\u00ac\\npacts, I mean that of 1782. The minister acts consistently in\\narraigning that settlement. It is at variance with all his plans, and\\nin contradiction to all his sentiments. That settlement acknowledged\\nthe independence of the Irish parliament on this sound principle,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cThat the two countries were united by sameness of interest and\\nsimilarity of constitution that the strength and security of the one\\nmutually affected the other; that they stand and fall together.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nYou now avow to us that we have no sameness of interest; that we\\nnever had and never can have the British constitution; that there\\nare no principles of union in our connexion, that the elements of hos\u00c2\u00ac\\ntility are essentially intermixed with it; that our weakness is your\\nstrength that our subjugation is your safety; and that you cannot\\nstand unless we fall, and are trampled on. Consistently, therefore,\\ndo you arraign that settlement, and candidly do you tell us that it", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0072.jp2"}, "73": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n63\\nwa9 QO compact, but a delusion; that on our part it was an arrogant\\nclaim, taking advantage of the weakness and distress of Great Bri\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain, and that on your part it was a political finesse, humouring our\\nchildish insolence, yielding to our accidental strength, and that you\\nwill lvsuine in the hour of force what you granted iu the hour of\\nfeebleness.\\nAct your part in its full extent\u00e2\u0080\u0094resume it; but do not resort to\\nthe mockery of calling on us to relinquish what you tell us we have\\nno right to retain. Do not insult us by offering compacts, whet you\\navow that no compact can bind. Do not hold out to us the taunting\\npledge of faith and sincerity, when you boast of your total want of\\nfaith and sincerity in the compact of 1782. It is not merely by\\nyour licensed scribblers that the fraud of 1782 has been fiated.\\nPosterity will scarcely believe the page of history, when they see it\\nrecorded by the British minister. In 1782 you pledged the royal\\nword, you pledged the solemn honour of the parliaments of both\\ncountries. You called on Almighty God to witness the truth and sin\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerity of that final adjustment; and you now call on us, by the pledge\\nof the same royal faith, by the authority ot the same parliament,\\nand under the same religious sanction, to enter into a new treaty\\nwhose basis must be the violation of the former one.\\nWho is to guarantee it If by your own authority you claim a\\nright to violate a compact made amongst equals, and you call on us\\nnot to contract with, but to surrender to the same persons who have\\noverturned it; if that treaty is not binding on you whilst we are\\nooth alive and strong and able to support our mutual pretensions,\\nwill this treaty of 1800 be binding when we are extinct by the terms\\not it, and you survive alone to expound and to enforce it\u00e2\u0080\u0094call\\ndown whatever sanction of king or parliament or God on your new\\ncontract, and how will it be treated twenty years hence, in an impe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrial parliament If they wish to extinguish your 100 representatives\\nand make you a province in form as well as substance, may they not\\nthen with some colour say, we told you in 1800 that you had no\\nconstitution: your pretended compact you then gave up, we admit\u00c2\u00ac\\nted you to our parliament by courtesy and for a time, and we now at\\nour pleasure dismiss you from it/\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Would that act of 1820 be so\\nshameless a violation of the articles of 1800 as these anicles cf\\n1800 would be of the compact of 1782.\\n1 say, therefore, I will not quit the vantage ground of freedom and\\ncompact to admit the principle of an Union.\\nBut it is said we press the discussion\u00e2\u0080\u0094that no mention of Union\\nhas been made in the speech, and that it is unbecoming in us to urgt", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0073.jp2"}, "74": {"fulltext": "64\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches\\nthe rejection of a measure which has not been announced. Sir, this\\nis very idle talk. If gentlemen do not feel a due respect for them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves, they should at least have some for the representative c\\nmajesty. Is it not more than ludicrous that the lord lieutenant should\\nat the close oi the last session propose the measure of Union, when par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament could not answer him, and that he should be utterly silent\\non it at the commencement of this session, when parliament is ready\\nto answer him You well know the reason of this inconsistency.\\nYou wait to have your troops recruited. You do something more\\nthan conjecture how those members mean to vote whose seats havo\\nbeen vacated since the last session ot parliament. This trick is of a\\npiece w r ith the rest, and the conduct of the measure from first to iast\\nis the true expositor of its merits. May I be indulged in taking a\\nvery short review of it\\nIt is admitted by the minister that the alleged necessity of Uniou\\nflows merely from the constitution of 1782. From Heniy the\\nSecond until that time Great Britain never suggested the idea. It\\nthen was suggested not as a measure to be gramed on the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of 1782, but as a substitute for it. It was found that no man\\ncould be hardy enough to utter the sentiment in this country, and it\\nwas abandoned. Y r ou thereupon acknowledged our independent con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution, and said that all grounds of constitutional disagreement\\nbetween the two countries were thereby for ever precluded; and yet\\nyou now tell us that thereby, and thereby only, they were created.\\nIn 1785 commercial differences arose there were long negociations\\nbetween the two countries, yet the name of Union never hinted au\\nThey broke off; still Union never hinted at. At a later period they\\nare renewed and settled, and still Union never hinted at; in 1789\\nthe question of regency arose, and Union never hinted at. And it\\nis worthy of remark, that at those latter periods both countries were\\nin profound peace, foreign and domestic, and nothing existed to pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nvent the fair sense of every man in this kingdom, in or out of parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, being had upon the subject. At last, in 1795, we see the\\nmeasure peeping out of the British cabinet, and the propriety of its\\nadoption mentioned as the reason for dashing the hope which had been\\nheld out to the Catholic. The admission of the Catholic, says Lord\\nCarlisle, would deprive the empire of advantages greater than any\\nwhich sue has derived since the revolution, at least since the Union!\\nAud it is to be observed, that the Catholic claim is rejected in order\\nto enable the minister to effect Union, and not UnioD adopted for\\nthe purpose of rejecting the claim. Still, however, the scheme L not", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0074.jp2"}, "75": {"fulltext": "THE UNTON.\\n65\\navowed to parliament or people, we only discover it by the accidental\\ndisclosure of a ministerial correspondence.\\nDuring the administration of Lord Camden, of whom I wish to\\nspeak with every degree of personal respect, a system was adopted\\ncertainly not calculated to soften religious animosities, or to endear\\nthe parliament to the Irish people. I do not mean to comment on\\nthe propriety of those measures, but when I reflect that the British\\nminister had hatched the plan of Union before they were adopted,\\nand when I see the supposed alienation of people from parliament in\\nconsequence of those measures, and the religious and political ani\u00c2\u00ac\\nmosities excited by them used as the instruments for effecting that\\nplan, I cannot divest my mind of the suspicion that the plan was\\nadopted to effect the purpose. During the administration of that\\nnobleman the most extensive, deep, well-planned, and wicked con\u00c2\u00ac\\nspiracy that ever nation escaped from was hatched, matured, and\\nprepared to burst upon the country. It was detected in all its parts,\\nand published in all its details, and the energies of the nation called\\nout to resist it, by the vigilance, information, and resources of a resi\u00c2\u00ac\\nlient, superintending Irish parliament. If this wicked plot of Union\\nhad then been effected, and our parliament at Westminster, every\\nvestige of British connexion would have been swept off the face of\\nthe land. Well, sir, this rebellion burst on the public with hideous\\nand unexampled atrocity, and it was substantially put down by the\\nresident, loyal men of Ireland by native valour and native honour,\\nbefore any reinforcement had arrived from Great Britain; and it is\\nbecause the connexion has been preserved by the wisdom of the resi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndent parliament, and by the valour and loyalty of the resident gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntlemen of Ireland, that, you now propose to banish both. In the\\nsummer of 1798 Lord Cornwallis arrived in this country, a man of\\nhigh character and great military fame, not for the purpose of repelling\\ninvasion, not for the purpose of subduing rebellion, but to apply all\\nhis character and all his powers to the achievement of a political pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose. I will not dwell on the glories of his military campaign; I\\nmean him no personal disrespect but this I must observe, that whilst\\nthe military lord lieutenant was in the field, with an army of 60,000\\nnen to support him, history will have it to record that we are in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndebted to a gallant Irishman (Mr. Vereker), at the head of about\\nbOO native troops, for having withstood the enemy, and prevented\\nthe capital of Ireland from being entered in triumph by a body of\\nnot one thousand Frenchmen.\\nI do not wish to inquire too minutely why the embers of an extin\u00c2\u00ac\\nguished rebellion have been so long suffered to exist; I do not wish", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0075.jp2"}, "76": {"fulltext": "plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\n66\\nto derogate from the praise to which the noble lord may be entitled\\nfor his clemency. Its very excesses, if they do claim praise, are at\\nleast entitled to indulgence; but when I see that all the rays of\\nmercy and forbearance are reserved to gild the brow of the viceroy,\\nand that all the odium of harshness and severity is flung upon the\\nparliament; when I see the clemency of the chief governor throwing\\nits mantle over the midnight murderer; when I see it holding parley\\nwith the armed rebel in the field; and when I see the task of mak\u00c2\u00ac\\ning war against the victim in his grave and the infant in the crad e\\nthrown by the same government upon the parliament, I cannot avoid\\nsuspecting that there is something more than the mere milk of human\\nkindness in the forbearance on |)ie one part, and something more\\nthan mere political caution in the severities of the other. But, sir,\\nthis rebellion was subdued by the parliament and people of Ireland\\nand before the country had a breathing time, before the loyalist had\\ntime to rest from his labours; before the traitor had received his pun\u00c2\u00ac\\nishment. or his pardon; whilst we were all stunned by the stupendous\\nevents which had scarcely passed; whilst something little short .f\\nhorror for a\u00e2\u0080\u0099l political projects had seized the mind of every man\\nwhilst the ground was yet smoking with the blood of an O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill and\\not a Mountjoy, the wicked conspiracy was announced which was to\\nrob their country of its liberties and their minor children of their\\nbirthright. With a suspended Habeas Corpus Act, with military\\ntribunals in every county, the overwhelming and irretrievable mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure of Uuion was announced for the free, enlightened, and calm dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncussion of an Irish parliament, and with all these engines of terror\\nstill suspended over their heads it is again submitted to them.\\nHow was it brought forward A hireling of the Castle employed\\nto traduce parliament and insult the country hopes held out to the\\nCatholic that he should be established if he adopted; threats to the\\nProtestant that he should be annihilated if he rejected the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of 1782 openly treated as a system of force on our part and of\\ncompulsion on the part of England, and the right to resume it openly\\nasserted. Whilst this impolitic insult was circulated through the\\ncountry by the authority ot government, the lord lieutenant sent to\\nsome of the principal gentlemen, merely to request their attention i o\\nthe subject, but at the same time to assure them that he did not wisn\\nit to be carried unless by the uninfluenced opinion of the wealth and\\ns\u00e2\u0080\u009cnse and loyalty of the country. What was the first parliamentary\\nstep The chancellor of the exchequer and prime sergeant turned\\nout of office because they ventured to declare an opinion against it.\\nTne measure was brought forward without hinting at the opinion ol", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0076.jp2"}, "77": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n67\\nthe people, but, on the contrary, asserting the fall competence of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament to decide without them. An insidious speech prepared by\\nShe minister and delivered from the throne, affecting to advise merely\\ngeneral strengthening of the empire, but which the secretary was com\u00c2\u00ac\\npelled to avow meant Union, and Union only. What followed?\\nThe measure was justified by the noble secretary on account of the\\npoverty and wretchedness of Ireland, and the necessity of separation\\nflowing from the constitution of 1782. The principle of influence\\nwhich had been exerted was justified, and the intention fairly avowed\\nof following it up to the full extent of prerogative. The question\\nwas discussed for two days in all its relations, the principle examined\\nand the details supposed the most favourable which possibly could be\\ngranted to Ireland, and after that full discussion, in despite of the\\ncalamities and terrors of the times, in despite of the surprise with\\nwhich it was brought on, in despite of the influence exercised and\\navowed, the preliminary principle was rejected by a majority not\\nonly not acting under any corrupt influence, but against all corrupt\\ninfluence.\\nI need not remind you of the transport with which that determi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation was received in every corner of the kingdom. Whatever\\nmight have been the former errors of parliament, they were lost in\\nthe virtue and splendor of that event. What, sir, was the conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence? In opposition to the declared sense of parliament and\\nknown wishes of the people, you were told, by one whom I may,\\nwithout offence, call, if not a boy, at least a very young man, that\\nyou were all in error; that you should hereafter implore as a bless\u00c2\u00ac\\ning what you now deprecated as a curse and that he would never\\nlose sight of the measure, but would govern you for the purpose.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nI ask, was such language or conduct ever ventured on by a defeated\\nminister; or would this insolence have been dared, if you had been\\nconsidered as a free parliament or a free people. What was the\\nconduct of Great Britain Exactly corresponding in contemptuous\\nuess with that of their minister here. On the very day of the defeat\\nin the Irish parliament, the minister of England, confiding in the dark\\npromises of his partizans here, and taking our acquiescence to the\\nsurrender of our constitution as a thing of course, announces the mea\\nsure to the British parliament, and gains their ready assent\u00e2\u0080\u0094no re\u00c2\u00ac\\nluctance on their part, as when the free trade was obtained\u00e2\u0080\u0094nc\\nreluctance as on the repeal of 6th of George, or on the renunciation,\\nor on the Commercial Propositions, which we thought so bad that\\nwe rejected them, although they acceded to them with regret, as much\\ntoo good for us. No, sir, knowing that Union would make them", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0077.jp2"}, "78": {"fulltext": "cs\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nmasters, their ready acquiescence is procured. Well! by the teme\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity aud boasting of a very young man, the parliament of one country\\nis committed against the other. What is done by the minister when\\nthe disappointment is announced Is he overwhelmed with shame\\nAnxious to extricate himself? No he proceeds with as much com\u00c2\u00ac\\nposure as if he had our complete assent; he treats us like silly, pas\u00c2\u00ac\\nsionate children, and goes on to adjust the terms. He makes a lofty,\\nturgid speech, talks in high-sounding general terms of increased re\u00c2\u00ac\\nsources and consolidated strength a couple of powdered lacquies of\\nepithets waiting upon every substantive. Whatever we may think\\nof the wisdom or justness of the oration, we cannot but admire its\\nfashion and its pomp; and after all this absurd jargon, which has\\nbeen so often exposed, he proceeds to inform the British house, that\\nlie is satisfied an enlightened majority must proceed to adopt the\\nmeasure; and after the great leviathan has concluded his tumblings,\\na young wdiale puts up his nostrils, and spurts his blubber on this\\ncountry, and tells a British senate, that when he came over to Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland to put down the rebellion he discovered the true character of\\nthe country, and that it is best summed up by Swift\u00e2\u0080\u0099s verses on the\\ntown of Carlow, High church and low steeple, poor town and proud\\npeopleand all this to the great admiration of the wisest and most\\nliberal assembly in the world. Give me leave, sir, here to advert to\\nthe declaration made in the House of Lords on the same subject by my\\nLord Auckland, who had been an Irish secretary in the administra\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of Lord Carlisle, and he declares, that he knows enough of\\nthe theatre of action, and of the principal actors on that theatre, to\\ndo them the justice to believe, that their resistance will give way to\\nthe commanding voice of reason aud of truth.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Whoever remembers\\nthe administration of that noble lord in this country, when he was\\nMr. Eden, would be able to comprehend the full force and delicacy\\nof the strain of irony in which he proves the candour and docility of\\nthe Irish parliament.\\nOn such grounds as these, in defiance of our proceedings, the crown\\nis addressed, aud the father of his people is made to say, that he will\\ntake the first opportunity of laying before bis Irish parliament the\\nsame principle in the detail which they had already rejected in the\\ngeneral.\\n(I [ere it was said from the treasury bench, that his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s expression was not\\nthe first,\u00e2\u0080\u009d but a proper opportunity. J\\nI thank the noble lord for the correction we shall see presently\\nin what the propriety of the opportunity consisted. Has the royal", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0078.jp2"}, "79": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n69\\nword been kept in that respect by the minister The resolution\\npassed early in the session. The Irish parliament was adjourned at\\nthe request of the noble lord, for the express purpose of our being\\napprized of the result of the English deliberations. And yet, during\\nthe whole course of the session not a word is said upon the subject.\\nThe proper opportunity had not arrived; but the noble lord was\\ncertainly not remiss in his efforts to create that opportunity; he pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeded to accomplish the predictions of the British minister and of\\nhimself; to endeavour to corrupt and pack the parliament, so that an\\nenlightened majority should pass the measure, and so to govern the\\ncountry, that they should implore Union, or anything rather than\\nremain as they were how effectual the latter part of his plan has\\nbeen you perceive, from the declaration of the hon. member (Doctor\\nBrowne), who declares that he is made a proselyte to the measure by\\nthe abominable proceedings of the minister and the parliament. The\\nminister in the meantime proceeded to execute his threats of dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nmission from office. Every man, whether in a confidential situation\\nor not, who had dared to express his free opinion was dismissed.\\nWhen men would not be base enough openly to apostatize\u00e2\u0080\u0094their\\nresignation was purchased\u00e2\u0080\u0094the place bill, which had been enacted to pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nserve the liberties of the subject, converted into an instrument to op\u00c2\u00ac\\npress them and no man suffered to vacate his seat, unless he would\\nstipulate an Unionist for his successor. The same lord lieutenant who\\nfirst had declared his intention to submit the question to the unin\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluenced sense of the country, frankly avowed his determination to\\nabuse the prerogative for this scandalous purpose and the noble lord\\nwho had declared, in full parliament, that he never would press the\\nmeasure, even with a majority, against the free sense of parliament,\\nheard himself publicly branded with his shameful departure from that\\npromise, in the case of Colonel Cole, without having the hardihood to\\ndeny it! The British minister thought this last act too indecent\\neven for the meridian of Ireland, and the parliament was the next day\\nprorogued.\\nThe public will not easily forget that memorable day, when the\\nusher of the black rod was stationed within the doors of the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons, to watch the instant at which the house assembled. The pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic will not easily forget the indecent precipitation with which the\\nmessage from the throne was delivered, without allowing time even\\nfor the ordinary vote of thanks to you, sir, for your conduct in that\\nchair. They will not easily forget, not the absence, but the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ngraceful flight of the minister of the country, to avoid the exposure\\nand the punishment of guilt. When the functions of this house", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0079.jp2"}, "80": {"fulltext": "70\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwere thus superseded, his excellency, for the first time, thought pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nper to inform them of the resolutions of the British parliament; and\\nhe was further pleased to insinuate, that it would be a great satisfac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion to him in his old age, if we would be so good as to adopt this\\nmeasure of an Incorporating Union.\\nI must, for one, beg to be excused from making quite so great a\\nsacrifice, from mere personal civility, to any lord lieutenant, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never respectable he may be. The independence of a nation, I must\\nown, does not appear to me to be exactly that kind of bagatelle\\nwhich is to be offered by way of compliment, either to the youth ot\\nthe noble lord who honours us by his presence in this house; or to\\nthe old age of the noble marquis, who occasionally sheds his setting\\nlustre over the other. To the first, I am disposed to say, in the words\\nof Waller\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nI pray thee, gentle boy,\\nPress me no more for that slight toy\\nand to the latter I might apply the language of Lady Constance\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat\u00e2\u0080\u0099s a good child\u00e2\u0080\u0094go to its grandam\u00e2\u0080\u0094give grandam kingdom\u00e2\u0080\u0094and its\\ngrandam will give it a plumb, a cherry, and a fig\u00e2\u0080\u0094there\u00e2\u0080\u0099s a good grandam.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nI hope, therefore, sir, I shall not be thought impolite if I decline the\\noffer of the constitution of Ireland, either as a garland to adorn the\\nyouthful brow of the secretary, or to be suspended over the pillow\\nof the viceroy.\\nThus ended that never-to-be-forgotten session. What has since\\nbeen done During the whole interval between, the sessions the\\nsame barefaced system of parliamentary corruption has been pursued.\\nDismissals, promotions, threats, promises. In despite of all this,\\nthe minister feared he could not succeed in parliament; and he af\\nfected to appeal to what he had before despised\u00e2\u0080\u0094the sentiment of\\nthe people. When he was confident of a majority, the people were\\nto be heard only through the constitutional medium of then\u00e2\u0080\u0099 repre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsentatives. When he was driven out of parliament, the sense of the\\npeople became everything. Bribes were promised to the Catholic\\nclergy\u00e2\u0080\u0094bribes were promised to the Presbyterian clergy\u00e2\u0080\u0094I trust\\nthey have been generally spumed with the contempt they merited.\\nThe noble lord understands but badly the genius of the religion in\\nwhich he was educated. You held out hopes to the Catholic body,\\nwhich were never intended to be gratified regardless of the disap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointment, and indignation, and eventual rebellion, which you might\\nkindle\u00e2\u0080\u0094regardless of everything, provided the present paltry little", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0080.jp2"}, "81": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n71\\nobject were obtained. In the same breath yon held out professions\\nto the Protestant, equally delusive: and having thus prepared the\\nway, the representative of majesty sets out on his mission, to court\\nhis sovereign, the majesty of the people.\\nIt is painful to dwell on that disgraceful expedition\u00e2\u0080\u0094no place too\\nobscure to be visited\u00e2\u0080\u0094no rank too low to be courted\u00e2\u0080\u0094no threat too\\nvile to be employed\u00e2\u0080\u0094the counties not sought to be legally con\u00c2\u00ac\\nvened by their sheriffs\u00e2\u0080\u0094no attempt to collect the unbiassed suffrage\\nof the intelligent and independent part of the community\u00e2\u0080\u0094public\\naddresses sought for from petty villages\u00e2\u0080\u0094and private signatures\\nsmuggled from public counties. And how procured By the m-\\niluence of absentee landlords not over the affections, but over the\\nterrors, of their tenantry. By griping agents and revenue officers.\\nAnd after all this mummery had been exhausted after the lustre of\\nroyalty had been tarnished by this vulgar intercourse with the lowest\\nof the rabble; after every spot had been selected where a paltry\\naddress could be procured, and every place avoided where a manly\\nsentiment could be encountered; after abusing the names of the dead,\\nand forging the signatures of the living; after polling the inhabitants\\nof the goal, and calling out against the parliament the suffrages of\\nthose who dare not come in to sign them till they had got their protec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion in their pocket; after employing the revenue officer to threaten the\\npublican, that he should be marked as a victim, and the agent to\\nterrify the shivering tenant with the prospect of his turf-bog being\\nwithheld, if he did not sign your addresses; after employing your\\nmilitary commanders, the uncontrolled arbiters of life and death, to\\nhunt the rabble against the constituted authorities; after squeezing\\nthe lowest dregs of a population of near five millions\u00e2\u0080\u0094you obtained\\nabout five thousand signatures, three-fourths of whom affixed their\\nnames in surprise, terror, or total ignorance of the subject: and after\\nall this canvass of the people, and after all this corruption wasted on\\nthe parliament, and after all your boasting that you must carry the\\nmeasure by a triumphant majority, you do not dare to announce the\\nsubject in the speech from the throne.\\nYou talk of respect for our gracious sovereign. I ask, what can\\nbe a more gross disrespect than this tampering with the royal name\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094pledged to the English parliament to bring the measure before us\\nat a proper opportunity\u00e2\u0080\u0094holding it out to us at the close of the\\nlast session, and not daring to hint it at the beginning of this. Is\\nit not notorious why you do not bring forward the measure now\\nBecause the fruits of your corruption have not yet blossomed because\\nyou did not dare to hazard a debate last session, in order to fill up", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0081.jp2"}, "82": {"fulltext": "72\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthe vacancies which the places bestowed by you, avowedly for this\\nquestion, had occasioned and because you have employed the inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nval in the same sordid traffic; and because you have a band of dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ninterested patriots waiting to come in and complete the enlightened\\nmajority who are to vote away the liberties of Ireland.\\nWill you dare to act on a majority so obtained Fatal will be your\\ncouncils, and disastrous your fate, if you resolve to do so. You have\\nadopted the extremes of the despot and the revolutionist; you have\\ninvoked the loyal people and parliament of Ireland, who were not\\ncalliug on you; you have essayed every means to corrupt that par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament, if you could, to sell their country; you have exhausted the\\nwhole patronage of the crown in execution of that system; and to\\ncrown all, you openly avow, and it is notoriously a part of your plan,\\nthat the constitution of Ireland is to be purchased for a stipulated\\nsum. I state a fact, for which, if untrue, I deserve serious reprehen\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion; I state it as a fact, that you cannot dare to deny, that \u00c2\u00a315,000\\na piece is to be given to certain individuals, as the price for their\\nsurrendering\u00e2\u0080\u0094what Their property No but the rights of re\u00c2\u00ac\\npresentation of the people of Ireland; and you will then proceed in\\nthis, or in any imperial parliament, to lay taxes on the wretched na\u00c2\u00ac\\ntives of this land to pay the purchase of their own slavery. It was\\nin the last stage of vice and decrepitude that the Roman purple was\\nset up for sale, and the sceptre of the world transferred for a stipu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated price; but even then the horde of slaves who were to be ruled\\nwould not have endured that their country itself should have been en\u00c2\u00ac\\nslaved to another nation.\\nDo not persuade yourselves that a young, gallant, hardy, enthusi\u00c2\u00ac\\nastic people like the Irish are to be enslaved by means so vile, or\\nwill submit to injuries so palpable and galling. From those acts ot\\ndespotism you plunge into the phrenzy of revolution, at a time when\\npolitical madness has desolated the face of the world; when all estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishment is staggering under the drunkenness of theory when in this\\ncountry, which it is said has been peculiarly visited by the pestilence,\\neven the projects, which the noble lord may recollect to have been\\nentertained by the Northern Whig Club, have been necessarily sus\u00c2\u00ac\\npended, if not abandoned; when you have found it necessary to\\nenact temporary laws, taking away almost every one of the ordinary\\nprivileges of the subject of a free constitution; with the trial by jury\\nsuperseded, and the whole country subject to martial law\u00e2\u0080\u0094a law, by\\nwhich the liberty and life of every man rest merely on the security\\nof military discretion; a law which you have not yet ventured to re\u00c2\u00ac\\npeal, and the necessity of whose continuance is strangely hinted in", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0082.jp2"}, "83": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n73\\nthe speech from the throne; with a bloody rebellion only extinguished,\\nand a formidable invasion only escaped you call on this distracted\\ncountry to unroof itself of its constitution, and having been refuted\\nby the wisdom and virtue of parliament, you desire the rabble of\\nevery description to array themselves against the constituted authori\u00c2\u00ac\\nties, and to put down the parliament, because parliament would not\\nput down the constitution.\\nAre the people of Ireland cured of their frenzy Take off their\\nfetters\u00e2\u0080\u0094restore the Habeas Corpus\u00e2\u0080\u0094give back the trial by jury\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nrepeal the martial law bill\u00e2\u0080\u0094let the ordinary laws resume their course.\\n.Are they maniacs, and are they manacled?\u00e2\u0080\u0094do not erect them into\\nlaw-givers and judges. Do not insult them by a mock appeal\u00e2\u0080\u0094do\\nnot at the same time trample on them as slaves and worship them\\nas masters. These, sir, are not the times for theory\u00e2\u0080\u0094let us cling to\\nexperience it tells us we can exist with a common king and separate\\nparliaments, because we have done so for ages; and therefore, when\\nI see a modern Solon taking to pieces the different parts of our con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution, like those o f a watch, and asking, \u00e2\u0080\u009cIf you have a com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon king, would it not be better, a priori to have a common par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament,\u00e2\u0080\u009d I laugh at his visions. Will he answer to me, that if\\nthe people are called on to pull down the parliamentary part of their\\nc nstitution, they will stop precisely there\\nI ask him further, what is there in his theory of equal value to the\\nproof from experience, that a common king and separate parliament\\nproduce a good practical system of liberty and connexion. The tw o\\nparliaments may clash So in Great Britain may king and parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment but we see they never do so injuriously. There are principles\\nof repulsion! Yes; but there are principles of attraction, and from\\ntliese the enlightened statesman extracts the principle by which the\\ncountries are to be harmoniously governed. As soon would I listen\\nto the shallow observer of nature, who should say there is a centri-\\nugal force impressed on our globe, and, therefore, lest we should be\\nnrried into the void of space, we ought to rush into the centre to\\ne consumed there. No; I say to this rash arraigner of the dispen\u00c2\u00ac\\nsations of the Almighty, there are impulses from whose wholesome\\nopposition eternal wisdom has declared the law by which we revolve\\nin our proper sphere, and at our proper distance. So I say to the\\npolitical visionary, from the opposite forces which you object to, I see\\nthe wholesome law of imperial connexion derived\u00e2\u0080\u0094I see the two\\ncountries preserving their due distance from each other, generating\\nand imparting heat, and light, and life, and health, and vigour,\\nand I will abide by the wisdom and experience of the ages which", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0083.jp2"}, "84": {"fulltext": "74\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nare past, in preference to the speculations of any modern philo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsopher.\\nSir, I warn the ministers of this country against persevering in\\ntheir present system. Let them not proceed to offer violence to the\\nsettled principles or to shake the settled loyalty of the country. Let\\nthem not persist in the wicked and desperate doctrine which places\\nBritish connexion in contradiction to Irish freedom. I revere them\\nboth\u00e2\u0080\u0094it has been the habit of my life to do so. For the present\\nconstitution I am ready to make any sacrifice. I have proved it.\\nFor British connexion I am ready to lay down my life. My actions\\nhave proved it. Why have I done so Because I consider that\\nconnexion essential to the freedom of Ireland. Do not, therefore,\\ntear asunder to oppose to each other these principles which are iden\u00c2\u00ac\\ntified in the minds of loyal Irishmen. For me, I do not hesitate to\\ndeclare, that if the madness of the revolutionist should tell me you\\nmust sacrifice British connexion, I would adhere to that connexion\\nin preference to the independence of my country. But I have as\\nlittle hesitation in saying, that if the wanton ambition of a minister\\nshould assault the freedom of Ireland and compel me to the alterna\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive, I would fling the connexion to the winds, and I would clasp the\\nindependence of my country to my heart. I trust the virtue and\\nwisdom of the Irish parliament and people will prevent that dreadful\\nalternative from arising. If it should come, be the guilt of it on the\\nheads of those who make it necessary.\\nOn the 16th of May, 1799, Plunket had commented upon the case of Colonel\\nCole, to which he again adverts in this speech. A word may be useful to ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nplain both allusions. Castlereagh had already secured a number of votes in the\\ncourse of 1799 by inducing members, who were not shameless enough them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves to support the Union, to vacate their seats and allow Castle candidates to\\nbe returned. The regular compensation in a case of this kind was \u00c2\u00a315,000.\\nBut in the course of the year he discovered another way of weakening the oppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition, which, however, could only be practised upon a small scale. It was to\\nrefuse the escheatorship to any of the opposition who might desire to retire, or\\nbe compelled for private reasons to resign their seats, unless on the condition of\\nallowing an Unionist to be returned in their stead. Colonel Cole, going on\\nioreign service, wanted to withdraw from the representation of Enniskillen. A\\nmember of opposition was certain to be elected in his place. But the escheator\u00c2\u00ac\\nship was refused, and thereby the seat kept in suspension until the following\\nyear.\\nIn the passage alluding to the Lord Lieutenant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s campaign against Humbert,\\nPlunket refers to Colonel Yereker, a member of the opposition, and admitted by\\nthe French general to be the only British oflicer he had found who was fit to\\ncommand fifty men. With two hundred of the Limerick militia, half a troop\\nof dragoons, and two curricle guns, he had given the advance guard of the\\nFrench such a check at Collooney as entirely diverted Humbert\u00e2\u0080\u0099s line of advance.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0084.jp2"}, "85": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n75\\nIn the reference to the English debates, beside Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech, those of Mr.\\nPelham, chief secretary under Lord Camden, and of Mr. Eden, chief secretary\\nunder Lord Carlisle, are alluded to. I suppose the reference to Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nearly Presbyterian breeding, his sympathies with the extreme reform doctrines\\nol the Northern Whig Club (and even, it was said, of the first United Irish\\nsocieties\u00e2\u0080\u0094for he began political life as a violent reformer), need no particular ex*,\\nplanation.\\nSt. George Daly followed Plunket in a virulent harangue, which surprised the\\nhouse by its audacity and volubility. Bushe replied tartly to a reference which\\nit contained to him. Barrington and Sir John Macartney spoke in succession\\nagainst ministers, and (Bully) Egan was rising, when along College-green and\\nthrough the courts and corridors of the house such another thunder of popular\\nenthusiasm was heard as had announced, a year before, the triumph of the oppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition to the city. At last the doors opened, and, leaning upon Arthur Moore\\nand George Ponsonby, the opposition and the galleries recognised, with tears\\nand cheers, the thin gray hairs, the stooped and shattered body, the prophet\\neyes and Titan brows of Henry Grattan, advancing like an Avatar to the rescue\\nof Ireland. Even Castlereagh was so moved by that venerable and command\u00c2\u00ac\\ning figure, in which life seemed to be only sustained by the intense will within,\\nthat he rose at the head of the whole treasury bench, bowed, and remained\\nstanding as the grand old tribune moved feebly to his place, in which, after\\ntaking the oaths, he spoke, sitting, for hours a speech full, fertile, brilliant, and\\nconvincing beyond any speech spoken on the subject, and beyond almost any of\\nhis own previous efforts. When he sat down, Isaac Corry was put up by Castle\u00c2\u00ac\\nreagh to make a formal closing of the debate, and when the house divided,\\ngovernment had a majority of 42.\\nTHE UNION.\\nMay 26, 1800.\\nThe resolutions of the English parliament suggesting articles of Union, were laid\\nbefore the Irish Commons on the 5th of February. They were debated during\\nthe ensuing month. Grattan led the opposition with all the ancient lustre and\\nelectric vigour of his eloquence. By him, and by Saurin, Burrowes, and Goold,\\nwho had all been returned within the session, the brunt of these debates was borne.\\nPlunket spoke but seldom. When George Ponsonby, on the 10th of March,\\nraised the question of bribing members under the pretence of compensating for\\nthe loss of parliamentary influence, Plunket challenged Castlereagh to declare\\nwhether he really meant to raise \u00c2\u00a31,500,000 for such a purpose.\\nBecause, if the noble lord had decency enough to abandon so infamous, so\\nbase a part of his plan, as that of employing the money of the people to buy up\\ntheir representatives, he deserved credit for it; and he called upon him now to\\nstand up in his place and avow his abandonment, if he really had given up the\\nmeasure, that the public mind might be calmed upon a subject of such abomina\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, so irritating to their feelings, so insulting to the honour of their country;\\nand that no base miscreant, however honourable or noble his rank, however\\npowerful his influence, who had the meanness and criminality to listen to the\\ncorrupt and degrading proposal of purchasing from him the representative rights", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0085.jp2"}, "86": {"fulltext": "76\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nof his country, for fifteen, twenty or forty thousand pounds, to be wrung from\\ntiie bowels of his miserable country, and afterwards have the baseness to Luast\\nof his venality, should continue to exult in his infamous and corrupt triumph\\never every principle of national honour and justice.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nCastleveagh coolly answered, that he had no notion whatever of abandoning\\nany part, of his plan, and he was only waiting until the articles of Union were\\nadopted by both houses, to propose the exact quantum and mode of ompensa-\\ntion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Plunket could only make this caustic retort:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nu Gentlemen on one side, it appears, are to have compensation for past services, and\\ngentlemen borough proprietors on the other side are promised compensation in hope of\\nfuture services. But neither are to have compensation unless the Union is carried.\\nHere then is a poor country that has travelled, according to the noble lord s\\naccount, so rapidly in the career of bankruptcy, that her finances are unequal to\\nher war establishment, or her civil establishment- a nation almost engulfed m\\nthe jaws of beggary and ruin\u00e2\u0080\u0094yet this poor country is now told by the mi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnister, he must find a million and a half of money, to be raffled for by the members\\nof tills house\u00e2\u0080\u0094but that every man who takes the dice-box in his hand, to throw\\nfor his share of the plunder, must first pledge himaelf to vote for the Union\\nWhat will the people of Ireland say to so base and flagitious a piece of plun\u00c2\u00ac\\nder, as this juggling from them, by taxes on their wants and miseries, the cnor\\nmous sum of a million and a half, to reward the betrayers of their rights and\\nliberties\\nHe did not speak again until the 26th of May, when the bill for settling the\\ncommercial relations of the two countries under the Union, was in the stage of\\nsecond reading. Grattan opened the debate in a masterly statistical statement,\\nfollowed by passages of glowing appeal and exquisite imagery. Castlereagh\\nanswered with his natural cold-blooded insolence\\nHe called in question the patriotism of those who took every opportunity\\nof inflaming the public mind against a settlement, which was on the very eve\\nof conclusion; whatever might be their views, however strong their allusions to\\nrebellion, government was energetic and able enough to defend the constitution\\nagainst all future attacks, as it had against the past.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nMr. May more moderately supported the Secretary. In his mind it was an ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellent argument for Union, that the Irish house might by admixture reform\\nthe English house. One of the articles of Union, however, provided that not\\nmore than twenty Irish members holding office should be eligible to sit in tlie\\nunited parliament; so that Mr. May and his friends were, as it were, innocently\\nsupporting a self-denying ordinance.\\nMr. Speaker. I rise to reiterate my opposition to this measure\u00e2\u0080\u0094an\\nopposition which I will never cease to make until the constitution s\\nfinally extinguished. 1 cannot subscribe to the new doctrine of the\\nnoble lord, that this bill must now be considered as passed, and that\\nwhoever ventures to oppose it in its second reading is guilty ot\\ninsolent disrespect to the law of the land, I congratulate the noble\\nlord on his recent discovery, that it is insolence ki any man to set\\nup his private opinion against the declared sense of parliament. If,\\nwhen an unbought majority of parliament had reprobated a certain\\nmeasure as a violation of the liberties and constitution of the land,\\na young man, with intemperate and ill-advised obstinacy, should do", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0086.jp2"}, "87": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n77\\nclare himself determined to persevere in pressing that very measure,\\nand that he would never lose sight of it\u00e2\u0080\u0094if such a man, slighting\\nthe sense of the legislature, abusing the power he possesses, and prac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntising against the virtue and independence of parliament, should\\ncome back here in less than twelve months, and, with a miserable\\nvenal and packed majority at his back, propose and carry that very\\nmeasure against the former unbought and avowed opinion of the par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament and the people, such a man must indeed be insolent and au\u00c2\u00ac\\ndacious. So far is it from being treason to expose and resist the\\nattempt of such a man in every stage of it, it is loyalty and virtue\\nto do so\u00e2\u0080\u0094it is of use to the country\u00e2\u0080\u0094it tends to preserve its peace\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094to show the people of Ireland that they are not destitute of friends,\\nand to hold out a hope, which I have no doubt will be realised, that\\nthe constitution shall again be restored, and that better days are yet\\nto come. It may prove, too, that, notwithstanding the treachery and\\nthe insolence with which our constitution and our liberties are now\\nattacked, the people of Ireland are not yet abandoned, and that they\\nhave friends who will stand by them to the last. This bill 1 oppose,\\nnot as a bill of union, but of separation\u00e2\u0080\u0094as a bill calculated to dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nmember the empire\u00e2\u0080\u0094a bill to put down the loyalty of the couni ry\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094a bill of robbery, not of legislation. (He then adverted to tue\\ndoctrine of Lord Clare respecting the competency of parliament, and\\n10 the idea of Mr. May that this change would be a reform of the\\nBritish parliament). This argument, so ingenious, I will not attempt\\nto refute; nor do I wish to deprive a British parliament of any advan\u00c2\u00ac\\ntage they may derive from the infusion of such virtue and indepen\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence as that of the honourable gentleman but I cannot help calling\\nthe attention of the house and of the country to the opinion ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressed by the British minister himself of that class of men who are\\nnow to decide on the fate of Ireland. Into a British parliament\\ntwenty men only will be admitted of that description which now\\nconstitutes the minister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s majority. Let no more than twenty place\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen vote on the present question, and I would freely and cheerfully\\nsubmit the fate of the country to their decision. Let the minister\\neven retain all his placemen, and let him put the question on the\\nconstitution of Ireland to a ballot, and I will abide the issue. Let\\nthe gentlemen who hold places vote uninfluenced by the fear of losiug\\ntheir situations, and even they will act like Irishmen Who, then,\\nare this body of men to whose opinion we are asked to look up\\nwith so much reverence They are men whom a British minister\\nhad declared too foul to pollute the walls of a British senate. Those\\nmen who are too base to emer the door of one parliament are to\\nF", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0087.jp2"}, "88": {"fulltext": "pluxkf.t\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SPEECHES.\\n7 3\\nvote the extinction of another, and decide for ever upon the libertie.\\nof this country! I again repeat it emphatically, you are in\u00c2\u00ac\\ncompetent to pass this measure against the sense of the nation.\\nSuch an act in such circumstances must want the binding obligation\\nof a law. If any petulant and ignorant should accuse me of treason\\nfor this sentiment, I answer him but by scorn. My habits, my known\\nprinciples, and the whole tenor of my life give the lie to the imputa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion.\\nThe noble lord has talked in high-sounding terms of the ease vvitli\\nwhich he would put down another rebellion, should this measure pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduce one but if a future rebellion should not rouse the noble lord\\nto more valorous exertion than he made during the last, the country\\ncannot safety depend much upon the prowess of the noble lord Sir,\\nwho put down that rebellion I look around me, and I see the men\\nto whose exertions we owe ouv deliverance These are the men\\nwhose courage and loyalty restored peace to the country whil* the\\nnoble lord was lounging about the Castle\u00e2\u0080\u0094if not more wickedly\\nemployed in plotting the destruction of the constitution of his country.\\nAs to the part which I have taken in opposing this measure, I look\\nupon it as the proudest honour of my life. By it I wish to be remem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbered by posterity\u00e2\u0080\u0094it is an inheritance I am glad to transmit to my\\nchildren. The recollection of the par* I have taken in common with\\nthe one hundred and twenty honest men who with incorruptible\\nsteadiness have defended the liberty of their country against the\\nmachinations of the noble lord and those under whom he acts, will\\nsoothe me at my last hour, and soften the blow of death nay, when\\nI am called before the Almighty Power, in whom I believe and trust,\\nI am willing to take in my hand the record of my opposition to this\\nmeasure, in humble confidence that it may ali ord some atonement for\\nthe errors of which I have been guilty.\\nOf course, ministers had a majority of 37. The votes which they had secured\\nduring the previous year sustained tnem at eveiy division and during the debates\\nof lbtiO they could always calculate upon whipping a majority averaging -10 votes.\\nTHE UNION.\\nJune 7, 1800.\\nThe last of the Union debates were those of the 5th and 7th of Jane, in com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmittee. The resistance of the opposition was still gallantly, though hopelessly\\nprotracted. On the 5th, Mr. O Donnell proposed an amendment, of which the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0088.jp2"}, "89": {"fulltext": "THE UNION\\n79\\nreporters profess not to have learned the exact import, hut say it excited a great\\nflume in the house. It appears to have been a declaration that the people ought\\nto resist the Union by force. After a scene, with closed doors and galleries\\ncleared, the amendment was withdrawn.\\nOn the 7th, O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell moved a postponement of the third reading, and in\\nsupporting him, Francis Dobbs, Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s colleague, delivered an extraordinary\\nharangue. A learned lawyer and an accomplished gentleman, Dobbs was mad\\non one subject\u00e2\u0080\u0094the millenium, and firmly believed that Ireland was decreed by\\nProvidence to remain for ever an independent state, to be the birth-place of Anti\u00c2\u00ac\\nchrist, and the temporal kingdom of the Messiah. The last remarkable speech\\nmade against the Union was couched in this extraordinary style. Pointing to\\nthe divided and convulsed state of Europe as the realization of one of Daniel s\\nprophecies, and as a sure sign that the millenium was at hand, he declared he\\nwas not alarmed at the progress of a measure which he detested, as he was con\u00c2\u00ac\\nvinced it could never be operative. The house listened with mingled ridicule\\nand horror. And O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Donnell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s motion was defeated, of course.\\nThe house having resolved itself into committee, the Hon. Mr. Anneslev in\\nthe chair, the detailed parts were read, and some amendments proposed by Lord\\nCastlereagh adopted.\\nOn the clause regulating the representation in the first session of the united\\nparliament being read,\\nMr. Plunket, after observing that any observations which he should\\noffer on any part of this bill were not offered by him with a view of\\nsuggesting amendments that could or ought to make it less an\\nobject of abhorrence to the country than it was at present, but bad\\nand destructive as the bill was and must be in every possible shape,\\nhe wished its enactments might be certain and explicit, so that the\\ncountry should know what they had to look to. For this reason,\\ntherefore, he observed that by this article, as it now stood, there was\\none very material case left totally unprovided for, and that was the\\ncase of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s dissolving the British parliament and calling a\\nnew one before the first of January next. The article stated that if\\nhis majesty should think proper so to declare under the great seal,\\nthat they, the present representatives of Great Britain, and the dele\u00c2\u00ac\\ngated members for this country should constitute the first united par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament; but the article did not provide for the case which possibly\\nmight occur\u00e2\u0080\u0094that he should dissolve the British parliament before the\\n1st of June, 1800, and therefore he would be glad to know whether,\\nin that case, the delegates to be sent from the present Irish parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment were to be continued as representatives in the united parliament\\nuntil the term of the British representatives should elapse, which\\nwould be seven years from the first of January next. Should the\\nking think proper to dissolve the present British parliament and call\\na new one before the Union should take place\u00e2\u0080\u0094or was it intended\\nthat when the united parliament should have sat three years, at", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0089.jp2"}, "90": {"fulltext": "80\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwhich time the term of the Irish representatives would have expired,\\nthe counties and towns of Ireland were to be sent to new elections,\\nwhile the British representatives only continued to legislate tor the\\ntwo countries Ireland during the interval of the election having no\\nrepresentation whatsoever in the united parliament. One or other\\nof these two things which he had now stated he conceived must in\u00c2\u00ac\\nevitably happen, ii this article stood as it was at present, and the\\ncrown should think proper before the next year to call a new British\\nparliament: the first case he had supposed would be one of flagrant\\ninjustice to this country, by continuing the representatives m that\\noffice four years beyond the time for which they were elected, and\\nthe other would be not only unjust, but an absurdity on the face oi it.\\nAfter a good deal of time taken to consider, the Attorney-General replied\\nby observing that the case supposed by Mr. Plunket, and on which the\\ndifficulty rested\u00e2\u0080\u0094namely, that the king should dissolve his British parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment before next year, rested merely on a violent presumption, and was not rea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsonably to be looked for. The King could never be supposed to do that which\\nwould tend to defeat the measure of Union which he himself had recommended\\nto his parliament.\\nThe Attorney-General\u00e2\u0080\u0099s argument was followed by that of William Johnson,\\nwho contended that if the King should dissolve both his parliaments, he might\\ncall two distinct new parliaments, which, under the provisions of this act, would\\nsit in January next as the united parliament.\\nThe Speaker supported the objection of Mr. Plunket, and insisted that the\\narticle as it now stood, though drawn up by the officers of the crown, went to\\nabridge in a very material instance the prerogative of the crown by preventing\\nit from dissolving the British parliament before January next, unless it incurred\\noue or other of the absurdities which Mr. Plunket had stated.\\nLord Castlereagh and the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke in support of\\nthe article as it stood; but confined themselves to stating more at large the\\narguments of Mr. Johnson, namely, that the crown might dissolve both parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nments before January next, and call new ones for each country distinctly, which\\nunder this law would, in January, 1801, constitute the united parliament, thus\\nleaving Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s objection unanswered.\\nThis and several other clauses having been agreed to, when the chairman\\ncame to the part regulating the proportion of contribution between the two\\ncountries,\\nMr. Plunket objected to the data on which the proportion was\\nfounded. He insisted that there were no regular parliamentary docu\u00c2\u00ac\\nments to go by; that the House and the country had no other guide\\nthan the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s assertion, which, however it might in other\\ncases be entitled to confluence and respect, was not to be deemed\\nsufficient in a case of such great and vital importance as that before\\nthe committee. The British minister, when he was laying on a tax\\nonly for a year, entered into calculations oi the cultivated acres in the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0090.jp2"}, "91": {"fulltext": "THE UNION.\\n81\\ncountry\u00e2\u0080\u0094of the profit resulting from them\u00e2\u0080\u0094of the home trade of the\\ncountry\u00e2\u0080\u0094of the profit made on the capital of the country\u00e2\u0080\u0094and laid\\nauthentic documents before the house on every one of these points.\\nThe noble lord, on the other hand, though deciding for ever upon the\\ncapacity of the country to bear taxation, had taken no account of the\\nquantity of cultivated land in Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094none of the home trade of\\neither country, though by that criterion England would be found more\\nafyle to bear taxation than Ireland as thirty to one he had taken no\\naccount of the profit made upon Irish capital; he had reckoned only the\\ncapital itself\u00e2\u0080\u0094and even for these calculations he had furnished the\\nhouse with no authentic documents on which they could rely.\\nHe then proceeded to prove by a variety of calculations, founded on\\nirrefragable facts, that the proportion which Ireland ought to pay\\ncompared with that of England should be, instead of one to seven and\\na half, the proportion established by the bill, not more than one to\\ntwelve. He urged this point with great force, and pointed out the\\nruin and misery which must result to both countries from imposing\\nupon us a proportion of taxation so inequitable in itself, and so much\\nbeyond our possible means of paying.\\nThree days afterwards occurred the closing scene of the Irish parliament The\\nlast words of resistance to the Union were spoken by Plunket. In the parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nmentary report of the 10th of June, we find it stated, that on the motion for a\\nthird reading of the Articles of Union Bill\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Plunket rose anti began to arraign the means by which the Union had\\nbeen carried, and having charged the minister with having employed bribery,\\nThe Hon. Mr. Butler called him to order. He said that he represented one\\nof the most respectable counties in the kingdom, and no man could or should\\ndare to say that the influence of bribery could reach him.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe Hon. Mr. Butler probably felt that the imputation was particularly\\npointed at him. He had been a staunch anti-Unionist until the month before,\\nwhen he joined the government on Lord Corry\u00e2\u0080\u0099s motion, and, like the rest of\\nCastlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s later converts, it was supposed for a consideration of hard cash.\\nThe report proceeds:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Plunket again rose, and a cry of order!\u00e2\u0080\u0099 chair!\u00e2\u0080\u0099 resounded from both\\nsides of the house, until at length the gallery was cleared, and strangers were\\nnot admitted until the house adjourned. While the house was in discussion, a\\ngreat many of the anti-Union members seceded, and the Union bill passed, and\\nwas ordered to the Loids for their concurrence.\u00e2\u0080\u009d", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0091.jp2"}, "92": {"fulltext": "82\\nrLUSKET S SPEECHES.\\nROBERT EMMET.\\nSeptember 19, 1803.\\nThe life of Robert Emmet is one of the most affecting episodes in Irish history.\\nOf all the United Irishmen, there is not one who has left memory invested with\\nso much sympathy at home and abroad. His last speech has been ever since\\nliis death a gospel of rebellion against England. Even in the American school\\nit is as popular a recitative as Patrick Henry\u00e2\u0080\u0099s defiances and Robert Emmet\\ntrampling on the British crown figured as often on a western signboard, thirty\\njears ago, as General Jackson. There was such pnrily, chivalry, and devotion\\nin his nature\u00e2\u0080\u0094bis life, his love, his death, are full of a romance so true and so\\ntouching\u00e2\u0080\u0094that in thinking of him, men unconsciously elevate his character above\\nthe poor failure\u00e2\u0080\u0094an hour\u00e2\u0080\u0099s scuffle with the police and the picquet, stained by an\\natrocious murder\u00e2\u0080\u0094which history asserts his insurrection to have been. They\\nwonder how that wild attempt can have won for its leader a character like\\nBayard\u00e2\u0080\u0099s but so it is.\\nBloore and Washington Irving have wafted the legend of his love for Sarah\\nCurran and for Ireland whereyer the English language is spoken; and to Irish\\nreaders, the pious care of Doctor Madden has made every step in his attempt, from\\nthe ho\u00c2\u00bb r he left his brother Addis at Amsterdam to that of his execution, familiar.\\nThe noble integrity and courage of his character are above vindication. Even\\nthe British Lord Lieutenant, in a dispatch to his government, could not forbear\\nto express his sense of that sentiment of magnanimity rvith which, whatever\\nhis crimes may have been, he certainly conducted himself Even Curran, who\\nbeheld in him the cause of a sore family sorrow, declared that he would rather\\ntrust the word of Robert Emmet than the oath of any other man in the world.\\nEven the hardened gaoler, who turned the key of the condemned cell, fell sense\u00c2\u00ac\\nless as the young rebel passed forth, -with a face bright and serene as an angel s,\\nto the sea field.\\nFor all the sacred obligation of his dying words, his name will not sleep in\\nthe shade,\u00e2\u0080\u009d but be the theme of song and story for many a day in Ireland. I\\nwould rather see his memory acquitted, if it may be, of that imputation f\\nreckless rashness which rests upon it, and which is the point of Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nspeech. It is difficult. He alone held and guided all the threads of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nspiracy. When the first blow was struck and had failed, his lips were sealed,\\nand his confederates, with the exception of those -who were actually engaged in\\nthe attempt to surprise the Castle, were saved. But I think there remains\\nevidence enough to show that his designs were not the mere Quixotic enterprise\\nthey are represented, and that an hour\u00e2\u0080\u0099s success might have brought not\\nmerely \u00e2\u0080\u009cthe bricklayer, the baker, the old clothesman, the hodman, and the\\nostler\u00e2\u0080\u009d to his side, but peers and merchants, the disgusted anti-Unionist and\\nthe disappointed Catholic agitator, the bankrupt city, and the peasantry of the\\nsouth.\\nThe revolutions of \u00e2\u0080\u009948 have taught the world that one well-directed blow in\\na capital city, against a government to which the people are disaffected, is like\\np. spark of fire touching choke-damp. Emmet evidently acted upon some such\\nidea. He did not attempt to revive the old ramified organization of the\\nUmted Irishmen, of wtych government had got ail the clues, lie used its re-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0092.jp2"}, "93": {"fulltext": "ROBERT EMMET.\\n83\\nmiming links only so far as to prepare the peasantry for a general rising, when\u00c2\u00ac\\never they heard that the green dag had been set up on the Castle. The ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion is, had he a reasonable hope of carrying the English executive in Ireland\\nby a coup de main and was he certain of sufficient support at home and abroad\\nif he had succeeded\\nI doubt if any man can examine his masterly plan of attack, check, and de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfence in Dublin, the calculations upon which it rested, and the accidents by\\nwhich it was baffled, without feeling that the government had almost a miracu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlous escape. The rebel depot had been for months in the immediate neighbour\u00c2\u00ac\\nhood of the Castle, yet until a few hours before the actual explosion of the\\ninsurrection the Lord Lieutenant had no information, and was quite unprepared\\nwhen it burst upon him. The only force that could be got together to guard\\nthe Castle was a .police patrol and a lieutenant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s guard of fencibles. It was\\neven without military stores at the time. Emmet, on the other hand, had cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly provided more than sufficient force in men and armament. His supplies\\nof arms and ammunition were immense. At the depot in Thomas-street alone,\\nLord de Blaquiere found nearly 12,000 pikes, and abundance of powder, rockets,\\nand grenades. Within the last few hours, however, beginning with the ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nplosion of one of his magazines, everything fell asunder through a series of\\naccidents and mistakes, which no human sagacity could have foreseen or\\ningenuity repaired. Napoleon Bonaparte might have failed in the same cir\u00c2\u00ac\\ncumstances.\\nHad Emmet reason to suppose that if he could seize on the capital he would\\nbe supported by the country I think he had. The disaffection in Ireland at\\nthis date was more intense and pervading than it ever had been in Tone\u00e2\u0080\u0099s time.\\nThe Union was ruining Dublin. The national gentry remained disgusted with\\nthe government. The Catholics perceived that they had been deceived. The\\nwhole country was again ripe and alert for revolt. If Ireland be not attended\\nto, it will be lost;\u00e2\u0080\u009d wrote Lord Charles Bentinck to his brother in India;\\nthese rascals are as ready as ever for rebellion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d I hope to See you next\\nyear,\u00e2\u0080\u009d wrote Lord Grenville, by the same mail, to the Marquis of Wellesley,\\nsupposing at that period you have still a country to revisit.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Shortly after\\nEmmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s arrival in Ireland he dined with John Keogh, at Mount Jerome.\\nKeogh was a cautious, but resolute and forecasting man. He agreed that if\\nEmmet could rely upon even two counties rising, the experiment might succeed.\\nEmmet counted upon nineteen, and he certainly had the zealous co-operation of\\nfive or six. General Tarleton\u00e2\u0080\u0099s evidence is that the conspiracy extended to\\nthe south beyond Cork, where the rebels learned by means of telegraphic fires\\nthe ill success of the insurrection in Dublin, before the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s officers knew it in\\nCork. It was by thi3 information only that the insurrection was prevented from\\nbeing general over the country.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAgain, Emmet did not rely merely upon the masses. In his speech\\nfrom the dock he declared that in this design he was only the subaltern\\nof men before whose virtues and genius he bowed with respectful defe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrence. He referred, I dare say, chiefly to the United Irish leaders then in\\nFrance. But, perhaps, he also included men like Keogh, Lord Wycombe\\n(afterwards Lansdowne), Colonel Plunket, Colonel Lumm, and Mr. Fitzgerald,\\nof Glyn, who were, if not compromised, at least in direct communication with\\nhim. I need only add on the subject of foreign assistance, of which Emmet,\\nhowever, had always a strong suspicion, that in 1803 Bonaparte had really\\ntaken up the cause of Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094was organizing an Irish legion\u00e2\u0080\u0094had agreed to", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0093.jp2"}, "94": {"fulltext": "84\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthe future relations between the two republics\u00e2\u0080\u0094gave Emmet a long interview\\nbefore he left for Ireland, and was also cognizant of several conferences between\\nhim and Tally rand.\\nI do not state these facts merely to acquit Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s character of the absurd\\nand injurious imputation that he was a rash and visionary enthusiast, but to\\nshow the grounds upon which Plunket afterwards rested his defence of the\\nspeech which follows, and upon which I observe elsewhere.\\nThe trial occurred before the special commission presided over by Lord Nor-\\nbury, on the 19th of September. Standish O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Grady, attorney-general, Mac\\nLelland, solicitor-general, and Plunket, were leading counsel for the crown;\\nPeter Burrowes and Leonard Mac Nally, for the prisoner.\\nEvidence was duly given of Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s residence at Butterfield-lane, of his\\npreparations at Thomas-street, of his appearing in green uniform with his lieu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntenant, the brave veteran Michael Quigley, Dowdall, and Stafford, of the brief\\ncareer of the insurrection in arms, his subsequent flight to the mountains, and arrest.\\nThe proclamations and other documentary evidence were then given in, and the case\\nclosed on the part of the crown. I quote the scene which follows from the\\nreport:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Mac Nally. \u00e2\u0080\u0094My lord, Mr. Emmet says, he does not intend to call any\\nwitness, or to take up the time of the court by his counsel stating any case, or\\nmaking observations upon the evidence; and therefore I presume the trial is\\nnow closed on both sides.\\nMr. Plunket. It is with extreme reluctance that under such circumstances,\\nand in a case like this, I do not feel myself at liberty to follow the example which\\nhas been set me by the counsel for the prisoner.\\nMr. Mac Nally.\u00e2\u0080\u0094I beg pardon; I am, then, to call on the court to decide\\na matter of practice, No doubt, the crown is entitled to the last word_that is\\na reply; but if I understand anything of the arrangement of; criminal trials,\\nit is this: the counsel for the prosecution states the case; after the evidence\\ngiven in support of it, the prisoner is called upon to state his case and if he\\ndoes, the counsel for the prosecution has a right to reply; but I conceive that\\nthe word reply, according to its true meaning, is this \u00e2\u0080\u0094observing upon that\\nwhich has been urged in answer to the charge; but if there has been no answer,\\nthere can be no reply. I believe the case is new; at least since the proceedings\\nin treason were regulated by statute, there is no instance where there had not\\nbeen a defence made by the prisoner\u00e2\u0080\u0099s counsel, and an answer given to the evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence agahst him; therefore, I say, it is a new case. However, we do not in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntend to press the objection further, unless my learned friend, with whom 1 have\\nthe honour to act, should think proper to add anything in support of it.\\nLord Norbury. \u00e2\u0080\u0094Were it a^matter of any doubt, it would be our duty to\\nhave it spoken to; but as there can be no doubt that the counsel for the crown\\nhave a right to speak to a great body of evidence, and that the counsel for th\u00c2\u00ab\\nprisoner cannot by their silence preclude the crown from that right we cannot\\nprevent the reply if we did we should introduce a novel practice, which never\\nprevailed in any of the state trials; into many of which for some time past I\\nhave looked.\\nMr. Attorney-General. \u00e2\u0080\u0094My lord, we feel that stating a case and obser\u00c2\u00ac\\nving upon evidence are different duties. I have had the burden upon me of\\nstating the case for the crown. The prisoner declining to go into any case, wears", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0094.jp2"}, "95": {"fulltext": "ROBERT EMMET.\\n85\\nthe impression, that the case on the part of the crown does not require any an\u00c2\u00ac\\nswer, that is the most charitable way of considering his conduct, and therefore\\nit is at my particular desire that Mr. Plunket rises to address the court and the\\njury upon this occasion.\\nMy lords and gentlemen of the jury, you need not entertain any\\napprehension that at this hour of the day I am disposed to take up\\na great deal of your time, by observing upon the evidence which has\\nbeen given. In truth, if this were an ordinary case, and if the ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nject of this prosecution did not include some more momentous inte\u00c2\u00ac\\nrests than the mere question of the guilt or innocence of the unfor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntunate gentleman who stands a prisoner at the bar, I should have\\nfollowed the example of his counsel, and should have declined mak\u00c2\u00ac\\ning any observation upon the evidence. But, gentlemen, I do feel\\nthis to be a case of infinite importance, indeed. It is a case impor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant, like all others of this kind, by involving the life of a fellow sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject; but it is doubly\u00e2\u0080\u0094and tenfold important, because from the\\nevidence which has been given in the progress of it, the system of\\nthis conspiracy against the laws and constitution of the country has\\nbeen developed in all its branches; and in observing upon the con\\nduct of the prisoner at the bar, and in bringing home the evidence\\nof his guilt, I am bringing home guilt to a person who, I say, is the\\ncentre, the lifeblood and soul of this atrocious conspiracy.\\nGentlemen, with respect to the evidence which has been offered\\nupon the part of the crown to substantiate the guilt of the prisoner,\\nI shall be very short indeed in recapitulating and observing upon it\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094I shall have very little more to do than to follow the statement\\nwhich was made by my learned and eloquent friend who stated the\\ncase upon the part of the crown because it appears to me that the\\noutline which was given by him has been with an exactness and pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ncision seldom to be met with, followed up by the proof. Gentlemen,\\nwhat is the sum and substance of that evidence I shall not detain\\nyou by detailing the particulars of it You see the prisoner at the\\nbar returning from foreign countries some time before hostilities were\\non the point of breaking out between these countries and France.\\nAt first avowing himself\u00e2\u0080\u0094not disguising or concealing himself\u00e2\u0080\u0094he\\nwas then under no necessity of doing so but when hostilities cora-\\nmeneed, and when it was not improbable that foreign invasion\\nmight co-operate with domestic treason, you see him throwing off\\nthe name by which he was previously known, and disguising him\u00c2\u00ac\\nself under new appellations and characters. You see him in the\\nmonth of March or April going to an obscure lodging at Harold\u00e2\u0080\u0099s-\\ncross, assuming the name of Hewitt, and concealing liimselt there.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0095.jp2"}, "96": {"fulltext": "86\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nFor what purpose Has be called upon any witness to explain it to\\nyou If he were upon any private enterprise\u00e2\u0080\u0094if for fair and ho\u00c2\u00ac\\nnourable views\u00e2\u0080\u0094or any other purpose than that which is imputed to\\nhim by the indictment\u00e2\u0080\u0094has he called a single witness to explain it\\nNo; but after remaining six weeks or two months in this conceal\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, when matiers began to ripen a little more, when the house was\\nnired in Thomas-streei, which became the depot and magazine oi\\nmilitary preparation, he then thinks it necessary to assume another cha\u00c2\u00ac\\nracter and another place of abode, accommodated to a more enlarged\\nsphere of action\u00e2\u0080\u0094he abandons his lodging\u00e2\u0080\u0094he pays a fine of sixty-\\none guineas for a house in Butterlield-lane, again disguised bv an\u00c2\u00ac\\nother assumed name, that of Ellis. Has he called any person to ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncount for this; or to excuse by argument, or even by assertion, this\\nconduct Why for any honest purpose should he take this place\\nfor his habitation, under a feigned name?\\nBut you find his plans of treason becoming more mature. He is\\nthere associated with two persons. One of the name of Dowdall;\\nwe have not explained in evidence what his situation is, or what he\\nhad been; the other is Quigley he has been ascertained by the evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence to have been a person originally following the occupation of a\\nbricklayer; but he thought proper to desert the humble walk in which\\nhe was originally placed, and to become a framer of constitutions and\\nsubverter of empires.\\nWith these associates he remains at Butterfield-lane, occasionally\\nleaving it and returning again whether he was superintending the\\nworks which were going forward, or whatever other employment en\u00c2\u00ac\\ngaged him, you will determine. Be it what it may; if it were not lor the\\npurpose of treason and rebellion, he has not thought proper by evidence\\nto explain it. So matters continued until some short time before the fatal\\nnight of the 23rd of July. They became somewhat hastened by\\nan event which took place about a week before the breaking out of\\nthe insurrection. A house in Patrick-streer, in which a quantity of\\npowder had been collected for the purpose of the rebellion, exploded.\\nAn alarm was spread by this accident; the conspirators found that if\\nthey delayed their schemes and waited for foreign co-operation, they\\nwould be detected and defeated and therefore it became necessary\\nto hasten to immediate action. What is the consequence From\\nthat time the prisoner is not seen in his old habitation. He moves\\ninto town, and becomes an inmate and constant inhabitant of this\\ndepot. These facts, which I am stating are not collected by inference\\nfrom his disguise, his concealment, or the assumption of a feigned\\nname, or the other concomitant circumstances; but are proved by the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0096.jp2"}, "97": {"fulltext": "ItOBEBT EMMET.\\n87\\npositive testimony of three witnesses; all of whom positively swear\\nto the identity of his person: Fleming, Coghlan, and Farrell, every\\none of whom swears he saw the prisoner, tallying exactly with each\\nother, as to his person, the dress he wore, the functions he exercised\\nand every one of whom had a full opportunity of knowing him. You\\nsaw him at Butterfield-lane, under the assumed name of Ellis\u00e2\u0080\u0094you\\nsee mm carrying the same name into the depot, not wishing to avow\\nhis own, until the achievement of the enterprise would crown it with\\nsome additional eclat.\\nThe first witness, Fleming, appears in the character of a person\\nwho was privy to the conspiracy\u00e2\u0080\u0094he was acquainted with the depot\\nfrom the moment it was first taken\u00e2\u0080\u0094he had access to it and co-ope\u00c2\u00ac\\nrated in the design\u00e2\u0080\u0094he was taken upon suspicion, and under these\\ncircumstances, he makes the disclosure. If the case of the prosecu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion rested upon the evidence of this man alone, though an accom\u00c2\u00ac\\nplice in the crime, it would be sufficient evidence to go to you for\\nyour consideration, upon which you would either acquit the prisoner\\nor find him guilty. In general, from the nature of the crime of trea\u00c2\u00ac\\nson\u00e2\u0080\u0094from the secrecy with which it is hatched and conducted, it\\nfrequently happens that no other evidence can be resorted to than\\nthat of accomplices; and therefore, notwithstanding the crimes of\\nsuch witnesses, their evidence is admissible to a jury. But doubtless\\nevery honest and considerate jury, whether in a case of life or not,\\nwill scrupulously weigh such evidence. If it be consistent with\\nitself, disclosing a fair and candid account, and is not impeached\\nby contradictory testimony, it is sufficient to sustain a verdict of\\nguilty.\\nBut, gentlemen, I take up your time unnecessarily, in dwelling upon\\nthis topic, which I introduced rather in justification of the principles\\nw hich regulate such evidence, than as attaching any particular weight\\nto it in the present instance. Because, if you blot it altogether from\\nyour minds, you have then the testimony of two other persons not\\ntainted with the conspiracy; one of them brought in while in a state\\nof intoxication, and the other taken by surprise when he was watch\u00c2\u00ac\\ning at the door, in every respect corroborating the testimony of Flem\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, and substantiating the guilt of the prisoner. You heard the kind\\nof implements which were prepared, their account of the command\\nassumed by the prisoner\u00e2\u0080\u0094living an entire week in the depot:, ani\u00c2\u00ac\\nmating his workmen, and hastening them to the conclusion of their\\nbusiness. When the hour of action arrived, you see him dressed in\\nmilitary array, putting himself at the head of the troops who had\\nbeen shut up with him in this asylum, and advancing with his party,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0097.jp2"}, "98": {"fulltext": "83\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\narrr vl for the capture of the Castle, and the destruction of his fel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlow-citizens.\\nGentlemen, what was the part which the prisoner took in that night\\nof horror I will not attempt to insinuate to you. I hope and trust in God,\\nfor the sake of himself, his fame, his eternal welfare, that he was\\nincapable of being a party to the barbarities which were committed\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094I do not mean to insinuate that he was\u00e2\u0080\u0094but that he headed this\\ntroop, and was present while some shots were fired, has been proved\\nby uncontroverted testimony. At what time he quitted them\u00e2\u0080\u0094whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther from prudence, despair, or disgust, he retired from their bands, is\\nnot proved by evidence upon the table; but from the moment of the\\ndiscomfiture of his project, we find him again concealed. We trace\\nhim with the badges of rebellion glittering upon his person, attended\\nby the two other consuls, Quigley, the bricklayer, and Dowdall, the\\nclerk\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether for concealment or to stimulate the wretched pea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsantry to other acts of insurrection, you will determine; we first\\ntrace him to Doyle\u00e2\u0080\u0099s and then to Bagnall\u00e2\u0080\u00993: one identifies him, the\\nother, from her fears, is incapable of doing so. But the same party,\\nin the same uniforms, go to her house, until the apprehension of de\u00c2\u00ac\\ntection drove them from her. When he could no longer find shelter\\nin the mountains, nor stir up the inhabitants of them, he again re\u00c2\u00ac\\ntires to his former obscure lodging, the name of Ellis is abandoned,\\nthe regimental coat is abandoned, and again he assumes the name of\\nHewitt. What is his conduct in this concealment He betrays\\nhis apprehensions of being taken up by government. For what\\nHas any explanation been given to show what it could be, unless for\\nrebellious practices There he plans a mode of escape, refusing\\nto put his name upon the door. You find him taken a reluctant pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nsoner, twice attempting to escape, and only brought within the reach\\nof the law by force and violence. What do you find then Has\\nhe been effecting to disguise his object, or that his plan was less dig\u00c2\u00ac\\nnified than his motive\u00e2\u0080\u0094that of treason No such thing. He tells\\nyoung Palmer that he was in Thomas-street that night\u00e2\u0080\u0094he confesses\\nthe treason\u00e2\u0080\u0094he boasts of his uniform, part of which was upon his\\nperson when he was taken. He acknowledges all this to the young\\nman in the house\u00e2\u0080\u0094a witness, permit me to remark, not carried away\\nby any excess of over-zeal to say anything to the injury of the pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nsoner, and therefore to his testimony, so far as it affects the prisouer,\\nyou may, with a safe conscience, afford a reasonable degree of credit.\\nUnder what circumstances is he taken In the room in which\\nhe was\u00e2\u0080\u0094upon a chair near the door is found an address to the\\ngovernment of the country; and in the very first paragraph of that", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0098.jp2"}, "99": {"fulltext": "ROBERT EMMET.\\n89\\naddress, the composer of it acknowledges himself to he at the head\\nof a conspiracy for the overthrow of the government, which he\\naddresses, telling them, in diplomatic language, what conduct the\\nundersigned will be compelled to adopt, if they shall presume to exe\u00c2\u00ac\\ncute the law. He is the leader, whose nod is a fiat, and he warns\\nthem of the consequences\\nGentlemen ot the jury, you will decide whether the prisoner at\\nthe bar or Mrs. Palmer was the person who denounced those terms,\\nand this vengeance against the government. What is found upon\\nhim A letter written by a brother conspirator consulting him upon\\nthe present posture of the rebellion, their future prospects, and the\\nprobability of French assistance, and also the probable effects of that\\nassistance, if it should arrive. What farther is found at the depot\\nand everything found there, whether coming out of the desk which\\nhe appears to have used and resorted to, or in any other part of the\\nplace which he commanded, is evidence against him. You find a\\ntreatise upon the art of war, framed for the purpose of drilling the\\nparty who were employed to effect this rebellion but of war they\\nhave proved that they are incapable of knowing anything but its\\nferocities and its crimes; you find two proclamations, detailing sys\u00c2\u00ac\\ntematically and precisely the views and objects of this conspiracy\\nand you find a manuscript copy of one of them, with interlineations,\\nand other marks of its being an original draft. It will be for you\\nto consider who was the framer of it\u00e2\u0080\u0094the man who presided in the\\ndepot, and regulated all the proceedings there or whether it was\\nframed by Dowdall, the clerk, by Quigley, the bricklayer, or by\\nStafford, the baker, or any of the illiterate victims of the ambition\\nof this young man who have been convicted in this court, or whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther it did not flow from his pen, and was dictated by his heart.\\nGentlemen, with regard to this mass of accumulated evidence,\\nforming irrefragable proof of the guilt of the prisoner, I conceive\\nno man capable of putting together two ideas can have a doubt.\\nWhy then do I address you, or why should I trespass any longer\\nupon your time and your attention Because, as I have already\\nmentioned, I feel this to be a case of great public expectation\u00e2\u0080\u0094of\\nthe very last national importance and because, when I am prose-\\ntuting a man, in whose veins the very life-blood of this conspiracy\\nflowed, I expose to the public eye the utter meanness and insuffi\u00c2\u00ac\\nciency of its resources. What does it avow itself to be A plan,\\nnot to correct the excesses or reform the abuses of the government\\nof the country; not to remove any specks of imperfection which\\nmight have grown upon the surface ot the constitution, or to re-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0099.jp2"}, "100": {"fulltext": "90\\nplumeet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nstrain the overgrown power of the crown; or to restore any pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvilege of parliament; or to throw any new security around the liberty\\nof the subject. No but it plainly and boldly avows itself to be a\\nplan to separate Great Britain from Ireland, uproot the monarchy,\\nand establish a tree and independent republic in Ireland,\u00e2\u0080\u009d in its\\nplace I To sever the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland!\\nGentlemen, I should feel it a waste of words and of public time,\\nwere I addressing you or any person within the limits of my voice,\\nto talk of the frantic desperation of the plan of any man who spe\u00c2\u00ac\\nculates upon the dissolution of that empire, whose glory and whose\\nhappiness depend upon its indissoluble connexion. But were it\\npracticable to sever that connexion, to untie the links which biud us\\nto the British constitution, and to turn us adrift upon the turbulent\\nocean of revolution, who could answer for the existence of this coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry, as an independent power, for a year God and nature have\\nmade the two countries essential to each other\u00e2\u0080\u0094let them cling to\\neach other to the end of time, and their united affection and loyalty\\nwill be proof against the machinations of the world.\\nBut how was this to be done By establishing a free and inde\u00c2\u00ac\\npendent republic High sounding name I would ask, whether\\nthe man who used it understood what he meant I will not ask\\nwhat may be its benefits, for I know its evils. There is no magic\\nin the name. We have heard of \u00e2\u0080\u009cfree and independent republics,\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nand have since seen the most abject slavery that ever groaned under\\niron despotism growing out of them.\\nFormerly, geutlemen of the jury, we have seen revolutions effected\\nby some great call of the people, ripe for change and unfitted by\\ntheir habits for ancient forms but here from the obscurity of con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncealment and by the voice of that pigmy authority, self-created and\\nfearing to show itself, but in arms under cover of the night, we are\\ncalled upon to surrender a constitution which has lasted for a period\\nof one thousand years. Had any body of the people come forward,\\nstating any grievance or announcing their demand for a change t\\nNo; but while the country is peaceful, enjoying the blessings of the\\nconstitution, growing rich and happy under it, a few desperate, ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nscure, contemptible adventurers in the trade of revolution form a\\nscheme against the constituted authorities of the land, and by force\\nand violence to overthrow an ancient and venerable constitution, and\\nto plunge a whole people into the horrors of civil war!\\nIf the wisest head that ever lived had framed the wisest system\\nof laws which human ingenuity could devise\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he were satisfied\\nthat the system were exactly fitted to the disposition ot the people", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0100.jp2"}, "101": {"fulltext": "Robert emmet.\\n91\\nfor whom ho intended it, and that a great proportion of that people\\nweie anxious for its adoption\u00e2\u0080\u0094vet give me leave to say, that under all\\nthese circumstances of fitness and disposition, a well-judging mind aud\\na humane heart would pause awhile and stop upon the brink of his\\npurpose, before he would hazard the peace of the country, by resort\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to force for the establishment of his system; but here, in the\\nf enzy of a distempered ambition, the author of this proclamation\\nconceives the project of a free and independent republiche at\\nonce flings it down, and he tells every man in the community, rich\\nor poor, loyal or disloyal, he must adopt it at the peril of being con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidered an enemy to the country, and of suffering the pains aud\\npenalties attendant thereupon.\\nAnd how was this revolution to be effected The proclamation\\nconveys an insinuation that it was to be effected by their own force,\\nentirely independent of foreign assistance. Why? Because it was\\nwell known that there remained in this country few so depraved, so\\nlost to the welfare of their native land, who would not shudder at\\nforming an alliance with France; and therefore the people of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland are told, the effort is to be entirely your own, independent ol\\nforeign aid.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But how does this tally with the time when the scheme\\nwas first hatched\u00e2\u0080\u0094the very period of the commencement of the war\\nwith France How does this tally with the fact of consulting in the\\ndepot, about co-operating with the French, which has been proved\\nin evidence But, gentlemen, out of the proclamation I convict\\nhim of duplicity. He tells the government of the country not to\\nresist their mandate, or think that they can effectually suppress re\u00c2\u00ac\\nbellion, by putting down the present attempt, but that they will\\nhave to crush a greater exertion, rendered still greater by foreign\\nassistance;\u00e2\u0080\u009d so that upon the face of the proclamation they avowed,\\nin its naked deformity, the abominable plan of an alliance with the\\nusurper of the French throne, to overturn the ancient constitution ot\\nthe land, and to substitute a new republic in its place.\\nGentlemen, so far I have taken up your time with observing upon\\nthe nature and extent of the conspiracy; its objects and the means\\nby which they proposed to effectuate them. Let me now call your\\nattention to the pretexts by which they seek to support them. They\\nhave not stated what particular grievance or oppression is complained\\nof, but they have travelled back into the history of six centuries\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthey have raked up the ashes of former cruelties and rebellions, and\\nupon the memory of them, they call upon the good people of this\\ncountry to embark into similar troubles but they forget to tell the\\npeople, that until the infection of new-fangled French principles was", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0101.jp2"}, "102": {"fulltext": "92\\nPLTNKET S SPEECHES.\\nintroduced, this country was for an hundred years free from the slight\u00c2\u00ac\\nest symptom of rebellion, advancing in improvement of every kind\\nbeyond any example, while the former animosities of the country were\\nmelting down into a general system of philanthropy and cordial\\nattachment to each other. They forget to tell the people whom\\nthey address that they have been enjoying the benefit of equal laws,\\nby which the property, the person, and constitutional rights and pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvileges of every man are abundantly protected. They have not\\npointed out a single instance of oppression. Give me leave to ask\\nany man who may have suffered himself to be deluded by those ene\u00c2\u00ac\\nmies of the law, what is there to prevent the exercise of honest in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndustry and enjoying the produce of it Does any man presume to\\ninvade him in the enjoyment of hi3 property If he does, is not\\nthe punishment of the law brought down upon him What does\\nhe want What is it that any rational friend to freedom could ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npect, that the people of this country are not fully and amply in the\\npossession of? And therefore when those idle stories are toidof six\\nhundred years oppression and of rebellions prevailing when this\\ncountry was in a state of ignorance and barbarism, and which have\\nlong since passed away, they are utterly destitute of a fact to rest\\nupon they are a fraud upon feeling, and are the pretext of the fac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntious and ambitious, working upon credulity and ignorance.\\nLet me allude to another topic: they call for revenge on account\\nof the removal of the parliament. Those men who, in 1798, endea\u00c2\u00ac\\nvoured to destroy the parliament, now call upon the loyal men, who\\nopposed its transfer, to join them in rebellion; an appeal vain and\\nfruitless. Look around and see with what zeal and loyalty they\\nrallied round the throne and constitution of the country. Whatever\\nmight have been the difference of opinion heretofore among Irishmen\\nupon some points, when armed rebels appeared against the laws and\\npublic peace, every minor difference was annihilated in the paramount\\nclaim of duty to our king and country.\\nSo much, gentlemen, for the nature of this conspiracy and the\\npretexts upon which it rests. Suffer me, for a moment, to call your\\nattention to one or two of the edicts published by the conspirators.\\nThey have denounced, that if a single Irish soldier, or in more faith\u00c2\u00ac\\nful description, Irish rebel, shall lose his life after the battle is over,\\nquarter is neither to be given nor taken. Observe the equality of the\\nreasoning of these promulgers of liberty and equality. The dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinction is this: English troops are permitted to arm in defence of\\nthe government and the constitution of the country, and to maintain\\ntheir allegiance but if an Irish soldier, yeoman, or other loyal per-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0102.jp2"}, "103": {"fulltext": "EGBERT EMMET.\\n93\\nson, who shall not within the space of fourteen days from the date\\nand issuing forth of their sovereign proclamation, appear in arms\\nwith them if he presumes to obey the dictates of his conscience, his\\nduty, and his interest\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he has the hardihood to be loyal to his so\u00c2\u00ac\\nvereign and his country, he is proclaimed a traitor, his life is for\u00c2\u00ac\\nfeited, and his property is confiscated. A sacred palladium is thrown\\nover the rebel cause, w hile, in the same breath, undistinguishing ven\u00c2\u00ac\\ngeance is denounced against those who stand up in defence of the\\nexisting and ancient laws of the country. For God\u00e2\u0080\u0099s sake, to whom\\nare we called upon to deliver up, with only fourteen days to consider\\nof it, all the advantages we enjoy Who are they wdio claim the\\nobedience The prisoner is the principal: I do not wish to say any\\nthing harsh of him a young man of considerable talents, if used with\\nprecaution, and of respectable rank in society, if content to conform\\nhimself to its laws. But when he assumes the manner and the tone\\nof a legislator, and calls upon all ranks of people, the instant the\\nprovisional government proclaim in the abstract a new government,\\nwithout specifying what the new laws are to be, or how the people are\\nto be conducted and managed\u00e2\u0080\u0094but that the moment it is announced,\\nthe whole constituted authority is to yield to him; it becomes an\\nextravagance bordering upon frenzy; this is going beyond the example\\nof all former times. If a rightful sovereign were restored, he would\\nforbear to inflict punishment upon those who submitted to the king de\\nfacto but here there is no such forbearance. We who have lived\\nunder a king, not only de facto but dc jure in possession of the\\nthrone, are called upon to submit ourselves to the prisoner\u00e2\u0080\u0094to Dow-\\ndall, the vagrant politician\u00e2\u0080\u0094to the bricklayer, to the baker, the old-\\nclothes-man, the hodman, and the ostler. These are the persons to\\nwhom this proclamation, in its majesty and dignity, calls upon a\\ngreat people to yield obedience, and a powerful government to give\\na prompt, manly, and sagacious acquiescence to their just and un\u00c2\u00ac\\nalterable determination \u00e2\u0080\u009cWe call upon the British government\\nnot to be so mad as to oppose us.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Why, gentlemen, this goes be\u00c2\u00ac\\nyond all serious discussion; and I mention it merely to show the\\ncontemptible nature of this conspiracy, which hoped to have set the\\nentire country in a flame. When it was joined by nineteen counties\\nfrom north to south, catching the electrical spark of revolution, they\\nengaged in the conspiracy\u00e2\u0080\u0094the general, with hi dieutenant-general,\\nputting himself at the head of the forces, collected not merely from\\nihe city, but Irom the neighbouring counties; and when all their\\nstrength is collected, voluntary and forced, they are stopped in their\\nprogress, in the first glow of their valour, by the honest voice of a\\nG\\ni", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0103.jp2"}, "104": {"fulltext": "04\\nplusket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SPEECHL3.\\nsingle peace officer, at which the provincial forces were disconcerted\\nand alarmed, but ran like hares, when one hundred soldiers appeared\\nagainst them.\\nGentlemen, why do I state these facts Is it to show that the\\ngovernment need not be vigilant, or that our gallant countrymen\\nshould relax in their exertions By no means but to induce the\\nmiserable victims who have been misled by those phantoms of revo\u00c2\u00ac\\nlutionary delusion, to show them, that they ought to lose no time in\\nabandoning a cause which cannot protect itself, and exposes them to\\ndestruction, and to adhere to the peaceful and secure habits of honest\\nindustry. If they knew it, they have no reason to repine at their\\nlot. Providence is not so unkind to them in casting them in that\\nhumble walk in which they are placed. Let them obey the law and\\ncultivate religion, and worship their God in their own way. They\\nmay prosecute their labour in peace and tranquillity; they need not\\nenvy the higher ranks of life, but may look with pity upon that vici\u00c2\u00ac\\nous despot who watches with the sleepless eye of disquieting ambi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, and sits a wretched usurper trembling upon the throne of the\\nBourbons. But I do not wish to awaken any remorse, except such\\nas may be salutary to himself and the country, in the mind of the\\nprisoner. But when he reflects, that he has stooped from the ho\u00c2\u00ac\\nnourable situation in which his birth, talents, and his education placed\\nhim, to debauch the minds of the lower orders of ignorant men\\nwith the phantoms of liberty and equality, he must feel that it was\\nan unworthy use of his talents; he should feel remorse for the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsequences which ensued, grievous to humanity and virtue, and should\\nendeavour to make all the atonement he can, by employing the little\\ntime which remains for him in endeavouring to undeceive them.\\nLiberty and equality are dangerous names to make use of; if pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nperly understood, they mean enjoyment of personal freedom under\\nthe equal protection of the laws; and a genuine love of liberty in\u00c2\u00ac\\nculcates a friendship for our friends, our king, and country\u00e2\u0080\u0094a re\u00c2\u00ac\\nverence for their lives, an anxiety for their safety; a feeling which\\nadvances from private to public life, until it expands and swells into\\nthe more diguifled name of philanthropy and philosophy. But in\\nthe cant of modern philosophy, these affections which form the enno\u00c2\u00ac\\nbling distinctions of man\u00e2\u0080\u0099s nature are all thrown aside all the vices\\nof his character are made the instrument of moral good\u00e2\u0080\u0094an abstract\\nquantity of vice may produce a certain quantity of moral good. To\\na man whose principles are thus poisoned and his judgment perverted\\nthe most flagitious crimes lose their names; robbery and murder be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncome moral good. He is taught not to startle at putting to death a", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0104.jp2"}, "105": {"fulltext": "ROBERT EMMET.\\n95\\nfellow creature, if it be represented as a mode of contributing to the\\ngood of all. In pursuit of those phantoms and chimeras of the brain,\\nthey abolish feelings and instincts, which God and nature have planted\\nin our hearts for the good of human kind. Thus by the printed plan\\nfor the establishment of liberty and a free republic, murder is prohi\u00c2\u00ac\\nbited and proscribed; and yet you heard how this caution against\\nexcesses was followed up by the recital of every grievance that ever\\nexisted, and which could excite every bad feeling of the heart, the\\nmost vengeful cruelty and insatiate thirst of blood.\\nGentlemen, I am anxious to suppose that the mind of the prisoner\\nrecoiled at the scenes of murder which he witnessed, and I mentiou\\none circumstance with satisfaction it appears he saved the life of\\nFarrell; and may the recollection of that one good action cheer him\\nin his last moments But though he may not have planned indivi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndual murders, that is no excuse to justify his embarking in treason,\\nwhich must be followed by every species of crimes. It is supported\\nby the rabble of the country, while the rank, the wealth, and the power\\nof the country are opposed it. Let loose the rabble of the countjy\\nfrom the salutary restraints of the law, and who can take upon him\\nto limit their barbarities Who can say, he will disturb the peace\\nof the world and rule it when wildest Let loose the winds of hea\u00c2\u00ac\\nven, and what power less than omnipotent can control them So\\nit is with the rabble; let them loose, and who can restrain them\\nWhat claim, then, can the prisoner have upon the compassion of a\\njury, because in the general destruction which his schemes necessarily\\nproduce he did not meditate individual murder In the short space\\nof a quarter of an hour, what a scene of blood and horror was exhi\u00c2\u00ac\\nbited I trust that the blood which has been shed in the streets of\\nDublin upon that night, and since upon the scaffold, and which may\\nhereafter be shed, will not be visited upon the head of the prisoner.\\nIt is not for me to say what are the limits of the mercy of God, or\\nwhat a sincere repentance of those crimes may effect; but I do say,\\nthat if this unfortunate young gentleman retains any of the seeds of\\nhumanity in his heart, or possesses any of those qualities which a\\nvirtuous education in a liberal seminary must have planted in his bosom,\\nhe will make an atonement to his God and his country, by employing\\nwhatever time remains to him in warning his deluded countrymen\\nfrom persevering in their schemes. Much blood has been shed, and\\nhe perhaps would have been immolated by his followers if he had\\nsucceeded. They are a bloodthirsty crew, incapable of listening to\\nthe voice of reason, and equally incapable of obtaining rational free\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom, if it were wanting in this country, as they are of enjoying it.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0105.jp2"}, "106": {"fulltext": "96\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nThey imbrue their hands in the most sacred blood of the country,\\nand yet they call upon God to prosper their cause, as it is just!\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nBut as it is atrocious, wicked, and abominable, I most devoutly in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvoke that God to confound and overwhelm it.\\nNorbury\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ferocious charge, the verdict, Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s glorious speech, the last\\nsentence of the law quickly followed, and next day dogs were lapping the young\\nrebel\u00e2\u0080\u0099s blood under the scaffold in Thomas-street.\\nTHE THRESHERS.\\nDecember 5, 1806.\\nIx the year 180G, agrarian disturbances had risen to an extraordinary pitch in\\nnorth Conuaught and in parts of Ulster\u00e2\u0080\u0094throughout that district, famous for\\nhogs, rack-rents, poteen, and Whiteboys, stretching from Cavan across the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry to Sligo\u00e2\u0080\u0094a district which, in disturbed times, has always exhibited a cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain uniform character and correspondence of action, like the subterranean sym\u00c2\u00ac\\npathies of a volcanic district. The five counties of Cavan, Leitrim, Longford,\\nSligo, and Mayo were included in a special commission, issued in the winter to\\nChief Justice Downes and Baron George, upon which they at once proceeded to\\nstrike terror into the Threshers. The Threshers formed one of the most formid\u00c2\u00ac\\nable, well-organized, and levelling secret societies that ever existed in Ireland,\\nand bore the peculiar character that its principal object of attack was neither\\nrent, cess, nor excise\u00e2\u0080\u0094but the priest\u00e2\u0080\u0099s dues and the minister\u00e2\u0080\u0099s tithes. In soma\\nplaces they undertook to regulate wages, and in all, were armed, badged, and\\ndrilled.\\nThe special commission first sat at Sligo\u00e2\u0080\u0094Plunket and Bushe appearing for\\nthe crown, as attorney and solicitor-general\u00e2\u0080\u0094and the first indictment tried was\\nthat \u00e2\u0080\u009cJohn M\u00e2\u0080\u0098Donough and William Kearney, with many others, on the nd of\\nSeptember last, after sun-set and before sun-rise, did maliciously and feloniously\\nbreak and enter the dwelling-house of Peter O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill, at Cartron Watts, inthecounty\\nof Sligo, that they maliciously assaulted and injured the habitation of O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill,\\nand forcibly took away his money; and that prisoners provided an instrument,\\nto wit, weaver s cards, for inflicting bodily pain and punishment upon O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill,\\nin order to compel him to enter into an unlawful confederacy, called Threshers;\\nthat they inflicted punishment with that intent, and by menaces and intimidation\\nexacted money and goods from him.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Plunket stated the case\\nMt Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury, in this case, as counsel for\\nthe crown, it is my duty to lay before you the grounds of the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent prosecution. The indictments upon which the prisoners are\\narraigned have been read, and you are thereby apprised of the nature\\nof the charges preferred against them. The charges go to a variety\\nof acts, all, by the law of the land, capital, and if the prisoners are\\nguilty of all or any of them, the consequence is death the charges\\nin their nature are such as draw down the highest punishment of the\\nlaw. The prisoners are charged with breaking and entering ttiQ", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0106.jp2"}, "107": {"fulltext": "THE THRESHERS.\\n97\\ndwelling-house of a fellow-subject in the nighttime; with robbing\\nthat fellow-subject of his money, and with inflicting torture upon\\nhis person, tor the purpose of compelling him to become a member of\\ntheir own lawless aud dangerous associations. These are crimes,\\ngentlemen, which no civilized society can tolerate. They bid defiance\\nto all law, and assert a claim ot unconditional submission to those who\\navow themselves the bearers of that defiance. These are conditions\\nunder which no government can exist. But if the crimes with\\nwhich the unfortunate men are charged, however atrocious, did not\\ninvolve consequences of a peculiar nature, they would have been\\nleft to the ordinary visitation of the law, and would be tried at the\\nregular assizes of the county. It is because they torm part of a\\nclass of atrocities which disturb the tranquillity, and in their pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ngress endanger the safety of the country, that you have been assem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbled at this season of the year lor the immediate and solemn dispen\u00c2\u00ac\\nsation of justice. Gentlemen, it is with great satisfaction I see, upou\\na subject of this emergency, so full and respectable an attendance,\\ncalculated to impress every mind with a sense of obedience to the\\nlaw. Every gentleman of character\u00e2\u0080\u0094of rank\u00e2\u0080\u0094ot consideration and\\nof property, appears at his post on this important occasion, to give\\nhis personal sanction to the law. Judges of the land are sent, armed\\nwith his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s commission, and armed with a character resulting\\nfrom their learning and virtues, which reflect lustre am dignity on\\nthat commission. Gentlemen, everything has been done on the part\\nof the government to let the wretched people of this country see\\nthat there are laws for the punishment of guilt, and that no nerve\\nwill be left unstrained to give effect and vigour to them. I there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore rejoice to see such an array of rank and property upon the\\ngrand jury which has found the bills, and such a respectable descrip\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of gentlemen composing the petty jury which I now address\\nbecause it must remove from the minds of the wretched people,\\nengaged in these outrages, the delusions which have been industri\u00c2\u00ac\\nously spread to excite the hope of impunity. In aid of the magis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntracy, from whom information lias been procured, they see the wnolo\\nbody of the county\u00e2\u0080\u0094every man who has talent, character, and\\nproperty, rallying round the constitution. It is not, therefore, merely\\nfor the purpose of inquiring into the guilt of the persons now on\\ntrial, but to bring home punishment to the great body of the guilty\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094protection to the great body of the innocent\u00e2\u0080\u0094to undeceive ttie\\nabused, and give confidence to the disheartened, and to restore peace\\nand tranquillity to the country, that this special commissioa has been", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0107.jp2"}, "108": {"fulltext": "98\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nissued,* and you, gentlemen, to perform your sacred part, have been\\nsworn upon the jury.\\nGentlemen, it is far from my purpose or my wish, that by having\\nyour minds strongly moved with a sense of the mischiefs prevailing\\nin the country, any of the prisoners should be visited with peculiar\\nhardships. On the contrary, upon an occasion ot this kind, it is my\\nduty to caution you against the suggestions of rumour or prejudice:\\nit is our duty to vindicate, not to strain, the law. If the prisoners\\nare guilty, the guilt should be brought home by clear legal evidence.\\nGod forbid, gentlemen, that your abhorrence of the crime should\\nwork injustice to the criminal or the accused. But, gentlemen, you\\nwill feel that it is not irrelevant to the subject to call your attention\\nto what is, and what has been, the state of the country; because it\\ngrows out of the association imputed to the prisoners, and it is there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore that the consequence ot guilt and punishment attaches upon\\nthem. And therefore, gentlemen, in calling your attention to the\\nstate of the country, and the nature of the outrages, I feel that I do\\nnot transgress my duty in the case now before you.\\nGentlemen, it is unfortunately too notorious to need any minute\\nstatement, that for some time past the peace of this county has been\\ninfested by a set of persons assuming the name of Threshers. Their\\noutrageous associations have been in direct defiance of the law.\\nThe business has originated with men possessing no situation\u00e2\u0080\u0094whom\\nnobody knows\u00e2\u0080\u0094a set of men who dare not avow themselves\u00e2\u0080\u0094a\\ndescription of persons not possessed of any rank\u00e2\u0080\u0094of any property\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094of any talent\u00e2\u0080\u0094of any education\u00e2\u0080\u0094men who are not placed in any\\nsituation, either by the conventions of society or their own fitness,\\nentitling them to dictate to their fellow-subjects, or to take upon\\nthemselves the task of reformation and of legislation. These per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons have discovered that the existing laws are not to their mind\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthey have found out that there are errors in the state and in the\\nchurch, and they have conceived that they are the proper persons to\\nundertake the task of reforming them. But not satisfied with infring\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the law in their own persons individually, they become associated\\nfor the purpose of saying, that no other person in the community\\nshall dare to obey the law. So that the first act of those who pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfess to interfere upon principles of liberty is to exercise compulsion\\nover the consciences of others, and to say, that no man shall pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsume to form an opinion for himself, nor act upon it, unless it meet\\nthe approbation of those self-created reformers. The pretext upon\\nwhich these illegal confederacies is formed is, a repugnance to the\\npayments in support of the legal establishment of the church of the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0108.jp2"}, "109": {"fulltext": "THE THRESHERS.\\n99\\ncountry, and also of the fees which have been usually paid, without\\nany law to enforce them, to the clergymen of the Catholic persuasion.\\nThe mode taken to accomplish this object has been by assembling\\nthemselves at night in disguise, sometimes with arms, going to the\\nhouses of such persons as refuse to associate themselves in their body,\\nand if necessary for their purpose, breaking open the houses of those\\npersons, and robbing them of their property, inflicting torture upon\\nthose who become objects of their enmity, and if necessary for the\\nfinal completion of their designs, if any person be honest or bold\\nenough to give information against them, the business, which began\\nin lawless combination, is consummated by murder.\\nGentlemen of the jury, this is the natural progress of associations\\nof. this kind. When men enrol themselves for the purpose of resist\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the law, whatever the pretext may be upon which they originally\\nassociate, the foulest crimes are generated in its progress; that which\\nbegins in anarchy ends in murder; and even murder itself, in the\\nprogress of outrage, may be only a preparation for the blacker hor\u00c2\u00ac\\nrors which are to ensue.\\nGentlemen, there remains one circumstance of peculiar atrocity,\\nwith which this matter is connected. In the various forms and as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsociations under which their designs have been conducted, it has been\\nthe policy of those people to administer oaths to the persons called\\nupon by them, binding them to association and to secrecy. This\\noffence is by law punished with death. The person who commits\\nit must pay the forfeit of his life. The person taking such an oath\\nis banished for ever from his country: the mere circumstance ol\\ngoing to a magistrate and telling him of the oath being taken, will\\nnot absolve the party; the oath must be taken against his will; for\\nif it be taken voluntarily, he is, notwithstanding such information,\\nliable to be transported for life. Gentlemen, this is no new-devised\\npunishment, it is the established law of the land; it has been so for\\nmany years; it has been provided, and wisely, by the legislature to\\nmeet the outrages which from time to time have infested this coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry there is no disproportion between this punishment and the\\ncrime; it strikes at the roots of morality and religion, and tends\\ndirectly to destroy those principles, which are essential to civilized\\nsociety. Gentlemen, an oath is the sanction, by which under the law\\nof the country we call upon the Creator to attest the truth and purity\\nof our words and this solemn sanction which our civil institution\\nhas borrowed from our religious code, is prostituted to bind together\\nan association of traitors, robbers, and murderers. The name of the\\nliving God is appealed to for the purpose of witnessing and ratifying", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0109.jp2"}, "110": {"fulltext": "100\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthe infernal compact, by which these wretches league themselves\\nagainst law and religion. Gentlemen, it produces a revulsion of\\nevery moral feeling to hear of such conduct; not that it is a viola\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the laws and usages of society, but, because it is an outrage\u00c2\u00ac\\nous blasphemy against our Creator to call upon him to attest and\\nsanctify the crimes of his creatures.\\nGentlemen, it is not necessary now to dwell upon the illegality of\\nthose associations, but while they profess to attack the property of\\nthe church, I cannot pass them by without a few observations. The\\ntithes of the clergy of this country are their property; they are\\nsecured to them by the same laws which secure to every man amcngst\\nyou his estate or his property, whatever the description of it may be;\\nthe same laws and the same right by which any gentleman who hears\\nme holds his estate, transmitted to him from his ancestors; the laws\\nwhich secure the fruits of each man\u00e2\u0080\u0099s individual industry are the title\\nby which the property of the clergy i3 secured to them and I do\\ntrust, gentlemen, that there is no man so selfish as to look to any\\nsystem by which the property of one part of the community shall be\\nprotected, and that of another spoliated. If there be any man so\\nselfish as to wish it, let no man think it can be done. Let a multi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntude be assembled under the empire of Threshers and Shakers armed\\nand arrayed in order to make head against the rank and property of\\nthe country, and what shall stop their career I wish my voice to\\nextend to every man within these walls\u00e2\u0080\u0094to every man of sense and\\nreflection. I would tell him, that there is no protection for rank, for\\nproperty, for the state, but by resisting those disturbers, and making\\nthem feel the irresistible weight of the law. They say, they rise to\\nredress grievances! But, gentlemen, there is a mode known to the\\nconstitution of redressing grievances; there is no law to prevent men\\nfrom stating them; and there is a legal mode of claiming relief.\\nThis, I will say, that the constitution of the church is intimately\\nconnected with the constitution of the state it is a part of the same\\nfabric, which has been handed down to us from our ancestors, and if\\nthere be anything imperfect in it, no reflecting man will approach it,\\nfor the purpose of alteration, without extreme caution; he will be\\ncareful in the attempt to remedy its imperfections not to affect the\\nsubstance, or even the proportion, or beauty of the ornaments. But\\nthis task of reformation is undertaken. By whom By the dregs\\nof the community\u00e2\u0080\u0094anonymous ruffians, who fear the face of day,\\nwhose title is founded in anarchy, and whose pretensions are enforced\\nby robbery and murder!\\nI cannot pass by another part of these associations I mean their", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0110.jp2"}, "111": {"fulltext": "THE THRESHERS.\\n101\\nattack upon the priests. 1 meddle not with religious rites; but I mean\\nthe attack which is made upon the support derived from the voluntary\\nbounty, which the members of the Roman Catholic persuasion have\\nbeen in the habit of giving to the ministers of their religion, for cele\u00c2\u00ac\\nbrating the rites of that religion. It is not, that they say, we will\\nnot pay, for there is no law to compel them to pay. But they pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaim this, that no man, who chooses to do so, shall dare to pay his\\npriests their fees! For what purpose are these fees given They\\nare given to obtain the rites of their religion they flow from a sense\\nof religion; they flow from voluntary bounty; they are enforced by\\nno compulsion, the unfortunate men who receive them are armed with\\nno law for their support; and yet these associations are formed\u00e2\u0080\u0094To do\\nwhat? To rob the priest of his benedictions and his prayers Do these\\nmen, besmeared with blood and covered with crimes, imagine that the\\nceremonies of religion which are plundered from their clergy can give\\nthem a passport to a better world I cannot help feeling and de\u00c2\u00ac\\nploring that this view of the subject suggests an apprehension,\\nihat the devisers of this plan could have had nothing less in their\\ncontemplation, than eradicating from the minds of those upon whom\\nthey could operate all sense of religion. Nothing but their hellish\\nmachinations could have devised such a scheme. If they expect that\\nthe people will be ripe to perpetrate crimes worse than these if they\\nwish them to be the ready instruments of every design which is dia\u00c2\u00ac\\nbolical, there is no plan so effectual, as the extinction of every senti\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of religion in the minds of the common people. What may be\\nthe form of the religion of the several classes of the people, I care\\nnot to inquire. If the principles of Christianity prevail; if the sense\\nof obedience to a supreme ruler of the world; if the conviction of the\\nexistence of a future state, in which rewards and punishments are\\ndistributed, be kept alive in the minds of the people, they will never\\nbecome the instruments for the commission of abominable crimes.\\nBut if these sentiments be extinguished if they shall be taught to\\ncast off all regard for a future world, the ties which bind them to\\nearth as well as to heaven are rent asunder.\\nGentlemen, we have had a miserable example in our own time.\\nYou may recollect, that not many years back, in a neighbouring coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry, the most dreadful atrocities were committed; you recollect the\\noverthrow of an ancient monarchy. That overthrow, deplorable as it\\nw r as, was not the most dismal scene of the tragedy. The horrors of that\\nuntortunate revolution, in which the hands of the father were imbrued\\n.n the blood of the son, in which all moral and social relations were\\nrased in mutual warfare, could not be perpetrated uutil the senti-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0111.jp2"}, "112": {"fulltext": "102\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nments of religion were previously extinguished in the minds of th8\\npeople. Human nature was not outraged by gross and unexampled\\ncrimes until a solemn decree was framed, declaring that there was no\\nGod in heaven! What the consequences were, every man knows.\\nBut this I state, that as soon as a settled form of government was\\nestablished, it was found that atheism and infidelity, which were the\\nready instruments to throw down an ancient throne, were an insecure\\nfoundation for a new one; and one of the first acts of the founder\\nof the new dynasty was to restore the consolations of religion to his\\nthirsty and supplicating subjects.\\nGentlemen, it is no wonder, that those who searched after demo\u00c2\u00ac\\ncratic equality should be the foes of religion. Religion is the genuine\\nequality of mankind. It is the poor man\u00e2\u0080\u0099s friend. During the trou\u00c2\u00ac\\nbles of this life it renders him content with the lot of inferiority,\\nwhich is the condition of his nature, and in the last awful hour of\\nexistence it puts him upon a level with the highest and most\\nexalted.\\nGentlemen, it is a melancholy and disheartening thing, that our\\nwretched peasantry can be deluded by such arts, and that they\\nshould be thus imposed upon after such miserable examples. For\\nhalf a century attempts have been made upon the infatuated people\\nof this country. What has been the consequence Disgrace to\\nthe perpetrators; failure of their plans; ruin and death to them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves. Yet what is the condition of the poor unhappy people of\\nthis country As soon as any disaffected mountebank appears, pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaiming his laws, and imaginary benefits, they become the willing\\ninstruments of his schemes, and their own destruction. Is it possi\u00c2\u00ac\\nble they can for a moment imagine that a great empire like this,\\narmed with the law, protected by an army, with a regular adminis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntration of justice\u00e2\u0080\u0094are they so infatuated as to imagine, all these\\nwill yield to a few miscreants like those under whom they have en\u00c2\u00ac\\nlisted themselves? It is therefore principally to undeceive these\\nmiserable wretches; to rescue them from the grasp of fiends, who\\nare working their destruction, that the law is sent down here, at\\nthis unusual season, to speak its emphatic language. What the law\\nis, I will tell you. What the consequence of infringing it is, you,\\ngentlemen, will tell; and I cannot help feeling, that in the conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence of this commission, we may look to an end of the confusion\\nand anarchy which has prevailed, and that the vicious may again\\nbe brought within the ordinary channels of subordination.\\nGentlemen, in speaking as I do, with indignation for those crimes,\\nI feel compassion from the very bottom of my heart for the victims", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0112.jp2"}, "113": {"fulltext": "TIIE THRESHERS.\\n103\\nof them. Seeing the mischiefs which have been spreading in the\\ncountry by the artifices oi miscreants, it does not surprise me at all,\\nthat many persons should be of opinion, that measures more summary\\nshould have been adopted, for the purpose of at once extinguishing\\nthese mischiefs. I am satisfied that the opinion of such men is dic\u00c2\u00ac\\ntated by a feeling of the truest regard tor the interests of their coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry of genuine compassion and mercy towards the unfortunate delin\u00c2\u00ac\\nquents themselves. But yet, my lords and gentlemen of the jury, I\\ntrust that the government ot the country will ultimately acquire credit\\nlrom those who entertained the opinion I have mentioned, for the\\ncourse which has been adopted in the present instance. The feeling\\n01 the government has been, that the insult which has been given to\\nthe law\u00e2\u0080\u0099s of the country is best vindicated by those laws themselves.\\nThe persons whom we are now called upon to cope with, do not com\u00c2\u00ac\\npose multitudes too strong for the arm of the law. It is not an as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsembly daring to stand before exertions of the magistracy, but it is a\\nlawless association of men, who find their safety in their obscurity.\\nAnd I cannot help feeling a confidence, that when the victims of delu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion shall have been undeceived; when they find that the law is ade\u00c2\u00ac\\nquate to their punishment; that the laity make a common cause with\\nthe clergy when they see atonement made to the laws by the speedy\\nand energetic administration of justice, now in progress amongst you\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nI say, I feel a confidence, that after they have seen the array of this\\ncountry drawn up for the investigation of their crimes after they\\nhave seen the assemblage, this day, of every man of rank, character,\\nand property, feeling their interests united with those, who have been\\nthe subject of lawless attack that the most salutary consequences\\nwill be experienced, and that these people will at length be convinced,\\nti.at when they dare to raise their hands against the laws of their\\ncountry, those laws will be found to have weight enough to fall down\\nupon and crush them. What, gentlemen, would it not be a miserable\\nstate of our country, to suppose that, armed as we are by the law-\\nsupported as we are by the aid of every gentleman in the country,\\nand with an armed force, if such be necessary; that associations of\\nmen, whose names are not known\u00e2\u0080\u0094of no rank, property, or station\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\ncould not be put down, without doing away, for a time at least, the\\nordinary constitution of the land If the time should unfortunately\\ncome, when, what is now a tumultuous rising, should assume an aspect\\nof a different nature if ever, which G( d forbid! those scenes shall\\nbe renewed, which we formerly witnessed; if treason shall rear its\\nhead in the country, and supersede the law, these wretches will have\\nto sink under the tide of ruin, which will be let in upon them. But", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0113.jp2"}, "114": {"fulltext": "104\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nI trust that no visitation of that kind will occur*; but that, with the\\nready assistance ot the government, and the aid of every loyal man,\\nwe shall be able to bring puuishment upon the guilty, and that the\\nlaw will be strong enough to wrestle with and put down these dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nturbers of the public peace.\\nGentlemen, I shall say only a few words more. The laws in be\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, of which I shall make a short statement, will appear to every\\none, particularly calculated to meet the outrages which at present\\nexist. They are laws which have not been recently introduced. For\\nhalf a century, the country has been visited with partial insurrections:\\nduring a portion of the reign of the late king, and during the entire\\nof the present, laws have been enacted calculated to meet these\\ncrimes. These laws are still in full force and operation. If the\\ninsurgents assemble with arms if they assume any particular deno\u00c2\u00ac\\nmination, or wear any badge, to the terror of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects,\\nby that mere act of assembling, though no further act be done, they\\nare punishable by law. The magistrates are authorised to disperse\\nand apprehend them. If they resist, and any be killed, the magis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrate is indemnified and if he has just cause to suspect that any\\nperson can give information respecting such outrages, he may sum\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon the person, examine him, bind him in a recognizance to appear,\\nand commit him, in case he refuses. I wish this was generally\\nknown, that if any man meet such an assembly, he is called upon to\\ndisperse it, and to apprehend the persons assembled; and if death\\nunfortunately ensue, the magistrate is indemnified.\\nThe magistrate is also armed with extraordinary powers to pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nserve the public peace. He is entitled to call for the assistance of\\nevery man in the county. The power which the law has, in ordinary\\ncases, intrusted to the sheriff, that of raising the posse comitatus, is,\\nin this instance, given to every magistrate and if any man refuses\\nto give this assistance, he is guilty of a misdemeanor. Persons not\\nentitled by law to carry arms, are liable to have then* houses searched,\\nand the law protects the person making the search. If any persons,\\ntumultuously assembled, shall assault, or injure the habitation or\\nproperty of another, they are punishable with death every person\\nwho administers an oath, whatever the nature or purport of it may\\nbe, binding the person taking it, to be of a particular party or asso\u00c2\u00ac\\nciation, is punishable with death any person who voluntarily takes\\nsuch oath, is liable to be banished lor ever; and he is not to suppose\\nthat after voluntarily taking such an oath, the mere circumstauce of\\ngoing to a magistrate and telling him, will protect him two circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances must concur to save him from punishment: first, that he was", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0114.jp2"}, "115": {"fulltext": "TITE THRr.S tt?5?.\\n105\\ncompelled to take the oath; and secondly, that he gave immediate\\ninformation of his being so compelled; so that here are abundant\\nprovisions for the punishment of these offences. But, gentlemen, it\\nhas been industriously circulated that these laws are expired I tell\\nyou, and those who hear me, what was stated yesterday from the\\nhigh authority of the bench, that these laws are in full force and\\nexistence and every man joining in unlawful confederacies is liable\\nto pay the penalty inflicted by those laws.\\nGentlemen, 1 have also to inform you, that under the statute of\\nthe 15th and 16th of his present majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reign, commonly called\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cThe Whiteboy Act,\u00e2\u0080\u009d any person who harbours, conceals, or gives\\nassistance to any person concerned in such outrages, is as much guilty\\nas the person so concealed; and any person who supplies horses, arms,\\nor ammunition, for the purpose of these confederacies, is liable to\\nforfeit his life. Gentlemen, armed with these laws, which have been\\nfound competent to put down insurrections, as alarming as the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent, with the honourable zeal and activity of the magistrates,, which\\nyou may confidently look to, and with the sincere desire of government\\nto protect the loyal, and reclaim the guilty, are we to despair of the\\nlaws being able to cope with the mischiefs, and not to look for the\\nrestoration of tranquillity and peace I cannot so persuade myscli,\\nand I am not uneasy as to the result. Gentlemen, with regard to\\nthe particular case now before you, it will appear that the prisoners,\\non the night of the 2nd of September last, with many others, attacked\\nthe house of Peter O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill, at Cartron Watts in this county. He had\\nbeen audacious enough to say, he would pay the dues which he had\\nbeen accustomed to pay; he was not prepared at the instance of these\\nlegislators to renounce his obedience to the laws he said he would pay\\nas he had formerly done; this was high treason by their law: they re\u00c2\u00ac\\npaired to his house; they broke it open; they dragged him naked\\nfrom his bed; they asked him for money; that is part of their sys\u00c2\u00ac\\ntem for redress of grievances he had ouly one tenpenny piece he\\nhad no more but he was desired to send more to the house of a\\nperson whom they named, but who is not now upon trial; they took\\nhim away naked, and one of the party had an instrument for carding\\nwool, with which they inflicted punishment upon him, by severely\\nexcoriating his back; the prisoners will be identified by O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill, his\\nv,ife, and son, who plainly saw them; so that there are three wit\u00c2\u00ac\\nnesses to the transaction. It these facts shall be proved, there can\\nbe no doubt of the melancholy necessity which will be imposed upon\\nton. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Neill gave information to Mr. Soden, the magistrate, and\\nexhibited his back, which was excoriated with the torture which had", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0115.jp2"}, "116": {"fulltext": "plummet s speeches.\\n10G\\nbeen inflicted upon him; so that with regard to this being a case within\\nthe statute no question can arise but if the evidence be not clear\\nand satisfactory, no sense of danger or alarm should induce you to\\nAnd a verdict against the prisoners. It will, in that case, be your\\nduty to acquit them but if you have no doubt of their guilt, I will\\nnot humble you or myself by supposing, that any of you would\\nshrink from a firm and manly discharge of his duty.\\nThe prisoners were acquitted. Several of the other leading prosecutions of\\nthe commission failed; but in Mayo, where that renowned toparch, the Right\\nHon. Denis Browne, had pioneered the operations of the commission, there\\nwere about a dozen of the Threshers hanged.\\nCATHOLIC RELIEF.\\nApril 9, 1807.\\nPluxket, who had accepted office from Pitt, remained attorney-general to the\\nministry of all the talents,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and was returned to parliament by their influence\\nfor Midhurst, a little borough in Sussex, for which Fox and Sheil have also\\nsat.\\nThe Catholic question had lain dormant since the Union. The King had\\nbecome frantically hostile to their claims. Pitt, on retiring from office in 1801,\\nsent word to the Irish Catholics, through Dr. Troy, the archbishop of Dublin,\\nthat \u00e2\u0080\u009cthe leading part of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers, finding insurmountable\\nobstacles to the bringing forward measures of concession to the Catholic body,\\nhad felt it impossible to continue in office under the inability to propose it with\\nthe circumstances necessary to carrying the measure with all its advantages\\nand he held out hopes that he would never return to office unless on the condi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of being allowed to redress their claims. Nothing was attempted in the\\nministry of Addington, and Pitt returned to office in 1804, and died at the\\nheight of his contest with Napoleon, without a thought of Ireland, which had\\nbeen half deluded and half crushed into a state of torpor. At last, when Lord\\nGrenville formed an administration containing so many statesmen pledged to\\nsupport their claims, the Catholic committee began to agitate. Yet their auspices\\nwere gloomy enough. Pitt was dead, and Pitt might well be believed in these\\ndays to be the only British minister strong enough to bend the bigotry of King and\\nparliament. The councils of the Catholics were rather distracted. Many of\\nthe bishops and most of the gentry were for patience, and prudence, and all\\npossible trust in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s kindness and the ministry\u00e2\u0080\u0099s charity. John Keogh\\nhad grown suddenly old and wayward; now violent out of time, now over\\ncautious. A new era was dawning, of which the brave old tribune could not\\nread the signs. Catholic emancipation was destined never to come until the\\npeople of Ireland had proved themselves stronger than King and Lords and\\nCommons. Twenty years of dreary agitation lay before the persecuted race;\\nand from this time forth a young Kerry barrister, named Daniel O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell,\\nbecame the Moses, the man of men among them.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0116.jp2"}, "117": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n107\\nLord Grenville was quite sincere in his friendliness to the Catholic claims, but\\nneither he nor one of his party dare attempt what Pitt would have done, had he\\ndone anything\u00e2\u0080\u0094that is, at once admit the Catholics to political power, and endow\\ntheir clergy, on the basis of a concordat admitting to the crown a right of veto\\nin the election of bishops. A Whig ministry, however well disposed, could only\\nattempt the same work by insignificant and dilatory instalments. Even Sheridan,\\nwith his hot Celtic heart\u00e2\u0080\u0094and in opposition too\u00e2\u0080\u0094declared, at the close of the ses\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of 1807, that his notion of Catholic emancipation was to conciliate the\\npeasantry, by relieving them of tithes: to admit the Catholic gentry to be\\njudges and generals and members of parliament, was like decorating the top\u00c2\u00ac\\nmasts of a ship when there were ten feet of water in the hold, or putting a laced\\nhat on a man who had not a shoe to his foot.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Lord Grenville attempted very\\nlittle, but his fate was a warning to the Whigs and a terror to the Catholics for\\nmany a long year. He lost office for merely attempting to assimilate the state\\nof the law in England to the Irish Relief Act of 1793.\\nIn Ireland the law allowed Catholics to hold all military commissions under\\nthe rank of colonel, but the law enabled the king to grant such commissions only\\nin Ireland. The Whigs attempted to extend this provision to the entire empire,\\nand to all ranks in the army. To this effect, Lord Howick, afterwards the great\\nEarl Grey, prepared a bill. At first the king made no opposition to its introduc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. At o second audience, he expressed, to Lord Howick, a general dislike and\\ndisapprobation of the measure; but as he did not continue the subject with Lord\\nGrenville, who entered the closet immediately after Lord Howick, they pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsumed they might proceed with the second reading of the bill. A few days\\nafterwards, however, he became so furiously obstinate, that the ministry were\\nobliged first to postpone, and finally to withdraw it altogether. Even this\\nhowever was not enough for the wrong-headed old bigot\u00e2\u0080\u0094his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s servants\\nin the cabinet must pledge themselves never under any circumstances to recom\u00c2\u00ac\\nmend a redress of the Catholic claims. This was too much. All the talents\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nretired. The Duke of Portland came in with a thundering no-Popery ciy, and\\nthe Catholics learned a little more of Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s sincerity by seeing him in\\noffice. Parliament, was dissolved in the mid-summer. The Church in danger\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nsounded at every British hustings, and one of the most bigoted Protestant par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliaments that had sat in England since the Revolution was returned.\\nBefore the dissolution, long explanations were given in both houses on the\\ncauses of the change o! administration; and on the adjourned debate, Plunket\\nspoke the only speech he delivered in parliament during the short period for\\nwhich he represented Midhurst.\\nMr. Plunket declared that he was not one of these men, whom an\\nhon. baronet (Sir T. Turton) had supposed were anxious to load the\\npersons of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s new ministers with obloquy and reproach.\\nHe was sure that his majesty was the kind father of his people, and\\nhad acted only on the representations of others. that the church\\nwas in danger. Those, however, who had been the foremost to set\\nup this cry, and to sound this alarm, had thrown upon him a great\\nweight of responsibility. It was incumbent? upon them to prove the\\nexistence of that danger. He had yet to learn, and the house had\\nyet to learn, how and from what quarter danger was to be apprehended", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0117.jp2"}, "118": {"fulltext": "108\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nto the Established Church. No man felt more strongly than he did,\\nthe advantages to both countries from the connexion with Ireland\\nno man wished more, that that connexion should be finally cemented,\\nand no man was more attached to the Protestant establishment of\\nIreland, which he conceived to be no less important than the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexion itself. If, then, he could see any ground for supposing the\\nProtestant establishment was in danger, he would be as ready as any\\nman to raise his voice in its support, and to ring the alarm to the\\ncountry. He was at a loss, however, now to discover from what\\nquarter this danger was threatened and it did appear to him, that\\nmen who, upon such slight grounds, or rather upon no grounds at all\\ncould come forward and wantonly disturb the peace of that country,\\ndid not show themselves to be men possessed of such discretion as\\nshould be expected from those to whom the administration of the af\u00c2\u00ac\\nfairs of the empire were to be committed at a crisis like the present.\\nAfter the measure had been abandoned, still the cry was artfully kept\\nup that the church was in danger. He should therefore beg leave\\nto call the attention of the house to the act of 1793, and he would\\nfirst observe that that Irish act did not apply merely to Irish Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics, but to all Catholics serving in the army of Ireland. Since the\\nUnion, however, there no longer existed any separate army of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, nor any separate establishments. But before the Union,\\nEnglish Catholics, if serving in the army of Ireland, were entitled\\nto the benefit of the act of 1793. At present, by the law of the land,\\nthe king is empowered to grant commissions in Ireland to Catholics,\\nand it would be certainly a strange thing to tell those Catholics, that\\nalthough they were very fit to be trusted in Ireland, yet they were\\nnot fit to be trusted in any other part of the world. If the artful\\nendeavours to keep up the cry of the church being in danger had\\nbeen confined to placards stuck up against the walls, or to Protestant\\nsongs and religious choruses, perhaps those endeavours would not\\nmerit any severe reprehension but he had been informed of other\\nattempts, which he thought were deserving of more serious attention.\\nThe peace of the University of Dublin had lately been disturbed with\\nattempts from a very high quarter to procure an address to his ma-\\niesty, stating that the church and the Protestant religion was in\\ndanger. Two letters had been written to the university by its chan\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellor (the Duke of Cumberland) to procure such an address. The\\nfirst produced but very little effect; but in the second, the royal\\nduke to whom he alluded stated (as he was informed) that such a\\nstep would be the only means of recommendiug that university to\\nthe favour of his majesty* He considered that nothing could bo", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0118.jp2"}, "119": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n109\\nmore unconstitutional than this mode of using his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s name to\\nprocure an address or petitions to parliament. He thought, however,\\nthat it would be necessary to consider the time at which such exer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions were made to get a petition from the University of Dublin. It\\nwas either after the bill had been abandoned that it was endeavoured\\nto raise the ferment and outcry, or it was in contemplation of its\\nserving the new ministers. If the attempt was made before his ma\u00c2\u00ac\\njesty had exhibited the slightest disapprobation, it was evident how far\\nthe machinations of secret advisers operated; if it was after the bill\\nwas abandoned, it was equally evident that it was then the purpose\\nof effecting a change of administration, which was stated to have\\nbeen produced by other causes. He could not state at present the\\ndate of this last letter; but he must say generally, that whether it\\nwas before the bill was abandoned or immediately after, it equally\\nshowed what sort of engines had been set to work to spread the\\nalarm that the church and the Protestant religion were in danger.\\nWhen he heard the name of religion mentioned, he felt that every\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing that was most dear to his heart was touched; but when the\\nname of religion was so dear to him, it was from its intrinsic value,\\nfrom its dictating and concentrating all the amiable charities of life,\\nb om its breathing the spirit of toleration and mutual affection, and\\nnot as being the rallying word of a persecuting party. He knew\\nthere were many in that house to whom true religion was dear, and\\nhe therefore called upon those who possessed it in their hearts, and\\nwho did not use it as a watch-word for persecution, to show it in\\ntheir votes in favour of a system of toleration and benevolence to\\nall classes of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s loyal subjects. He should, then, call the\\nattention of the house to the pledge which was required from th*\\nlate ministers. This pledge he considered in the highest degree dan\u00c2\u00ac\\ngerous and unconstitutional, and tending directly to substitute secret\\nw hispers in the place of the responsible ministers and advisers to the\\ncrown. He conceived it of the most dangerous consequences to\\nhave it supposed that the ministers of this country could have one\\nduty to their master and sovereign, which was directly opposite to\\ntheir duty to their country. He conceived that this particular pledge\\nwould compromise the safety of Ireland. The state of the Catholics\\nof Ireland was this during the course of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reign, many\\nc -ncessions had been made to them, and many of the advantages to\\nwhich they had been entitled had been granted them. In conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence of this, many of them had arrived to wealth, and honour, and\\n(li-tinction. It would be asked by many\u00e2\u0080\u0094Ought not this content them\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0098a mi ought they press f r anything m re It was uot, however, ia", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0119.jp2"}, "120": {"fulltext": "110\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhuman nature to be so contented. He should appeal to the indivi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndual feelings of the members of that house, who all of them enjoyed\\nwealth, honour, and distinctions in society\u00e2\u0080\u0094if they were to be told,\\nyou ought to be well satisfied with those advantages, and should be\\ncontent not to be admitted to the full participation of the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, would they be so contented They would not: it was not in hu\u00c2\u00ac\\nman nature that they should.\\nThe Catholic gentry of Ireland were now in that situation of ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nclusion, and anxiously wished to be received into the bosom of the\\nconstitution. The Catholic priesthood were at present unpaid and\\ndegraded, and they wished also to be put into a more respectable\\nsituation. The Catholic population of Ireland, which was by far the\\ngreatest part of its inhabitants, also felt themselves degraded by the\\nhumiliation of their nobility, their gentry, and their priesthood. It\\nwas impossible that they should not feel in that manner; and it was\\nimpolitic to disappoint their natural and just feelings and expecta\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions. Such was the actual situation of Ireland he would not pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntend to point out the specibc remedy; but this he would say, that\\nit was impossible for Ireland to continue much longer in the state in\\nwhich it was at present; it might be thrown into a worse state, but\\nevery one that was acquainted with its actual situation, and he would\\nappeal to the Tight honourable gentleman who was lately secretary\\nfor that country (Mr. Elliot), must know and agree that it was im\u00c2\u00ac\\npossible that it should remain long as it is at present. We might\\nas well shut our eyes, and then say there was no danger, as remain\\nlonger in indifference and apathy respecting the situation of Ireland.\\nThe pledges that were demanded from the late ministers would have\\na most important effect upon the situation of that country. The\\nministers were to be absolutely prevented from even proposing\\nanything in favour of its population. Every paltry corporation, the\\n.owest individual in the empire, had by the constitution a right to\\npresent his petition to the king or to the legislature.; but now, for\\nthe first time, it is stated that four millions of the people of Ireland\\nshall be debarred of the right of petitioning, or, what is equivalent,\\nthey are told that no petitions they may present will be paid any\\nattention to. This was not only a novelty, but a prodigy, an alarm\u00c2\u00ac\\ning appearance in the constitution, and which seemed to portend\\nthe greatest danger. This general interdiction appeared more like\\nsome divine chastisement to a people, than like any measure which\\nhuman policy could have adopted. What must have been the effect\\not those transactions which have recently taken place The Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics of Ireland would be given to understand that the royal ears wer\u00c2\u00ab", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0120.jp2"}, "121": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\nIll\\nhermetically sealed against them that the ministers of the crown\\nwere bound by some pledge, expressed or implied, never to propose\\nauy redress for them, but always to resist their claims. This con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsideration tilled him with the most serious apprehensions and when\\nlie said so, he must take notice of an expression that had fallen from\\nan honourable baronet (Sir T. Turton), that those who prophesied\\nloose dangers intended to act in sucu a manner as to bring their\\nprophecies to their accomplishment. Nothing could be more un\u00c2\u00ac\\nparliamentary or indecent than this observation. He should not,\\nhowever, be prevented by it from expressing fully those apprehen-\\ns ons which he felt. He had in Ireland so many dear pledges, that\\nno man could suspect him of lightly wishing to offer any observa-\\nti ms which could tend to disturb its tranquillity or endanger its\\nsecurity; he knew, however, that there were many fiends and demons\\nwaiting to seize on every opportunity to effect a separation of the\\ntwo countries, and he conceived that they would take every advan\u00c2\u00ac\\ntage of the discontent which the Catholics might feel. He felt that\\nwe were walking per ignes suppositos cinere doloso: he did not\\nmean to say that the danger was immediate; it might be smoothed\\nover for a year or two, but it would continue to keep Ireland the\\nmost vulnerable part of the empire. If a measure of such unneces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary outrage as this was persevered in, he thought it might shake\\nto the centre the connexion between the two countries, and the pros\u00c2\u00ac\\nperity, if not the existence of the empire.\\nTHE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\nFebruary 25, IS 13.\\nPlukket was again returned to parliament by Trinity College, in 1812, after\\nan interval of five years.\\nThe parliamentary progress of the Catholic question meantime may be told\\nin a few words. In 1808, Grattan proposed the petition of the Irish Catholics,\\nand moved that it be referred to a committee of the whole house; he was tU\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0bated by a majority of 153. Again, in 1810, he was beaten on the sail*)\\nmotion by a majority of 104 and in 1812 by a majority of 85. In the House\\nof Lords, Lord Donoughmore, who had charge of the petition there, was beafe\u00e2\u0080\u0099i\\nat the same dates by majorities averaging 80 votes. The question made progress,\\nnevertheless. The most eminent English statesmen then living, or lately dead,\\nPitt, Fox, Burke, Tierney, Windham, Sheridan, Canning, Castlereagli, were\\niwsitively pledged to sustain it. So the prince regent was also supposed to be.\\nThe king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s insanity had settled one great obstacle. The pamphlets and debates,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094and particularly Sir John Cox Hippisley\u00e2\u0080\u0099s documentary collections and par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliamentary papers upon Catholic doctrine and practice touching the civil autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity and sects without the pale of the church\u00e2\u0080\u0094had disabused the English public", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0121.jp2"}, "122": {"fulltext": "PLUNKETS SPEECHES.\\ni 12\\nra nd of much prejudice. But the most powerful argument of all was the fact\\nthat the li ish Catholics had become a formidable political power, and every day\\ngrew more determined in their tone, more coherent and organised in action\\nNapoleon Bonaparte and then Daniel O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell were the two weightiest troubles\\nof the imperial minister.\\nAt last the scale turned a little. On the 22nd of June, 1812, Mr. Canning\\nmoved that the house would, early in the next session, take into its considera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion the state of the laws affecting his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Human Catholic subjects, with\\na view to a final and conciliatory adjustment compatible with the Protestant\\nconstitution in church and state. A brilliant debate ensued, and the motion was\\ncarried by a majority of 235 to 106 votes.\\nAccordingly, in the following February, Grattan proposed a committee of the\\nwhole house in the terms of Canning\u00e2\u0080\u0099s motion. B^fjre he rose, Mr. Yorke\\ncalled on the clerk to read from the Bill of Bights the passages guaranteeing a\\nProtestant conslituti n i t church and state. Grattan legan by declaring his\\nopinion that these very passages might and ought to be contained in the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\namble of any bill for the relief of the Catholics. His speech throughout was\\na singularly clear, simple, and earnest argument. Exception was taken to the\\nfact that he seemed to speak of Ireland as a distinct and independent country\\na lapse that might well happen to the man who had once made Ireland a\\nnation Plunket spoke early in the debate\u00e2\u0080\u0094after Mr. Bankes, who had taken\\nGrattan to task for the use of such terms in an imperial parliament, and had\\nreferred to the recent controversy between the Pope and Napoleon, as a,proof\\nthat the V ,pacy was still inspired by a spirit of utter intolerance.\\nA geneiation of Irish Catholics has grown to manhood since emancipation,\\nand lost the memory of the old bondage; so, many readers may find it diffi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncult to understand the exact bearings of the masterly argument in which\\nPlunket pleaded the rights of our fathers. I may therefore state in a\\nfew sentences the condition of the then existing penal laws. In many\\nparticulars, the laws against Catholics differed in the three kingdoms;\\nir Scotland they were most severe, even touching freedom of worship. In\\nIreland they had been relaxed so as to recognise full freedom of worship, the\\nright to practise professions, to act under the royal commission in peace and war.\\nlo serve on juries, and to exercise the parliamentary franchise. But the acts o!\\nreal grievance affecting the general body of the Catholics throughout the three\\nkingdoms, and especially in England, were: 1. The 13th Charles II., com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmonly called the Corporation Act, by which they were excluded from offices in\\ncities and corporations. 2. The 25th Charles II., commonly called the Test\\nAct, by which they were excluded from all civil and military offices\u00e2\u0080\u0094unless in\\nthe cases in which the test was abolished by the Irish act of 1793. 3. The\\n80th Charles II., by which Catholics were interdicted from sitting in either\\nnouse of parliament. An act of William and Mary, operative iu England, preven\u00c2\u00ac\\nted the use of the parliamentary franchise. The mutiny and admiralty laws\\nenabled officers to compel Catholic soldiers and sailors to attend Protestant worship.\\nThere were many other statutes, especially in England and Scotland, unrepealed,\\nbut practically inoperative. The machinery of exclusion was either the oath of\\nupremacy, declaring the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s civil and ecclesiastical pre-e ninence within the\\nr :alm, or the sacramental test of taking the Protestant communion before the accep\u00c2\u00ac\\ntance of office, or a declaration denying transubstantiation, and denouncing tae\\ninvocation of saints and the sacrifice of the mass as idolatrous. In parliament\\nthe oath and declaration were both taken. Whenever Catholics were admitte i\\nte office, they disclaimed upon oath the temporal authority of the Pope outside", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0122.jp2"}, "123": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n113\\nhi3 own states, and the doctiine that the infallibility of his holiness was an articla\\nuf faith.\\nMr. Speaker, I am induced to rise, at so early a period of the debate,\\nfor the purpose of obviating the mis-statement (certainly uninten\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional) of the expressions and sentiments of my right honourable\\nfriend Mr. Grattan, winch has been made by the honourable gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman who has last spoktn. My right honourable friend did not call\\nGreat Britain a foreign country; and even if such an expression\\nhad accidentally been used by him, the uniform tenor of his opinions\\nand of his language in this house might have suggested to the\\nhonourable member the propriety of abstaining from a verbal criticism\\nupon it. My right honourable friend unites to the enthusiasm of au\\nIrish patriot the comprehensive views of a statesman aud a legislator;\\nand his affection for his native country, to which his life has been de\u00c2\u00ac\\nvoted, has expanded into love of the general weal, and zeal for the\\nglory of the empire. In every sentiment which he has uttered I\\nmost cordially concur. My right honourable friend has not been so\\nabsurd as to propose to re-enact the bill of rights and the act of\\nsettlement; but absurd and extravagant calumnies having, with no\\nlaudable industry, been propagated, as if the present motion were in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntended to invade the church and to overturn the state, my right\\nhonourable friend has placed in the front of his resolution a denial\\nof the calumny.\\nThe honourable gentleman has said there is nothing specific or in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntelligible in the motion or in the statement. The motion appears to\\nme to be perfectly distinct, and perfectly intelligible. It proposes to\\nremove all the civil disabilities which affect a great portion of our\\nfellow subjects, on account of their religion; offering, at the same\\ntime, to accompany the measure with every security which may be\\nrequired for the protection of the Protestant interest. This seems\\nnot very difficult to comprehend; but I own I do not find it equally\\neasy to ascertain the meaning of the honourable gentleman himself.\\nIn some part of his argument he relies on objections, which, if they\\nhave any weight against the measure now, must always operate; in\\nother parts, he insinuates as an opinion that the objections are only\\naccidental or temporary. Why the honourable member voted for the\\nmeasure in the last parliament, and intends to oppose it in this, seems\\nto require some further explanation than he has thought proper to\\nafford. The intolerant declarations of the Pope, which lie has re\u00c2\u00ac\\nferred to, were surely as strong an argument at that time as they\\ntre now. The honourable gentleman seems to have spoken with an\\nanxiety to anticipate what is to be said by a righf houourable friend", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0123.jp2"}, "124": {"fulltext": "plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\n1U\\nof his who is hereafter to express his opinions and he has alluded\\nto the proposal of some plan which, he fears, will not be acceptable\\nto the petitioners, and which he himself does not approve of; or, if\\nhe does, why he cannot agree to the going into a committee for the\\npurpose of considering it, the house are left to conjecture.\\nMuch has been said of the question of right. It appears to me\\nto be a very unnecessary metaphysical discussion, and one whicli\\ncannot have any practical application in the present instance. In\\nthe same sense in which religious toleration is a right, a due share\\nof political power is a right. Both must yield to the paramount in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterests of society, if such interests require it. Neither can be justi\u00c2\u00ac\\nfiably withheld, unless their inconsistency with the public interest is\\nllearly established. But in the present case the question does not,\\nw any respect, arise; for we have already admitted the Roman\\nCatholics to substantial power, and what we seek to exclude them\\nfrom is honour. The privileges which are withheld are impotent as\\nprotections to the state, but most galling and provoking to the party\\nwho is excluded. No candid mind can hesitate to admit that these\\nexclusions must be severely felt as subjects of grievance, and griev\u00c2\u00ac\\nances of the most insulting kind. That the man of the first eminence\\nat the bar should be prevented from acting as one of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ncounsel, or from sitting on the bench of justice; that the gallant\\nofficer who has distinguished himself in the battles of his country,\\nwhen his heart is beating high with the love of honourable fame,\\nshould be stopped in his career, and see his companions in arms\\nraised above him, to lead his countrymen to victory and glory, must\\nbe felt as wounding and humiliating. In this house, does it require\\nargument to show that exclusion from parliament must be considered\\nas a privation and indignity What assembles us here The\\nhonest ambition of serving our country\u00e2\u0080\u0094the pride of abiding by\\nhonourable engagements\u00e2\u0080\u0094or motives perhaps of a less elevated de\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription. Whatever they may be, honourable and dignified, or\\notherwise, they subsist in their minds as much as in ours; and\\nthough the elective franchise, which has been granted to the Irish\\nCatholic, gives him a substantial representation, yet the exclusion is\\ncalculated to operate as a severe and humiliating disability and the\\nmore humiliating, because it is a mark of inferiority branded on the\\nCatholic, merely for the purpose of marking inferiority\\nThe topic that toleration admits of one consideration aud political\\npower of another has little application to this case, even if it were\\ntrue; for here it must be contended that rank, and station, and\\nhonour are not the proper appendages of wealth, and knowledge, and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0124.jp2"}, "125": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n115\\neducation, and of everything which constitutes political and moral\\nstrength. In every system of human policy the few must govern\\nthe many, but, putting military force out of the case, their legitimate\\ngovernment must arise trorn their superiority in wealth and know\u00c2\u00ac\\nledge if, therefore, you exclude the wealthy and the educated froi*\\nthe government of the state, you throw into the scale of the many\\nthe only weight which could have preserved the balance of the state\\nitself. This is universally true; but when you reject the opulent\\nand the educated, on account of a condition which they have in\\ncommon with the many, you add the attraction of politics and party\\nto the operation of general and moral causes and, if the principle\\nof exclusion be a religious one, you organize not merely the princi\u00c2\u00ac\\nples of revolution, but of revolution furious and interminable. Put\\nthe policy of the separation of political rank from property aud edu\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation, in the extreme case of their total division, or. in any inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nmediate degree, the conclusion is equally true, that the attempt so\\nto separate, e.-tablishes a principle, not of government, but of the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsolution of all government! So sensible of this truth were our ances-\\nt i s, that when they saw, or thought they saw, a necessity for dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nhonouring the Roman Catholic, they adopted, as a necessary conse-\\nqueuce, the policy of impoverishing and barbarizing him.. When they\\nce ^raded him, they felt that their only safety was to steep him in\\npoverty and ignorance. Their policy, good or bad, was consistent\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthe means had a diabolical fitness for their end. Is it not a perfect\\ncorollary to this proposition, is it not the legitimate converse of this\\ntruth, that, if you re-admit them to wealth and to knowledge, you\\nmust restore them to ambition and to honour? What have we done?\\nWe have trod back their steps; we have rescued the Catholics from\\nthe code, which formed at once their servitude and our safety. And\\nwe fancy we can continue the exclusion, from civil station, which\\nsuperinduced that code. Theirs was a necessity, real or fancied, but\\na consistent system; we pretend no necessity; we have voluntarily\\nabdicated the means of safety, and we wilfully and uselessly continue\\nthe causes of danger. The time to have paused, was before we heaved\\nVom those sons of earth, the mountains which the wisdom or the\\nterrors of our ancestors had heaped upon them but we have raised\\nthem up and placed them erect\u00e2\u0080\u0094are we prepared to hurl them down\\nand bury them again\\nWhere is the madman to propose it Where is the idiot who\\nimagines that they can remain as they are The state of the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics of Ireland is, in this respect, unparalleled by anything in ancient\\nor modern history. They are not slaves, as some of their absurd", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0125.jp2"}, "126": {"fulltext": "116\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nadvocates call them, but freemen, possessing substantially the same\\noolitical rights with their Protestant brethren, and with all the other\\nsubjects of the empire that is, possessed of all the advantages which\\ncan be derived from the best laws, administered in the best man\u00c2\u00ac\\nner, of the most free and most highly civilized country in the world.\\nDo you believe that such a body, possessed of such a station, can\\nsubmit to contumely and exclusion That they will stand behind\\nyour chair and wait upon you at the public banquet The less\\nvaluable, in sordid computation, the privilege, the more marked the\\ninsult in refusing it, and the more honourable the anxiety for posses\u00c2\u00ac\\nsing it 1 Miserable and unworthy wretches would they be if they\\nceased to aspire to it; base and dangerous hypocrites if they dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsembled their wishes formidable instruments of domestic or foreign\\ntyranny if they did not entertain them The liberties of England\\nwould nor, for half a century, remain proof against the contact and\\ncontagion of four millions of opulent and powerful subjects, who dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nregarded the honours of the state, and felt utterly uninterested in the\\nconstitution.\\nIn coming forward, therefore, with this claim of honourable am\u00c2\u00ac\\nbition, they at once afford you the best pledge of their sincerity,\\nand the most satisfactory evidence of their title. They claim the\\nbenefit of the ancient vital principle of the constitution, that the\\nhonours of the state should be open to the talents and to the virtues\\nof all its members. The adversaries of the measure invert the order\\nof all civilized society. They have made the Catholics an aristocracy,\\nand they would treat them as a mob; they give to the lowest of\\nthe rabble, if he is a Protestant, what they refuse to the head of the\\npeerage, if he is a Catholic. They shut out my Lord Fingal from\\nthe state, and they make his footman a member of it; and this\\nstrange confusion of all social order, they dignify with the name of\\nthe British constitution and the proposal to consider the best and\\nmost conciliatory mode ot correcting it, they cry down as a danger\u00c2\u00ac\\nous and presumptuous innovation.\\nSir, the Catholics propose no innovation. They ask for an equal\\nshare, as fellow-subjects, in the constitution, as they fiud it; in that\\nconstitution, in whose original stamina they had an uudisputed right,\\nbefore there was a reformation and before there was a revolution, and\\nbefore the existence of the abuses which induced the necessity of either.\\nThey desire to bear its burdens, to share its dangers, to participate its\\nglory, and to abide its fate. They bring, as an offering, their hearts\\nand hands, their lives and fortunes, but they desire also the privileg\u00c2\u00ae\\nof bringing with them their consciences, their religion, and their", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0126.jp2"}, "127": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLTC CLAIMS. 117\\nhonour, without which they would be worthless and dangerous asso\u00c2\u00ac\\nciates.\\nThe position, therefore, to be maintained, by those who say that\\nthe first principles of the constitution are in apposition to their claim,\\nis rather a critical one. They must show why it is that a Roman\\nCatholic may vote for a member to sit in parliament, and yet may\\nnot himself be a member of it; why he may be the most powerful\\nand wealthy subject in the realm, and the greatest landed proprietor,\\nand yet may not fill the lowest office, in the meanest town upon his\\nestates; why he may be the first advocate at the bar, and be inca\u00c2\u00ac\\npable of acting as one of the counsel of his sovereign; why he may\\nbe elector, military officer, grand juror, corporator, magistrate, in\\nIreland, where the danger, if any, is immense, and why none of\\nthem in England, where the causes of apprehension are comparatively\\ntrifling and insignificant. Resides all this, arguing as they do, that\\nthe Roman Catholic religion necessarily includes hostility to the state,\\non the very points which, by the oaths which the Roman Catholics\\nhave taken, are solemnly disavowed, they must show the safety of\\nharbouring, in the bosom of the state, and admitting to its essential\\nand substantial benefits, a body of men whose only title to admission\\nhas been peijury; a body of men who, in addition to religious opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnions, inconsistent with our particular constitution, have violated the\\nsolemn obligations which biud man to man, and therefore are un\u00c2\u00ac\\nworthy ol being admitted into any society in which the sacred prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples of social intercourse are respected.\\nSir, if these things are so, the petitions of the public should be,\\nnot to be protected against the dangers which are to come, but to\\nbe rescued from those which have already been incurred. Nay,\\nmore, if oaths are no longer to be regarded, we should not rely on\\nthe vain securities which our ancestors have resorted to, and which\\nconsist of oaths, and only of oaths; but we should devise some new\\nmeans of proving their religion by the testimony of others, and of\\nchaining them down to it, without the possibility of disowning or\\nescaping from it.\\nHut, let us examine, somewhat more accurately, these supposed\\nprinciples of public policy which oppose an insuperable bar to ths\\nadmission of the Roman Catholic. They join issue with you on this\\npoint. So far as concession is inconsistent with the true principles\\nof the constitution, the safety of the Established Church, and of the\\nProtestant throne, they admit that they are entitled to nothing; so\\ntar as it is not inconsistent, they claim to be entitled to every thing.\\nLet it be shown that these great foundations of our liberties and oi", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0127.jp2"}, "128": {"fulltext": "118\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2our civil and ecclesiastical polity are their enemies, and they must\\nyield in silence. They must receive it as the doom of fate; it most\\nbe submitted to, as part of the mysterious system of Providence,\\nwhich, whilst it has embarked us in an awful struggle for the preser\u00c2\u00ac\\nvation of its choicest blessings, has ordained that, in this struggle,\\nwe may not unite the hearts and affections of our people. We must\\ncherish the hope that the same incomprehensible wisdom, which at\\nonce impels us to this mighty contest and forbids us to use the means\\nof success, may work out our safety by methods of its own. If it\\ncan be made to appear that the imperious interests of our country\\npronounce, from necessity, this heavy and immitigable sentence upon\\nmillions of its subjects, I trust that they will learn submission, and\\nnot embitter their hopeless exclusion by the miseries of discontent\\nand of disorder; but, before they bow down to this eternal interdict,\\nbefore they retire from the threshold of the constitution to the gloom\\nof hopeless and never ending exclusion, I appeal to every candid\\nmind, are they not entitled to have it proved by arguments, clear as\\nthe light of heaven, that this necessity exists T now* challenge the\\ninvestigation of those supposed maxims, step by step, and inch by\\ninch. Let it be stated in some clear and intelligible form, what is\\nthis fundamental prop of the constitution; what is this overwhelming\\nruin, which is to tumble upon us by its removal. Let us meet and\\nclose with this argument. But beware, I warn you, of attempting\\nto outlaw the Irish people, by an artificial and interested clamour!\\nLet not those who have encouraged the Irish people to expect redress,\\nnow affect to be bound by this spell of their own raising! This\\nwould be to palter with their own consciences and the public safety,,\\nand can entail no consequences, other than calamity and disgrace.\\nThe only obstacles, which appear to stand in the way of the Roman\\nCatholics, are the oath of supremacy and the declaration against\\ntransubstantiation. The former of these, in its original enactment\\nand application, had a very limited political relation. I speak not\\nof the capricious fury of Henry VIII., which made it treason to refuse\\nthe oath. He considered himself, under God, the supreme head of\\nthe Church, in all things spiritual and temporal; and bound the\\nsubject to submit to all his ordinances made, and to be made, under\\nthe penalty of death. But the application of the oath, as it was mo\u00c2\u00ac\\ndified by Elizabeth, had chiefly (and with the exception ot offices\\nimmediately derived from the crown, or concerning the administra\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of justice) a religious, and not a political, application. Subject\\nto these exceptions, it professed not to control the private opinion,\\nnor to ranke it a ground of exclusion. Bat it subjected the public", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0128.jp2"}, "129": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n119\\nprofession, or non-conformity, to penalty. And, accordingly, Roman\\nCatholics were admissable to parliament and to corporate offices for\\nmore than one hundred years after the introduction of the oath of\\nsupremacy. Then came the laws of Charles II., which, for the first\\ntime, superinduced general exclusion from office, as a political conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence of the religious opinion.\\nHere, then, were before us, two principles, the first, that of the\\nReformation, which proscribed the religion; the second, that of\\nCharles II., which presumed that certain unconstitutional tenets must\\nbe held by those who professed that religion, and therefore made\\njivil incapacity the consequence of the religious belief. Here were\\ntwo principles perfectly distinct, but perfectly consistent. Now what\\nhave we done? We have, in fact, abrogated the principles of the\\nReformation, for we have repealed the laws against recusancy, and\\nlegalized the religion. Having done this, it was a necessary conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence to say that we could not infer, from a religious tenet which we\\nlegalized, a political opinion inconsistent with the safety of the state;\\notherwise we shouldhave been un j ustifiable in legalizing it. We there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore substituted instead of the renunciation of the religious doctrine,\\nlrom which the political opinion had been formerly inferred, a direct\\ndenial, upon oath, of the political opinion itself. If then the Roman\\nUatholic may lawfully exercise the religion, and it he will take the\\npolitical oath, how can we consistently make objection, either in a\\nreligious or political point of view, to his being admitted to the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmaining privileges of citizenship If there is anything inconsistent\\nwith the true principles of our religion, in permitting the Catholic\\nto enjoy civil offices, the authors of the Reformation were deeply cri\u00c2\u00ac\\nminal in permitting him to enjoy them, while they denounced his\\nreligion; and we have been doubly traitors, to our religion and to\\nour constitution, in sanctioning by law the free exercise ol that re\u00c2\u00ac\\nligion throwing away the religious test and substituting a political\\none in the place of it. If the political oath, either from its supposed in\u00c2\u00ac\\nsincerity, or from any other cause, is an insufficient substitute for the\\nreligious abjuration, how can we be justifiable in allowing it to give\\nthe Catholic admission to the high constitutional privileges which he\\nnow enjoys? If it is a sufficient substitute, we prevaricate with our\\nown consciences, in refusing him admission, on the strength of it, to\\ntae remaining privileges which he requires* In direct violation of the\\npolicy which substituted the political oath for the religious declara\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, we now say that we require this declaration that he does not\\nhold the religious doctrine which implies the political. But he is\\nready to swt 4 r that he does hold the political doctrine, and still you", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0129.jp2"}, "130": {"fulltext": "120\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nprefer his declaration that he docs not hold the opinion, which famishes\\nthe presumption, to his oath that he does not hold the opinion, which is\\nthe tiling presumed. Is not this a perfect proof that the political appre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhension is a pretext, and that it is bigotry, or something worse, which\\nU the motive? Is not this also a full attestation of your perfect re\u00c2\u00ac\\nliance on the honour and sincerity of the Catholic, as well as of your\\nown intolerance? You will accept his word as a proof that he has\\nabjured his religious tenets, but you will not receive his oath as long\\nas he abides by them. Is it that he is insincere in his oath? Then\\nwhy trust his declaration Has the oath a negative power It is\\nnot merely that his oath is not binding, but, that which shall be full\\nevidence, if he merely asserts it by implication, shall become utterly\\nincredible if he swears to it directly. Why, this is worse than tran-\\nsubstautiation; it is as gross a rebellion against the evidence of de\u00c2\u00ac\\nmonstration as the other is against the testimony o t sense. Again,\\nt.he oath of supremacy extends to a renunciation, as well of the spi\u00c2\u00ac\\nritual as of the temporal authority of the Pope and its object ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npears to have been two-fold: first, to exclude the interference of the\\nPope in the temporal concerns of the realm and secondly, to secure\\nthe Protestant hierarchy against the claims of the sect which had\\nbeen evicted. As to the first, the Roman Catholic tenders an oath,\\nutterly denying the Pope\u00e2\u0080\u0099s right to exercise any kind of temporal\\nmrisdiction in these kingdoms; as to the second, he tenders an oath,\\nabjuring all interference with the Protestant establishment and hier\u00c2\u00ac\\narchy. What then remains in difference The right of the Pope\\nwnh respect to their clergy. Now, to this the oath of supremacy never\\nhad any reference, nor could have had: their clergy were not recog\u00c2\u00ac\\nnised as having any legal existence when the oath of supremacy was\\nenacted, nor as the subject of any other regulation than that of heavy\\npunishment if they were discovered. This part of the oath merely\\ni ioks to the preservation of the Protestant hierarchy, and all this is\\neffectually provided for by the oath which is proffered. If the Oa-\\ntnolic swears that he will not disturb or question the establishment,\\na would seem to concern us very little whether he admires or ap\u00c2\u00ac\\nproves it, or what may be his abstract opinion of its fitness. We\\nnave already the effect of the oath of supremacy, so far as it concerns\\npractical and conscientious submission, now, and at all times, and\\nit is perfectly childish to say that we will not accept their present\\nacquiescence, and their oath that they will continue to acquiesce,\\nunless they also swear that they ought, as matter of abstract right,\\nto do so. That is, they must not only submit to our title, but swear\\nto our argument. I do not mean to say that the mode of appoint-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0130.jp2"}, "131": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n121\\ning their clergy and the Pope\u00e2\u0080\u0099s interference with respect to it is not\\na very important topic, and one which we are well warranted in\\nlooking to and regulating; but what I rely on is, that it is a new\\nsubject, resting on its own merits, and calling for and requiring a\\nconciliatory adjustment, but in no respect involving anything which\\naffects the oath of supremacy or the principles of the reformation.\\nAs to the Corporation Act, every person acquainted with its his\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory knows that it was introduced, not with an aspect to the Roman\\nCatholics, but to sectaries of a very different description, who had\\ngot into the corporations during the government of Cromwell, aud\\nwere supposed to be disaffected to the politics of the court. Part\\nof the oath, as it was originally framed, was, that it was unlawful,\\nunder any pretence, to take up arms against the king, or those com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmissioned by him and the amendment, which sought to qualify it\\nby adding the word lawfully,\u00e2\u0080\u009d before commissioned, was thrown\\nout. One of the first acts of William and Mary was to repeal this\\nscandalous and slavish enactment, which was at direct variauce with\\nthe first principles of the revolution and yet we are told, in patrio\u00c2\u00ac\\ntic petitions, from loyal Protestant bodies, that this Corporation Act\\nwas one of the great bulwarks of the revolution. This mutilated\\nfragment, one half of which was lopped off by the revolution, is one\\nof its pillars, and the Test Act is the other. Its history is known\\nto everybody. It was the child of my Lord Shaftesbury, who, on\\nthe score of religion, possessed a most philosophical composure, but\\nhad a very pious horror of the court, and levelled this act personalty\\nagainst the Duke of York*; and, as the Corporation Act was the\\nfirst offering of overflowing servility, brought in on the full tide of\\nthe Restoration, so was the Test Act the result of deep and bitter\\nrepentance, subsiding at its ebb and yet these conflicting, partial,\\nand temporary regulations are dwelt on, as if they formed part of\\nthat great event which we all consider as the foundation of our\\nliberties. But I beg to ask has the charter of our liberties bcconu*\\nobsolete? If not, why are those mighty instruments hung up like\\nrusty armour Does not every man know that they are endured\\nonly because they r are not exercised, and that they are never raen-\\nThe act passed the House of Commons without much opposition; but in\\nthe upper house,\u00e2\u0080\u009d says Hume, the Duke of York moved that an exception might\\nbe admitted in his favour. With great earnestness, and even with tears in his eyes,\\nhe told them that he was now to cast himself on their kindness in the greatest\\nconcern which he could have in the world and he protested that whatever his\\nreligion might be it should only be between God and his own soul. Notwith\u00c2\u00ac\\nstanding this strong effort in so important a point, he prevailed only by twu\\nvoices.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0131.jp2"}, "132": {"fulltext": "122\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches..\\n*,ioned, by any constitutional writer, without pleading their inactivity\\nas the only apology for their existence The taste and sense of the\\npublic is, in this respect, a reproach to the tardy liberality of the\\nlegislature.\\nSir, a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Yorke), to whom I wish\\nto allude with every possible degree of public and private respect,\\nhas desired that the Bill of Rights should be referred to give me\\nleave to ask, do you find in the Bill of Rights the principle of ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nclusion of Roman Catholics from the legislature or from the state\\nIt is required, no doubt, by the Bill of Rights, that the new oath of\\nsupremacy, thereby substituted for the former one, should be taken\\nby all who were bound to take the former one, but this is not intro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced as one of the grievances redressed or rights declared, but ii\\nmerely incidentally mentioned, in consequence of the substitution oi\\ntho one oath for the other; and the declaration against Popery is\\nin no respect adverted to; but one fact, most decisive and important\\non this point, is this, that when this act was passed the Roman\\nCatholics of Ireland were not, by any law or usage, excluded from\\nparliament or from civil or military offices. The articles of Limerick\\n(3rd Oct., 1691) stipulated for all such privileges in the exercise of\\nreligion as were enjoyed in the reign of Charles II., and as were\\nconsistent with the laws of Ireland. They required the oath o\\nallegiance, as created in the first year of William and Mary; and\\nthe oath to be administered to the Roman Catholics, submitting to\\nhis majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government, was to be that oath and no other; and\\nit was further stipulated that, so soon as their affairs would permit\\nthem to summon a parliament, their majesties would endeavour to\\nprocure them such further securities as might preserve them from anj\\ndisturbance on account of their religion. At this time Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics were not excluded from parliament in Ireland, nor were\\nthere any test or corporation laws in force against them. On the\\nfaith of these articles, all of which were punctually performed on\\ntheir part, they surrendered the town, and left King William at\\nliberty to apply his arms to the great cause in which he was sustain\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the liberties of Europe. The stipulation, on the part of govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, was to protect them against any additional oaths, and to en\u00c2\u00ac\\ndeavour to procure for them additional securities. What was done\\nThe act of the 3rd of William and Mary was passed, giviug them\\nno additional securities, but excluding them, for the first time, from\\nparliament and from offices civil and military, and from the bar,\\nuuless they subscribed the declaration against Popery, and swore\\nthe oath of supremacy. The stipulation in the articles had been.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0132.jp2"}, "133": {"fulltext": "TIIE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n125\\nnot for those in garrison, but that the Roman Catholics of Ireland\\nshould enjoy their privileges for the garrison, they had stipulated\\nfor liberty to serve abroad, and to be conveyed accordingly. These\\nvictims of mistaken loyalty, when they were about to leave their\\nnative land, and, with the characteristic generosity and improvidence\\nof their country, to commit themselves with the fortunes of a ban\u00c2\u00ac\\nished monarch, stipulated, not for themselves, but for the country\\nthey were about to leave for ever; and the parliament, by a cruel\\nmockery, enacted, not for the country, but for them, that they should\\nnot lose the privileges of\u00e2\u0080\u0094what Of being barristers-at-law, clerks\\nin chancery, attorneys, practitioners of law and physics, but that\\nthey might freely use the same!\\nWhy, sir, do I mention these historical facts Not for the pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose of raking up the embers of ancient animosities, but for the\\npurpose of showing that, in restoring the privileges of the Catholics,\\nwe are performing an act of justice, and vindicating the Revolution\\nfrom the stain of this act of perfidy. Men who have forgotten\\nevery circumstance of that great event, which connects it with the\\ncause of civil and religious freedom, affect to call this breach of faith\\nand honour one of the sacred principles of our constitution. It is a\\nmiserable perversion of understanding which can forget everything\\nsacred and animating in that glorious struggle, which can fling away\\nas dross the precious attestation which it bears to the just rights ot\\nthe people, which would bury in eternal oblivion the awful lesson\\nwhich it has taught to their rulers but consecrates and embalms\\nthis single act of injustice, which disgraces it.\\nSir, I am satisfied that the illustrious persons who perfected the\\nRevolution were not aware of the injustice done to Ireland. In the\\ncrowded events of that day the stipulations might not have been\\nfully known, and there have been at all times a set of slaves ready,\\nin this country, to defame and to defraud their native land, to traffic\\non the calamities of their countrymen. I will go further, and sup\u00c2\u00ac\\npose that the severe necessity of the times may have made it impos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsible to avoid an act of injustice; but I will not therefore confound\\nthe deviation with the rule; I cannot trample on the principle and\\nworship the exception. It might as well be said that to restore the\\nDanish fleet would be a violation of the laws of nature and of nations,\\nbecause a deplorable necessity had compelled us to violate these laws\\nby seizing it. I have, perhaps, dwelt too long on this part of the\\nsubject, but I felt anxious to meet the cry of this great charter of\\nour freedom being at variance with the rights of the people. The\\ngreat men of that day had deeply studied the laws and constitution", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0133.jp2"}, "134": {"fulltext": "12 i\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nof their country; with ardent feelings and sublime conceptions they\\nmade no unnecessary breach on any ancient usage no wanton en\u00c2\u00ac\\ncroachment of any rights of people or of king; not like our modern\\nimprovers, who hold for nothing the wisdom which has gone before\\nthem, and set up their own crude conceptions, with an utter contempt\\nfor all the sacred lore of their ancestors. They committed no rude\\noutrage on those who had gone before them they entailed no odious\\nbondage on those who were to succeed them with the modesty aud\\nsimplicity which characterize great minds, they declared the essential\\nrights of the constitution. They saw that the system of the reforma\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion would be incomplete, unless the king, who was the temporal\\nhead of the church, should be in communion with that church they\\ntherefore enacted that he should hold his crown only while he adhered\\nto his religion. They declared the throne unalterably Protestant\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthey declared the religion of the state unalterably Protestant; aud,\\nhaving thus laid the tirm foundation of civil and religious freedom,\\nthey left all other considerations open to the progress of time and to\\nthe wisdom of posterity.\\nThat time has come and that posterity is now called upon to de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncide. We are fighting the same battle, in which the illustrious deli\u00c2\u00ac\\nverer of these countries was engaged\u00e2\u0080\u0094we are defending the liberties\\nof Europe and of the world, against the same unchangeable and in\u00c2\u00ac\\nsatiable ambition which then assailed them\u00e2\u0080\u0094we are engaged with an\\nenemy far more formidable than Louis XIV., whether we consider the\\nvastness of his plans, the consummateness of his skill, his exhaustless\\nresources, or his remorseless application of them. But if our dangers\\nare aggravated, our means of safety are increased. William III. wrs\\nobliged to watch, with a jealous eye, the movements of one half o\u00c2\u00ab.\\nhis subjects, whilst he employed the energies of the other. We have\\nit iu our power to unite them all, by one great act of national justice.\\nIf we do not wantonly and obstinately fling away the means which\\nGod\u00e2\u0080\u0099s providence has placed within our grasp, we may bring the\\nenergies of all our people, with one hand and heart, to strike against\\nthe common enemy.\\nSir, there is a kind of circular reasoning which seems, at some\\npublic meetings, to pass for full proof. They say that this measure\\ninvades the constitution, because it endangers the church; and they\\nsay it endangers the church, because it invades the constitution.\\nSir, it is not sought; to affect the church establishment\u00e2\u0080\u0094to take\\naway its possessions, to degrade its rank, or to touch its emoluments.\\nIts doctrines aud its discipline are not interfered with. This is no\\nattempt to include the Catholic w ithin the pale of the Protestaat", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0134.jp2"}, "135": {"fulltext": "TIIE CATHOLIC; CLAIMS.\\n125\\nchurch, nor to give him any share in its establishment. What is\\nmeant by the cry of danger to the church Is it that the measure\\nwill be immediately injurious to the church, or that it will endanger\\nthe church, by enabling the Catholics hereafter to overturn it In\\ndie first point of view, the only immediate effect it has is to open the\\nhonours of the state to all other descriptions of subjects, as well as\\nto those who profess the established religion. Is it meant to bo\\nargued that the Protestant religion will be deserted, unless a temporal\\nbonus is held out to those who adhere to it Do they mean to re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncruit for the establishment by a bounty from the state The sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposition is too abhorrent from the spirit of Christianity, and too\\ndegrading to the dignity of the church. Then as to danger\u00e2\u0080\u0094the\\noverthrow of the Protestant establishment\u00e2\u0080\u0094how is this to be effected?\\nIn parliamout or out of parliament? By force or by legislation? If\\nby force, how does the removal of civil disabilities enable them Does\\nit not make it much more unlikely that they should make the at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntempt And if they should make it, will not the removal of the\\n1 eal grievance deprive them of the co-operation of the moderate and\\nthe honest If the latter, is it really apprehended that the number\\nof members let in would be strong enough to overrule the Protest\u00c2\u00ac\\nants, and force a law to pull down the establishment Would you\\nhave the returns much more favourable to the Catholics than they\\nare at present If the entire one hundred members were to be Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics, could such a measure, in the range of human possibility, be\\nsuccessful, or could it seriously enter into the contemplation of any\\nman in his senses The apprehension, when it undergoes the test\\nof close examination, is perfectly chimerical. These are not the fruits\\nof the wholesome caution of statesmen, but the reveries of disordered\\nbrains. But if you reject this measure now, and postpone it to times\\nof difficulty and danger, will the interests of the Protestant church\\nbe better guarded Grant it now- and you grant it as a matter of\\ngrace, to which you may annex every fair and reasonable condition\\nout if you find it necessary to resort to it in some hour of dismay and\\nadversity, when the storm is blowing and the public institutions an\\nrocking and toppling, will the establishment be perfectly secure r\\nAgain, if you grant it now, you give it to a class as much inferior\\nin property as they are superior in numbers. Now, it is a truth, as\\ncertain as any in political economy, that at no very distant period\\n/he wealth of the country must become diffused pretty nearly in pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nportion toitsrelative population. Will the Protestants of Ireland thank\\nyou for deferring the adjustment of this question until it shall be de\u00c2\u00ac\\nmanded by people having as great an ascendancy in wealth as in\\ni", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0135.jp2"}, "136": {"fulltext": "126\\nPLUNKETTS SPEECHES.\\npopulation Sir, these are serious practical considerations, and the\\nclergy of this country would do well to weigh them and to reflect upon\\nthem. These are questions much more of policy than of religion, and\\nit is not without deep regret that I see any portion of that respect\u00c2\u00ac\\nable body interpose themselves between the wisdom of the legislature\\nand the temporal interests of the subject, with such a tone and such\\na manner as some of them have assumed on this occasion. If the\\ninterests of religion or the rights of their order are at stake, they are\\nentitled to come forward as a body\u00e2\u0080\u0094even if the matter is merely\\npolitical, they are entitled to come forward as individuals; but that\\nany of them should adopt the present tone of unqualified remonstrance,\\nbecause the Commons of England propose to consider the political\\nclaims of their fellow Christians and fellow subjects, with a view to\\na final and amicable adjustment, does not seem calculated to advance\\nthe real interests of religion.\\nSir, religion is degraded when it is brandished as a political wea\u00c2\u00ac\\npon\u00e2\u0080\u0094and there is no medium in the use of it; either it is justified\\nby holy zeal and fervent piety, or the appeal to it becomes liable to\\nthe most suspicious imputation. Sir, I consider the safety of the\\nstate as essentially interwoven with the integrity of the establishment.\\nThe established religion is the child of freedom. The reformation\\ngrew out of the free spirit of bold investigation: in its turn it repaid\\nthe obligation, with more than filial gratitude, and contributed, with\\nall its force, to raise the fabric of our liberties. Our civil and reli\u00c2\u00ac\\ngious liberties would each of them lose much of their security if they\\nwere not so deeply indented each with the other. The church need\\nnot be apprehensive. It is a plant of the growth of three hundred\\nyears it has struck its roots into the centre of the state, and nothing\\nshort of a political earthquake can overturn it: while the state is\\nsafe it must be so; but let it not be forgotten that, if the state is en\u00c2\u00ac\\ndangered it cannot be secure. The church is protected by the purity\\nof its doctrines and its discipline; the learning and the piety of its\\nministers; their exemplary discharge of every moral and Christian\\nduty the dignity of its hierarchy, the extent and lustre of its pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsessions, and the reverence of the public for its ancient and unques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntioned rights: to these the Catholic adds the mite of his oath, thafc\\nhe does not harbour the chimerical hope, or the unconstitutional wish\\nto shake or to disturb it; and, therefore, all that is requisite for\\nthe security of the church is that it should remain in repose, on its\\nown deep and immoveable foundations and this is the policy which\\nthe great body of the church of Ireland, and I believe I may adHj\\nof the church of England, have adopted. If anything could endan-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0136.jp2"}, "137": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n127\\nger its safety, it would be the conduct of intemperate and officious\\nmen, wffio would erect the church into a political arbiter, to prescribe\\nrules of imperial policy to the throne and to the legislature.\\nSir, a reason assigned by the honourable member who last spokt\\nfor his change of opinion is, that the sense of the people of England\\nis against the measure. Supposing, for a moment, that the fact were\\nso, to a much greater extent than it really is, would it afford a fair\\nargument for precluding an inquiry and adjustment? I consider it,\\nunder any circumstances, an invidious and dangerous topic, to cite\\nthe opinion of the people of one part of the empire against the claims\\nof the people of another part of it; but to cite it as an argument\\nagainst the full discussion of their claims seems utterly unwarrant\u00c2\u00ac\\nable. But, when it is recollected that the Union was urged upon\\nthe Catholics of Ireland, under the strong expectation that facilities\\nwould be consequently afforded to the accomplishment of their wishes,\\nis it not something very like dishonesty to press into the service,\\nagainst their claims, the opinion of the people of England, and its\\nauthority with an English parliament If this question were now\\nunder discussion in an Irish parliament, granted to be in itself just\\nand expedient, called for by all the Catholics and by a great major\u00c2\u00ac\\nity of the Protestants of Ireland, would it be endured as an argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment that the cry of the people of England was against it You\\nhave taken away that parliament, under the assurauce that, in a\\nBritish parliament that might be safely done, which, in an Irish\\nparliament might be difficult or dangerous, and now you say, true,,\\nthe measure is right, but the difficulty grows from its being dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncussed in an English parliament, because such a parliament must de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfer to the prejudices of the English, at the expence of the rights of\\nthe Irish people.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It may be said that the people of England are no\\nparties to such a compact but I would appeal to the noble lord,\\nwho, if he did not guarantee it as a compact, was at least a veiy\\nprincipal mover in holding it out as an inducement, whether he can\\ncountenance such a topic; or can he link hin^elf with those who\\nhave, by every indirect method, endeavoured to excite the people of\\nEngland, in order to fabricate the argument\\nSir, the opinion of the people is undoubtedly entitled to a respect-\\nCastlereagh. One of Pitt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s principal arguments for the Union was, that in\\na British parliament, where the weight of the assembly and the constituencies\\nrepresented would be Protestant, there would be less difficulty in reconciling th*\\nclaims of the Catholics with the principles of the British constitutional system\\nthan in Ireland, where the nation was Catholic, and only the governing class\\nProtestant.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0137.jp2"}, "138": {"fulltext": "128\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nfill attention; it is to be listened to\u00e2\u0080\u0094to be canvassed, and, if sound\\nAnd reasonable, to be deferred to; but the clamour of the people of\\njither country is not to silence the deliberations of parliament; still\\n/ess the opinion of a partial and very limited portion of that people\\nstill less an opinion founded on imperfect views; still less an opinion\\nfounded upon gross prejudices, excited and kindled by artful and in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterested misrepresentation, and for the very purpose of preventing\\nlair discussion. The opinion of the people of both countries is to\\nbe looked to, and the reasonable foundations of the opinions of both;\\nand in so doing, it is always to be recollected that the sentiments of\\nthe Catholics are not to be the less regarded on account of their being\\nprincipally condemned in one part of the united kingdom; but if,\\neither from prudence or affection, they would be respected if inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nspersed through the counties of Great Britain, they are not the less\\nentitled to attention because they constitute four-fifths of the most\\nvulnerable, and not least productive portion of the empire. The ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, it is true, is an imperial one: why? Because Ireland is iden\u00c2\u00ac\\ntified with your interest and happiness and glory; her interests are\\nyours, and therefore Irish policy is imperial policy; but it seems\\nrather inconsistent to take cognizance of the question, on the suppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition that the interests of the two countries are absolutely the same;\\nand to decide it upon the principle that the rights of the one are\\nessentially and unalterably opposed to the wishes and the safety of the\\nother. But, sir, I utterly deny the fact, that such is the sentiment\\nof the people of England. A pretty bold experiment has been made,\\nand it has failed. The intelligent class of the English public, those\\nwho, from property and from education, and from place in society,\\nare entitled to sway the opinion of the legislature on this, or on any\\npolitical subject, are, I firmly believe, friendly to a full discussion of\\nthe Catholic claims, and with a strong leaning in favour of liberality\\nand concession, if they can be made to appear consistent with public\\nsafety. This is a tribunal to which an appeal may be fairly made,\\nand to which adequate and ample satisfaction should be given and\\nthere is no concession or sacrifice, not inconsistent with the essential\\nprinciples of their religion, which the Catholics are not bound to make\\nfor the purpose. But, sir, beyond this public, and to the very dregs of\\nthe community I fear there are some desperate enough to look. I\\nhave heard something like a muttered threat of such an appeal; but\\nI do not believe, though there is much valour at present on this sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject, that we need fear a repetition of the outrages of St. George\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nFields; I do not fear that our ears will be again assailed by the hell\\nshout of No Popery.\u00e2\u0080\u009d I Have heard something more than an in-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0138.jp2"}, "139": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n129\\nBinuation, within these walls, that this is a question in which the\\nlower classes of the people are very deeply interested, and that their\\nvoice is, on this occasion, to be particularly attended to.\\nSir, the doctrine is rather novel in the quarter from which it pro*\\nceeds, nor am I disposed to give it an unqualified denial. I should\\nbe sorry to contend, that the voice of any portion of our fellow sub\u00c2\u00ac\\njects, however humble, should be disregarded. If they complain of\\ngiievances by which they are oppressed, of justice withheld, or of\\nanything trenching upon their freedom or their comforts, they are to\\nbe heard with patient and with deep attention; and the more humble the\\nsituation of the complainants, the more bounden the duty of the re\u00c2\u00ac\\npresentative to listen to them. But, on a subject like the presen:,\\nwhere the legislature is called on to withhold the privileges of the\\nconstitution from a great proportion of the people, upon supposed\\nprinciples of state government; when claims of common right are\\nwithheld, in deference to sacred and mysterious maxims of imperial\\npolicy: on such a subject, I say, it is something more than absurdity\\ntu affect a deference for the shouts of the lower orders of the people.\\nSir, the apprehension of such an appeal being resorted to need not\\naffect our deliberations those who intimate such an intention know\\nfull well that, though the threat may be endured, the times would\\ni ot bear the execution of it; they know full well that, if parliament\\ndetermines to pursue its steady course of calm investigation and\\nliberal adjustment, there is no faction in the state which can effec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntually interpose between the sovereign authority of the legislature and\\nthe just demands of the people.\\nThe conduct of the Roman Catholics of Ireland has been resorted\\nto as an argument for abandoning the pledge of the last session.\\nSir, I am not the advocate of their intemperance; I am free to say\\nthat there have been some proceedings, on the part of the public\\nbodies, who affect to act for them, altogether unjustifiable. Their\\nattempts to dictate to the entire body how they are to act on each\\nparticular political occurrence, their presuming to hold an inquisition\\non the conduct of individuals in the exercise of the elective fran\u00c2\u00ac\\nchise, and putting them under the ban of their displeasure, because\\nthey vote for their private friends and abide by their plighted en\u00c2\u00ac\\ngagements all this is a degree of iuquisitorial authority unexampled\\nand insufferable; aud tbi by persons professing themselves the\\nadvocates of unbounded freedom and unlimited toleration, at the\\nmoment when they are extending u.eir uupailying tyranny into the\\ndomestic arrangement oi every Catholic family ir. the country. Sir,\\nI am equally disgusted with the tone of unqualified demand and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0139.jp2"}, "140": {"fulltext": "130\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhaughty rejection of all condition or accommodation, so confident!*\\nannounced by them; nor can I palliate the intemperance ot many i*.\\ntheir public speeches, nor the exaggeration and violence ot some ot\\ntheir printed publications. To this tone I never wish to see the\\nlegislature yield; but, as this indecent clamour is not to compel them\\nto yield what is unreasonable, I trust it will not influence them to\\nwithhold what is just.\\nSir, it appears to me most unfair to visit on the Roman Catholic\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0098he opinions and the conduct of such public assemblies as profess\\n*ct for them if they labour under a real and a continuing grievance,\\nand one which justifies, on their part, a continued claim, they must\\nact through the medium of popular assemblies, and must, of course,\\nbe exposed to all the inconveniences which attend discussion in as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsemblies. In all such places, we.know that unbounded applause\\naitends the man who occupies the extreme positions of opinion, and\\nthat the extravagance of his expression of such opinion will not be\\ncalculated to diminish it. That there may be many individuals\\nanxious to promote their own consequence at the expense of the party\\nwhose interest they profess to advocate, is an evil inseparable from\\nsuch a state of things; and, amongst those who sincerely wish to pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nmote the interests of the cause, much may fairly be attributed to the\\nheat naturally generated by long continued opposition; much to\\nthe effects of disappointed hope; much to the resentment excited\\nand justified by insolent and virulent opposition. But, sir, I should\\nunworthily shrink from my duty, if I were not to avow my opinion,\\nthat the unfortunate state of the public mind in Ireland is, above all\\nthings, imputable to the conduct of the government. Without recur\u00c2\u00ac\\nring unnecessarily to subjects which have been already discussed in\\nthis house, I may be allowed to say that the rash interference with\\nthe right of petitioning has given deep and just offence to the entire\\nCatholic body. They have been compelled to rally round their con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitutional privileges, and make common cause. Those excesses,\\nwhich two years since would have been eagerly repressed by the\\nCatholics themselves, might now, I fear, be regarded with some de\u00c2\u00ac\\ngree of favourable allowance on their part.\\n1 must say that the country has not been fairly dealt with on this\\nsubject. It is the bounden duty of the government to make up\\ntheir mind, and to act a consistent part. If this measure is utterly\\ninadmissible, expectation should be put down by the certainty of re\u00c2\u00ac\\njection resentment should be allayed by the clear exposition of uo\\nnecessity which bars; the fever of the public mind should be sub\u00c2\u00ac\\ndued, aud ail the means of conciliation consistent with such a system", "height": "3417", "width": "1969", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0140.jp2"}, "141": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n131\\nshould be resorted to. If, on the other hand, this claim may and\\nought to be acted on, it should be frankly received and honestly for\u00c2\u00ac\\nwarded every facility for its accomplishment should be afforded, by\\ntempering and directing the proceedings of those who s\u00c2\u00a3ek it; by\\nsuggesting the -conditions and terms on which it should be granted;\\nand by arranging the details, as well as planning the outlines, of such\\na system. But how can any honest mind be reconciled to the ambi\u00c2\u00ac\\nguity in which the cabinet has concealed itself from public view on\\nthis great national question, or with what justice can they complain\\nof the madness which grows out of this fever of their own creating.\\nThis is not one of those questions which may be left to time and\\nchance. The exclusion of these millions from the rights of citizen\u00c2\u00ac\\nship is either a flagrant injustice or its necessity springs out of the\\nsacred fountains of the constitution. This is no subject of com\u00c2\u00ac\\npromise. Either the claim is forbidden by some imperious principle\\ntoo sacred to be tampered with, or it is enjoined by a law of reason\\nand justice, which it is oppression to resist. In ordinary cases it\\nsounds well to say that a question is left to the unbiassed sense of\\nparliament and people but that a measure of vital importance, and\\nwhich has been again and again discussed by all his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nministers, should be left to work its own course, and suffered to drift\\naloug the tide of parliamentary or popular opinion, seems difficult to\\nunderstand. That government should be mere spectators of such a\\nprocess is novel. But, when it is known that they have all consi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndered it deeply, and formed their opinions decidedly in direct oppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition to each other, that, after this, they should consult in the same\\ncabinet, and sit on the same bench, professing a decided opinion in\\npoint of theory and a strict neutrality in point of practice that, on\\nthis most angry of all questions they should suffer the population of\\nthe country to be committed in mutual hostility, aud convulsed with\\nmutual rancour, aggravated by the uncertainty of the event; pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nducing, on the one hand, all the fury of disappointed hope, on the\\nother side, malignity and hatred, from the apprehension that tha\\nmeasure may be carried, and insolence from every circumstance,\\npublic or private, which tends to disappoint or to postpone it; one\\nhalf the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers encouraging them to seek, without enabling\\nthem to obtain\u00e2\u0080\u0094the other halt subdivided; some holding out an\\nambiguous hope, others announcing a never-ending despair. I ask,\\nis this a state in which the government of the country has a right to\\nleave it? Some master-piece of imperial policy must be unfolded,\\nsome deep and sacred^ principle of empire, something far removed\\nfrom the suspicion of unworthy compromise of principle for power, to", "height": "3417", "width": "1969", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0141.jp2"}, "142": {"fulltext": "132\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nreconcile the feelings of the intelligent public, or to uphold a rational\\nconfidence in the honesty or seriousness of the government. The\\nconsequences of snch conduct are disastrous, not merely in the tumult\\nand discord which, in this particular instance, they are calculated to\\nexcite, but in their effect upon the character of the government and\\nthe times.\\nSir, I repeat it, the Irish Catholics have not been fairly dealt\\nwith the government has not, in any instance, come into amicable\\ncontact with them it has not consulted, nor soothed, nor directed\\nthem; it has addressed them only in the stern voice of the law, in\\nstate prosecution, and it is most unjust to charge against them the\\nanger which has been kindled by such treatment. But, sir, I ask\\nwhat have the Catholics done Look to their actions for the last\\ncentury, and do not judge them by a few intemperate expressions or\\nabsurd publications\u00e2\u0080\u0094these are not the views of statesmen\u00e2\u0080\u0094you are\\nconsidering the policy of centuries and the fate of a people, and will\\nyou condescend to argue, on such a subject, the merits of a pamphlet,\\nor to scan the indiscretions of an angry speaker at a public meeting\\nOf this I am sure, that if the violence with which the demand has\\nbeen urged by some of its advocates is to create a prejudice against\\nit, the virulence with which it has been rejected by some of its\\nopponents ought to be allowed to have some operation in its favour;\\nperhaps under these opposite impulses of passion a chance may be\\nafforded of reason having fair play, and a hearing may be procured\\nfor the merits of the case. This, too, should not be lost sight of:\\nthat the Catholics are seeking their rights; that they are opposed\\nby an adverse government, many of whom declare that no conces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion on their part could be effectual, but that their doom is inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nminable exclusion. May I ask, whether it is fair to require, or\\nreasonable to expect, that the Catholics should, under such circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, exercise a fastidious delicacy in the selection of their\\nfriends and say to those who profess themselves their advocates,\\nWe refuse your aid, your language is not sufficiently measured\\nyou urge our demands in too warm and too unqualified a tone, and\\nwe prefer the chances which may arise from throwing ourselves on\\nthe mercy of our enemies.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nSir, I will not affect to disguise the fact, that there are persons in\\nIreland who look to revolution and separation.. I certainly do not\\nmean to say, nor do I believe, that those whose warmth of expres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion has been so much and so justly complained of are, in the most\\nremote degree, liable to the suspicion of being joined with such a\\nparty. The separatists are, in my judgment, neither numerous nor", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0142.jp2"}, "143": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n133\\nin themselves, formidable; and of this I am sure, that they tremble\\nat the prospect of the adjustment of the Catholic claims, as a mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure deadly to their views. Is it a wise policy, is it a course which\\nany government can justify to the country, to recruit for these public\\nenemies, by endeavouring to embody the legitimate clapas of the\\nCatholics with their wild and pernicious projects Is it not mad\u00c2\u00ac\\nness to oppose the same blind and indiscriminate resistance to the\\nhonest objects of the great uutainted landed and commercial interests\\nof the Catholic people, and to affect to confound them in a common\\ncause with those miserable enemies of public freedom and safety\\nSir, if I am asked what course, in my opinion, should be pursued\\nin this momentous business, 1 cannot answer without doubt and dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrust in my own judgment, where I may differ from many whose\\nopinion I highly respect; but it is fair to say that the opinion which\\nI have always entertained and always expressed, publicly and pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvately, on this subject, is, that this measure cannot be finally and\\nsatisfactorily adjusted, unless some arrangement shall be made with\\nrespect to the Roman Catholic clergy, and some security afforded to\\nthe state against foreign interference. On the best consideration I\\nhave been able to give the subject, and on the fullest communication\\nI have been able to obtain on it, I am satisfied that such security\\nmay be afforded without interfering in any degree with the essentials\\nof their religion and if so, the mere circumstance of its being re\u00c2\u00ac\\nquired is a sufficient reason for conceding it. This is not a struggle\\nfor the triumph of one party of the state over another; it is a great\\nnational sacrifice of mutual prejudices for the common good; and\\nany opportunity of gratifying the Protestant mind should be eagerly\\nseized by the Catholic, even if the condition required were uncalled\\nfor by any real or well-founded apprehension. But I must go a step\\nfurther, and avow that the state has, in my opinion, a right to re\u00c2\u00ac\\nquire some fair security against foreign influence in its domestic con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerns. What this security may be, provided it shall be effectual,\\nought, as I conceive, to be left to the option of the Catholic body.\\nI am little solicitous about the form, so that the substance is attained.\\nAs a veto has been objected to, let it not be required but let the\\nsecurity be afforded, either by domestic nomination of the clergy or\\nin any shape or form which shall exclude the practical effect of\\nforeign interference. Let them be liberally provided for by the\\nstate, let them be natives of the country and educated in the country,\\nand let the full and plenary exercise of spiritual authority by the\\nPope, which forms an essential part of their religious discipline, re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmain in all its force leave to their choice the mode of reconciling", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0143.jp2"}, "144": {"fulltext": "134\\npltjnket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthese principles, and stand not upon the manner, if the thing be\\ndone.\\nAn honourable gentleman asks, will this satisfy the Catholics I\\nwill not be so indiscreet as to answer for what will satisfy them\u00e2\u0080\u0094I\\nbelieve it will. But it is enough for me to know that this ought to\\nsatisfy them; and of this we may be convinced, that we do not en\u00c2\u00ac\\nable them to obtain what they ought not, by granting them what they\\nought, to have. But what is the use, it is asked, of a measure pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed as an instrument of peace, if it is likely, on the contrary, to\\nproduce nothing but dissatisfaction I answer, first, I believe it\\nwill produce full satisfaction, if frankly proposed and honestly acted\\non. But if you doubt of this, do not make your proceeding an\\nabsolute and a final one reserve the operation of the act which grants\\nrelief (if you think it necessary), until the accompanying measure of\\nsecurity shall be ripened, so as to ensure satisfaction in their enact\u00c2\u00ac\\nment declare your principles of security, and your conditions, and\\nlet the operation of your law, or the effect of your resolution, await\\nthe desire of the Catholic body, signified or fairly understood, with\\nrespect to them. Pursue this course, put this measure into the\\nhands of those in whom the Catholics can place confidence, or give\\nthem such a parliamentary pledge, that they may see that the ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncomplishment of their wishes is dependant on their own good sense\\nand moderation; and, I have no doubt, they will not be wanting to\\ncontribute their part to this great national work of strength and\\nunion. In all events you will have discharged your duty. You will\\nhave given satisfaction to the honest and to the reasonable. You\\nwill have separated the sound from the unsound, and you will leave\\nthe bigot or the incendiary, stripped of all his terrors, by depriving\\nhim of all his grievances. Sir, I have done. I may be in error;\\nbut I have not sacrificed to interest or to prejudice, and 1 have\\nspoken my sentiments in the sincerity of my heart.\\nPlunket sat down amid cheers from all sides of the house. This grand effc-*\\nwas regarded as his maiden speech in the British Commons, and had a success\\nbeyond parallel. Almost every speaker who followed him upon either side i 1\\nthe question referred to it in terms of unmeasured admiration. A speech,\\nsaid Peel, which has called forth many compliments; but none which *he\\neloquence and abilities which he has di.-played do not fully justify.\u00e2\u0080\u009d A\\nspeech,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said Whitbread, the excellence of which with painful regret recals to\\nmy recollection the golden days when this house contained a Pitt, a Fox, a\\n.Sheridan, and a Windham.\u00e2\u0080\u009d A speech,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said Sir William Scott, not more to j\\nbe admired as an exhibition of talents than for the honourable and manly car-\\ndour by which it was still further dignified and adorned.\u00e2\u0080\u009d A speech,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said\\nCunning, 44 to whose merits it is superfluous to add my feeble testimony: a", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0144.jp2"}, "145": {"fulltext": "V\\nTHE SPEAKER\u00e2\u0080\u0099S ADDPESS.\\n13;\\nspeech displaying not only the talents of an accomplished orator, but the larg\\nviews and comprehensive mind of a statesman; but still more commendable for a\\nstill greater excellence\u00e2\u0080\u0094that of manfully disclaiming all meretricious popularity,\\nand courageously rebuking thy excesses of those whose cause he came forward\\nto plead.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But the most remarkable tribute of all was that of Castlereagh,\\nwhen we remember the ferocious collisions between him and Plunket in the lrisii\\nhouse. In answering Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attack upon the government, he said he hope j\\nwhatever he said would be imputed to the sincere respect which he thought dui\\nto everything which fell from so distinguished a character as the right honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable and learned gentleman, whose talents excited the highest admiration, and\\nwhose convincing speech could never be forgotten.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe house went into committee on the 9th of March, and produced, after\\nvarious sittings, extending to the 20th of May, a Roman Catholic Relief Bill,\\nwhich afterwards formed the basis of the Emancipation Act\u00e2\u0080\u0094hampered, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never, with securities on the subject of episcopal nomination, which were ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nceedingly obnoxious to the Catholics of Ireland. Plunket did not speak in com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmittee, and was obliged to return to Ireland before the final debate. This was\\non the 24th of May, when, on considering the bill in detail, the Speaker moved,\\nin a speech of virulent bigotry, an amendment to the effect of excluding Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics from parliament. After a long debate, in which Canning spoke with signal\\nearnestness and eloquence, the committee divided, and the amendment was\\ncarried by a majority of four. Instantly on the division being declared, Mr.\\nPonsonby rose and said that as the bill, without this clause, was worthless to\\nthe Catholics, it would now be abandoned.\\nTHE SPEAKER\u00e2\u0080\u0099S ADDRESS TO THE REGENT.\\n22nd April 1814.\\nAt the close of the session of 1813, the Speaker, addressing the Prince Regent\\nat the bar of the House of Lords, alluded to the defeat which he had been the\\ninstrument of administering to the Catholic cause in the following terms r\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nOther momentous changes have been submitted to our consideration. Ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nhering, however, to those laws by which the throne, the parliament, and the\\ngovernment of this country are made fundamentally Protestant, we have not\\nconsented to allow that those who acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction should be\\nauthorised to administer the powers and jurisdictions of tins realm\u00e2\u0080\u0094willing as\\nwe are, nevertheless, and willing as I trust we shall ever be, to allow the\\nlargest scope for toleration.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThis language, based upon a majority of merely four votes, naturally ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncited great indignation, and early in the session Lord Morpeth moved that the\\nlanguage of the Speaker, commenting in such a way upon a question under the\\nconsideration of parliament, should not be draw r n into a precedent, and that a\\nminute to that effect should be entered upon the journals of the house. This\\nbeing virtually a vote of censure upon the Speaker, a warm debate ensued,\\nearly in which Plunket spoke:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nSir, after the long and able arguments which we have heard on tiny\\nsubject, and more particularly after the ample justice which has been", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0145.jp2"}, "146": {"fulltext": "136\\nPLUiJKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ndone to it in the eloquent and admirable speech of the honourable gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntleman below me (Mr. Grant), it may appear unnecessary or presump\u00c2\u00ac\\ntuous furtherto occupy the attention of the house. Feeling, however,\\nas I do cn this important occasion, I own I cannot reconcile myself\\nto remaining wholly silent on it. I completely concur with you, sir,\\nthat the present question is one wholly unconnected with the question\\nof Catholic emancipation. We are not now to consider what it may\\nor may not be right to do with respect to this latter. We are not to\\nascertain the present opinion of the house upon it. The question is,\\nwhether, the house having come to a resolution with respect to the\\nCatholics, you, sir, were authorized to convey to the throne an in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntimation of that proceeding, accompanied by a censure on those who\\nhad eudeavoured to follow it up by a legislative measure.\\nSir, I declare most solemnly, that if the sentiments which you ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressed to the throne had been as friendly to the Catholic cause as\\ntiiey were certainly hostile to it, I should equally have concurred in\\nthe present motion. It is true, as it has been justly said, this is not\\na party or a personal question. Nothing, sir, but the most imperious\\nsense of duty could justify the censure of your conduct. But if any\\nman feels that a vital and important part of the constitution has\\nbeen assailed, and that you have done that which, if it were estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlished as a precedent, would overturn and destroy the constitution\\nitself; and if that man should refuse to accede to the motion of the\\nnoble lord, either out of deference to you, sir, or from any unworthy\\nexultation at the attack made by you on so large a portion of the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmunity, no words are sufficiently strong to describe the meanness of such\\na dereliction of duty on the one hand, or of such an unworthy betray\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of the trusts reposed in a representative of the people on the other.\\nSir, I am free to say, that the speech made by you to the throne,\\nat the close of the last session, was one of the most formidable\\nattacks on the constitution of parliament that has occurred since thy\\nrevolution. It was an attack materially aggravated by its having\\nproceeded from a person the natural guardian of that constitution.\\nAnd, sir, it is peculiarly unfortunate, that we cannot assert our own\\nrights without impairing your dignity however anxious we may be\\nto abstain from everything like asperity, and to treat you, sir, with\\nall that respect to which you are so amply entitled. Subject to this\\nlast consideration, I shall make my observations upon the question\\nwith as much freedom and latitude, and discharge my duty as unre\u00c2\u00ac\\nstrainedly, as you, sir, have done, in what I have no doubt you con\u00c2\u00ac\\nscientiously conceived to have been yours.\\nSir, there is no subject upon which this house has always evinced", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0146.jp2"}, "147": {"fulltext": "toe speaker\u00e2\u0080\u0099s address.\\n137\\nso much anxious jealousy as that its proceedings should be exempt\\nfrom all control and interference on the part of the crown. Soma\\ncommunication between the throne and parliament must undoubtedly\\nexist; but the mode of this communication is perfectly defined and as\u00c2\u00ac\\ncertained. If the throne wishes to communicate with parliament, that\\ncommunication is made either by a formal speech from the throne or\\nby a message. But the object of such communication always is to\\ninvite parliament to deliberate on some proposed measure, and never\\nto control or interfere with any deliberations already entered into.\\nSo on the other hand, if either house wish to communicate with\\nthe throne, that communication is made either by addre c s or by reso\u00c2\u00ac\\nlution and the object of such communication is, not to ask the advice\\not the throne on any subject upon which parliament may be delibera\u00c2\u00ac\\nting, but to give to the throne any advice that parliament may think\\nit expedient to offer; for this plain reason, that we are the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional advisers of the throne, but that the throne is not the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional adviser of parliament. Advice from the throne would have\\ntoo much the air of command, to be consistent with the freedom of\\ndiscussion in this house. Beyond the limits which I have mentioned,\\nthere is no constitutional channel of communication between the throne\\naud parliament, save when we present our bills for the royal assent\\nor dissent. This is so clear, that it is generally acknowledged that\\nif, sir, you had no bill to present, you would have no right to addre-s\\nthe throne at all. Accordingly when you uttered the address which is\\nthe subject of our present deliberation, you held in your hand the\\nvote of credit bill, and you concluded that address with praying the\\nroyal assent to the bill. Had you not held such a bill, your speech\\nwould have been an absolute intrusion, wholly unwarranted by par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliamentary usage, or by the constitution.\\nI do not mean to say, sir, that you were under the necessity of\\nstrictly confining yourself in your address to the subject of the bill\\nwhich you presented. It was perfectly allowable, that your speech\\nshould be graced and ornamented by allusions to other matters. If,\\nsir, you had described generally the measures adopted by parliament,\\nor had descanted on topics of general policy, however we might have\\nconsidered your opinion as a mistaken one, the promulgation of it\\ncould never have been deemed a violation of our privileges. Unless\\nyou had alluded to matters pending in parliament, the observations\\nwhich you had thought proper to make might have been thought\\nlight or unnecessary, but could not have been characterised as uncon\\nstitutkmal. This remark applies to what has been said of my right\\nhonourable friend, the late Speaker of the parliament in Ireland", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0147.jp2"}, "148": {"fulltext": "138\\nPLUNKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SrEECEES.\\n(Mr. Foster). My right honourable friend did certainly make the\\nquestion of Catholic emancipation and Protestant ascendancy the\\nsubject of a speech to the throne: and in doing so he had no reason\\nto congratulate himself on his prudence for in the very next session,\\nhis principles and his predictions were overturned all together. But\\nthis was imprudence only, and not a violation of parliamentary pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvilege. It has not been so considered. A solitary petition was\\npresented to the house on the subject; but no member of the Irish\\nparliament had made it a question of parliamentary discussion.\\nIt is on these grounds, sir, that I perfectly concur in the propriety\\nof the general observations contained in your speech at the close of\\nthe last session. In that style of dignified congratulation which so\\nwell becomes you, you spoke of the success of our brave fleets and\\narmies, and conferred the just meed of your eloquent praise on their\\ngallant leaders. I am sure, sir, that every one of us must be proud\\nand gratified when he hears you deliver yourself on such subjects\\nwith so much elevation and propriety of manner. But when, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause you are the organ of communication between this house and\\nthe throne, you proceed to notice subjects controverted in this house,\\nyou will find it difficult to discover precedents in justification of your\\nconduct; and still further, when you mention propositions made\\nhere, and not acceded to, but rejected, you place yourself in a situa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion still less capable of defence. On this part of the subject, the\\nremarks made by the honourable gentleman below me (Mr. Grant)\\nare unanswerable. As that honourable gentleman justly observed,\\nif a measure passes in parliament no single person is responsible for\\nthat which is an act of the whole house. But it is impossible fur\\nyou, sir, to state that a proposed measure has been rejected without\\nimplying a censure on the individual or individuals by whom that\\nproposition was made. Accordingly, our rule of proceeding with\\nrespect to bills is founded on this consideration. When a bill is sent\\nto the other house, or is presented to the throne for the royal assent\\nor dissent, it does not bear on the face of it whether or not it passed\\nunanimously, or what was the amount of the majority by which it\\nwas carried. And why Because this house will never suffer the\\nstate of its divisions and parties to be subject to the direction or to\\nbe under the influence or control of any other tribunal.\\nThe authority of Mr. Ilatsell has been dwelt upon with much em\u00c2\u00ac\\nphasis. As members of the legislature, I deny that, in our decision\\non great constitutional questions we are to take Mr. HatseU\u00e2\u0080\u0099s publi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation as a text-book. We are not to be told that we must learn\\nthe principles of the British constitution from Mr. Hatsell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s work*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0148.jp2"}, "149": {"fulltext": "THE SPEAKER\u00e2\u0080\u0099S ADDRESS.\\n139\\nBut, after all, what is there in that work which bears on the present\\nquestion Mr. Hatsell states, and states truly, that when the\\nSpeaker presents a money bill at the foot of the throne, he may ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvert, not to the subject of that bill alone, but to other business which\\nparliament may have transacted. But does he say that the Speaker\\nmay advert to pending or rejected measures Nay, up to this very\\nmoment, after all the inquiries made by yourself, sir, so capable of\\ndeep research, and after ail the inquiries made by all your numerous\\nfriends, has a single precedent been found of a Speaker\u00e2\u0080\u0099s having re\u00c2\u00ac\\nferred in his speech to the throne to any measure which had been\\nrejected by the house\\nAnd let it be recollected, that the measure to which you thought\\nproper to refer was still pending. For, what was the state of the\\nproceedings on the Catholic question A resolution had been agreed\\nto, to take into consideration, in a committee of the whole house, the\\nlaws affecting the Roman Catholics, with a view to their amicable\\nadjustment. The committee met, and resolutions were passed, de\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaring it expedient to admit the Catholics to seats in parliament,\\nand to other powers and jurisdictions, under certain provisions for\\nthe security of the Protestant establishment. A bill was introduced\\nto that effect, and the second reading agreed to by a considerable\\nmajority of the house. Everything, therefore, sir, of which you\\ncould properly take cognizance was favoftrable to the Catholic cause.\\nBut in the speech which you made to the throne you passed over\\nwhat alone yon had a right to know, and what, if communicated,\\nwould have made an impression favourable to the cause of the\\nCatholics, and you resorted to that which you had no right to know,\\naud by an unjustifiable perversion sought to make an impression ini\u00c2\u00ac\\nmical to that cause. For, sir, you were no more competent to re\u00c2\u00ac\\nport to the throne the proceedings of the committee of this house\\nthan any other member of the committee. It was not even neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary that yon should be present in that committee. Mr. Hatsell so\\nsays. It happened, however, that you were there, and that you\\ngave your opinion on the bill in progress. Was it as Speaker that\\nyou gave that opinion Certainly not. You gave it as member\\nfor the University of Oxford.\\nBut it may be said that this is a question of mere form. Sir, the\\nforms of parliament are essential to the preservation of the privileges\\nof parliament. But, sir, in taking the liberty to report the opinions\\nof that committee, did you truly report them On the contrary, you\\ntotally, though I am sure not wilfully, misrepresented them. The\\nopposition to the proposition rejected in the committee was grounded", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0149.jp2"}, "150": {"fulltext": "plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nHO\\non a variety of considerations. Some opposed it in consequence ol\\nthe intemperate conduct of certain public bodies in Ireland others\\nbecause of the writings which had been diffused in that country\\nsome wished the change to be deferred until a time of peace other 1\\nwere desirous that the see of Rome should first be consulted.\\nWith all this variety of sentiment, how, sir, were you competent\\nto say what were the opinions by which the majority of this house\\non that occasion were swayed I will venture to assert, that not\\nten of that majority were perfectly agreed on that subject; and yet\\nyou took upon yourself, in the name of that majority, to declare your\\nown opinion as theirs. Nay, even in that respect you were incorrect.\\nThe member for the University of Oxford has a right to complain\\nthat the Speaker misrepresented him. That right honourable member\\ndeclared, that in his opinion, many powers and jurisdictions might\\nbe safely conferred on the Catholics. He declared that they might\\nbe eligible to the magistracy\u00e2\u0080\u0094there was jurisdiction; he declared\\nthat they might be raised to any rank in the army, except that of\\ncommander-in-chief\u00e2\u0080\u0094there was power; a jurisdiction and a power\\nby no means harmless, if improperly used. Again, a great number\\nof those who composed the majority, voted on the ground that the\\nquestion was a religious one. Have those individuals no right to\\ncomplain of the Speaker, for declaring that the house considered the\\nquestion not as a religious, hut as a political one; and that if the\\nsee of Rome were released from foreign influence, the danger of al\u00c2\u00ac\\nlowing Catholics to sit in parliament would cease Will the member\\nfor Armagh, and those who think with him, consent thus to have\\ntheir opposition disrobed of all those important considerations, which\\narise out of religious views of the subject? Will they allow the\\nCatholics, if they disavow the supremacy of the Pope, to come here\\nand legislate for Protestant England? In my judgment, therefore,\\nsir, you misrepresented the opinion of the majority of this house, as\\nwell as your own.\\nOne striking fact you wholly abstained from mentioning. You\\nnever told the throne that, notwithstanding all the means used on the\\noccasion, notwithstanding the temporary difficulties arising out of\\nvarious causes, notwithstanding the powerful influence exercised in\\nvarious quarters, there were still two hundred and forty-seven mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers of this house who declared their readiness to admit the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics into parliament on the principles of the bill which was then under\\ndiscussion. Will any man lay his hand on his breast, and declare\\nupon his honour, that he thinks you were authorized, on a decision\\nby a majority of four, to represent to the crown, that the question", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0150.jp2"}, "151": {"fulltext": "THE SPEAKER\u00e2\u0080\u0099S ADDRESS.\\n141\\nwas put finally at rest Was it not evident that the subject must\\nreturn to be considered by parliament And if so brought back,\\nwith what impartiality could parliament proceed with respect to it,\\nif, by any indirect means, the artillery of royal influence was brought\\nto bear on their march\\nSuppose, sir, that in reply to you his royal highness the Prince\\nRegent had been pleased to say to you, I feel great surprise and\\nindignation that two hundred and forty-seven members of the House\\nof Commons are so lost to a sense of their duty, as to wish to change\\nthose laws by which the throne, the parliament, and the government\\nof the country are made fundamentally Protestantwould any\\nmember of that minority have endured such an expression On the\\nother hand, suppose his royal highness had said, I lament that\\nthe laborious exertions of so large a number of members of the\\nHouse of Commons as two hundred and forty-seven have been dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nappointed and I trust when temporary obstacles are removed, and\\nwhen the suggestions of reason and wisdom become prevalent, their\\nefforts will prove successfulwould such a declaration have been\\nendured by any member of the majority Would it not have been\\nasked, what right the throne possessed to interfere with the proceed\u00c2\u00ac\\nings of parliament, to school their past conduct, and to lecture their\\nfuture\\nAnd here, sir, I must observe, that an honourable gentleman on\\ndie floor (Mr. Bankes) has contended that there is no difficulty in\\nthis question, because your speech was not made until the end of the\\nsession. It is then of no importance if we subject ourselves to be\\nschooled and lectured by the throne it is of no importance that we\\nshould be liable to this annual audit and account, provided it take\\nplace at the close of our sittings Such an occurrence would have\\nno affect on the deliberations of the next session! And, besides, if\\nthis annual audit were once established, the honourable member for\\nCorfe-Castle is too fond of accuracy not to think it necessary, sir,\\nto add to your report a specification of the numbers of those who\\nmight vote on any particular measure, the names of the voters, and\\nso on, until the whole of our mystery is exposed to the eye of\\nroyalty!\\nWith respect to your speech, sir, I have another observation to\\nmake it regards its ambiguity. The words of it are capable of two\\nopposite constructions\u00e2\u0080\u0094of a construction unwarrantable, intolerant\\ntowards the Catholics, and of a construction as tolerant as their\\nwarmest friends could desire. You say, sir, that we have deter\u00c2\u00ac\\nmined to exclude them from the privileges which they require as\\nK", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0151.jp2"}, "152": {"fulltext": "142\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nlong as they shall obey a foreign jurisdiction.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now, what does this\\nexpression mean If by foreign jurisdiction\u00e2\u0080\u009d is meant the spiri\u00c2\u00ac\\ntual jurisdiction of the Pope, then the Catholics will be excluded as\\nlong as they remain Catholics. But if it merely means temporal, or\\nindeed ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the realm, then no friend of\\nthe Catholic cause in this house would, I am sure, wish it to prosper\\non any other terms. Again, sir, you say in your speech that par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament have not consented to do so and so. I am persuaded that\\nno special pleading will be resorted to in defence of this passage,\\nand I appeal to the common sense of all who hear me, whether the\\nstatement that momentous changes had been proposed for our con-\\noideration, but that adhering to those laws by which the throne, the\\nparliament, and the government of this countiy are made fundamen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntally Protestant, we would not consent to those changes.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Is it\\nnot a distinct implication of an intention in some persons, by propo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsing such changes, to destroy the laws by which the throne, the\\nparliament, and the government of this country are made fundamen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntally Protestant Sir, recollecting that one of the essential fea\u00c2\u00ac\\ntures of the resolutions on which the Catholic bill was founded was,\\nthe distinct declaration that the Protestant establishment should be\\neffectually secured, I ask you, how you can reconcile to any feelings\\nof justice the implied statement that two hundred and forty-seven\\nmembers of this house were anxious to introduce changes subversive\\nof that establishment? For one, I loudly disclaim my share of\\nsuch an imputation. If there be here one man of that number who\\ndeserves it, let him take the only opportunity of proving his demerit,\\nby voting for your exculpation. Sir, it is a proposition which every\\nhonourable gentleman present would not merely not consent to, but\\nwhich he would reject with scorn and indignation.\\nOne word more. This speech, which in my opinion was a vio\u00c2\u00ac\\nlation of the privileges of parliament, and which misrepresented\\nthe conduct and sentiments of all parties, appears to me to have\\nbeen wholly uncalled for. There was nothing, sir, in the bill which\\nyou held in your hand at the time you uttered it, or in any other\\nbill which passed during the last session, that required such an expo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition. When you adverted to the splendid victories of our illustrious\\ncommander who has gained such transcendant fame\u00e2\u0080\u0094when you\\nspoke of the passage of the Douro, of the battles of Roleia, of\\nYimiera, of Talavera, of Salamanca, of Yittoria, the feelings of all\\nwho heard you vibrated in unison with your own. Every heart ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nulted, and every Irish heart peculiarly exulted that Ireland had given\\nbirth to such a hero. Was that a well-chosen moment, sir, to pro-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0152.jp2"}, "153": {"fulltext": "THE WAR OF 1815.\\n143\\nnounce the irrevocable doom of those who, under their immortal\\ncommander, had opened the sluices of their heart\u00e2\u0080\u0099s blood in the ser\u00c2\u00ac\\nvice of the empire It was the custom in Rome to introduce a\\nslave into their triumphal processions, not for the purpose of insulting\\nthe captive, but to remind the conqueror of the instability of human\\nglory. But you, sir, while you were binding the wreath round the\\nbrow of the conqueror, assured him that his victorious followers must\\nnever expect to participate in the fruits of his valour, but that they\\nwho had shed their blood in achieving conquests were to be the only\\npersons who were not to share by the profits of success in the rights\\nof citizens.\\nTHE WAR OF 1815.\\nMay 25, 1815.\\nImmediately after Napoleon\u00e2\u0080\u0099s escape from Elba, the Prince Regent communi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncated to parliament by a message that he had resumed action with the allies, to\\nredress the violation of the treaty of Paris. A large section of the Whigs,\\naffected by the universal enthusiasm with which Napoleon had been received in\\nFrance, were averse to a war that had merely for its purpose the proscription of\\none man, and he the favourite ruler of a powerful and warlike people. Accord\u00c2\u00ac\\ningly, an amendment was moved to the address, expressly condemning the\\nprinciple and policy of a war undertaken for the purpose of personally pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nscribing the present ruler of France.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Grattan led the debate, and his voice\\nwas still for war, in a speech the most celebrated of all his efforts in the British\\nhouse, and which stirred England and Europe with the tones of a tocsin. It is\\ncurious to observe in this debate, decisive of the destinies of the world as it was,\\nthat the great voices are all Irish\u00e2\u0080\u0094Grattan, Plunket, Ponsonby, and Castle-\\nreagh. Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech is spoken of in contemporary accounts as an amazing\\neffort; but it appears to be clumsily condensed in the reports, with the excep\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the concluding passages, which I print in the first person:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Plunket thought that the house was now, for the first time,\\ncalled upon to give an opinion of the policy of peace or war, under\\nthe present circumstances of the country and of Europe. This was\\na question of the utmost importance, at all times, and under all cir\u00c2\u00ac\\ncumstances. It was important as it involved the fate of many human\\nbeings, who must be sacrificed in war: it was still more important,\\nas it involved the fate of this country, and the other nations of Europe.\\nHe was ready to admit that, to which ever side we turned, we were\\nencountered by dangers; and that we were so surrounded with evils,\\nthat nothing was left us but a choice of evils. He should consider\\nthat man as precipitate in his judgment, and a very rash counsellor,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0153.jp2"}, "154": {"fulltext": "144\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwho would pretend, at present, to foretell either the duration or the\\nissue of this war. He would have as little confidence in the judg\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of any person who would say, that he considered that a peace\\nnegociated with Bonaparte would afford sufficient security to the\\ncountry.\\nHe should have been well contented to have given a silent vote\\non the present occasion, if he had not found himself under the neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsity of differing from those friends whom he so highly respected,\\nwith whom he had so long acted, and with whom he hoped long to\\nact. Differing, however, so materially from them upon this question,\\nhe felt it necessary for his own justification, to explain to the house\\nthe grounds of his difference. In rising to answer the arguments of\\nhis right honourable friend who spoke last, he felt some consolation\\nin being protected by the paramount ability of another right honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable friend who sat near him (Mr. Grattan). It appeared to him\\nthat his right honourable friend who spoke last was completely mis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntaken, when he conceived that the house was now called upon to give\\nits sanction to all the stipulations of the treaty negotiated at the\\ncongress of Vienna. The house was not called upon for any such\\nopinion. He could see no absurdity or impropriety in calling upon\\nthe house to sanction one part of a treaty, without calling for their\\nopinion on all the points of it. Even if he were to admit the force\\nof all the objections which had been made to other parts of the\\narrangements made at the congress of Vienna, he should still be most\\ndecidedly of opinion on the question now before the house, that we ought,\\nin conjunction with our allies, to prosecute the war against Bona\u00c2\u00ac\\nparte. He really wished to hear the sincere opinion of the right\\nhonourable gentleman and his friend, as to what conduct the country\\nought to pursue under the present circumstances. Would any man\\nsay that we ought to make peace with Bonaparte, and war with our\\nallies or would they say, that we should altogether desert our allies?\\nIt had been said, that we ought to negotiate with Bonaparte in con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncert with our allies. If it were then admitted, that we ought to ne\u00c2\u00ac\\ngotiate in concert with our allies, it must also be allowed, that if\\nthose negotiations were not successful, we must go to war with\\nFrance in concert with those allies. IIow, then, was it possible to\\nseparate the cause of this country from that of the allies, even upon\\nthe supposition of trying negotiation instead of war\\nHe did not believe that any of those who recommended negotiations\\nwith Bonaparte would deny that those negotiations might be unsuc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessful and if they were carried on in concert with our allies, we\\ncould no more desert them in ypar than in the negotiation. He", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0154.jp2"}, "155": {"fulltext": "TIIE WAR OF 1815.\\n145\\nwas really at a loss to perceive how the argument on the present oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncasion could be at all helped, by finding faults in the conduct of the\\nallies upon former occasions. The faithlessness of those powers (if\\nthey had been faithless) did not apply to the present question. If\\nit was Austria and Prussia that were preparing an attack upon this\\ncouutry, then we might talk about their faithlessness on former oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncasions. It was, however, from France and the faithlessness of her\\ngovernment that danger to this country was apprehended. What\\nanswer was it to this apprehension, to say that other powers had\\nbeen faithless too Such an answer had evidently nothing to do\\nwith the question now before the house. As long as France chose\\nto submit to the government of Bonaparte, he could see that neither\\nhonour, nor peace, nor anything that was desirable for this country\\ncould be expected by entering into a negotiation with him.\\nSir, as to the right of interfering with the internal affairs of another\\ncountry, I must admit, that so long as those internal arrangements\\ndo not menace the peace and security of other countries, there can\\nbe no right to interfere but when the internal arrangements of one\\ncountry do plainly threaten the peace and security of others, it appears\\nto me as clear as the light, that interference is justifiable. If it\\nbe asked, whether anything in the personal character of a ruler\\ncan justify other nations in not treating with him, I will answer\\nby stating a supposed case. Suppose, then, that any nation should,\\nin time of peace, put itself into an extraordinary state of preparation\\nfor war\u00e2\u0080\u0094if that nation should organize itself in such a manner as to\\nbe perpetually prepared for commencing offensive war\u00e2\u0080\u0094if that nation\\nshould embody itself under the command of a military chief of great\\ntalent and experience in the art of war\u00e2\u0080\u0094if, for 15 years, Europe\\nhad experienced that the efforts of that nation were uniformly directed\\nto aggression, conquest, and spoliation\u00e2\u0080\u0094if Europe had been obliged\\nin self-defence to carry its arms into the heart of that country\u00e2\u0080\u0094if the\\ncapital of that country were taken\u00e2\u0080\u0094if the conquerors in their magna\u00c2\u00ac\\nnimity and moderation offered a peace which was accepted with gra\u00c2\u00ac\\ntitude\u00e2\u0080\u0094if that treaty was accepted with gratitude by the individual\\nwho abdicated the throne\u00e2\u0080\u0094and yet if, after ten months, that guilty\\nindividual should be recalled by a licentious soldiery, for the purpose of\\nfresh aggression\u00e2\u0080\u0094am I then to be told in this house, that neither\\nwe nor the other nations of Europe have any right of interference\\nwith the internal arrangements of such a nation How does it hap\u00c2\u00ac\\npen that the just and legitimate sovereign of France has been driven\\nfrom his throne It is because his unambitious virtue made him", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0155.jp2"}, "156": {"fulltext": "146\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nappear to the soldiery, not to be a proper instrument to wield the\\nunsocial and unnatural energies of the French empire. If it be\\nsaid that personal character has nothing to do with the question,\\nthen I ask, why was the treaty of Paris ever entered into That\\ntreaty turned entirely on personal character, and stipulations were\\nconsidered satisfactory when made with the lawful sovereign of\\nFrance, that would never have been entered into with Bonaparte. If\\nwe are to take the common feeling of mankind upon this subject,\\nwe must recollect how universally the abdication of Bonaparte was\\nhailed in this country, as an event more important than the most\\nbrilliant victories. But the question now is not merely with Bona\u00c2\u00ac\\nparte, it is with France. She has purchased the benefits of\\nthe treaty of Paris, by giving up Bonaparte, and taking her lawful\\nsovereign, in whom Europe has confidence. If we are now to de\u00c2\u00ac\\nclare that we are ready to treat w r ith Bonaparte, it will at once\\nput an end to the coalition. If we are to tell the French people\\nthat we are ready to negotiate with Bonaparte as their ruler, it\\nwill at once destroy all the hopes that might now fairly be enter\u00c2\u00ac\\ntained of the co-operation of a considerable portion of that nation.\\nWhen, however, we see the situation in which Bonaparte now\\nstands; when we see him reduced to make professions contrary to\\nhis very nature; when we see the vessel in which his fortunes are\\nembarked labouring with the storm, and its mast bowed down to the\\nwater\u00e2\u0080\u0099s edge, it would be the height of impolicy and absurdity to\\nhesitate on the course that we ought to pursue. We have now a most\\npowerful combination of allies, not fomented by us, but acting from\\nthe moral feeling which pervades all Europe. If we are foolish\\nenough to throw away those means, we can never hope to recall\\nthem. Such of my friends as have talked the most about husband\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the resources of the country, have confessed that when an occa\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion should arrive, when some important blow might be struck against\\nthe enemy, that system should no longer be persevered in. The\\nimportant crisis has now arrived. It is vain to expect that a more\\nfavourable opportunity will ever arise. All the great powers of\\nEurope are now with us, and a considerable portion of the popula\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of France.\\nIt has been said, that invading France would be the way to unite\\nthe population of that country. The fact, however, is directly the\\nreverse. The not invading France would be the sure means of re\u00c2\u00ac\\nducing the whole population under the power of the present ruler.\\n1 oonsider that we have, in fact, no option between peace and war.\\nAs for peace, we can have no more than a feverish, unrefreshing", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0156.jp2"}, "157": {"fulltext": "THE NAVY ESTIMATES.\\n147\\ndream of peace, still haunted by the spectre of war. In point of\\nfinances, we would find a peace with a war establishment, an evil\\nmuch greater than war itself. If we do not now go to war in con\u00c2\u00ac\\njunction with all the great powers of Europe, we shall soon be re\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced to a war single-handed against France. If we do not now\\ninvade France, and carry on the war upon her territories, the time\\nmay arrive when our country will become the seat of war, and\\nwe shall fall unpitied and despised. If we now turn our back upon\\nthe great powers that are our allies, we shall deserve that all nations\\nshould turn their backs upon us, when we begin to feel the conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquences of our impolicy.\\nTHE NAVY ESTIMATES.\\nMarch 27, 1816.\\nInstantly upon the declaration of peace, economy and retrenchment became\\nthe cry of all the country\u00e2\u0080\u0094a cry which Castlereagli, who professed a profound\\ncontempt for the ignorant impatience of taxation\u00e2\u0080\u009d which prevailed, was not\\ndisposed to gratify too abruptly. Such retrenchments as he did allow were, as\\nthe opposition complained, in many cases made rather with a reference to per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsonal than to public interests. About forty millions of taxes were abated, in\\nalmost all the departments salaries and allowances were reduced by regular rule\\nfrom a war to a peace standard; but in the admiralty, where Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nvroteg e and Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s opponent, Croker, was secretary, a special order decreed that\\nthe war salaries should be continued. This order produced several angry de\u00c2\u00ac\\nbates, in which the inconsistency of Castlereagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s economy was exposed by\\nBrougham, Tierney, Methuen, Ponsonby, Cavendish, and defended with a con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinual shifting of his ground by Castlereagli himself and by Croker. Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nspeech reminds us of his old harangues against Castlereagli in the Irish house:\\nMr. Plunket, in rising to address the committee, was too well aware\\nof the lateness of the hour, to encroach at any length on their time.\\nAt the same time he felt it would be doing injustice to his own feel\u00c2\u00ac\\nings, to the interests of his constituents, and the sacred rights of\\nBritish subjects, not to express the sentiments he entertained on the\\nline of conduct adopted by administration. Before proceeding further,\\nhe would beg leave to ask, whether the salaries of the secretaries of\\nthe admiralty were to be regulated by the difference between a state\\nof peace and war? or, in other words, whether the salary of Mr.\\nCroker was to be reduced to \u00c2\u00a33000 in peace\\n[This question being answered in the Affirmative, the honourable and learned\\nmember proceeded.]", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0157.jp2"}, "158": {"fulltext": "148\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nHe was gratified to learn that this distinction had at last been re\u00c2\u00ac\\nluctantly acceded to by his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers. The line of conduct\\nadopted by the noble lord, was one of the most extraordinary that the\\nHouse of Commons or the British nation had ever witnessed in any\\nminister of the crown. On a former occasion when that distinction\\nhad been pressed in a forcible manner on the attention of the house\\nby an honourable member (Mr. Methuen), the noble lord had de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncidedly given his negative to it: and yet now, with an inconsistency\\nwhich must strike even the most careless observer, he gave it his sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nport.\\nI call on the noble lord, I call on his honourable colleagues in\\noffice, I call on the gentlemen who usually support his measures, to\\nsay, if in that line of conduct there has been the least justice or\\nfairness. I call on country gentlemen on the opposite side of the\\nhouse to lay their hands on their hearts, dispassionately to weigh\\nevery circumstance which has characterized the proceedings of the\\nj noble lord, and to ask themselves how they can, consistently with\\na regard to conscience, face their constituents and say they have ho\u00c2\u00ac\\nnestly done their duty I do not impute to the noble lord any\\nunworthy motives. I cannot for one moment suppose that he is\\nactuated by any desire of degrading this house in the eyes of the\\nworld. I trust in God there will never be a public functionary in\\nBritain capable of such conduct. But when I consider the procedure\\nof the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0094when I contemplate the inconsistency which has\\ncharacterised him throughout, I must appeal to the feelings of every\\nhonest man in this house, whether there is not an evident design to\\noppose whatever is proposed on this side of the house, without the\\nsmallest regard to whether the measure proposed by us be right or\\nwrong The honourable member for Wiltshire one day proposes a\\nmeasure which the noble lord reprobates as improper, and yet next\\nday he comes down to the house and adopts the very measure he had\\nreprobated. Sir, it is high time for gentlemen accustomed to follow in\\nthe noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s train to think whether, in consistency with their own\\ncredit as British senators, with their fidelity to their constituents,\\nand, I will add, with their dignity as men, they can any longer be so\\nblinded by prejudice as to become the tools of the noble lord. For,\\nI will ask, how does the noble lord use them He gives them the\\nodium of supporting measures which he afterwards takes to himself\\nthe grace of retracting. Sir, 1 regret to be under the necessity of say\u00c2\u00ac\\ning so much, but I feel it to be my duty, and should certainly consider\\nmyself guilty of an omission of duty had I not so spoken. I do\\nnot believe, indeed it is impossible for me to believe, that gentlemen", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0158.jp2"}, "159": {"fulltext": "THE NAVY ESTIMATES.\\n149\\nwish to degrade the House of Commons, but how can they vote in\\nconsistency with their own character, if they for one moment consider\\nthe tactics of the noble lord. The resolution for economy is now\\nagreed to. This is so far very well; but why was it not agreed to\\nbefore? The answer is obvious. It was for the best of all possible\\nreasons\u00e2\u0080\u0094because the noble lord and his colleagues would not suffer so\\ndangerous a term as the word economy to be registered on the jour\u00c2\u00ac\\nnals of this house.\\nIn a very fine pompons manner the committee are told of the\\ndifference between tLe last year of war and the first year of peace.\\nNo doubt, sir, the expenses of the first year of peace must be admitted\\nto equal those of the last year of war. But there are elements for\\nretrenchment which a minister alive to the interests of his country\\nmight lay hold of. These have in a satisfactory manner been pointed\\nout by my right honourable friend (Mr. Tierney), who, in a manner\\nthat must flash conviction on every mind, has, item by item, showed\\nthat instead of being lessened they have been increased. No symptoms\\nwhatever of a voluntary nature have been shown by government for\\nany retrenchment. Government now stand in the situation of men\\non their trial. Clamour, an ignorant impatience for relaxation from\\ntaxation, and a thousand similar motives has been applied to the\\npeople for expressing their detestation of the policy of ministers.\\nBut I call on gentlemen in this house, whose minds are unfettered\\nby prejudice, I call on them in conscience to say whether they can\\nbelieve ministers had ever one serious thought of retrenchment, had it\\nnot been for this clamour, this ignorant impatience.\u00e2\u0080\u009d I tell the\\nnoble lord that that clamour has compelled him to do his duty so far,\\nand may perhaps, if he does not take care, clamour him out of office.\\nA very nice distinction has been made between clamour out of\\ndoors and clamour within doors. Sir, what does this mean Why,\\nit means simply this. Had the members who presented petitions\u00e2\u0080\u0094or\\nrather the remonstrances of ignorant impatience\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094to the house,\\nushered them quietly, with all that suavity and smoothness so hap\u00c2\u00ac\\npily practised on the opposite side, there would have been no clamour.\\nBut because they did, in a manly constitutional manner, scorn to\\nabandon their duty\u00e2\u0080\u0094because they introduced the clamours of the peo\u00c2\u00ac\\nple, excited by the dereliction of the ministers from their fidelity\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nbecause they have made these walls to re-echo with their determined\\nopposition to the attempts made to press down a people already worn\\nout, they are charged by the noble lord with making a clamour.\\nThe people have, however, assembled and asserted their rights; they\\nhave expressed their abhorrence of a most detestable, unjust, and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0159.jp2"}, "160": {"fulltext": "150\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nle attempt\\ninquisitorial tax; they have declared their indignation at the attempt\\nof the government to cover the soil of the country with armies; in a\\nword, they have called loudly and unanimously for retrenchment and\\neconomy; and the members of this house will grossly abandon their\\nduty, if they do not attend to the voices of their constituents. This\\nmay be clamour in the opinion of the noble lord, but let the country\\ngentlemen remember, that it is in consequence of these sentiments\\nre-echoed through the country, that anything has been obtained. The\\npeople have put their representatives on their trial, and the house has\\nbeen electrified. The noble lord and his colleagues are doubtless\\nalarmed at these proceedings but there is a general cry for retrench\u00c2\u00ac\\nment and economy which cannot be put down. The noble lord may\\nattempt it, but the result of his experiment will be, that the voice of\\nthe people will only be raised more loudly, and they may very soon\\nput down him and his colleagues.\\nTHE STATE OF IRELAND.\\nApril 26, 1816.\\nSir John Newport, in one of the ablest speeches ever delivered upon Ireland\\nin the House of Commons, called upon the government to change their coercive\\npolicy. 25,000 men were quartered upon the country, and six counties pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaimed under an insurrection act of atrocious rigour. Peel was then chief\\nsecretary, and believed in no remedy for Irish ills but the bayonet and gibbet.\\nHe replied to Newport, and was followed by Plunket:\\nMr. Plunket began by expressing his warmest gratitude to his\\nright honourable friend, for calling the attention of the house to this\\nmost important subject, and for the peculiarly able manner in which he\\nhad sustained the motion. The state of Ireland -was indeed a ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion in which Great Britain must feel a direct and immediate inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nest, and therefore it claimed, as no doubt it would receive, the\\nfullest consideration in that house. To illustrate that interest, and\\nenforce that claim, he could not think it necessary to add much to\\nthe impressive speech of his right honourable friend. For that speech\\npresented the most valuable variety of local, political, and constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional knowledge. It was indeed so distinguished for accuracy of infor\u00c2\u00ac\\nmation, that he should have to occupy the attention of the house but for\\na short time. He particularly applauded his right honourable friend\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nepeech in consequence of its complete freedom from any alloy of party\\nspirit. The question was indeed too important to be sunk into any", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0160.jp2"}, "161": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OP IRELAND.\\n151\\nmixture with party or faction. Last year the insurrection act was\\npassed, and though he was not present, he had no hesitation in say\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, that if he had been so, he would have supported the measure,\\nalthough it did go the length of suspending the enjoyment of the\\nconstitution during the period in which it remained in force. In the\\nyear 1796, and on other occasions, similar acts had been passed, but\\nthey were seldom enforced. It was now two months, however, since\\nthe right honourable gentleman who was the author of this measure\\nlast session, had mentioned to the house the necessity of carrying it\\ninto execution. The county of Tipperary, and tuat of Westmeath,\\nwere disturbed, and the country was in such a state as to render a\\nmilitary force of 25,000 men necessary for suppressing the spirit of\\nrevolt and tumult. Soon afterwards two other counties were added\\nto this mass of confusion and disorder, and now there were no fewer\\nthan six declared in a state of disturbance. The military force was\\nincreased, but the evils were not diminished; tumult and disorder\\nwere rather augmented than suppressed; and he would tell the right\\nhonourable gentleman, that if matters did not soon change, 40,000\\nmen would be found insufficient to perform the duty for which 25,000\\nwere now deemed adequate. This was such an alarming state of\\nthings, that it could receive no aggravation from fancy\u00e2\u0080\u0094could admit\\nof no additional colouring from fear or apprehension. It pressed\\nupon the house with a weight of interest which no consideration\\ncould increase. The natives of Ireland were celebrated for their\\ngratitude for benefits conferred\u00e2\u0080\u0094their fine and ardent feelings were\\nalmost proverbial\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor could slight injuries rouse them to revenge.\\nThe present deplorable state of that country showed, therefore in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndisputably, that some intrinsic vice was in the government, which\\nmust be removed before tranquillity was restored.\\nHe did not find that the right honourable gentleman professed to\\napply any remedies to those evils which he admitted to exist; and,\\nin truth, if certain doctrines which he had advanced were to be consi-\\nderedasthe sortof remedy which theright honourable gentleman might\\nfeel disposed to apply, he most cordially and most sincerely thanked\\nhim that he had abstained from the application. The two remedies\\nof the right honourable gentleman, if he might venture to call them\\nsuch, were referable, first to absentees, and secondly to forty shilling\\nfreeholders. With respect to the absentees, he wished with all his\\nheart they were fewer he wished for the sake of Ireland, that she\\npossessed a more numerous resident gentry. But how was that to be\\naccomplished The right honourable gentleman had suggested no\\nmeans, but seemed to trust merely to the powers of persuasion. Ho", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0161.jp2"}, "162": {"fulltext": "152\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ndid not wish to underrate the right honourable gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s eloquence,\\nthough he was certainly afraid it would not be found an instrument\\nsufficiently powerful to induce the gentry of Ireland to reside on\\ntheir estates. If the right honourable gentleman meant to go fur\u00c2\u00ac\\nther than persuasion\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he contemplated the idea of legislative in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterference\u00e2\u0080\u0094then he would say to him, repeal the Union, send back\\nagain to Ireland her parliament, restore that portion of rank and\\nproperty and influence which she possessed before, and which\\nhad been drawn from her by the inevitable operation of that mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure. If the right honourable gentleman was prepared to go so far,\\nthen, indeed, he would admit that his observations were a proper\\nforerunner of his intentions; but, otherwise, situated as Ireland now\\nwas, the question of absentees was one which no wise statesman\\nwould venture to touch. As to any connexion that might be sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed to subsist between the present disturbances in Ireland, and the\\neffects produced by absentee gentry, he would venture to say that in\\nthose districts where outrage was most prevalent the grievance of\\nthe absentees was least felt.\\nThe next topic to which he wished to refer, was that of the forty\\nshilling franchises. He was not quite sure whether he accurately\\ncomprehended what fell from the right honourable gentleman, and\\nhe was most anxious to avoid anything which might be construed\\ninto misrepresentation. The right honourable gentleman would set\\nhim right if he erred; but he understood him to speak of the act of\\n1793, as that act by w r hich the elective franchise was originally\\ngranted.\\nMr. Peel rose to explain. He said he mentioned the act of 1793, not as hay\u00c2\u00ac\\ning originally granted the elective franchise, but as having extended its privi\u00c2\u00ac\\nleges to the Catholics.\\nMr. Plunket continued. The act of 1793, then, was alluded to\\nby the right honourable gentleman, merely as having extended those pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvileges which had previously been enjoyed by the Protestants of Ireland,\\nto the Catholics of Ireland. Taking the argument upon that ground,\\nhe was prepared to contend, that if that act were repealed, it would\\nbe disfranchising the Catholics. He would say further, that if the right\\nhonourable gentleman had studiously contrived a firebrand calculated\\nto precipitate into immediate explosion the combustibles now scattered\\nall over Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he had laboured night and day to discover what\\nmeans were most likely to consummate the mischief\u00e2\u0080\u0094he could not\\nhave hit upon a more certain one than to propose to disfranchise the\\nIrish Catholics.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0162.jp2"}, "163": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OF IRELAND.\\n153\\nMr. Peel rose to explain. He said he was sorry to interrupt the right\\nhonourable and learned gentleman again, but he was tempted to avail himself\\nof his candid offer, and that desire which he had manifested not to misinterpret\\nhim. In speaking of the act of 1793, he expressly said that he did not com\u00c2\u00ac\\nplain of it because it extended the elective franchise to the Catholics. What he\\ncomplained of was, the great abuses to which that act had been perverted.\\nThe way in which the Catholic freeholders acquired their right presented oppor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntunities for the grossest perjury. It had never entered into his contemplation\\nto withdraw those franchises, but he lamented the way in which those fictitious\\nfranchises were created.\\nMr. Plunket said, he was most happy at being set right, though\\nhe believed he had erred in common with a great number of persons as\\nto what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman. lie should\\nnow proceed to the consideration of the question generally, and he must\\nsay, it struck him as somewhat extraordinary, that the government\\ndid* not seem prepared to propose any specific remedies for the many\\nevils, the existence of which no one denied. He would except, in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndeed, what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman upon the\\nnomination of the sheriffs. For that he was entitled to much appro\u00c2\u00ac\\nbation, for he was sure it would be productive of infinite good to Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland but if he imagined it was calculated, alone, to allay the fer\u00c2\u00ac\\nments that now existed, he had much mistaken the real influence and\\noperation of that system. The only thing upon which the right\\nhonourable gentleman seemed to rely as an effectual method of remedy\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the grievances felt in Ireland, was the diffusion of education and\\nhe hoped he should not be considered as undervaluing the importance\\nof education in what he was about to say. The most beneficial effect of\\neducation, in his opinion, was, that it brought the lower and the higher\\nclasses into connexion by acts of beneficence and kindness. But if,\\nby education, the right honourable gentleman meant merely that the\\nIrish should be instructed in reading, writing, and accounts, he really\\nbelieved it would be found that the people of Ireland were no more\\ndeficient in those things than the people of this country. Nay, if a\\ndistinction were taken between the two countries, he believed it would\\nbe in favour of Ireland. In those public bodies of men, where the in\u00c2\u00ac\\nhabitants of the two countries were brought together, as the army,\\nfor instance, he would venture to say that the number of Irishmen\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0who could read and write, was greater in proportion than the number\\nof Englishmen. But really, to talk of carrying on the education of\\na people, by teaching them to read and write merely, was a gross\\nand childish misapplication of the word. The education of a people\\nmust grow out of the government of the country. It must spring\\nfrom that paternal care, and from that equal protection of the laws", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0163.jp2"}, "164": {"fulltext": "154\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwhich insensibly formed the habits of the citizen to a peaceable and\\ncorrect demeanor. What was it that made every man in England\\ninterested in the preservation of pnblic order, tranquillity, and obe\u00c2\u00ac\\ndience to the laws Because every man in England knew that the\\nlaw was his friend and his protector he cherished it as his birth\u00c2\u00ac\\nright, and he regarded those who administered it, as labouring with\\nhimself for the general good of the commonwealth. Give that edu\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation to Ireland, and Ireland would receive it as a boon. Teach the\\npeople how to respect the laws, and they would be taught how to be\\nhappy But where was the utility of teaching them reading and\\nfigures To count property which they did not possess, and to read\\nabout that liberty which they did not enjoy\\nWith respect to the motion of his right honourable friend, he pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntested he could not comprehend why it should be frittered down in\\nthe way which was proposed by the amendment. What reasons\\nhad been urged to show the probability that less than 25,000 men\\nwould be wanted for Ireland next year And if 25,000 men were\\nthen wanted, why not forty, nay, a hundred thousand, hereafter\\nThe evils which afflicted Ireland, whatever they were, would not\\nremain stationary. They must be put down, or they would pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ngressively increase. If, then, it was intended to maintain a force of\\n25,000 men permanently in Ireland; and if the insurrection act was\\nto be continued; if the people of that country were to be subjected\\nto domiciliary visits in the night, to be liable to be imprisoned, and\\neven transported, not by the verdict of a jury, but by summary com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitment if all these terrible miseries were to be inflicted by the aid\\nof the bayonet, he would say that that house would neglect\u00e2\u0080\u0094would\\ngrossly abandon\u00e2\u0080\u0094its duty, if they refused to inquire why such\\nthings were necessary, and how they might be avoided. Where was\\nthe use of knowing the extent of the mischief, if they were to be\\nprecluded from examining into the causes The reason why it was\\nwished to have information upon the one was, that they might\\nafterwards inquire into the other. He would willingly admit\\nthat he must be a bold man who would pretend to affirm that he\\nknew what remedies would effectually remove the evils now exist-\\nmg; but he would be a much bolder man who should presume to\\nleave the country under the hopeless curse of those measures which\\nhad so long afflicted and degraded it. Exile and death were not\\nthe instruments of government; but the miserable expedients which\\nshowed the absence of all government. The sources of public autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity were dried up; and that house ought to rescue the people of\\nIreland from such a desperate state of outlawry and degradation.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0164.jp2"}, "165": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OF IRELAND.\\n155\\nThe state of Ireland was a sort of gordon knot which they could not\\nuntie, and refused the aid of parliament, whose duty it was to inter\u00c2\u00ac\\npose in behalf of a suffering people. His right honourable friend\\nhad prudently abstained from discussing the question of Catholic\\nemancipation, and he would follow his example; but at the same\\ntime, when they were called upon to decide so important a subject\\nas the present, he would not be deterred by the fear of having one\\nvote less, or the hope of one vote more, from expressing his opinion.\\nHe would not say that Catholic emancipation was a charm which\\nwould allay every discontent and remove every grievance; but he\\nwould say that it was a sine qud non and that without it no other\\nsystem of measures could be entirely prosperous.\\nHe would now take the liberty of pointing out a few of those\\ncauses which, he conceived, had contributed to place Ireland in her\\npresent unfortunate condition. He declared that he felt no personal\\nanimosities towards any member of the Irish government; on the\\ncontrary, for the lord lieutenant, and for his noble friend at the head\\nof the law department, he entertained the highest respect. In the\\nfirst place, it was but too well known that there were a number of\\ndiscontented agitators in that countiy, who sought every means of\\ndisturbing its tranquillity. But it was equally true that there was\\na great proportion of the Catholic population as different in their\\nprinciples and conduct from those unprincipled agitators as if they\\nwere not of the same class. Those persons cherished legitimate and\\nhonourable objects of ambition, and earnestly desired to be admitted\\nwithin the pale of the constitution; but he would put it to the can\u00c2\u00ac\\ndour and sincerity of the right honourable gentleman, whether the\\ngovernment of Ireland had ever attempted to separate the sound from\\nthe unsound portion of the Catholic body He could not say that\\nsuch an attempt had ever been made and that, he firmly believed,\\nwas one cause of the present infuriated aud inflamed state of the.\\ncountiy.\\nThe state of the press in Ireland had been referred to, and no\\nman could deny that i-t was most licentious, having been made the\\ninstrument of wild demagogues to advance their own projects of\\nambition. But was this all Had it not been also most unjustifu.\\nably employed on the other side Had not those papers which were\\npaid highly for the insertion of government proclamations, been\\nmade the vehicles of the most scandalous, malignant, and indiscrimi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnate libels upon the whole Catholic body? Was this dealing fairly\\nby the people of Ireland, distracted by political and religious differ\u00c2\u00ac\\nences? He did not accuse the government of encouraging these", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0165.jp2"}, "166": {"fulltext": "156\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ndisgraceful practices, but he complained that it had not interfered to\\ncontrol them. The Orange societies were another source of the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent evils, and in speaking of them the right honourable gentleman,\\nwithout his usual candour, had perverted, in his absence, the argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of his right honourable friend. The objection to them was,\\nnot that they celebrated anniversaries, or that they played particular\\ntunes, but that they were societies exclusively Protestant, bound by\\nan illegal oath to continue their allegiance only so long as the king\\nsupported what they termed a Protestant constitution. What stepe\\nwould not the right honourable gentleman have thought it right to\\ntake, had Catholics been so illegally united for the purpose of sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nporting only a Catholic sovereign It was no answer to state that\\nthe Orange societies would be punished when their acts were illegal,\\nfor their very constitution was a breach of the law, for which they\\nwere amenable. It might be true that the evil was less among the\\nhigher classes; but among the lower these associations of Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntants degenerated into the most brutal and offensive assertion of supe\u00c2\u00ac\\nriority over the whole Catholic body. Another point likewise de\u00c2\u00ac\\nserved notice. It would not be denied, that of all people the Irish\\nwere most subject to the influence of their priesthood, and the first\\nact of a prudent government would have been to establish with that\\npriesthood an amicable connexion; yet no attempt of the kind had\\nbeen made; on the contrary, in the only instance that had occurred,\\nthey had given, as it were, designed offence to that very respectable\\nbody. A priest of the county of Limerick had been instrumental\\nin quelling a disturbance, for which a letter of thanks from the right\\nhonourable gentleman was sent to him; but, before it could reach\\n.his hands, it was published in the newspapers, and this reverend\\ngentleman was thus held up to the suspicion of all his fraternity and\\nhis flock as a person aiding the tyrannical purposes of government.\\nThere were many important differences between the present and for\u00c2\u00ac\\nmer disturbances. From the highest authority it had been stated,\\nthat within the last fifty years the commerce of Ireland had doubled,\\nher agricultural produce had increased fourfold, and her population\\nhad trebled. Thus it appeared that she was capable of becoming\\nthe dangerous rival, or the powerful friend, of England; a gigantic\\nform was rising at the side of Great Britain, and the question now\\nwas, whether it should be converted into a friend or an enemy. Six\u00c2\u00ac\\nteen years had elapsed since the union had professed to give to Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland the benefits of the British constitution; yet now that constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion was to be suspended, and the natives of that country were to be\\ndeprived of its benefits. What would be thought of a proposition", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0166.jp2"}, "167": {"fulltext": "THE WINDOW TAX.\\n157\\nof the like kind with respect to any portion of Great Britain, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never small And yet upon the whole of Maud this calamity was\\nto be inflicted almost without repugnance. Such a state of things\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094-such gross injustice and inequality\u00e2\u0080\u0094could not be endured with\\npatience and the longer the system was pursued, the greater would\\nbe the evil to be remedied. It was erroneous, too, in point of ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npenditure. The whole military force must be paid by this country,\\nfor Ireland could not produce any revenue, in consequence of the\\nmiscalculation at the time of the union as to the contribution she was\\nto provide. Her debt, since the year 1800, had increased fourfold,\\nno part of which was expended in the country, as was the case in\\nEngland. On the whole view of the case, the only advice he would\\ntake upon himself to give ministers was, that they should retrace as\\nexactly as possible the steps they had pursued in the government of\\nIreland; instead of establishing themselves on the narrow, odious\\nprinciple of Protestant exclusion, which kept alive the spirit of dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsension, he earnestly recommended them to adopt measures calcu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated to secure the union and happiness of all classes.\\nTHE WINDOW TAX.\\nApril 21, 1818.\\nMr. Shaw (afterwards Sir Robert) was an uncompromising anti-Unionist, and,\\ncontinuing to represent Dublin in the British parliament, acted with the small\\nparty\u00e2\u0080\u0094Grattan, Plunket, Ponsonby, Newport, and their friends, who worked\\ntogether in an Irish spirit on Irish questions. Sir Robert had neither the\\nstatesmanlike conceptions nor the natural eloquence of his friends; but his\\nclear common sense, his skill in business, and the independent probity of his\\ncharacter did them service and honour. The great event of his parliamentary\\ncareer was the abatement of that uncomfortable and oppressive impost, the\\nwindow tax. It had been imposed upon Ireland in the last days of the Irish\\nparliament professedly as a war tax, and with a pledge of its removal whenever\\npeace came to pass. Peace came; but although at one stroke fourteen millions\\nof property tax were taken off the people of England, the Chancellor of the Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nchequer manifested very little disposition to decrease the burdens of Ireland.\\nThe case for reference to a committee, with a view to the repeal of the tax, was\\nstated with care, moderation, and point by Mr. Shaw, and Plunket rose to sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nport him, after the Chancellor had replied on the part of the government:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Plunket regretted that the motion of his honourable friend,\\nintroduced as it was with so much candour, moderation, and pro\u00c2\u00ac\\npriety, had not been acceded to by the right honourable gentleman.\\nIn the course of his speech, the right honourable gentleman had es\\nL", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0167.jp2"}, "168": {"fulltext": "158\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\npressed the utmost desire to grant every relief in his power to the\\npeople of Ireland; but the line of conduct he had pursued was by\\nno means an exemplification of such a disposition. To prove that\\nthis was not a war tax, the right honourable gentleman had referred\\nto observations made by the Irish chancellor of the exchequer. He\\nbegged leave, in addition to this, to refer the right honourable gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntleman to the language of the acts of parliament themselves. The\\nright honourable gentleman would there see clear, direct, and specific\\nevidence, that the tax was only intended as a war tax. It was first\\nintroduced in 1799, and the house would find, by the 40th of the King,\\ncap. 4, that the tax was granted for the purpose of keeping up an effec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive force of 49,973 men\u00e2\u0080\u0094that was for the express purpose of main\u00c2\u00ac\\ntaining a war establishment. It was recited, in the body of the act, that\\nthe tax was laid on for this purpose, and for no other. If it were\\nnot then a war tax\u00e2\u0080\u0094completely incapable of being explained away\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094he was utterly at a loss to know what a war tax was. In the\\nsame session the act of the 40th of the king, c. 52, was passed. By\\nthis act, certain regulations were introduced, \u00e2\u0080\u009cfor the better collect\u00c2\u00ac\\ning rates and taxes on dwelling-houses inhabited, in respect of win\u00c2\u00ac\\ndows and lights therein, and to prevent frauds\u00e2\u0080\u0094be it enacted, that\\nthose houses built before the 1st of January, 1799, shall be rated,\\naccording to the windows they then had, for three years from and\\nafter the passing of the said act, provided the present war shall so\\nlong continue.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now it did surprise him, how the right honourable\\ngentleman, whose acute mind could not have suffered this act of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament to have passed unnoticed, could, after a reference to it, have\\nhad any doubt on the subject of the nature of the tax. But, if he\\nstill retained a doubt, he hoped it would not extend beyond the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ncincts of his own mind, and that the house would agree in opinion,\\nthat the tax was clearly a war tax. If, then, it was a war tax, he\\nwould proco?d to examine the ground on which the right honourable\\ngentleman refused to put an end to it, when an end had been put to\\nthe war. He stated, that at the peace of Amiens, the chancellor of\\nthe exchequer, Mr. Corry, who had proposed the tax, did not think\\nit right to move for a repeal of it. Now, it did not appear to him\\nto be a fair inference, because a chancellor of the exchequer was not\\nin the greatest hurry\u00e2\u0080\u0094did not seize the earliest opportunity\u00e2\u0080\u0094to re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmove the burdens of the people, that therefore no pledge for their\\nremoval had been given. In the short period during which peace then\\nprevailed, it was not surprising, perhaps, that the tax was not taken\\noff. But the people having suffered injustice for a certain period of\\ntime, did not furnish a good argument for refusing to do them jus-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0168.jp2"}, "169": {"fulltext": "THE WINDOW TAX.\\n159\\ntice, when their eyes were opened and they applied for redress.\\nThe right honourable gentleman said, it would be a breach of faith\\nwith the public creditor, if it were repealed, when it was pledged as\\na security for a part of the charge on the consolidated fund. The\\nright honourable gentleman had, he conceived, supplied him with an\\nanswer to this argument. He was himself ready to give up 25 per\\ncent, of this tax. He was willing to break one-fourth of his good\\nfaith with the public creditor. In point of principle, he here gave up\\nhis whole argument: he left it without support.\\nHe (Mr. P.) would wish to keep faith inviolate with the public\\ncreditors. Some other tax must be found to pay them but it was\\nfor the right honourable gentleman to devise a tax for that purpose,\\nand not for his honourable friend, who made the present motion, to\\nsupply him with ways and means. He protested, the more he con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidered the admissions contained in the right honourable gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nstatement, the more he was surprised at his opposing the proposition\\nfor a committee, since a committee was the proper place to consider\\nwhat modifications ought to be made in the tax. He should now\\nshortly advert to the produce of the tax. In 1810, it produced\\n\u00c2\u00a3173,509. An additional duty of 50 per cent, was then laid on;\\nwhich, supposing the same number of windows continued to be used,\\nought to have produced \u00c2\u00a3347,018. An additional duty of 25 per\\ncent, was afterwards imposed, which, on the last-mentioned sum, should\\nhave given \u00c2\u00a386,750. The whole amount of the tax, then, accord\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to his calculation, supposing the entire number of windows to\\nhave been used, which were taxed in 1810, would be \u00c2\u00a3427,277.\\nNow what was the fact In the last year, it amounted to \u00c2\u00a3302,014,\\nwhich left a deficit nearer to one-third than one quarter of the\\nestimated produce of the tax. If this were the fact, it was not\\ndifficult to discover the quantity of windows stopped up, and the\\nmeasure of light and air of which the people of Ireland had been de\u00c2\u00ac\\nprived. The right honourable gentleman said that Ireland had not\\npaid her fair contribution to the exigencies of the empire. This was\\na position to which he could not accede. Ireland certainly had not\\npaid the 2-17ths stipulated for at the time of the Union; and for the\\nplainest of all possible reasons, because she could not\u00e2\u0080\u0094because a\\nburden utterly disproportioned to her strength had been imposed on\\nher. What had been her exertions The sum now paid into the\\ntreasury was three times the amount of her nett income at the time\\nof the Union, and, notwithstanding this, the debt of Ireland had in\u00c2\u00ac\\ncreased nearly fivefold since that event. Was not this a proof that,\\nat the time of the Union, a mistaken estimate had been made of her", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0169.jp2"}, "170": {"fulltext": "1 GO\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\npowers The statement sounded very well at the time. It was\\ngratifying to the people of this country to be told\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c You are very\\nmuch in debt, it is true\u00e2\u0080\u0094but Ireland is to pay a considerable portion\\nof it.\u00e2\u0080\u009d They were now, however, dealing with sober realities. Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland would not, for she could not pay it. On this country it must\\nfall. Ireland could not exert herself beyond her strength\u00e2\u0080\u0094she could\\nnot pay beyond her means. Every part of the empire ought to sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nport the state, and contribute to its exigencies, according to the ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ntent of its -ability. He hoped he should not be looked on as an indi\u00c2\u00ac\\nvidual, who, in his place in that house, w r ould advise any portion of\\nthe people to shrink from bearing their fair share of the public bur\u00c2\u00ac\\ndens but resources could not be wrung from an exhausted popula\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. This tax was utterly odious and hateful in Ireland. It was,\\ntherefore, the duty of the right honourable gentleman to find some\\nmeans of filling up any deficiency which its repeal might create, and\\nto bow to the generally-expressed sense of the country. Those who\\ncalled for the repeal, stood on the ground of the faith of parliament,\\nand on the principle that a war tax should not be continued in time\\nof peace. War taxes to the amount of \u00c2\u00a317,000,000 were remitted\\nto the people of this country, while a trifling relief of \u00c2\u00a3200,000 or\\n\u00c2\u00a3300,000 was alone granted to Ireland.\\nThe right honourable gentleman had stated, in his place, that it\\nwas most important to continue the income tax; he had declared\\nthat the business of the country could not be carried on without it.\\nBut the house thought it was just and proper that it should be re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmoved. And, after parliament had declared its sentiments on the\\nsubject, what was the conduct of the right honourable gentleman\\nHe felt that it was necessary to pay due deference to their opinion\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094he came down to the house, and, voluntarily, gave up the war\\nmalt tax. He begged leave to ask, how the right honourable gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntleman, acting in his financial capacity for the whole empire, having\\nlistened to the voice of the English people, conveyed through their\\nrepresentatives\u00e2\u0080\u0094having obeyed their call, and given up the income\\ntax\u00e2\u0080\u0094could now refuse to bow to the sentiments of the people of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, expressed in the most unequivocal and most constitutional\\nmanner He spoke warmly\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor was it wonderful that he should,\\nseeing what he had seen in that country with which he was imme\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiately connected\u00e2\u0080\u0094but he meant nothing offensive to the right\\nhonourable gentleman, whose wishes for the welfare of Ireland, were,\\nhe believed, sincere. The right honourable gentleman had observed,\\nthat some relief, granted at the present time, would have a much\\nbetter effect than any that could be produced by waiting for the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0170.jp2"}, "171": {"fulltext": "THE PETERLOO MASSACRE.\\n1G1\\nresult of the deliberations of a committee. He, however, could see\\nnothing to prevent the right honourable gentleman from granting\\nthat relief, and acceding also to the proposition for a committee.\\nThe committee, he might rest assured, would throw no impediment\\nin the way of any relief he might be inclined to grant. Indeed,\\nhaving received the boon of which the right honourable gentleman\\nhad spoken, the committee could go to work with more spirit.\\nWere the right honourable gentleman to go back to Dublin\u00e2\u0080\u0094were he\\nto notice the unhappy beings whom he would meet in every direction\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094were he to mark their meagre and famished countenances, and to\\nwitness the despair which characterised their looks\u00e2\u0080\u0094were he to\\nknow the disappointment which had settled in the minds of the bet\u00c2\u00ac\\nter order of people, deprived as they were of their ordinary comforts\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094he could not avoid feeling a great anxiety, if it could be recon\u00c2\u00ac\\nciled with the public interest, to remove those burdens which pressed\\nmost heavily on the people of Ireland.\\nThe motion was defeated by a majority of 1G but the Chancellor consented to\\nan abatement of 25 per cent, of the tax. Sir Robert Shaw obtained and deserved\\nthe credit of abolishing it.\\nTHE PETERLOO MASSACRE.\\nNovember 23, 1819.\\nThe extraordinary English prosperity of the year 1818 was by a single act of\\nparliament, passed without a dissentient voice, turned in the course of a few\\nmonths into violent and universal distress, which lasted for three years. This was\\nthe new Bank of England Act. It contracted the currency of the country by no\\nless a sum than eight millions. The paper in discount fell from twenty millions to\\nfour\u00e2\u0080\u0094exports from forty-five millions to thirty-five\u00e2\u0080\u0094imports from thirty-six\\nmillions to twenty-nine\u00e2\u0080\u0094and the profits of every trade and the wages of every\\nlabour. There was almost universal distress, dismay, and bankruptcy.\\nCobbett, when he heard the news in America, prepared to return to England,\\nfeeling certain, he said, that the cause of reform in parliament could now no\\nlonger be averted; and all the English reformers, who know as well as the\\nIrish that the British governing classes listen respectfully to the claims of jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice only when danger makes the opportunity, commenced a violent agitation\\nfor the reform afterwards partly carried by the Whigs and Manchester party,\\nand embodied in their entirety by the Chartist points. Meetings of immense\\nmasses of men, marching in disciplined order, were convoked during the sum\u00c2\u00ac\\nmer of 1819 throughout the manufacturing districts, and as the year advanced\\nbecame more and more formidable in their aspect and violent in their tone.\\nAt last a bloody collision occurred between the people and the authorities. A\\ngreat meeting was summoned at Tetarloo, near Manchester, on the 9 th of August,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0171.jp2"}, "172": {"fulltext": "102\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nto elect a representative and legislatorial attorney for the city of Manchester.\\nThe local magistrates declared that such an object was illegal, and the meeting\\nwas adjourned to the 16th, and convened again to petition for a reform of\\nparliament.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Henry Hunt was announced as tribune of the day, and 60,000 of\\nthe artisan class gathered to hear him.\\nThe magistrates still conceived the meeting to be illegal, and resolved to arrest\\nHunt in the midst of it. Accordingly, after the business had begun, the chief\\nconstable got orders to execute the warrant at once. He attempted to make his\\nway to the hustings, but the crowd was so dense as to render passage impossible.\\nThen the Manchester yeomanry were ordered up to clear the way. Advancing\\ntwo by two amid the dense and excited crowd, they were hooted, separated,\\nsurrounded, and in some instances unhorsed. But no blood was shed, until the\\nchief magistrate turned to the regular cavalry and gave them orders to rescue the\\nyeomen. In a minute they were forward at the charge, and dashed into the\\nmeeting with drawn swords. Four or five persons were killed, about twenty\\nwounded several hundreds crushed and otherwise injured. Hunt and two of his\\nfriends were arrested for high treason\u00e2\u0080\u0094and another collision with the military\\ntook place on his way to gaol. A sense of indignation and horror spread among\\nthe people, and the outrage was resented by popular opinion throughout the\\nempire. On the other hand, the home secretary, Lord Bid mouth, at once con\u00c2\u00ac\\nveyed the approbation and high commendation\u00e2\u0080\u009d of the Prince Regent and the\\nministry to the magistrates of Manchester for their conduct.\\nThree months elapsed before the meeting of parliament. England resounded\\nwith execrations of the government and the magistrates. The common council\\nof London framed a petition condemning their conduct. Meetings were held in\\nLiverpool, York, Westminster, and in almost all the great manufacturing towns,\\nto stigmatize the proceedings of the executive. At some of the meetings violent\\nriots broke out; others were forcibly dissolved. At the York meeting, Lord Fitz-\\nwilliam attended, and was instantly dismissed from the lieutenancy of his riding.\\nThe people organized, agitated, threatened. The government embodied the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nbanded soldiers of the war, and drafted the famous six coercion acts.\\nIn the Prince Regent\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech opening the session, he called the earnest,\\nspeedy, and careful attention of parliament to the state of the country. A spirit\\nis now fully manifested,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he said, utterly hostile to the constitution of the\\nkingdom, and aiming not only at the change of those political institutions which\\nhave hitherto constituted the pride and security of this country, but at the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nversion of the rights of property and of all order in society.\u00e2\u0080\u009d On the address\\nin reply violent debates arose.\\nIn the House of Lords, Earl Grey, Lord Erskine, and the Marquis of Lans-\\ndowne in strong language proposed an amendment condemnatory of the conduct\\nof the magistrates; and the Dukes of Kent and Sussex voted in the minority\\nwith them. In the House of Commons, Tierney led the opposition in a long\\npassionate speech denouncing ministers and magistrates, and calling for inquiry\\nand vengeance. Castlereagh replied, admitting the \u00e2\u0080\u009cawful responsibility of\\nministers to God and their country,\u00e2\u0080\u009d but vindicating their conduct on the grounds\\nthat the meeting was one held to intimidate the executive and the legislature,\\nand that the magistrates had used all reasonable means to disperse it peaceably\\nbefore resorting to force. On the case of Lord Fitzwilliam he asserted that \u00e2\u0080\u009cit\\nwas essential to the due administration of public affairs, and to the dignity of tht\\ncrown, that none of its servants should hold opinions of it derogatory to its ho\u00c2\u00ac\\nnour and character. Lord Fitzwilliam when he went to the meeting at York,\\nvirtually tendered the resignation of his office. Neves", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0172.jp2"}, "173": {"fulltext": "THE PETERLOO MASSACRE.\\n1C3\\nthank3 to the meeting for being allowed to address them with the radicals\\nHe had lived long enough in Ireland daring a disastrous period of its history to\\nknow how far delusions might be carried on by popular agitators and he had\\nseen those who had been so deluded afterwards become faithful subjects and\\nzealous supporters of the laws.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Several minor speakers followed, and then Sir\\nJames Mackintosh rose, denounced the dismissal of Lord Fitzwilliam as \u00e2\u0080\u009can\\noutrage the most gross on honour and virtue, on rank and fortune, that had ever\\ndegraded any administration in modern times\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094and urged the house to adopt\\nthe amendment; to inquire, if the inquiry should be gone into, it would rub\\nout as foul a blot and black a stain as ever disgraced the history of the country.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nPlunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech is next in the debate, and from his antecedents and con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexion astounded the house. Their surprise was possibly increased by Castle-\\nreagh\u00e2\u0080\u0099s apposite reference to his experience in Ireland of \u00e2\u0080\u009cagitators,\u00e2\u0080\u009d who, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never, afterwards became zealous supporters of the laws\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094meaning, of course,\\nthe anti-Union tribunes. But Plunket never heeded, and spoke like an attorney-\\ngeneral with an unflawed indictment and a packed jury. The speech, although\\nreported in the third person, is printed from the authorised edition.\\nMr. Plunket commenced by observing that the question before\\nthe house had not been very fairly treated. Much had been intro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced which did not necessarily connect itself with the subject, and\\nwhich had a tendency to divert the attention of the house from the\\ndeeply important matters which pressed for their consideration. There\\nhad been some address in making the case of Lord Fitzwilliam so\\nprincipal a topic. As a ground of argument applicable to the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent questiou, it could not be justly resorted to by any person who\\ndid not go the length of asserting that the dismissal of that noble\u00c2\u00ac\\nman would warrant parliament in the refusal to consider, or to make\\nprovision against, the dangers with which the country was threatened,\\nand which were announced in the speech from the throne. No per\u00c2\u00ac\\nson, on any side of the house, had laid down so extreme a position;\\non the contrary, the amendment of his right honourable friend ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted the danger and the necessity of meeting it by suitable pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvisions. He would, therefore, in his view of the subject, relieve\\nhimself from a discussion which he could not approach without feel\u00c2\u00ac\\nings of great embarrassment. His habitual reverence for that dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinguished nobleman was such that he could scarcely hope to bring\\nhis mind, fairly and impartially, to any investigation which affected\\nhim. He considered his character as uniting everything noble and\\ngenerous in freedom, with everything that could exalt or dignify the\\naristocracy of the country; and he therefore took leave to dismiss\\nthis subject as one not connected with the debate, and in doing so,\\nhe felt much satisfaction in the statement of the noble lord (Castle-\\nreagh), that the dismissal of Earl Fitzwilliam was founded, not on\\nany personal imputations, but on a difference of opinion with his", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0173.jp2"}, "174": {"fulltext": "164:\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government on points involving the exercise of his duties\\nas lord lieutenant of the West Riding.\\nAgain, he thought the subject had, in another respect, not been\\nvery fairly treated by his right honourable friend who immediately\\npreceded him. It was stated in the speech from the throne that a\\nrevolutionary spirit was at work in the country, which threatened its\\nsafety and its existence; and the truth of this statement was not\\ndenied, but indeed admitted, by the amendment. Was it then per\u00c2\u00ac\\nfectly fair to call the attention of the house from the consideration of\\nthe public danger and its remedies\u00e2\u0080\u0094from the machinations and arts\\nof those who were preparing measures for the subversion of the state\\nand the overthrow of every constituted authority\u00e2\u0080\u0094to the plans and\\nobjects of that portion of the peaceful and loyal subjects of this\\ncountry who respected the law and constitution, and were desirous of\\nimproving them. This latter description of persons were entitled to\\nthe most attentive and respectful consideration. However he might\\ndiffer from them on the subject of parliamentary reform, he consi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndered their objects as honest, and their means of effecting them as\\nconstitutional. Whenever, at any proper time, and in any proper\\nform, their claims should be brought before parliament, they should\\nbe listened to with attention and with respect. Their proposals, if\\nreasonable, should be yielded to if not so, they should be met with\\nfair argument and calm discussion; and the result, in either event,\\nwould be satisfactory and conciliating. The people of England were\\na reasoning and reasonable people but was it fair, either to them\\nor to the country, to confound their cause and their objects with\\nthe persons whom we now were called upon to deal with, whose un\u00c2\u00ac\\ndisguised aim was to pull down the entire fabric of our constitution\\nand to effect a revolution by force Against this immediate and\\noverwhelming danger it was the first duty of parliament to provide.\\nAnd to turn aside from this urgent and paramount duty to the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncussion of subjects of inferior importance and of distinct considera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, would be an abandonment of the interests of the country.\\nWhen he saw a revolutionary project ripe for execution\u00e2\u0080\u0094when he\\nsaw that sedition and blasphemy were the instruments by which it\\nworked, and that open force was to be employed for its accomplish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, he felt it to be trifling with the duties of the house, and with\\nthe safety of the country, to turn their minds to any other object until\\nthe terrors that hung over our existing establishments were first dis\u00c2\u00ac\\npelled.\\nNo person, he was happy to see, denied the existence of these\\ndangers; but he thought there was some tendency to underrate tueir", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0174.jp2"}, "175": {"fulltext": "THE PETERLOO MASSACRE.\\n165\\nextent, and to undervalue their consequence. It was said that the\\npublic mind in general was sound: he trusted and firmly believed it\\nwas so. He was convinced that the strength and spirit of the loyal\\nsubjects were sufficient to put down the enemies of law and of order;\\nhe, therefore, was apprehensive, not of revolution, but of the attempt\\nat revolution, which he believed in his conscience would be made, if\\nnot prevented by the vigilancy and energy of parliament; aud what\\nhe contemplated with the deepest alarm was the miseries which such\\nan attempt, in its progress to certain and necessary failure, must\\nproduce. If this mischief should once burst forth, he anticipated a\\nseries of horrors wh\u00e2\u0080\u0099ich must shake the safety and happiness of the\\ncountry to its foundations. The very circumstances which must\\nensure the ultimate failure of the enterprise aggravated its dangers.\\nRevolution, always calamitous, yet, when pursued for some definite\\npurpose, conducted by abilities, tempered by the admixture of rank\\nand of property, may be effected, as it had been before in this coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry, without any incurable shock being given to the safety of persons\\nof property. But here was a revolution to be achieved by letting\\nloose the physical force of the community against its constituted\\nauthorities\u00e2\u0080\u0094a revolution for the sake of revolution, to take away the\\nproperty of the rich, and to distribute it among the rabble, a rabble\\npreviously debauched by the unremitting dissemination of blasphe\u00c2\u00ac\\nmous libels, and freed from the restraints of moral or religious feel\u00c2\u00ac\\ning. On this subject he felt sufficient confidence to express his\\nopinion, without waiting for any of those documents which the noble\\nlord proposed to lay before the house.\\nThese were facts of public notoriety, known and seen by every\\nman who did not choose to shut his eyes. Had not meetings been\\nproposed for the purpose of assuming the functions which belonged\\nonly to the sovereign power of the state\u00e2\u0080\u0094meetings which, if they\\nactually had been held, would have been acts of high treason. When\\nit was found that matters were not sufficiently ripe for this undis\u00c2\u00ac\\nguised act of public rebellion, had not the same masses of the popu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlace been again convened, under the directions of the same leaders,\\nunder the pretext of seeking universal suffrage and annual parliaments\\n-\u00e2\u0080\u0094their very pretexts such as the constitution could not survive, if\\nthey were effectuated; but their real object being to overawe the\\nconstituted authorities by the display of their numerical strength, and\\nto prepare for direct, immediate, forcible revolution. Had we not\\nseen the same itinerant mountebank,* who set their powers in motion\\npublicly assisting at the orgies of the blasphemous wretchf lately con-\\nHunt. t Carlile the publisher.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0175.jp2"}, "176": {"fulltext": "166\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nvicted; and could we doubt that treason was the object, and that bias*\\npheiny and sedition were the means When he saw these fiends\\nhuman shape endeavouring to rob their unhappy victims of all their con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsolations here, and of all their hopes hereafter; when he saw them with\\ntheir levers placed under the great pillars of social order^and heaving\\nthe constitution from its foundation, he was rejoiced to see parliament\\nassembled. Their first duty was to convince these enemies of God\\nand man, that within the walls of parliament they could find no\\ncountenance; and through the organ of parliament to let them know,\\nthat nothing awaited them but indignant resistance from the great\\nbody of the people.\\nThey were bound to assure the throne of their loyal and cheerful\\nco-operation for these purposes; and on this ground alone the amend\u00c2\u00ac\\nment was objectionable, even if the measure suggested by it were in\\nitself desirable, inasmuch as by tacking it to the address, and not\\nproposing it as a separate resolution, it declared the measure of in\u00c2\u00ac\\nquiry so essential as to preclude all exertions for the safety of the\\nstate until that inquiry should be disposed of. But, waiving this ob\u00c2\u00ac\\njection, he should proceed to consider it on its own merits. It was\\nsaid then that the dispersion of the meeting at Manchester on the\\n16th of August called for parliamentary inquiry; and here he begged\\nleave to remind the house that parliamentary inquiry, though cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly a proceeding recognised by our constitution, was still not the\\nordinary mode for investigating either the conduct of magistrates in\\nthe execution of the laws, or the conduct of those who were the ob\u00c2\u00ac\\njects of the execution of those laws. A case, therefore, for inquiry\\nwas to be made out by those who called for it. What, then, was\\nthe inquiry proposed? Was it into the conduct of government for\\nthanking the magistrates Such a proceeding, he owned, appeared\\nto him most premature and uncalled for. If the magistrates had\\nissued orders for dispersing the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects peaceably and legally\\nassembled\u00e2\u0080\u0094if, in consequence of such orders, the blood of innocent\\nand unoffending persons had been shed, the conduct of ministers in\\nadvising his royal highness the Prince llegent to thank them for\\nsuch acts would call for inquiry and for censure. If, on the contrary,\\nbodies to the amount of twenty thousand or seventy thousand, he\\ncared not which\u00e2\u0080\u0094but to an amount beyond the means of the civil\\npower to deal with\u00e2\u0080\u0094had marched in regular columns and in military\\narray, with seditious banners, into the heart of one of the most popu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlous and most inflammable towns in the empire; if these men had\\nbeen previously drilled to military exercises; if they had been shortly\\nbefore convened for a treasouable purpose; if they resisted the au-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0176.jp2"}, "177": {"fulltext": "THE FETEULOO HASS AC RE.\\n167\\nthority of the peace officers executing the warrant of the magistrates;\\nif, in short, the case stated by the noble lord and by the honourable\\nmember for Dover were correct, then, he had no hesitation in saying\\nthat his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers were not only justified in returning thanks\\nto the magistrates, but that it was their bounden duty to do so and\\nthat those gentlemen, acting in the discharge of a most important\\nduty, in a crisis of public peril, and undertaking an awful responsi\u00c2\u00ac\\nbility for the public service, were entitled to have the sense of the\\nexecutive government on their conduct. When it was said that this\\nwas prejudging the question, it seemed to be taken as granted that\\nthe executive power of the country is not in any degree lodged in the\\ngovernment. Would it not have been their duty to have given\\nprevious advice and instruction to the magistrates on such a subject\\nand with a view to such an emergency When they direct the\\npublic prosecutor to proceed against any individual, can that be con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidered as a prejudging of the question To this extent it is the\\nexercise of their proper functions, which they cannot neglect without\\nan abandonment of duty; and if they felt, under all circumstances,\\nthat the conduct of those most meritorious public servants deserved\\ntheir praise, it would have been unjust and mean to have withheld\\ntheir expressions of it. How, then, could the propriety of the letter\\nof thanks be judged until the facts were ascertained True, it was\\nsaid; and therefore inquire. Certainly but how Clearly by the\\nregular course of law, and by the regular tribunals of the country,\\nunless some case were previously established, showing that these\\ntribunals were inadequate or unsuited for the purpose. Bills were\\nfound against several of the persons alleged to be actors in this se\u00c2\u00ac\\nditious meeting: on these trials the legality of the meeting would be\\nnecessarily the subject of investigation. And why was it that these\\ntrials had not taken place, and the public mind, through the regular\\nconstitutional channel of a trial by jury, been informed of the real\\nnature of these transactions Why; because the persons so accused\\nhad availed themselves of the delay which the law unfortunately\\nallows, and had postponed their trials until the spring assizes.\\nBut, it is said that although the legality of the meeting might be\\ndecided on in those cases, still the conduct of the magistrates in dis\u00c2\u00ac\\npersing it might be illegal; and this would not necessarily, in them,\\ncome under discussion. Why, then, were not proceedings taken on\\nthe part of the persons alleged to be aggrieved or injured by the acts\\nof the magistrates The honourable and learned member made the\\nabsence of such proceedings a ground for parliamentary inquiry; but\\nwas not the fair inference from the absence of such proceedings this,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0177.jp2"}, "178": {"fulltext": "168\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthat no reasonable foundation for them existed But the grand\\njury had thrown out the bills preferred on behalf of these persons.\\nWas this a ground for parliamentary inquiry Was it to be presumed\\nthat the grand jury of the county of Lancaster had violated their\\noaths An artifice had been resorted to, for the purpose of rendering\\nthe administration of justice suspected in the public mind, by pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishing the informations which had been sent up to the grand jury;\\nbut every gentleman must be aware of the difference between an in\u00c2\u00ac\\nformation in which the party states the facts according to his own\\nviews, and a vivd voce examination before the grand jury, in which\\nthe entire truth is extracted from the witness. But, supposing the\\ngrand jury had erred in ignoring the bills, fresh indictments might be\\nsent up to any succeeding grand jury. Was the entire county of\\nLancashire to be pronounced incapable or unwilling to exercise such\\nfunctions But magistrates refused to receive informations. Was not\\ntheir conduct examinable in the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench; and might not\\nall the facts connected with such a transaction be fully examined on\\naffidavits And if any doubt existed for a jury, on an information\\nunder the sanction of the court, was the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench also to\\nbe included within the ban of this proscription of all the constituted au\u00c2\u00ac\\nthorities But the honourable and learned member said that the Court\\nof King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench would not interfere unless the magistrate acted wil\u00c2\u00ac\\nfully, and that he might commit an error which would not subject him\\nto punishment. Was this, then, a ground for parliamentary interfer\u00c2\u00ac\\nence, to stop the course of law, and subject the public functionary to\\nan extraordinary visitation of public vengeance? Were the different\\npoints of the argument of the honourable and learned member alto\u00c2\u00ac\\ngether reconcileable When his object was to make out a case so\\nimportant as to call for parliamentary inquiry, he stated the conduct\\nof the magistrates as a daring violation of the subjects\u00e2\u0080\u0099 privileges, a\\ntriumph of authority over law, a foul stain upon our laws, forming a\\nblack era in the annals of our country but when it became an ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nject to show that there might be a case in which the courts of law\\nwould be incompetent to investigate the truth, then this foul deed,\\nthis portentous violation of the laws and of the constitution dwindled\\ninto an error in judgment too slight and too pardonable to warrant\\nthe interference of the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench.\\nWas such an error, if it did exist, he would ask, a case for par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliamentary inquiry? Was this the way in which the conduct of\\nmagistrates was to be examined by parliament He owned he was\\nnot one of those who were disposed to examine too critically the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nduct of magistrates acting in perilous times, under heavy responsi-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0178.jp2"}, "179": {"fulltext": "TEE P2TERL00 MASSACRE.\\n1G9\\nbility and sure he was, that if the benignant principle of the law\\nshielded their errors, it was not the province of parliament to deprive\\nthem of that protection. Further, he would ask, if any individual\\nwas aggrieved, where was the bar to his remedy by civil action, in\\nwhich the whole merits of the case would be discussed in a court of\\nlaw, and decided on by a jury of his country What pretence was\\nthere for saying that justice had been denied, or even delayed? Unless\\nthe house was prepared to bring to its bar the grand jury of Lanca\u00c2\u00ac\\nshire unless they were prepared to say that the whole body of public\\nfunctionaries, petty juries, grand juries, magistrates, and judges, were\\nlinked in one common conspiracy against the peaceable petitioners\\nwho assembled at Manchester on the 16th of August, they had not\\nground or principle on which they could order this inquiry. He de\u00c2\u00ac\\nprecated such a proceeding as calculated to give efficacy to the plans\\nof the revolutionary party for the degradation of the public func\u00c2\u00ac\\ntionaries, and to stamp with the authoritative seal of parliament what\\nhitherto had rested on vulgar calumny and on popular clamour. He be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlieved that such an inquiry, instead of being calculated, as was alleged,\\nto allay dissatisfaction, and to conciliate the public mind, could have\\nno other effect than to raise the hopes and spirits of revolutionists,\\nand to strike damp and panic into the heart of every loyal subject.\\nBesides this, the course was wild and impracticable. How was this\\ninquiry to be conducted At the bar of the house or in a committee\\nWas this inquiry to supersede the proceedings already instituted in\\nthe king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s courts? Or were the two classes of proceedings to be carried\\non simultaneously If the former was to be the course, the laws\\nwere to be robbed of their authority, and the subject of his redress,\\nby a proceeding utterly unsuited to the purposes either of punish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment or of compensation. If the latter, we were to have the ano\u00c2\u00ac\\nmalous and unprecedented spectacle of persons being tried on charges\\naffecting their persons and properties, perhaps their lives, in pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceedings before juries, and with witnesses on oath, in the regular\\ncourts of law; while the very same facts were undergoing a discus\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion without oath, before the extraordinary tribunal of parliament.\\nWas it possible that either public or individual justice could be ob\u00c2\u00ac\\ntained by such a course, or that any result could be derived from it\\ncalculated to maintain the authority of the laws or the dignity of\\nparliament Such a proceeding, he must say, appeared to him wild,\\nunprecedented, and impracticable.\\nHis honourable and learned friend had adverted to three cases as\\nprecedents to warrant such a course asthatnow recommended: thetirst\\nwas a case in the year 1714, in which the House of Lords, for the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0179.jp2"}, "180": {"fulltext": "170\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\npurpose of procuring the removal of magistrates who were supposed\\nto entertain Jacobitical principles, had addressed the throne for a list\\nof the magistrates, and entered into a strict inquiry in consequence\\nDf which, several of those magistrates were dismissed. Was there\\nany trial then pending in the court of law Was there any\\nspecific fact that could be inquired into in a court of law Or\\nwas it anything more than a proceeding to enable parliament to ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvise the crown with respect to the wholesome exercise of its prero\u00c2\u00ac\\ngative The second was the case of the murder of Porteous by the\\nmob of Edinburgh (which had derived much celebrity from a late\\npopular work). Was that a proceeding affecting any trial depending, or\\nwith a view to any individual punishment It was, as fairly stated by\\nthe honourable and learned member, an inquiry in order to ground a\\nbill of pains and penalties against the town of Edinburgh, and which\\nwas accordingly passed. The third instance alluded to was, the inquiry\\ninstituted before the secret committee in 1794 that was an inquiry for\\nthe purpose of grounding measures for the public safety and was,\\nwith reference to the general state of the country, not in the conduct\\nof local magistrates, and on a particular occasion. Again, the danger\\nof its incidentally affecting the rights of individuals, who were liable\\nto be tried in the courts of law, was so strongly felt, that the in\u00c2\u00ac\\nquiry was a secret one. When published, the names of individuals\\nwere suppressed; and even under all these circumstances, the possi\u00c2\u00ac\\nbility of an impression unfavourable to these individuals having been\\nmade by the report was so strongly felt, that Mr. Erskine relied on\\nit, and successfully, and in some instances, as he (Mr. P.) believed,\\nacquittals were obtained on that ground. When his honourable and\\nlearned friend, with his extensive knowledge and research, could pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduce no other instances than these, he felt himself justified in repeat\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the assertion, that the measure was unprecedented. But there\\nwas a case not alluded to by his honourable and learned friend, as\\nhe recollected, about the year 1715, in which a parliamentary inquiry\\nhaving been directed into the nature of a certain meeting at Oxford,\\nwhich was alleged to be riotous, a number of affidavits were pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced on one side, and after an unavailing demand of examination\\non the other, the inquiry was found so impracticable that it was\\ndropped, and no further proceeding founded on it.*\\nThe reference appears to have been made from memory, and though sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nstantially true, was certainly inaccurate in expression. The facts were these:\\nA tumult having arisen at Oxford on the prince\u00e2\u0080\u0099s birth-day, and the loyalty of\\nthe mayor and of the heads of the university being called in question, the lords\\nof the council examined into the case on allidavits, not with reference to the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0180.jp2"}, "181": {"fulltext": "THE PETERLOO MASSACRE.\\n171\\nThe case for inquiry, he therefore contended, was unsupported by\\nprecedent, and was not bottomed on any ascertained fact, or even on\\nany statement made by any member in his place of any case which,\\nif true, would warrant its adoption; indeed, he had not heard any\\nmember assert the legality of the Manchester meeting. He was con\u00c2\u00ac\\nfident that no man acquainted with the laws and constitution of the\\ncountry would venture to do so.\\nThe house, he trusted, would excuse him, if he trespassed a little\\nfurther on their patience, by stating his opinion as to those public\\nmeetings. The right of the people of this country to meet for the\\npurpose of expressing their opinions on any subject connected with\\ntheir own individual interests, or with the public welfare, was beyond\\nall question; it was a sacred privilege belonging to the most humble\\nas fully as to the highest subject in the community they had a\\nright to the full expression and to the free communication of such\\nsentiments; to interchange them with their fellow-subjects, to ani-\\nriot, but with respect to their conduct as to rejoicing on the prince\u00e2\u0080\u0099s birth-day\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\na matter which could not be the subject of any legal inquiry. The council\\ncame to the following resolution:\u00e2\u0080\u0094Resolved, that the heads of the university\\nand mayor of the city neglected to make any public rejoicing on the prince\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nbirth-day; but some of the collegiates, with the officers, being met to celebrate\\nthe day, the house where they were was assaulted, and the windows were broken\\nby the rabble, which was the beginning and occasion of the riots that ensued as\\nwell from the soldiers as the scholars and the townsmen, and the conduct of the\\nmayor seems well j ustified by the affidavits on his part.\\nOn the 25th of March, 1717, the Lords addressed the crown, that the proper\\nofficer should lay before the house the complaints and depositions relative to the\\nriots and disorders complained of at the city of Oxford, and the proceedings\\nwhich had been had thereon. In consequence of this address, the documents,\\nconsisting among others of fifty-six affidavits by the officers and soldiers, and\\nfifty-five affidavits on the part of the mayor and city, were laid before the\\nHouse of Lords, and referred to a committee of the whole house. On the 3rd\\nApril, 1717, the committee repealed two resolutions, viz., an approbation of the\\nresolutions of the lords of the council already stated; and secondly, that the\\npublication of depositions, while the matter was depending in council, was dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nrespectful to the prince and tending to sedition. A petition against this resolu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion was offered on behalf of the vice-chancellor, the mayor, and magistrates,\\nwho desired to be heard in reply. Their application was refused, and the reso\u00c2\u00ac\\nlutions already stated were adopted by the house, and no further proceedings\\nwere taken; and even from this mere adoption of the resolution in council\\ntwenty-eight peers dissented, assigning this among other reasons\u00e2\u0080\u0094namely, that\\nthe matters of fact were not sufficiently inquired into, from want of opportunity\\nof replying to the affidavits; and because of such proceedings the magistrates\\nmay be discouraged from doing their duty on such occasions. These facts\\nappear on the journals of the Lords, and it is conceived they substantially war\u00c2\u00ac\\nrant the statement of this case as one tending to show the futility of such in\u00c2\u00ac\\nquiries, although they do not confirm the exact words of the statement.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0181.jp2"}, "182": {"fulltext": "172\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nmate and catch fire each from the other. He trusted that to snch\\nrights he should never be found an enemy; but he must say that these\\nrights, like all others, to be exercised in civil society must be subject\\nto such modification and restriction as to render them compatible\\nwith other rights equally acknowledged and equally sacred. Every\\nsubject of this realm had an undoubted right to the protection of the\\nlaws\u00e2\u0080\u0094to the security of his person and his property\u00e2\u0080\u0094and still more,\\nto the full assurance of such safety. And he had no hesitation in\\nasserting that any assembly of the people, held under such circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances as to excite in the minds of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s peaceable and loyal\\nsubjects reasonable grounds of alarm, in this respect were illegal\\nassemblies, and liable to be dispersed as such. He thought it impor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant that it should be understood that these rights were restricted\\nnot merely to this extent\u00e2\u0080\u0094namely, that they must not assemble for\\nan illegal purpose that they must not assemble with force and arms;\\nand they must not use seditious language; that they must not revile\\nthe laws or public functionaries; but beyond all this, that they must\\nnot assemble under such circumstances, whether of numbers or other\u00c2\u00ac\\nwise, as to excite well-grounded terror in the minds of their fellow-sub\u00c2\u00ac\\njects, or to disturb their tranquil and assured enjoyment of the protection\\nof the laws, free from all reasonable apprehension of force or violence.\\nA vulgar notion may have prevailed, that if the avowed and imme\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiate purpose of such meetings were not illegal, or if they had not\\narms in their hands, or if no force was actually used or immediately\\nthreatened, the assembly was legal: no opinion could be more un\u00c2\u00ac\\nfounded, and he did not fear contradiction from any constitutional\\nlawyer when he asserted that any assembly of the people, whether\\narmed or unarmed; whether using or threatening to use force, or\\nnot doing so and whether the avowed object was illegal or legal:\\nif held in such numbers, or with such language, or emblems, or de\u00c2\u00ac\\nportment as to create well-grounded terror in the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s liege sub\u00c2\u00ac\\njects for their lives, their persons, or their property, was an illegal\\nassembly, and might be dispersed as such.\\nSuch had been the law as laid down by the ablest of our lawyers\\nand of our judges from the earliest period of our jurisprudence, and\\nin the best times of our history and constitution, before the revolu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion and since the revolution, independent of the Riot Act or of any\\nstatuteable enactment, by the principles of our common law, which\\nwas always founded on the principles of common sense. The appli\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation of this principle to each particular case must always be a mat\u00c2\u00ac\\nter of discretion, but in cases like the present it could not admit of\\ndoubt or difficulty. _ When meetings became too strong for the civil", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0182.jp2"}, "183": {"fulltext": "THE PETERLOO MASSACRE\\n173\\npower to deal with them, the laws must prohibit them; if not recourse\\nmust be had to military force. When the citizen becomes too strong\\ntor the law, the magistrate of necessity becomes a soldier; and those,\\nwho justified these unrestricted meetings were the worst enemies to\\nthe liberties of their country, and laid the foundation of military des\u00c2\u00ac\\npotism. If bodies of the people, not convened by any public func\u00c2\u00ac\\ntionary, but called together by mountebanks whose only title was\\ntheir impudence and folly, were entitled to assemble, not in thou\u00c2\u00ac\\nsands but in tens of thousands; to march with banners displayed in\\nmilitary array, into the hearts of populous cities; and if the laws\\nwere not competent to assure the people of this country against the\\npanic and dismay excited by such proceedings, there was an en 1 to\\nthe constitution. He implored the house to protect the country from\\nthe effect of these desolating plans which were now in operation.\\nKven though they should not break out in actual rebellion, their mis\u00c2\u00ac\\nchiefs were beyond calculation. The principles of respect for the\\nlaws and orders of the state, the reverence that was due to the sacred\\nobligations of religion, these were not the results of momentary feel\u00c2\u00ac\\nings which might be thrown aside and resumed at pleasure; they\\nwere habits which if once removed could not easily be restored. If\\nthose sacred sources from which were the issues of public happiness\\nand virtue, were once tainted, how was their purity to be restored\\nHe had reason to believe that the blasphemies which had excited\\nthe horror of all good men, had been fashioned by these miscreants\\ninto primers for the education of children, that these helpless beings\\nin receiving the first elements of knowledge might be inoculated with\\nthis pestilence. He again implored the house to act with decision\\nand energy while yet it was in their power. If the great foundations\\nof public safety were once shaken, the united exertion of all the ho\u00c2\u00ac\\nnest men of every party might come too late. On these grounds he\\ndeprecated the amendment, as calculated to give encouragement to\\nthe worst enemies of the state; and cordially concurred in the original\\naddress.\\nThe debate was adjourned, and on the second day strong references were made\\nby Hume, Burdett, and several others of the opposition speakers, to the course\\ntaken by Plunket, who, on the other hand, was warmly complimented by Can\u00c2\u00ac\\nning\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009cThe right honourable and learned gentleman, himself a host, had\\npledged his authority and reputation as a lawyer (pledges of which the house\\nand the United Kingdom know, and posterity will acknowledge, the value)\\nthat the meeting was an illegal meeting,\u00e2\u0080\u009d c. Brougham was of quite another\\nopinion. The government, however, carried their address by a large majority.\\nII", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0183.jp2"}, "184": {"fulltext": "174\\nflunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nTHE SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.\\nDecember 13, 1819.\\nInstantly after ministers had felt their way with the honse by the address\\nthey introduced the six acts\u00e2\u0080\u0094the training, seizure of arms, misdemeanour, se\u00c2\u00ac\\nditious meetings, blasphemous libels, and newspaper stamp acts\u00e2\u0080\u0094a series of\\nmeasures devised to environ the Radicals with a complete cordon of legis\u00c2\u00ac\\nlation. The Seditious Meetings Prevention Act was a peculiarly severe mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure. It made the least resistance to any magistrate who called upon any meet\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to disperse, a felony, and indemnified justices for killing and maiming in\\ndispersing any meeting that so refused.\\nMr. Hutchinson, a blood relation of my Lord Donoughmore,\u00e2\u0080\u009d delivered a\\nrattling Irish speech on the third reading, attacking the government for wan\u00c2\u00ac\\ntonly and unnecessarily including Ireland in the bill. Turning to the Irishmen\\nwho supported it, Perhaps,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said he, the most novel and singular circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance attending these debates was the conspicuous lead the Irish gentlemen had\\ntaken on the occasion. The member for the university of Dublin (Mr. Plunket),\\none of the first legal characters in that country, had come over to declare the law,\\nto strengthen and to shield the minister. The president of the Board of Control\\n(Mr. Canning), also an Irishman, had exhausted all the powers of his extraordi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnary eloquence, in a three hours\u00e2\u0080\u0099 speech, in order to guide or rather beguile the house\\ninto an adoption of these measures. The noble lord (Castlereagh), the author of\\nthis notable system, himself an Irishman, seventy other Irish members, crowd\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the ranks of ministers, and making their victory decisive\u00e2\u0080\u0094a noble duke,\\nthe first, the great captain of the age, one of Erin\u00e2\u0080\u0099s most favoured sons, covered\\nwith honours and with glory, forming one of the cabinet where these measures\\nwere devised, and prepared, no doubt, to lead the armies of the empire, if neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary, even against the people of Great Britain, should they in their despair and\\nmadness unhappily be goaded on to violence and to mischief. One felt disposed\\nto ask whether this be revenge?\u00e2\u0080\u0094revenge for the injuries inflicted by Great\\nBritain on that country for so many centuries?\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether it was the hand of\\nProvidence interferfering to punish, through Irish agency, the sufferings of mil\u00c2\u00ac\\nlions, though thus tardily He asked whether those gentlemen he had men\u00c2\u00ac\\ntioned now wished to give chains to Great Britain, in return for the misery and\\ndesolation inflicted on their own country by the barbarous policy of Briti-h cabi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnets.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Another passage in his speech was an urgent personal appeal to Plunket\\nagainst extending the bills to Ireland.\\nMr. Plunket trusted the honse would indulge him for a short\\ntime, while he expressed his sentiments on the measure then before\\nthem. He did not intend to have occupied their attention at this\\nstage of the debate, nor should he have offered himself, but for the\\nvery pointed manner in which he had been alluded to by his\\nhonourable and learned friend who had spoken last but one. He\\nheld it to be rather unusual to call particularly upon any member for\\nhis opinion upon what was passing before the house, and perhaps he\\nmight, with a full sense of duty, decline to comply with the demand;", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0184.jp2"}, "185": {"fulltext": "SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.\\n175\\nbut he confessed he had so much of the Irishman in him as not to\\nrefuse the challenge. He thanked his honourable and learned friend\\nfor the compliments which he had paid him in the course of his\\nspeech; but he conceived the allusion made to his character, as\\naffected by the vote which he had given or might give on this sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject, was wholly uncalled for. He must say that he did not think\\nh:s character was likely to sustain auy injury or diminution from\\nthe course of conduct which he had felt it his duty in that house to\\nfollow. He thought that his character could never be implicated\\nby the conscientious expression of a conscientious opinion. His\\nhonourable and learned friend, in what he had expressed, was not\\ninconsistent with his politics and he (Mr. Plunket) maintained that\\nhe, in what he had said, was not inconsistent with those politics\\nwhich he had always supported. In the course of his parliamentary\\nexperience, he had frequently been compelled to differ from his\\nhonourable and learned friend, and he had never seen occasion since\\nto regret that difference. He had heard a great deal of the claim\\nset up to exclusive loyalty by the gentlemen on the other side but\\nhe considered the claim to exclusive patriotism, which was set up\\nby some gentlemen, equally as arrogant and unfounded. His honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable and learned friend had talked a great deal of liberty, and of the\\ninroads which had been made upon it. He should be glad to learn\\nfrom him what that liberty was, and what were those attacks which\\nwere so much to be feared. That liberty would not, he was cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain, be defined to mean the unlimited power of each individual to\\ndo whatever he pleased. He should rather define it to be Po-\\ntestasfaciendi quicquidper leges licet\u00e2\u0080\u009d It was not the unbridled\\nlicense of disturbing the community at the caprice of all who sought\\nonly for confusion. The outcry of the present day was not in sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nport of any enjoyment\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was not to uphold a legal and recognised\\nright, but the uproar was shouted to secure the power of disturbance,\\nto perpetuate an abuse with whose existence constitutional freedom\\nwas incompatible. Could such a misapplication of right be called\\nliberty Was that liberty which was preached up as such in so\\nmany parts of the country No, it was a screaming harpy, an ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nscene bird of prey, that polluted every social and every natural en\u00c2\u00ac\\njoyment, and sought only to poison all those who allowed themselves\\nto be brought within its influence. He had heard many assertions\\non the subject on that side of the house, and though he was certain\\nthat anything which fell from his honourable and learned friend was\\nnot said with any evil intention, yet it should be recollected that in\\nthe present state of the country the slightest assertion might be sufii-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0185.jp2"}, "186": {"fulltext": "176\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ndent to unsheath the sword of civil discord, which unhappily was\\nalready half drawn from its scabbard. Many gentlemen talked ol\\nthe introduction of military power and the substitution of a govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of force for a government of law. He could not participate in\\nsuch apprehensions\u00e2\u0080\u0094he read the answer to such fears in the appli\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation to parliament for the wholesome laws in the passing of which\\nthe house was then engaged.\\nHe had made those few observations from having been so point\u00c2\u00ac\\nedly called upon by his honourable and learned friend, but he\\ntrusted the house would excuse him if he went a little farther iuto\\nthe subject than he originally intended for he was anxious to state\\nwhat his reasons were lor giving his support to the present mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsures. That support was not founded on any suggestions of tempo\u00c2\u00ac\\nrary policy\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor on the information which was disclosed in the papers\\nbefore the house, but with the conviction that the proposed measures\\ndid not infringe on the constitution; while they were essential to its\\nconservation. The state of society in this coun\u00e2\u0080\u0099ry, every man who\\nreflected on the subject must admit, had within the last twenty or\\nthirty years undergone a greater change than from the period of the\\nconquest uutil the time of Avhich he spoke. Wiihiu that interval\\nthe public attention had been called to the consideration of every\\nmeasure connected with the administration of the government, in a\\ndegree hitherto unprecedented. There had been an intensity of light\\nshed upon all subjects, civil, political, and religious; so that mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsures were now scanned with minuteness, which were scarcely looked\\niuto, or at most, but generally known before. Did he complain of\\nthat change, or of the means by which it had been produced No;\\nhe rejoiced at it. The freedom of the public press, directing its\\nefforts under the institutions of the constitution, was the most effec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntual security of public freedom. He was persuaded that where every\\naction of every man connected with public affairs was laid before the\\npublic in the fullest manner, and most strictly canvassed and exa\u00c2\u00ac\\nmined where the press exercised this kind of guardianship we had\\nthe best guarantee of all our rights. Then why did he allude to the\\npublic press Because there was under the same title another de\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription, a blasphemous, seditious, mischievous press, of which thf\\nmembers of that house knew but little, but which had been unremit\u00c2\u00ac\\ntingly at work in destroying every honest and good feeling in the\\nheart of man, and in loosening all those moral and social ties, with\u00c2\u00ac\\nout which civilization could not exist. It was not against the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nspectable press but against this under-current, which, setting with\\ngroat force, was drifting the great mass of the humbler classes of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0186.jp2"}, "187": {"fulltext": "SEDITIOUS MEETINGS BILL.\\n177\\nthe community into sedition, atheism, and revolution, that the house\\nsougnt to guard. It was for the consummation of such atrocious\\nobjects that this battery was brought to play upon their passions\\nand their ignorance. Did he mean to say that the lower class of\\nthe people had no right to be informed on public transactions\\nDid he mean to say that the lower orders of the people had not\\na right to inquire into and discuss subjects of a political nature?\\nNo such thing. Did he mean to say that they ought not to have\\nthe power of expressing their sense of any grievance under which\\nthey might think themselves to suffer Far from it; but when\\nhe was willing to allow to them the enjoyment of every constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional privilege, which they were entitled to possess, he never could\\nconsider that nice discussions on the very frame of the constitution\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094on the most essential changes in the institutions and fundamen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntal laws of the country, were calculated for minds of such intel\u00c2\u00ac\\nligence and cultivation. They ought rather to be protected from the\\nmischiefs which such a misapplication of their minds must entail.\\nEvery capacity was capable of understanding the nature and the ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ntent of the restrictions which government, from the purport of its\\ninstitution, necessarily imposed on the natural freedom of man but\\nto the task of contemplating the more than usurious repayment which\\nin long and various succession was received for that surrender, the\\ngenerality of persons were not quite so adequate. The penalties of\\ngovernment stood at the threshold, but its benefits were to be\\ntraced through a long interval of ages\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the distribution of equal\\nlaws\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the control of public wisdom, producing, even through\\napparent contradiction, the grand harmony of the social system\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u00a2\\nthese he conceived were subjects which could not be well discussed\\nby men whose time was chiefly devoted to daily labour. It had been\\nwisely said that a little learning was a daugerous thing.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It was\\ntrue in literature, in religion, in politics. In literature, superficial\\nreading too frequently formed the babbling critic. In religion the\\npoor man, who, unsettled as to his faith, became curious upon his\\nevidences, and who, if he possessed the capacity and had time and\\nmeans to extend his inquiries, would in the end reach the moral\\ndemonstration which religion unfulded\u00e2\u0080\u0094shaken, but not instructed,\\nbecame a shallow infidel. It was equally so in politics; men who\\nindulged in the perusal of every species of invective against the in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitutions of their country, who read on their shopboard of all tha\\nevils, and did not compreheud the blessings of the system of govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment under which they lived, these men the nature of whose em\u00c2\u00ac\\nployment and whose education disallowed them to be statesmen.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0187.jp2"}, "188": {"fulltext": "178\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nmight however learn enough to become turbulent and discontented\\nsubjects. Was not this the case in France, where persons were\\ncalled from their daily labour to give opinions upon the most difficult\\njoints of legislation\\nBut he heard from his honourable aud learned friend, and frjm\\nother honourable members, a great deal about overturning the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution of the country, and the wish that the practices of the good\\no d times should be restored. He should be glad if the persons wh\\nmade these observations would prove their present applicability. I f\\nit were said that the measures now introduced were against the prac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice of the good old times, he should only state, that before he could\\na^ree to the proposition he must unlearn all that he had known of\\nthose good old times, and all that he had read in history respecting\\nthem. He should be glad to know when had such meetings as it\\nwas now attempted to control been considered as the ordinary exer\u00c2\u00ac\\ncise of the constitution Why, until the present reign had far ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvanced there were no such meetings known, and the reason why\\nsuch laws as the present were not before thought of was, that no\\ngrounds ever before existed for their necessity. Where a spirit of\\noisaffection existed, some restrictive measure should be passed to\\ncneck its operation. The house were called upon to provide against\\nan evil not of ancient, but of recent origin, and, in the wise spirit of\\ntne constitution, it proceeded to apply new remedies* to a new mi\\nciiief. Let any man who read the bill c ontradict him. Did it in\\nits enactments interfere with any right of the subject according to\\nthe spirit of the constitution It was, and he said it with sincerity,\\na remedial measure. He appealed to the common sense of every\\nman who heard him, whether the expression of the public voice was\\npossible to be obtained at these screaming, howling, hallooing meet\u00c2\u00ac\\nings which the measure went to suppress Could any discussion,\\nany deliberation, any fair, impartial decision result from such assem\u00c2\u00ac\\nblages? Let him ask whether, if ever there came a question of\\ndeep importance, on which it was of the greatest moment to procure\\nthe authoritative expression of the public opinion, that opinion would\\nnot be better ascertained, and its influence more powerfully felt at a\\nhundred meetings, held in apartments, where every man would be\\nallowed to deliver his sentiments and to hear distinctly those of\\nothers, than at a meeting of 10,U00 persons assembled together in\\nthe open streets, and where what was said by one could not be board\\nby hundreds? Why, the spirit of the constitution was more likrly\\nto be preserved in those meetings than in the large and tumultuous\\nuiics. He would admit that it vas of importance that the puohe", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0188.jp2"}, "189": {"fulltext": "SEDITIOUS MEETiNGS BILL. 179\\nvoice should be frequently expressed; but then he would not sanc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion meetings where, under the mask of expressing that opinion, the\\nuse of physical force was recommended in bringing about alterations\\nnot only of the law, but the constitution. He would agree with\\nwhat had fallen from an honourable baronet, that perhaps the opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnions of lawyers might not be the best on these subjects; but he\\nwould ask whether the first step from barbarism was not this\u00e2\u0080\u0094to\\nprevent the elements of society from being let loose against those\\nlaws which were enacted for the benefit of all; and thus throwing\\nmankind back into a state of nature, in which the institutions of\\ngovernment possessed neither respect nor power. The first prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple of society was, that care should be taken to prevent the exer\u00c2\u00ac\\ncise of physical force from bearing down those bounds which that\\nsociety had placed to human action in particular cases. He would\\nadmit that there were states of society where those bounds were\\nbroken, but then they were states of revolution, and never existed\\nwithout the destruction, for the time, of all order and harmony in\\nthe country where they rose. In conclusion, he begged to state his\\npinion that the same reason which existed for the extension of the\\nbill to all parts of England, also existed for its extension to Ireland.\\nHis honourable and learned friend had, on this occasion, mixed up\\nt ne question of the Roman Catholic claims with this bill. In his\\nopinion, there was no connexion between them. No doubt his\\nhonourable and learned friend was a warm and sincere advocate for\\nttie question in which the Roman Catholics were concerned; but he\\n(Mr. Plunket) should say, that any man who could mix up their\\nquestion with such measures as the present, was not, in effect, act\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the part of a friend to them. His honourable and learned friend\\nmust admit that most, if not all the meetings which were held on\\nthe subject of the Roman Catholic question were held within doors,\\nand therefore the present bill could not affect their assembling to\\npetition; and he knew his Catholic countrymen so well as to feel\\nthat even if, under the present circumstances, they were to suffer\\nsome privations, they would freely acquiesce in them, in the hope\\nthat the time was not far distant when they might be enabled to\\nparticipate in the benefits of that constitution which they were ever\\nready to support and defend.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0189.jp2"}, "190": {"fulltext": "180\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nREPLY TO BROUGHAM.\\nj i.\\nDecember 22, 1819.\\nIn debate on the third reading of the Newspaper Stamp Duties Bill, Brougham\\ntook the opportunity of attacking Plunket merely for the two preceding\\nspeeches.\\nMr. Plunket said, that every person who had heard the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable and learned gentleman who had just sat down, must be sensible\\nthat he owed it to himself and to the house, not to suffer the allusion\\nwhich had been made to what had fallen from him on a former oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncasion to go unanswered. It was now nearly a month since he had\\ntaken the liberty of offering his humble sentiments on the situation of\\nthe country. At that distance of time he had made use of expressions,,\\nwhich, he ventured to say, had been that night most completely, al\u00c2\u00ac\\nthough he was sure not intentionally, misquoted. He would take the\\nliberty of stating what he believed he had said, and thus the mistake\\nwhich had arisen would be set right. He was first charged with\\nhaving said, that the conduct of magistrates ought not to be too\\ncritically inquired into.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now he begged permission to state, that\\nat the time he made use of this expression, there was no appearance\\nof an indemnity being asked for on the part of the magistrates, nor,\\nas he was apprised, of any intention existing of screening them from\\nthe operation of the law as it affected their conduct. He conceived\\nthat their conduct was open to inquiry in the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench,\\nand he did say that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the house\\nto stop short in the task which their public duty imposed upon them,\\nfor the purpose of critically inquiring into their conduct, and for par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament to exercise a degree of criticism which could not have been\\nexercised in a court of justice. This was what he meant to say,\\nand what, he believed, he had said. The next charge brought\\nagainst him was, that he had looked for a definition of liberty among\\nthe records of the Roman empire, and in the Justinian code. He\\nhad defiued personal liberty to be potestas faciendi quicquid lege*\\nlicet; but he had at the same time said that there was as well as a\\npersonal a political liberty. It would have been candid in the\\nhonourable aud learned gentleman to have stated that he made that\\ndistinction. His honourable and learned friend had brought another\\ncharge against him, which was that he had asserted, that the in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntensity of light\u00e2\u0080\u009d which was thrown on the people unfitted them for\\nthe enjoyment of liberty.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0190.jp2"}, "191": {"fulltext": "REPLY TO BROUGHAM.\\n181\\nMr. Brougham\u00e2\u0080\u0094I did not say that yon directly said so, but each an infer\u00c2\u00ac\\nence was deducible from your expressions.\\nMr. Plunket resumed. He would now state what he did say on\\nthat occasion. He had said that an intensity of light (which he did\\nnot regret but rejoiced at) was thrown upon every subject for the last\\nfew years, that public curiosity, with respect to the affairs of govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, was excited to such a pitch that the faculties of the great por\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the people were not sufficiently exercised to consider well and\\nthoroughly\u00e2\u0080\u0094that therefore it was likely to lead them into error, and\\nthat it was the duty of parliament to see that good and wholesome\\nfood was administered to the minds of the people. His honourable\\nand learned friend had said that he had charged some of the schools\\nin England with teaching blasphemy and sedition. He admitted\\nthat he had said he believed blasphemous libels, which had been\\nmade the subject of public prosecution, had been formed into primers\\nfor the purpose of inculcating into the minds of children that descripi-\\ntion of pestilence. His honourable and learned friend had stated\\nthat it was a mistake to say that anything like blasphemous or sedi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntious doctrines were taught in certain schools. But admitting the\\nstatement of his honourable and learned friend to be quite correct,\\nwould that serve to prove the fallacy of the information which he\\n(Mr. P.) communicated to the house upon a former evening That\\ninformation he still believed to be correct; and surely his honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable and learned friend was not prepared logically to maintain, that\\nbecause he was acquainted with certain schools where no such mis\u00c2\u00ac\\nchievous system of education was admitted, that therefore this sys\u00c2\u00ac\\ntem was not pursued in any other schools. His honourable and\\nlearned friend\u00e2\u0080\u0099s contradiction could not, indeed, be effective, unless\\nit applied to the precise schools in which he (Mr. P.) had the best\\nauthority for stating that instruction in blasphemy and sedition\\nactually prevailed. But he had this evening had a letter put into\\nhis hands by a member of that house not then in his place, from\\nwhich letter it appeared that the blasphemous doctrines which had\\nof late been so widely circulated, and so justly censured, were in\u00c2\u00ac\\nserted in primers, for the purpose of inoculating children in a parti\u00c2\u00ac\\ncular school, the name of which he felt it would be indelicate to\\nmention. The letter he should be happy to communicate to his\\nhonourable and l.arned friend, but he did not feel that he should be\\njustified in pointing out the particular school, as the individual con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerned would have no opportunity of defending himself. And now,\\nhaving said so much as to his personal vindication, he begged leavu\\nto say a word or two with respect to the merits of the bill under con-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0191.jp2"}, "192": {"fulltext": "182\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\njideration, which, iiv concurrence with the language of his right\\nhonourable friend on the other side of the house, he could not cou-\\nceive in any degree an infraction of the liberty of the press. In the\\nfirst place, this measure did not in any degree interfere with the\\ngreat standard and truly useful works which were published by the\\nrespectable booksellers: and then as to those ephemeral publications\\nwhich were called newspapers, which were highly respectable, and\\nin which facts were fully stated\u00e2\u0080\u0094in which productions were gene\u00c2\u00ac\\nrally tolerated, as they ought to be, far beyond the line of argumen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntative disquisition, this measure only proposed to put other periodi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncal publications on the same footing as those newspapers. What,\\nthen, could be fairly urged against the adoption of such a measure?\\nIt was said that there was a class of publications containing ribaldry\\nand trash which no respectable newspaper would admit, because any\\nnewspaper inserting such offal would not be read long or continue\\nrespectable; and that such publications should be tolerated for the\\nindulgence of a certain part of the people. All that was intended\\nwas, to impose the same duty on those publications which were now\\nsold for twopence as upon newspapers; and this he would say, that\\nif any portion of the people required such a supply of filthy luxury\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094if they would have such a separate table, they must pay for the\\ngratification of their depraved appetites. His honourable and learned\\nfriend, whose eloquence he heard with the admiration which the\\nwhole house must have felt, had deplored the fate of young literary\\naspirants, who, he said, would suffer by the operation of this measure.\\nBut how suffering was to be apprehended he could not at all ima\u00c2\u00ac\\ngine, and he could not help expressing his astonishment that this\\ndistinguished individual, who was so worthy to be the great historian\\nof his country, could condescend to fall in with the clamour that was\\nraised upon this occasion, and to contend that the restriction of the\\ntilth and ordure was calculated to restrain the liberty of the press,\\nand to injure that freedom of discussion which was the pride and\\nglory of the constitution of England. The aspirants alluded to by\\nhis honourable and learned friend would have ample opportunity,\\nnotwithstanding this measure, to send forth their productions to the\\ncountry, and therefore there could on that score be no reason ro op\u00c2\u00ac\\npose the enactment of such a law. The bill was only calculated to\\nsuppress those publications which were likely to abuse rather than to\\nmaintain the liberty of the press. In the whole course of his poli\u00c2\u00ac\\ntical life he had never done anything more satisfactory to his own\\nmind, or which appeared to him more deserving the approbation of\\nbis country, than the part which he had taken on this and the other", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0192.jp2"}, "193": {"fulltext": "REPLY TO BROUGHAM.\\n183\\nmeasures which, with a view to the public safety, the house bad\\nlately felt it necessary to adopt.\\nDUBLIN CITY ELECTION,\\nJune 24, 1820.\\nOn the death of Henry Grattan, his son offered himself to represent Dublin in\\nhis place. He was opposed and defeated, after an exciting contest, by Master\\nEllis, of the Court of Chancery. Plunket appeared at the hustings to nominate\\nhim, and I quote the following imperfect, but interesting, report from the elec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion pamphlet:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Sheriff, I shall endeavour, as well as I can, to perform the\\nmournful duty which has fallen to my lot.\\n[Here the right honourable gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s utterance became quite choked, and\\nafter a struggle for a few moments against his feelings, he was overcome by\\ntheir violence, and he burst into tears. As soon as he recovered some compo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure, he proceeded.]\\nMy friend the lord mayor has pronounced a deserved panegyric upon\\nmy learned friend, Mr. Ellis. He has told you that he is a man of\\nhonour, of integrity, of independence, and to the justice of the pane\u00c2\u00ac\\ngyric, I most cordially subscribe. But when 1 heard my w ortby\\nfriend, Mr. M\u00e2\u0080\u0098Quay, say he was a fit person to succeed Henry Grattan,\\nI felt the situation to which that gentleman was reduced I felt the\\nhumiliation he was undergoing, when announcing Master Ellis a fit\\nperson to represent Henry Grattan If I were to stop here, and only\\npronounce that name, without further comment, I know ten thousand\\nresponsive feelings would burn in the breast of every man who regards\\nthe independence and honour of his country. But, sir, I must dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncharge my painful duty to my young friend\u00e2\u0080\u0094I cannot\u00e2\u0080\u0094I am unable\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094every affection of my nature is drawn back to the tomb of him\\nwho honoured me with his friendship.\\n[Here his powerful emotion again overcame him, and again the whole audi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory sympathised in his sorrow. As for Mr. Grattan, he wept bitterly during\\ntil the time the right honourable gentleman was speaking.]\\nI would deem it sacrilege and impiety, if I were to suffer any feel\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of faction or party to interfere with this solemn duty. When I\\nsee Protestants and Catholics intermingled in this assembly, I feel I\\nam surrounded by friends, and cursed be the wretch who, by any art\\nor expression, would endeavour to kindle the flames of contention", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0193.jp2"}, "194": {"fulltext": "184\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\namongst them. I will not here attempt the vain task of recapitula\u00c2\u00ac\\nting the services and the virtues of the friend we have lost. They\\nare far above the reach of my humble powers to do them justice.\\nBut great as his patriotism was, no feeling was ever more grateful to\\nhis heart, than the support of the Protestant constitution. It was\\nthe rare felicity of that immortal man, to have been at once the ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvocate of every class of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects, and to have given\\nequal satisfaction to all; and in the highest soarings of his enthu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsiasm, and in the warmest zeal of his exertions, the pole star that\\nguided both, was his wish to strengthen the connexion. I do not\\nnow talk of Protestant or Catholic. It would be profanation to the\\ndead to make any distinction. I came here to talk of Ireland And\\nnever could I perform a duty more serviceable to my countrymen,\\nthan to implore them not to degrade themselves by trampling on the\\nashes of their father, and their benefactor. And I tell my learned\\nfriend, that I could never offer him a sincerer mark of friendship,\\nthan by advising him to retire from a contest, in which he could not\\ntriumph, without sharing in the degradation of those who have thrust\\nhim forward. How I should compassionate his feelings, when paraded\\nthrough those streets, his memory would return to the days when\\nthat great man, now no more, passed those same streets, between the\\nfiles of his countrymen, resting on their arms, as it was well said,\\nHi admiration of his virtues.\\nEven when proud Ccesar \u00e2\u0080\u0099midst triumphant car^\\nThe spoils of nations, and the pomp of wars,\\nIgnobly vain and impotently great,\\nShow\u00e2\u0080\u0099d Rome her Cato\u00e2\u0080\u0099s figure drawn in state,\\nAs her dead father\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reverend image past\\nThe pomp was darkened and the day o\u00e2\u0080\u0099ercast.\\nThe triumph ceased\u00e2\u0080\u0094tears gushed from every eye,\\nThe world\u00e2\u0080\u0099s great master passed unheeded by;\\nHer last good man dejee.ed Rome adored,\\nAnd honoured Cajsar\u00e2\u0080\u0099s less than Cato\u00e2\u0080\u0099s sword.\\nWhen I look at my young friend who sits beside me, my mind is\\nled back to the times when I saw his great father scaring and blast\u00c2\u00ac\\ning with his lightnings the ranks of venality and corruption. It is\\nled back to those hours, when, disarmed of his lightnings, I beheld\\nhim in the bosom of his family, surrounded by innocence, and domes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntic tenderness. My young friend beside me inherits those virtues\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094his father\u00e2\u0080\u0099s image walks before him, and when a mean idea could\\nenter his breast, he must be possessed of a boldness in infamy beyond\\nthe share of moderate degeneracy. If, then, it be asked what secu\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity exists for his parliamentary conduct, i will answer\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c his name,**", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0194.jp2"}, "195": {"fulltext": "DUBLIN CITY ELECTION.\\n185\\nThe son of the man, unequalled in the annals of history\u00e2\u0080\u0094the man who\\nraised his country from the degradation of a province, to the rank of\\na nation\u00e2\u0080\u0094the man who has been honoured by the great, the good,\\nthe illustrious\u00e2\u0080\u0094he who sleeps amidst kings and patriots, and the\\nmost distinguished statesmen\u00e2\u0080\u0094for the empire claims the honour of\\nentombing him, and his very ashes confer a glory upon Britain.\\nI am now led to consider the claims of my learned friend, who I\\nadmit to be a man of honour, of integrity, and of talents. 1 will not\\nask what are the acts he has done, the proofs he has giveu, the trials\\nhe has undergone; but I will say in direct terms, if he possessed\\nevery qualification\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he possessed a genius as transcendent as the\\nimmortal man he claims to succeed\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he manifested as ardent a\\npatriotism\u00e2\u0080\u0094if he had procured a free trade for his country\u00e2\u0080\u0094I say\\nthat still, Master Ellis ought to be rejected by the citizens of Dublin.\\nAre you aware, that he is at this moment under a responsibility as\\nawful as the trust you are called upon to repose in him Are you\\nware of the duties he is bound to discharge by his office, which he\\nhas said (inadvertently, no doubt) he holds independently, but in\\nwhich he has deceived you, for he only holds it during pleasure.\\nHe is bound by his oath, to sit in his office from eleven to three\\no\u00e2\u0080\u0099clock during term, and out of term from twelve to three. He is\\nobliged, as he himself has sworn, to attend ten months of the year\\nin his office, and to spend his evenings in preparing his decisions for\\nthe next day. Let me now ask, how he can realize the promise of\\nMr. M\u00e2\u0080\u0098Quay, that he will assiduously attend to his duties in West\u00c2\u00ac\\nminster! Will he keep that promise? He gives you bad security\\nfor it, when he abandons the old trust confided to him, and for\\nwhich he is well paid. Who is capable of doing all that? Is\\nMaster Ellis capable of discharging his duties in Dublin, and in\\nWestminster together?\\n[Mr. Plunket then read an account, from Mr. Ellis\u00e2\u0080\u0099s own examination in the\\ncommissioners of inquiry\u00e2\u0080\u0099s report, of the different important and difficult duties\\nlie had to perform in all matters of account, taxing of costs, c., in the\\nCourt of Chancery.]\\nThese are not like the duties of a judge, with the intervention of\\na jury; they are not like the decisions of a judge pronounced in\\nopen court, with the wholesome check of the public eye upon him.\\nHe has a difficult and complicated duty to discharge, in which he\\nmust exercise the soundness of his own discretion. I do not mean\\nto say, that Master Ellis would suffer any improper feeling to sway\\nms mind in the administration of justice; but when a disappointed\\nsuitor leaves L.s office, who has been opposed to anutua\u00e2\u0080\u0099 su;.ui* who", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0195.jp2"}, "196": {"fulltext": "186\\nplukket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhas a vote, and he himself has none; will he, however justly he be\\ncondemned, utter no murmur when retiring? Justice must be not\\nonly pure, but unsuspected. Will that man be unsuspected, who is\\ndeciding the cause of a person in the evening, to whom he has doffed\\nhis hat in the morning, supplicating him for his vote I do not say\\nthis lightly; I am not now upon a topic calculated to catch popular\\napplause, or tickle the ears of some individuals, but I pledge myself\\nthis circumstance shall not pass, without being made a subject of\\nlegislative investigation. I am aware that there are instances of\\nEnglish masters in chancery having been in parliament. My answer\\nto that is twofold. It is physically possible for a master in London\\nto discharge the duties of both offices. But how is a man, who is\\nobliged to remain in his office in Dublin for ten months in the year,\\nable to attend to his parliamentary duties in London? He can only\\nbe absent from his office for two months in the year, as he himself\\nhas sworn, and that in the middle of the long vacation, when the\\nparliament is not sitting; therefore, if he is so anxious to assist the\\nlegislature, he can only do it with his advice, and he can do that as\\nhe is. If he is so eager to enlighten them by his advice, in God\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nname let him give it to them now. But I assert, there never was\\nsuch a thing heard of as a master in chancery, even in England,\\ncanvassing for a contested election. If such a flagrant outrage of\\nthe first principles of justice were attempted in the sister country,\\nthe delicacy of English notions of right would shrink with alarm\\nfrom it. And let me ask my honest friends, are they acting a worthy\\npart, when they propose, to a man, to do an act which would be con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidered an outrage to justice in London They think they are now\\nserving themselves\u00e2\u0080\u0094that they are promoting their interests, and\\nforwarding certain schemes\u00e2\u0080\u0094but I predict, that before many months\\nwill have elapsed, every man who has taken a part in this degrading\\ntransaction, will wish he was not born on the day he first interfered\\nin it.\\nMr. Plunket then adverted to the Catholic cause and the late Mr. Grattan\\nadvocacy of it, whose object, he said, lie knew was to give strength to the. .Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant connexion, and security to the empire.\\nIt is the basis of liberty, and I shall therefore bo their advocate.\\nThey are not storming the constitution, by wild theories and danger\u00c2\u00ac\\nous innovations, but are calmly, temperately, and constitutionally\\nseeking for their rights; and if they desisted, they would be de\u00c2\u00ac\\ngraded\u00e2\u0080\u0094if they were contented to be the creeping slaves they are,\\nand abandoned their lofty aspirings after liberty, 1 would warn\\nevery in the land against the contagion of their socic j\u00c2\u00bb.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0196.jp2"}, "197": {"fulltext": "CaTHOL\u00e2\u0080\u0099C relief.\\n187\\nThe right honourable gentleman concluded by saying\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n1 am probably shortly to lay their claims before the legislature, but\\nI shall feel disabled and paralyzed if I do not see my young friend\\nbeside me, sheathed in the armour of his immortal father.\\nHe then proposed Henry Grattan, Esq., as a fit and proper person to repre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent the city of Dublin in parliament.\\nCATHOLIC RELIEF.\\nFebruary 28, 1821.\\nFon eight years the claims of the Catholics were utterly disregarded in par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament After the defeat of Grattan\u00e2\u0080\u0099s bill in 1813, the House of Commons\\nrelapsed into its old temper of indifference, and peace brought back such a\\nsense of security in England that no British minister would peril his place by de\u00c2\u00ac\\nvoting himself to a measure merely Irish, and ao hateful to the House of Lords.\\nIn 1814 the petitions were simply presented. In 1815 Sir Henry Parnell at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntempted to get a committee on the Irish petition, but was defeated by a majo\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity of 81. Jn 1816 Grattan brought forward the question, and was beaten by\\na majority of 3J. In 1817 Lord Donoughmore in the House of Lords, Grattan\\nin the House of Commons, again moved. Although the majorities grew every\\nyear less and less, still the annual motion had become a mere parliamentary sham-\\nbattle. In May, 1818, General Thornton elicited what was considered a favour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable debate, by moving directly the repeal of the test acts; but neither the\\nCatholics nor the government had given him any sanction, and on Castlereagh s\\nmotion the house passed unanimously to the previous question. Next year, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never, the majority against Grattan was only two; and the tone of the debates,\\nthe growth of public opinion outside, and the abilities, union, and courage which\\nhad begun to be displayed in the Irish Catholic agitation, indicated that some\\ndecisive attempt at a settlement should soon be made.\\nGrattan died in 1820, and Plunket succeeded to his parliamentary position to\u00c2\u00ac\\nwards the Catholic cause. In that session nothing was attempted, owing to the\\nqueen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s trial. But in the first session of the new parliament, a combined attempt\\n6f the English and Irish Catholics was made, and Plunket appeared in formal\\ncharge of their case. On the 28th of February, the debate preceding the second\\ngreat effort to remove the Catholic disabilities occupied the house.\\nLord Nugent opened the business by presenting the petition of the English\\nCatholics, signed by 8000 persons. The Duke of Norfolk, earl marshal of Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, headed that long roll of aliens for conscience sake. Seven peers and four\u00c2\u00ac\\nteen baronets of the oldest and purest blood in England followed his name. Seven\\nof the churchmen, who then discharged the duties of the dormant Catholic hier\u00c2\u00ac\\narchy of England, signed among the aristocratic laity of their caste\u00e2\u0080\u0094but the name\\nof the vehement polemic Doctor Milner was missed from the list. Then followed\\nthe scanty thousands of the Saxon people, scattered all over the length and\\nbreadth of Britain, who through bloody persecutions and the systematic con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntumely of the law for continued centuries, had clung faithful to the faith of Bede\\nand of Beckct, of Alfred and of More.\\nSince the debate of 1813, the question had undergone anxious discussion in\\nthe House of Lords, and the bench of bishops had with natural eagerness entered\\nupon the controversy. In the Bishop of Norwich the Catholics found an abla", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0197.jp2"}, "198": {"fulltext": "188\\nPLUNKETS SPEECHES.\\nand zealous advocate. Plunket, in the conrse of his speech, argues in reply to cna\\nof the most conspicuous prelates upon the other side. Dr. Marsh, who had been ad\\nvanced to the bishopric of Llandafif, and thence translated to that of Peterbo\u00c2\u00ac\\nrough, opposed Lord Donoughmore\u00e2\u0080\u0099s motion in an ingenious speech, the object\\nof which was to show that the Catholics were not excluded from the blessings of\\nthe constitution for their belief respecting transubstantiation, the invocation of the\\nsaints, or their other speculative religious opinions, but because they divided their\\nallegiance, giving part of it to their own sovereign, and part to a foreigner\u00e2\u0080\u0094were\\ntherefore deficient in civil worth, and ought not to be placed in the same rank\\nwith those who gave all their allegiance to their native king. This was new\\nground, and elicited from Plunket one of the most masterly displays of sheer\\nlog c ever heard in the English House of Commons.\\nAnother branch of his argument is in reply to Peel, and on the mere political\\ngrounds\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the Catholics were too strong a body to be entrusted with full civic\\nfaculties, bound as they were by all their instincts and passions to use whatever\\npowers the constitution should endow them with to plot and perpetrate the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nversion of the Protestartt church establishment\u00e2\u0080\u0094therefore, that emancipation\\nreally meant the separation of Ireland and ruin of church and state. The rest of\\nthis long and powerful speecli is an exact analysis of the historical and legal re\u00c2\u00ac\\nlations of the Catholics to the constitution, and a demonstration that in consis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntency the house was bound to continue the reactionary course of legislation which\\nfor the last half century had been in their favour, and that their complete eman\u00c2\u00ac\\ncipation was a measure dignum justum et salutare fraught with security to ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nisting establishments, and for the general good of the commonwealth.\\nThe tirst of the Irish petitions was that of the Catholic committee.\\nSir, I hold iii my hand a petition, signed by a very considerable\\nnumber of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Roman Catholic subjects of Ireland. From\\nthe names attached to it, which amount to many thousands, distin\u00c2\u00ac\\nguished for rank, fortune, talents and everything which can confer weight\\nand influence,\u00e2\u0080\u0094from the means which these persons possess of col\u00c2\u00ac\\nlecting the opinions of the people in that pact of the United Kingdom\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthe petition may be fairly considered as speaking the sentiments of\\nthe great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland.\\nA similar petition was presented, from the same body, the year\\nbefore last. It is unnecessary for me to remind the house that, on\\nthat occasion, it was presented by the late Mr. Grattan. It was\\nsanctioned by the authority of his name, and enforced by all the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nsistless powers which waited on the majesty of his genius. I have\\nno design to give vent to the feelings with which my heart is filled,\\nor to mingle with the public mourning the mere peculiar and selfish\\nregrets, which have followed to the grave the friend by whose confi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence l was honoured, by whose wisdom I was instructed, by whose\\nexample I was guided. His eulogium has been heard from the lips\\nof kindred eloquence and genius. The last duties have been rendered\\nto his tomb by the gratitude and justice of the British people. In\\nhis death, as iu nis hie, he has been a bond of connexion between the\\ncountries.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0198.jp2"}, "199": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n18\\nI will not weaken the force of that culogium, or disturb the so\u00c2\u00ac\\nlemnity of those obsequies, by my feeble praise, or unavailing sor\u00c2\u00ac\\nrow but with respect to the sentiments of that great and good man\\non this particular question. 1 wish to say a word. Sir, he had me\u00c2\u00ac\\nditated upon it deeply and earnestly\u00e2\u0080\u0094it had taken early and entire\\npossession of his mind, and held it to the last. He would willingly\\nhave closed his career of glory in the act of asserting within these\\nwalls the liberties of his countrymen but still, regarding them as\\nconnected with the strength, the concord, and the security of the\\nempire. Sir, he was alive to fame\u00e2\u0080\u0094to the fame that follows viituo.\\nThe love of it clung to him to the last moments of his life but\\nthough he felt that last infirmity of noble minds,\u00e2\u0080\u009d never did there\\nbreathe a human being who had a more lofty disdain for the shal\u00c2\u00ac\\nlow and treacherous popularity which is to be courted by subser\u00c2\u00ac\\nviency, and purchased at the expense of principle and duty. He\\nfAt. that this question was not to be carried as the triumph of a\\nparty or of a sect, but to be pursued as a great measure of public good,\\nm which all were bound to forego their prejudices, and to humble\\ntheir passions for the attainment of justice and of peice.\\nIn the humble walk, and at the immeasurable cis:ance at which\\nit is my lot to follow the footsteps of my illustrious friend, I pledge\\nmyself to be governed by the same spirit. 1 have a firm and en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntire persuasion, that justice and policy require that the prayer of this\\npetition should be complied with but I am equally convinced, that if\\nthis question is pressed, or carried on any other terms but such as will\\ngive full satisfaction to the Protestant mind, it cannot be productive\\nof good. All these objects appear to me to be attainable with this\\n\\\\iew, and in this temper only will 1 prosecute them.\\nMr. riiinlcet then moved, that the petition should be brought up.\\nMr. Denis Browne seconded the motion. The petition was brought up,\\nread, and ordered to be printed. _\\nPetitions to the same effect, from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the\\nparishes of St. Anne s, St. Andrew\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, St. Mark\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, and St. Peter\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, in the city of\\nDublin, and from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the county and city of\\nWaterford, were brought up by Mr. Plunket, read, and ordered to be printed\\nafter which Mr. Plunket, having resumed his place, spoke in substance as fol\u00c2\u00ac\\nlows\\nSir, having presented the petitions-confided to me by so respectable\\nportions of the Roman Catholics of the empire, it now remains for mo\\nto discharge my duty as a member of this house, by bringing forward\\na motion founded on their prayer, and calculated for their relief. I\\ndesire to be considered as applying, not on the part of the Roman\\nN", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0199.jp2"}, "200": {"fulltext": "190\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nCatholics, praying to be relieved from the pressure of a grievance\\nbut, as a member of the legislature, on behalf of Protestants and\\nRoman Catholics both. I require of this house to take into their\\nconsideration, earnestly and immediately, the relative situation of both;\\na situation which, on the one side, involves the charge of harshness\\nand injustice which excites on the other a sense of injury and op\u00c2\u00ac\\npression, and which, in its consequences, must be degrading and dan\u00c2\u00ac\\ngerous, as well to the party which inflicts as to the party which suf\u00c2\u00ac\\nfers. My primary object, therefore, is to arrive at public good by\\ndoing an act of public justice. I am sure that if it is an act of jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice, it will be the foundation of ultimate concord. I believe besides,\\nthat it w ill be productive of a high degree of immediate satisfaction,\\nand will be followed by a warm feeling of gratitude.\\nBut these are advantages secondary and inferior, although cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly desirable, and not to be left out of the account. To suppose\\nthat the allaying of present discontent is the principal object of the\\nmeasure which I have the honour to bring forward, is utterly to under\u00c2\u00ac\\nvalue its importance, and to misconceive its bearing. Sir, the Roman\\nCatholics of both countries have nobly disentitled themselves to such\\na topic. On their part, I am bold to say, that determined as they\\nare never to abandon their claims on the justice and on the wisdom\\nof parliament, their resolution is equally fixed to await, with patience\\nand confidence, the result of that wisdom and justice in which they\\nknow they cannot be finally disappointed. That there does exist an\\nanxious and eager desire in that body to share in the rights of Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishmen, I should be ashamed, for them, to deny. That there may\\ngrow a sickness of hope deferred, which ought to be administered to\\nthem, I will not attempt to conceal. Neither am I so sanguine as to\\nthink, or so silly as to assert, that the adoption of any measure which\\ncan be proposed to parliament, will have the effect of allaying at once\\nevery unpleasant feeling which a long course of unwise policy may\\nhave produced. 1 do not entertain the childish expectation that con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncession will operate as a charm, and that at the very moment in which\\nthe storm has ceased to blow, the waves will subside and the murmurs\\nwill be hushed; but I feel convinced that agitation cannot be for\u00c2\u00ac\\nmidable or lasting, and that in rendering justice we must obtain secu\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity.\\nAnd, sir, these are not the questions of statesmen. Our duty is\\nto inquire whether injustice is offered to our fellow-subjects, and it\\nso, to atone for it; whether grievances press on them at which they\\nhave reason to be dissatisfied, and if so, to remove them; whether\\ninjurious distinctions exist, and if so, to obliterate them. If these", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0200.jp2"}, "201": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n191\\nthings excite discontent, the more onr shame to suffer injustice, and\\ngrievances, and injurious distinctions to remain, and the more im\\nperious the call on every honourable mind to do them away.\\nI desire, therefore, in the outset, to have it distinctly understood,\\nthat my object is not to apply a palliative to temporary or accidental\\nhumours. I call on the deliberate wisdom of this house to look at\\nthings, and into their causes. If they find any institution pressing\\nheavily and unnecessarily on the rights and feelings of any portion of\\nthe subjects, they know that it must ultimately generate discontent;\\nthat the longer it is continued, the deeper that discontent must sink\\ninto the hearts of the aggrieved parties. And if, sir, these grievances\\nbear not on individuals, or on small classes, but on the great mass of\\nthe people, in one of the most important portions of the empire, the\\nhouse must feel that not a moment should be lost in averting the evils,\\nwhich must grow from a state of society so alarming and unnatural.\\nAdmitting, then, that this great measure is exposed to the lot of all\\nhuman measures for the happiness of human beings that the un\u00c2\u00ac\\nreasonable will not be convinced that those who wish for war, will\\nnot rejoice in peace; that the bigots in politics and in religion will\\nremain true to their bigotry and blind to their interests; still, I say,\\nyou do your duty as legislators, and doubt not that they will do their\\nduty as subjects. The lasting fruit of honest government is lawful\\nobedience, as certainly as insubordination and resistance grow from\\ninsolence and injustice.\\nBefore I enter on the considerations which appear properly and\\nnecessarily to belong to the subject, I beg leave, sir, to deprecate a\\nmode of dealing with it which has been uniformly, and, I fear, not\\nunsuccessfully resorted to,; I mean the argument that our plan is\\nnot perfect: that there are incongruities in the detail; that some of\\nthe offices, which we propose to open, are as dangerous as some of\\nthose which we propose to keep closed; that some of the oaths\\nwhich we propose to retain, are unwise and affrontful as those which\\nwe desire to abrogate; that we are not all agreed as to the condi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions which we would impose, or as to the necessity of at all impos*\\ning them.\\nSir, this appears to me to be neither a fair nor a manly mode of\\nmeeting the question.\\nIf the measure, in any shape or form, is altogether inadmissible,\\nbe it so: show this, and there is an end of it.\\nBut, be it good, or be it bad, no man can doubt that it is a ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of deep and vital importance. Docs justice require it I)oes\\nthe constitution admit of it Does policy allow it All these are", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0201.jp2"}, "202": {"fulltext": "132\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nfur and open questions, and must be met. But if, without impeach-*\\ning it on tiiese solid and substantial grounds, you content yourselves\\nwith saying, that the particular measure is not well matured, or that\\nthere are inconsistencies in the detail, or that the proposed arrange\u00c2\u00ac\\nments are not clear or accurate; these, I say, are considerations to\\nexcite every man, who feels an interest in the public good, to come\\nat once to the discussion, to join his labours in reconciling the diffi\u00c2\u00ac\\nculties, and in rounding the arrangements. But it is neither a manly,\\na patriotic, nor, give me leaye to say, an honest part, to condemn the\\nprinciple because the plan is weak. To him who says that the prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple of concession is, in itself, radically vicious, I have no other\\nanswer than to join issue on its soundness. But to him who admits\\nthat the matter is of deep and earnest interest, but who, without\\nsaying whether it ought or ought not to be effected, demurs to its\\nconsideration, because lie sees imperfections in the means pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed, I have a right to answer, where is your privilege for neu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrality or indifference in that which concerns you as much as me,\\nbecause it involves the best interests of your country If your ob\u00c2\u00ac\\njection grows solely from the difficulty, assist me in getting rid of the\\ndifficulty; help me to clear up what is obscure, to reconcile what\\nappears inconsistent, to facilitate what appears difficult to reduce to\\npractice; join with me in removing the obstacles to that which, if it\\nis not public evil, is public good.\\nSir, this is not a question on which any party has a right to lurch,\\nand practise stratagems, and take advantage. If it be not utterly\\ninadmissible, the state has a claim on every man who feels that he\\nhas that within him which is capable of rendering public service, to join\\nin the consideration of this question as its friend and auxiliary.\\nThese claims are not to be encountered as an invading enemy, or\\navoided by device and stratagem. We come forward with no inno\u00c2\u00ac\\nvation on ancient practice, with no attack on constituted authority,\\nno quarrel with existing establishments, no storming of the strong--\\nholds of the constitution, no theoretical experiment for new rights,\\nno resting on unvouclicd professions; but an unanimous body, con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsisting of millions of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s liege subjects, come before parliament,\\nhumbly and peaceably, men whose uudeviating loyalty stands re-\\ncorded on your journals and your statute books; they come forward\\npetitioning to be admitted to the privileges enjoyed by their ances\u00c2\u00ac\\ntors, in order that they and their posterity may enjoy and exercise\\nthem, in cordial support of all the establishments, of all the lawful\\nauthorities of the state, according to the well-known principles, and\\nthe sound, tried, practical doctrines of the constitution.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0202.jp2"}, "203": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n193\\nSir, such claims are entitled to an honourable meeting. Let them\\nbe put down by reason and by truth; but, if that cannot be done,\\nevery able and honest man is bound to assist me in the details which\\nare necessary (and most difficult I admit them to be) for carrying\\nthem into effect.\\nI really do not apprehend that I have to encounter any feeling of\\nhostility in this house. I am sure no man wishes that the plan of\\nconciliation should be impossible. That there cannot be discovered\\nsuch a plan, I believe no man has sufficient grounds for asserting,\\nI have some confidence in expressing the hope and opinion that there\\nmay, because I know that, within the last few years, nearly a majority\\nof this house was of opinion in favour of a specific plan, of which admis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion to parliament formed a part; and had it not been for the indiscre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of some of those who fancied they were friends to the Roman\\nCatholics, that measure would then have probably been carried.\\nSir, at that time the empire was reeling to its centre under the\\nheaviest tempest that ever was weathered by a great nation. I will\\nnot believe that any person who, in that hour of danger and dismay,\\nyielded his assent to the desires of the Roman Catholics, will now be\\ndisposed to retract it. It will not easily be forgotten that, proud and\\nnoble as the exertions of the whole British people have been in bring\u00c2\u00ac\\ning that contest to a triumphant issue, no portion of them have been\\nmore distinguished than the Roman Catholics. They have shed their\\nblood in defence of our laws and liberties, with a prodigality of self-\\ndevotion which proves them worthy to share in them. This house\\nand this country, I trust, have not hot and cold fits; and I know\\nthat the question will now receive an attention as anxious and favour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable as if the enemy were pressing to land upon our shore, and our\\nhopes of immediate safety rested on the cordial union of every por\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of our people.\\nWhatever difference of opinion exists on this subject, there is little\\nof hostility, nothing of rancour. Prejudices, I must say, I believe\\nthere are; but when I call them so, I acknowledge them to be de\u00c2\u00ac\\nrived from an origin so noble, and to be associated with feelings so\\nconnected with the times when our civil and religious liberties were\\nestablished, that they are entitled to a better name; and I am con\u00c2\u00ac\\nfident that they are accessible to reason and open to conviction, if\\nmet by the fair iorce of argument without rudeness and violence.\\nSir, it is impossible to mistake the feeling of the house and of the en\u00c2\u00ac\\nlightened part of the country on this subject, or to doubt that it is\\n.a growing one.\\nThe liberal and gentleman-like temper in which the question has", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0203.jp2"}, "204": {"fulltext": "194\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nbeen discussed, is in itself of the highest value; not merely from the\\nhope it holds out that the cause, if just, must ultimately prevail, but\\nfrom the soothing influence with which it gains on the minds of our\\nfellow-subjects. With respect to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I am\\nsatisfied that the tone in which the rejection of their claims has of late\\nyears been uttered, has considerably softened their disappointment at\\nthat rejection; and I do not think I injure the interests of my country\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen, when I say that the character of fair and liberal discussion\\nwith which the question has been met in the united parliament, the\\nabsence of invidious party feeling, the freedom from bigotry, the for\u00c2\u00ac\\nbearance and moderation which has generally marked the opinions\\nand governed the language of the opponents of the measure, has\\ndone more to conciliate their minds than many of the concessions\\nwhich had formerly been made yielded, as they too generally were,\\nwith grudge and reluctance, and accompanied by reproachful charges\\nand degrading insinuations.\\nAnd now, sir, I shall proceed, without further preface, to the main\\nargument. The question presents itself in three distinct points ot\\nview as a question of religion, as a question of constitutional prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple, and as a question of policy and expediency, in reference to the\\nstability of our existing establishments.\\nOn the first topic it is not necessary that I should say much. I\\nam led to advert to it, not so much from the bearing that the appli\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation of the religious principle to civil rights has upon the argument\\nas it regards the Roman Catholic, as from a feeling of tb\u00c2\u00ab serious\\ninjury which it is calculated to vk rk to the cause of ^nstianity.\\nAs an argument affecting the Roman Catholics, merely as such, it\\nhas of late been altogether abandoned. So far the cause of religion\\nand of truth is much indebted to a right reverend prelate* of the Es\u00c2\u00ac\\ntablished Church, to whom I shall presently have occasion more par\u00c2\u00ac\\nticularly to allude. He has fairly acknowledged, (and no one of the\\nright reverend bench, in whose presence he made the acknowledg\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, disavowed his sentiments), that the profession of the Roman\\nCatholic religion, merely as a religious opinion, or otherwise than as\\naffording an inference of a want of civil worth, was not properly the\\nsubject of any political disability. Perhaps therefore, so far as the\\npresent measure is concerned, I might safely dismiss the further con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsideration of this topic; but on my own behalf, and on behalf of all the\\nmembers of this house, who are obliged to make the declaration now re\\nquired by law, I hope I shall be excused if I make a few observations.\\nIn the first place, it appears obvious that the requiring a religious\\nThe Right Rev. Herbert -Marsh, Bishcp of Peterborough.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0204.jp2"}, "205": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n194\\npledge to the state, as a qualification for civil rights, makes religion\\nan affair of state because you cannot lay it down as a rule to be\\napplied only in a case of true religion; for every religion is the true\\none in the opinion of its own professors; and therefore, if the posi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion is true in our instance, it must be equally true that, in every\\nstate, Protestant or Catholic, Christian or Pagan, the interests ot\\ntrue religion require a pledge to the state that the person admitted to\\nits privileges is of the religion of that state. All this leads to the\\nunavoidable inference that, in the opinion of those who so argue,\\nthere is no truth in any religion, and no criterion other than its adop\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion by the state. I do not say that such a principle may not be\\ntaken on trust by an honest man, and hotly insisted on by him, if\\nho happens to be a zealous man, but I say it cannot be deliberately\\nand rationally maintained by any person who believes that there is\\nany absolute truth in any religion.\\nAgain, if religion is to be an affair of state, why not require some\\npositive profession of faith, as a qualification Such as that he is a\\nChristian, or that he believes in God, or in a future state, or that he\\nhas an immortal soul Why does the declaration sound only in hor\u00c2\u00ac\\nror, and antipathy, and denunciation of another religion If the law\\nis to be put into a state of electricity by the church, why not of posi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive electricity\\nAgain; if we are to denounce, why denounce only one particular\\nsect of Christians Why not Socinians Why not those who\\ndeny the divine nature of our Lord Why select those who believe\\nall that we do, merely because they believe something more Why\\nnot Jews, Mahometans, Pagans Any one of these may safely\\nmake the declaration, provided he is willing to commit the breach of\\ngood manners which it requires. He may not only deny our God\\nand our Redeemer, but he may worship Jupiter or Osiris, an ape or\\na crocodile, the host of heaven or the creeping things of the earth;\\nlet him only have a statutable horror of the religion of others, and\\nagree to brand with the name of idolatry the religion of the greater\\npart of the Christian world. But further, if the Roman Catholic\\nreligion is to be singled out as that, by the common bond of hatred\\nto which we are all to be united in the ties of brotherly love and\\nChristian charity, why select only one particular article of their faith,\\nand say that the sacrifice of the Mass is impious and idolatrous\\nWhy leave them their seven sacraments, their auricular confession,\\ntheir purgatory, all equally badges of superstition, evidences of\\ncontumacy and causes of schism Why make war exclusively upon\\nthis one article We all declare solemnly that we consider the sa-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0205.jp2"}, "206": {"fulltext": "196\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nerifice of the Mass as superstitions and idolatrous. Now I entreat\\neach member of this house to suppose that I am asking him indi\u00c2\u00ac\\nvidually, and as a private gentleman, docs he know what is said, or\\nmeant, or done in the sacrifice of the Mass or how it differs from\\nour own mode of celebrating the communion, so as to render it super\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitious and idolatrous If I could count upon the vote of every\\nmember, who must answer me that upon his honour he does not know,\\nI should be sure of carrying, by an overwhelming majority, this or\\nany other question I might think it proper to propose. Were I now\\nto enter on a discussion of the nature of these doctrines, every mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber would complain that I was occupying the time of statesmen with\\nsubjects utterly unconnected with the business of the house or the\\npolicy of the country. Can there be a more decisive proof of its\\nunsuitableness a3 a test\\nStill, even at the hazard of being censured for my irrelevancy, X\\nmust venture one or two observations on the point denounced. It\\nis important that I should do so, because the truth is that at the\\nreformation the difference between the two churches on this point\\nwas considered so slight and so capable of adjustment, that it was\\npurposely left open. Our communion service was so framed as to\\nadmit the Roman Catholics, and they, accordingly, for the first twelve\\nyears of Elizabeth\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reign, partook of our communion, and there is\\nnothing to prevent a conscientious Roman Catholic doing so at this\\nday. The sacrament of our Lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Supper is, by all Christians, held\\nto be a solemn rite of the Church, ordained by its divine founder as\\na commemoration of his sacrifice, and most efficacious to those who\\nworthily receive it with proper sentiments of gratitude and contri\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion so far, all Christians agree, and we are on the grounds of Scrip\u00c2\u00ac\\nture and of common sense but beyond this the Roman Catholic is\\nsaid to assert that the body of our Lord is actually present in the\\nsacrifice. Now this, in the only sense in which I can affix a mean\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to it, I must disbelieve. It is contrary to the evidence of my\\nsenses and to the first principles of my reason. But the Roman\\nCatholic states that he does not believe the body of our Lord to be\\npresent in the Eucharist, in the same sense in which it is said to be\\nin heaven; for he admits that the same body cannot be in two\\nplaces at the same time, but it is present in a sense the council oi\\nLateran says sacramentally present. Now what this sense is I own\\nbaffles my faculties. The proposition which states it I can neither\\naffirm nor deny, because I cannot understand it any more than if it\\nwas laid down as a dogma, that it was of a blue colour, or six feet\\nhigh. I feel satisfied, as a sincere Christian, resting ou Scripture and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0206.jp2"}, "207": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n107\\nreason, that it is not necessary for me to involve myself in these\\nmysteries; and of this I am sure that I should act a very unchris\u00c2\u00ac\\ntian as well as a very ungentleman-like part, if I were to join in\\ngiving foul names to the professors of this, to me, incomprehensible\\ndogma.\\nWhether it be a fit subject for polemical controversy I will not\\npretend to say. Queen Elizabeth certainly thought it was not, and-\\nforbade her divines to preach concerning it; and they thought her\\njudgment too good on such points not to render an implicit obedience\\nto her commands. I will beg leave, sir, to read a short extract from\\nBurnet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s History of the Reformation, bearing on this point:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009cThe\\nchief design of the queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s council was to unite the nation in one\\nfaith, and the greatest part of the nation continued to believe such a\\npresence (the Real Presence), therefore it was recommended to the\\ndivines to see that there should be no express definition made against\\nit; that so it might be as a speculative opinion, not determined, in\\nwhich every man was left to the freedom of his own mind.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Such\\nWere the opinions of Queen Elizabeth, the founder of the Reforma\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. Perhaps no monarch ever swayed the British sceptre who\\nhad so profound an acquaintance with the royal art of governing.\\nTo the Protestant religion, certainly, no monarch ever was more\\nsincerely and enthusiastically attached. On the truth of these opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnions she hazarded her throne and life. But she respected the opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnions and the sincerity of others, and refused to make windows to\\nlook into the hearts of her subjects. She, Queen Elizabeth, the\\nfounder of the Reformation, altered the liturgy, as it had been framed\\nin the reign of Edward the Six h, striking out all the passages which\\ndenied the doctrine of the Real Presence and this for the avowed\\npurpose of enabling the Roman Catholics to join in communion with\\nthe Church of England; and am I to be told that this was done in\\norder to let in idolaters to partake of, and to pollute our sacrament\\nBut it seems some of the divines of our day are better Protestants\\nthan Queen Elizabeth. If she were alive again I should be curious\\nto see them tell her so. Indeed, sir, these things are calculated to\\ninjure the cause of true religion. The Christian is a meek and well-\\nmannered religion, not a religion of scolding and contentious reviling;\\nit is an outrage on that religion and a dangerous attack upon its\\nevidences, to say that the mission of its divine Founder has hitherto\\nserved only to establish superstition and idolatry among mankind;\\nand that, except tor a favoured few, his blood has been shed in vain.\\nIn whatever point of view we turn this question, the absurdities in\u00c2\u00ac\\ncrease upon us. We have legalized their religion and the sacrifice", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0207.jp2"}, "208": {"fulltext": "193\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nof the Mass; and if that is idolatrous, the king, lords, and com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons are promoters of idolatry. By the 31st of the late King wo\\nrequire the party claiming certain privileges to swear that he is an\\nidolater. By the same act we excuse him from coming to our church\\nonly on condition of his going to mass that is, we inflict on him\\npenalties which are to be remitted on the express terms of his com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitting an act of idolatry. By the same act we inflict penalties on\\nany person who disturbs him in the exercise of his idolatry. In Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, we admit him to the magistracy, and to administer the laws of\\na Christian country, requiring from him, as a preliminary condition,\\nhis oath that he is an idolater. When we reflect on all this, and\\nremember that we have established their religion in Canada, and that\\nwe are in close alliance, fur the purpose of protecting religion and\\nmorals, with great nations professing the Roman Catholic religion, is\\nit not obvious that the perseverance in such a declaration is calculated\\nto bring our religion and our character into contempt, and to make\\nthinking men doubt the sincerity of our professions Whatever may I\\nbe the fate of the other part of this question I cannot bring myself\\nto believe that this outrage upon the religious decencies of the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry will be suffered-to remain on our statute book.\\nSir, I shall now proceed to the consideration of the question, so\\nfar as it involves the objection derived from the supposed existence\\nof certain principles of the constitution, inconsistent with the claims\\nof the Roman Catholics. I shall endeavour to show that the exclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of the Roman Catholics from franchise and from office, is repug\u00c2\u00ac\\nnant to the ascertained principles of our free monarchy; that these\\nprinciples existed before the reformation, and were coeval with tho\\nfirst foundation of our constitution that they were not touched at\\nthe reformation, or at the revolution, or at either of the unions; that\\nthe restriction or suspension of them grew out of temporary causes\\nthat they were so declared and acknowledged at the time; that,\\nwhen well considered, they afford a confirmation of the principle;\\nthat these causes have long since ceased to operate; that we have\\nacknowledged it; that we have acted ou this acknowledgment in\\nconcerns of the deepest moment; that we have framed a course\\nwhich, if the acknowledgment be true, is imperfect justice; if false,\\nis absolute folly and rashness; and that, if we stop where we are,\\nwe are precisely in the situation of exciting every discontent, and\\norganizing every mischief which can be generated by a sense of in\u00c2\u00ac\\njury, and arming the party aggrieved with all the strength, aud all\\nthe means of wreaking that resentment, which belong to solid and\\nessential power; a situation from which cannot be relieved by", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0208.jp2"}, "209": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\nm\\nshifts or devices; a situation, whose difficulties must every day aug\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, and, if only put aside, must recur with aggravated pressure;\\nthat there is only one mode of dealing with the difficulty; that the\\npart of justice and of safety is the same that we are called on to try\\nthe principle on which we have acted during the entire of the late\\nreigns, and if we find it a sound one, to carry it to its full extent.\\nBy the constitution of England, every liege subject is entitled, not\\nmerely to the protection of the laws, but is admissible to all the\\nfranchises and all the privileges of the state. For the argument I\\nhave now to deal with is this that by some principle of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution, independent of the positive law, the Roman Catholic is ne\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessarily excluded.\u00e2\u0080\u009d What then is this principle of exclusion\\nMerely this, that the Roman Catholics acknowledge the spiritual\\nsupremacy of the Pope.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Why then if, independently of the positive\\nlaw, this acknowledgment deprives them of the privileges which be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlong to the liege subjects of the realm, the exclusive principle must\\nhave been irf force before the law. If so, there did not exist in\\nEngland a liege man entitled to the privileges of the constitution\\nbefore the time of Henry the Eighth for till then all acknowledged\\nthe spiritual supremacy of the Pope. Magna Charta was established\\nby outlaws from the state. Those gallant barons, whose descendants\\nhave been so feelingly alluded to by my noble friend,* though they\\nwere indeed permitted to achieve, yet were not entitled to share the\\nliberties of the. 1 country. They might not dare to open the great\\ncharter which Lad been won by their hardihood and patriotism.\\nNay, more, if this principle be true, there is not, at this moment, a\\nliege subject in any Catholic country in Europe. Sir, such trash as\\nthis shocks our common sense, and sets all argument at defiance.\\nWhat is this spiritual supremacy of the Pope, and how doe3 it\\naffect the civil allegiance of the subject The Roman Catholic sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nmits to the authority of the common and the statute law he ac\u00c2\u00ac\\nknowledges the force and bindingness of all constituted authorities\\nand jurisdictions, civil and ecclesiastical; he claims no coactive or\\ncontentious jurisdiction, or other than a merely conscientious one;\\nand the fullest illustration of this may be found in the fact\u00e2\u0080\u0094that\\n^though spiritual censure might, in this conscientious forum, attacii\\nto a marriage which our law allows, yet still the Roman Catholic\\nfully admits the legality of the marriage for all civil purposes, and\\nwould visit with spiritual censures any member of his church who\\ntransgressed against the civil rights which belong to the wife or to\\ntne issue.\\nLord Nugent.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0209.jp2"}, "210": {"fulltext": "200\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nThis I believe they are ready to testify, in any form of words yon\\nmay think it right to introduce; or to take the oath of supremacy, if\\naltered or explained in that sense and for the purpose of trying the\\npracticability of some such measure, I propose going into committee.-\\nSir, if it is said that the spiritual power may be abused for temporal\\npurposes, and that the appointment of their bishops may be an instru\u00c2\u00ac\\nment for such purposes,. I admit both I shall allude to them more\\nparticularly before I conclude, and I, for one, shall mo t cheerfully\\nconcur in the appropriate remedies; but to say that, therefore, the\\nallegiance of the Roman Catholic is imperfect, is an abuse of terms.-\\nAfter the repeated declarations of the legislature of both countries on\\nthis subject, it would seem not unreasonable to require from those\\nwho take upon themselves to graduate the scale of allegiance, for the\\npurpose of exclusion from common right, to show where, in the prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples of our law and constitution, or where, in the regions of common\\nsense, they find the canon on which this exclusion is founded. Sir, it\\nhas been with no ordinary degree of regret that I have hoard the opinion\\nof the distinguished and learned prelate,* to whom I have before al\u00c2\u00ac\\nluded, on this subject. With a candour which does him honour as\\na minister of religion, he fairly avows that the religious consideration\\nis entirely to be thrown out of the case,.save so far as it bears on the\\ncivil worth of the party. But he says, that inasmuch as the\\nRoman Catholic yields that spiritual homage to the Pope which (as\\nhe thinks) the Protestant of the Established Church of England\\nyields to the King, and which the Protestant of the Established\\nChurch of Scotland yields to no man, he conceives himself warranted\\nto infer that he possesses less of what he calls civil worth and not\\nonly this, but that this difference is so important as to become a\\nspecific difference, and therefore to warrant the separation of the\\nRoman Catholics into a distinct species, necessarily excluded from\\noffices and franchises, while the two others contiuue entitled to the\\nenjoyment of both.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Sir, this is the kind of reasoning which Mr.\\nLocke describes as seeing a little, presuming a great deal, and so\\njumping to a conclusion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It might have occurred to the mind of\\nhe learned prelate, accustomed to the precision of mathematical\\nroof as he is, that if the Roman Cataoiic, for the reason assigned,\\nreally had less civil worth than the Protestant, it would not there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore follow that he should be excluded, miless the Protestant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s quan\u00c2\u00ac\\ntity of civil worth were first proved to be the minimum which would\\nwarrant admission. But what may be the nature of this quality\\nwhich he is pleased to designate under the new appellation of \u00e2\u0080\u009ccivil\\nDr. Marsh.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0210.jp2"}, "211": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n201\\nworth,\u00e2\u0080\u009d lie has not thought proper exactly to .state. It leaves out,\\nI presume, all consideration of birth or fortune, or such like; also\\nthe accidental circumstances of education and learning arid talents.;\\nr Iso the unessential attributes of truth and honour and probity\\nthese all are circumstances too mean to form any part of his abstrac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions. I must presume so; for the person who possesses them all\\nin the highest degree, if he happens to acknowledge the spiritual\\nsupremacy of the Pope, is actually excluded, is below zero in his\\nscale of civil worth.; and the person who is utterly destitute of\\nall of them is admitted, provided he is not so punctilious as to refuse\\nto deny that supremacy.\\nTo the English dissenter, and to the orthodox Scotchman, he\\nmanifests a degree of indulgence which does more credit to his libe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrality than to his logic. They, it seems, are deficient in this civil\\nworthbut still lie admits them rather, I suppose, to a kind of\\nlimbo, between the enjoyments which belong to perfect allegiance\\nand the curse of utter exclusion. But he has, by some process, as\u00c2\u00ac\\ncertained that the Roman Catholic has reached the exact degree oi\\ndeficiency which necessarily draws down the sentence of condemna\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion.\\nSir, it would have become the gravity and station of the person\\nwho made this assertion to refer to some authority or analogy of our\\nconstitution to warrant it, and not arbitrarily to draw a line of such\\nfatal denunciation, merely because he has discovered a circumstance\\nwhich distinguishes from each other two classes of his fellow-subjects\\nand fellow-Christians. Mr. Burke truly says, that there is no\\ndescription of men more absurd than the metaphysician, who, deal\u00c2\u00ac\\ning in essences and universals, rejects the consideration of more and\\ni less;\u00e2\u0080\u009d and never was the justice of this truly philosophical remark\\nmore strongly exemplified than in this argument, which excludes\\nfrom the pale of the state, and from the hope of the royal favour, the\\nHowards and the Arundels, and the long line of illustrious persons\\nwho luve shone with the brightest lustre oil the noblest periods of\\nour history, who have gained the charter of our liberties, and fought\\n.the battles of law and freedom; and all for this want of civil\\nworth;\u00e2\u0080\u009d while it lets in the lowest and the vilest, no matter of\\nwhat description, slaves or traitors, outcasts from everything con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnected with truth or virtue, merely because their civil worth\u00e2\u0080\u009d is\\nauthenticated by denying the spiritual authority of the Roman\\nPontiff.\\nSir, neither in this nor in anything is our constitution metaphy\u00c2\u00ac\\nsical or pedantic. Political constitutions are not like natural ones;", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0211.jp2"}, "212": {"fulltext": "202\\nflunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthey grow out of the action of man on man there must be choice^\\napprobation, distinction founded on moral differences. The wisdom,\\ntnd justice, and discretion, by which the moral order is administered,\\n*re all unlike the laws of matter and of motion, which govern the\\nphysical world and, therefore, when we hear of a machinery so con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstituted as to be capable of letting into trust everything that is un\u00c2\u00ac\\nworthy, and of shutting out everything that is exalted, we may be\\nassured that we have to do with idle dreams, and that they do not\\nproceed from any waking, sober, practical views of British law and\\nconstitution. If it is said that this touchstone does not let in the\\nrabble I have described, but merely makes them eligible, then we\\ncome back to the true principles of our policy; the power of the\\ncrown to reject the base, and to select the worthy; the power of the\\npeople to exclude from the franchises which depend on their favour\\nthe candidates who are not deserving; and above all, the controlling\\ngood sense and vigilance of the public mind to see that these privi\u00c2\u00ac\\nleges are not abused.\\nThese, sir, are the sound, and rational, and practical principles on\\nwhich our constitution has been formed; by these it must be pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nserved, and not by the affectation of what Mr. Pitt, with peculiar\\nfelicity, calls a harsh uniformitynot by inert abstractions, which\\nare fit only for the school and the cloister, but become ridiculous\\nwhen applied to the concerns of states and to the business of life.\\nI speak in the presence of enlightened constitutional lawyers and\\nstatesmen, and I do not fear a contradiction when I assert, that the\\ndoctrine of exclusion is not to be found in the principles, or in the\\nanalogies of our constitution, or in the history of our country, or in\\nthe opinion of any statesman whose name or memory has reached us.\\nIt is, at once, inconsistent with the subject\u00e2\u0080\u0099s rights and with the\\nking\u00e2\u0080\u0099s prerogatives. Ours is a free monarchy, and it is of the essence\\nof such a government that the king should be entitled to call for the\\nservices of all his liege subjects, otherwise it is not a monarchy;\\nand that no class of his subjects should be excluded from franchise,\\notherwise it is not a free monarchy. I use the word franchise, not\\nin the lawyers\u00e2\u0080\u0099 technical sense of it, as a right supposed to be de\u00c2\u00ac\\nrived by prescription or grant from the crown, but in the sense of\\nMr. Burke, when he applied it to the right of voting for members\\nto sit, and to the right of sitting in parliament. Sir, these are\\nprivileges not derived from the grace of the crown or the permis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of the legislature, or from the positive declaration of any written\\nlaw, but drawn from the great original sources from which crown\\nand law and legislature have been derived; from the sacred fountains", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0212.jp2"}, "213": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n203\\nof British constitution and freedom; the denial of which, as justified\\nby any supposed principles of our constitution, I take on me to de\u00c2\u00ac\\nnounce as founded on a radical ignorance of the essence and stamina\\nof our civil polity.\\nSuch was not the opinion of Lord Bacon. With the permission of\\nthe house I will read the words of that illustrious statesman and phi\u00c2\u00ac\\nlosopher. In his bird\u00e2\u0080\u0099s eye view of our constitution, after enume\u00c2\u00ac\\nrating the classes of alien enemies, alien friends, and denizens, he\\ngoes on thus: \u00e2\u0080\u009cThe fourth and last degree is a natural born subject,\\nand he is complete and entire for, in the law of England,, there is\\nnil ultra; there is no more subdivision, no more subtle distinction\\nbeyond these r and hence it seems to me that the wisdom of our\\nlaw is to be admired, both ways, both because it distinguisheth so\\nfar, and because it doth not distinguish farther; for I know that\\nother law3 do admit more curious distinctions of this privilege; for\\nthe Roman law, besides jus civiiaiis which amounts to natura\u00c2\u00ac\\nlization, has \u00e2\u0080\u009cjus suffragii for though a man were naturalized to\\ntake lands of inheritance, yet he was not entitled to have a vote at\\nthe passing of laws, or at election of officers, and yet further they\\nhave \u00e2\u0080\u009cjus petztionis\u00e2\u0080\u009d or \u00e2\u0080\u009cjus honorum/\u00e2\u0080\u0099 for although a man had a\\nvoice, yet he was not capable of honour or office; but these are the\\ndevices commonly of popular or free estates, which are jealous whom\\nthey take into their number, but are unfit for monarchies, but by the\\nlaw of England, the subject that is natural bom hath a competency\\nor ability to all benefits whatever.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThis principle of exclusion, therefore, is equally at war with the\\nprerogative of the crown, and the title of the subject. It wrests the\\nsceptre from the king that it may strike at the liberties of the people,\\nand obtrudes an unconstitutional monopoly on the just rights of both.\\nIt is an insolent republican principle, which has more than once been\\npublicly and universally reprobated in this house; the principle of\\nlawless association, for the purpose of lawless exclusion, and which\\npromises a conditional allegiance teethe monarch, so long only as he\\nshall uphold the arrogant and exclusive claims of one class of his\\nsubjects against the inherent rights and privileges of the other.\\n1 shall now proceed to show that this principle of common right\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0was not touched, or meant to be touched, at the Reformation. The\\nhouse will be so good as to excuse my dwelling somewhat on this\\npart of the question, as no portion of our history is less understood\\nthan that of the Reformation, in as far as it affects the civil rights\\nof the Roman Catholics. Sir, the act of supremacy tvas intended,\\nnot as a test of religion, but of loyalty not to distinguish the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0213.jp2"}, "214": {"fulltext": ":204\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nRoman Catholic from the Protestant, but the well-affected Roman\\nCatholic, who acknowledged the queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s title and authority, from\\nthe disaffected, who denied both. The title of the act is, An act\\nfor restoring to the crown the ancient jurisdiction over the state,\\necclesiastical and spiritual.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s injunction and admonition\\nwere issued to explain the oath for the express purpose of enabling\\nthe Roman Catholics, as well as other classes of dissenters, to take\\nit. After ordering all offensive words, such as Papist, heretic,\\nschismatic, to be forborne, under severe pains, she declares that\\nshe does not pretend to any authority, save that which had at all\\ntimes belonged to the imperial crown of this realm, namely, that she\\nhad the sovereign rule over all persons under God, so that no foreign\\nprince had rule over them and if those who formerly appeared to\\nhave scruples about the oath were willing to take it in that sense, she\\nwas well pleased to accept of it, and did acquit them of all penalties\\nin the act.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This explanation so given by the authority of the\\nqueen is adopted by the legislature and incorporated into the act of\\nthe 5th of Elizabeth, which is the first that requires the oath of\\nsupremacy from the members of the House of Commons. The 17th\\nsection of this act is particularly entitled to attention it recites in\\nthese words, whereas the queen is otherwise sufficiently assured\\nof the loyalty of the temporal lords of her high court of parliament;\\ntherefore the act shall not extend to them.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Here, sir, is a legisla\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive proof that the act of supremacy was a test, not of religion, but\\nof loyalty, not of exclusion but of selection; and accordingly it\\nenumerated a class of acknowledged Roman Catholics, of whose\\nfaith and loyalty she was assured, and as such admitted them to the\\nhigh court of parliament, and to all offices whatsoever. I have\\nalready adverted to the alteration of the litany and communion ser\u00c2\u00ac\\nvice for the express purpose of admitting the Roman Catholics and\\nany person who will take the trouble of looking into the history of\\nthe times, will see that for the first twelve years of her reign the\\nRoman Catholics attended the service of the Church of England\\nso it is stated by Lord Coke in Cawdry\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case, and so by Rapin,\\nBurnet, and Hume. Nor was it until the twentieth year of her\\nvieign, when the Spanish schemes against her crown and life were\\naided by the machinations of the foreign priests imported into Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, that the punishment and exclusion of the Roman Catholics\\ncommenced. Sir, all this is well explained in Walsingham\u00e2\u0080\u0099s letter\\nto Monsieur Critoy, which is to be found in Burnet. The queen\\nthere recognises two principles, first, that consciences were not to\\nbe forced, but to be won and reduced by force of truth, with the aid", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0214.jp2"}, "215": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIliF.\\n205\\nof time and all good means of instruction and persuasion; the other,\\nthat causes of conscience, when they exceed their bounds and grow\\nto be matters of faction, lose their natures; and that sovereign\\nprinces ought distinctly to punish their contempt and practices, though\\ncoloured with the pretence of conscience and religion not to make\\nwindows into men\u00e2\u0080\u0099s hearts, but to punish their overt actsand he\\ndefends her majesty from the charge of being a temporizer in religion.\\nIt is not (he says) the success of things abroad, or the change of\\nservants here at home can alter her; only as the things themselves\\naltered, she applied her religious wisdom to methods correspondent\\nwith them, only attending to the two distinctions above-mentioned,\\nfirst, in dealing tenderly with conscience; and secondly, distinguish\u00c2\u00ac\\ning faction from conscience and softness from singularity.\u00e2\u0080\u009d These,\\nsir, I repeat it, are the dictates of royal wisdom, and thus, I hum\u00c2\u00ac\\nbly trust, our gracious sovereign will apply his royal and religious\\nwisdom, that as the things themselves have altered, he may adopt\\nmethods correspondent with them. During the entire reign of Eliza\u00c2\u00ac\\nbeth, some of the highest and most confidential offices in the state\\nwere filled by Roman Catholics; and Mr. Hume states, as a thing\\nnotorious, that James the First gave preferment indifferently to his\\nRoman Catholic and Protestant subjects.\\nThat Roman Catholics sat and were considered as entitled to sit\\nin the House of Commons as well as in the House of Lords, until\\nexcluded by the act of the 30th of Charles the Second, is evident from\\nSir Salomon Swaile\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case in the year 1677, (the year before the\\n30th Charles the Second,) he was expelled, not for being a Papist,\\nwhich was admitted and notorious, but for being a recusant. Sir\\nRobert Sawyer\u00e2\u0080\u0099s argument is this, a Popish recusant cannot come\\nnear the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s person, and cb fortiori he cannot be of the great\\ncouncil of the realm whoever disables himself from his attendance\\nin parliament you ought to dischargeand the resolution of the\\nhouse is, that Sir Solomon Swaile is convicted of Popish recu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsancy, and therefore discharged.\u00e2\u0080\u009d So that for one hundred and\\ntwenty years after the reformation had been completed by Elizabeth,\\nthe notion that any merely religious tenet should disqualify for civil\\nrights was never acted on or announced; the very title of the act\\nof the 30th Charles the Second is decisive, it being for the more\\neffectually preserving the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government by disabling Papists to\\nsit in either house of parliament.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Sir, the reason is obvious why\\nthe measure was then resorted to the religion of Charles was more\\nthan suspected, and the presumptive heir was known to be a Roman\\nCatholic and had he been at liberty to fill the offices of the state\\no", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0215.jp2"}, "216": {"fulltext": "2 06\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwith Papists (in the most offensive sense of the word), and to pack\\na Popish parliament, tliere would have been no safety for the Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant establishment, or for the civil liberties of the country. This\\ncase properly formed an exception to the universality of Lord Bacon\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nrule; for the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s power of selection ceased to afford any security.\\nThe functions of royalty were so far paralyzed, or worse, and the except\\ntion proves the justness of the rule. But were the exceptions then\\nintroduced made fundamental articles of our constitution? Were\\nthey incorporated with the great principles declared at the Revolu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion? No but the particular mischief is for ever guarded against,\\nby making it a fundamental law of the land, that the king shall be\\nof the Protestant religion as by law established; thus applying a\\nremedy precisely commensurate with the evil, not declaring that the\\nvalves of the constitution should be for ever closed against any por\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the people, but putting them under the control and guardian\u00c2\u00ac\\nship of the king, declaring that he should execute that sacred trust\\nno longer than while he continued a member of the Established\\nProtestant Church. Sir, if I am asked, why then, when the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntantism of the throne was thus secured, did the provisions of the\\n30th of Charles the Second continue I answer, because the danger\\nwas not in fact done away, or at least the apprehension of it; be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause the return of the exiled family still impended over the country;\\nthat we have narrowly, by Cod\u00e2\u0080\u0099s providence, escaped that calamity;\\nand that it was not until nearly the period of his late majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncession that all apprehensions on that score were effectually removed.\\nBut any person acquainted with the history of that period knows\\nthat the 30th of Charles the Second was merely a substitute for a\\nbill of exclusion; and that if the latter could have been obtained the\\nformer never would have been resorted to; and Bishop Burnet tells\\nus that King William mainly rested the policy of that law on the\\nPopery of the throne, stating that, while the king was not a Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant, that law was the only security of the establishment.\\nSir, I think I have now shown that these notions of exclusion are\\nat war with the original spirit of our constitution, and that they form\\nno part of the system either of the reformation or of the revolution.\\nI will now proceed to demonstrate, from the records of parliament\\nand the authentic history of the times, that this act of Charles the\\nSecond, which had been adopted as a necessary restriction for the\\ntime, was always refused as a permanent law, and carefully kept out\\nof the wholesome circulation of the constitution and that the period\\nwas always looked to, and the means anxiously preserved, of recur\u00c2\u00ac\\nring to its irue principles when the accidental obstruction should ba", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0216.jp2"}, "217": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n207\\nremoved. Sir, by the act of the 4th and 5th of Queen Anne, cap. 8,\\nthe lord? justices were empowered to act in the event of the queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ndeath, until the arrival of her successor; the 16th section of the act\\ndisables them from giving the royal assent to any bill for repealing\\nthe act of uniformity. And why Because it was held to be a per\u00c2\u00ac\\npetual and fundamental law. But it was proposed in the Hoftse of\\nLords to introduce a clause disabling the commissioners from assent\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to the repeal of the 25th of Charles the Second (the test act), or\\nthe 30th of Charles the Second, (the act requiring the declaration),\\nand the proposition was rejected here then is a direct and positive\\nproof that the statesmen and legislature of that day did not contem\u00c2\u00ac\\nplate the perpetual continuance of that law$ and that they considered\\nit as of a different class and order from that which secured the Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant established church fundamentally and unalterably; yet now\\nit seems it has become a sacred element of the constitution, which it\\nwould be sacrilege to touch. When, on the following year, the Scot\u00c2\u00ac\\ntish Union was brought forward, they did not venture even to pro\u00c2\u00ac\\npose the 30th of Charles the Second, as a provision to be incorpo\u00c2\u00ac\\nrated as fundamental, but the zeal of bigotry did propose the test aud\\ncorporation acts. The proposition was made in the blouse of Lords, on\\nthe 1st of February, 1706, for the insertion of the test act as a fun\u00c2\u00ac\\ndamental law, and, in the House of Commons, for a similar insertion\\nof the test and corporation acts, and on full debate, the propositions\\nwere, in both houses, rejected. What the parliament intended as\\nfundamental, ifc expressly declares, namely, the Scotch act for the\\nsecurity of the church of Scotland, and the English act for the secu\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity of the church of England and they declare, that the said acts\\nshall, for ever, be held and adjudged to be observed as fundamental\\nand essential conditions of the said union, and shall, at all times\\ncoming, be taken to be, and are thereby declared to be, essential and\\nfundamental parts of the said articles and union but when they come\\nto state the oaths to be taken on admission to parliament, the words\\nare these, that every one of the lords of parliament of Great Britain,\\nand every member of the House of Commons, until the parliament of\\nGreat Britain shall otherwise direct, shall take the oath of allegiance\\nand supremacy, and shall subscribe the declaration contained in the\\nact of the 30th of Charles the Second.\\nWhat are the terms of the act of union with Ireland That\\nevery one of the lords of parliament, and every member of the House\\nof Commons of the United Kingdom, shall, until the parliament of\\nthe United Kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths and sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nscribe the declaration now by law required to be taken, made, and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0217.jp2"}, "218": {"fulltext": "208\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nsubscribed by Jie lords and commons of the parliament of Great\\nBritain.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Sir, here is the clear and express recognition by the legis\u00c2\u00ac\\nlature of both countries of the temporary nature of these oaths. In\\nthe words and in the spirit of both the unions, I call upon you now\\notherwise to determine.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Backed then by the known principles of\\nthe constitution, growing out of the nature and essence of our free\\nmonarchy; backed by the history and well authenticated objects of\\nthe Reformation, by the public declaration of Queen Elizabeth, and\\nof her ablest ministers; supported by the declarations of the 5th of\\nElizabeth, expressly stating that the oaths required were tests of\\nloyalty aud not of religion, and admitting the Roman Catholic peers\\non the ground of their known loyalty, independent of the oath sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nported by the admitted practice of one hundred and twenty years\\nfrom the 1st of Elizabeth to the 30 th of Charles the Second; having the\\nclear evidence of history to show that the innovation then made grew\\nout of circumstances accidental and temporary; supported by the\\nBill of Rights and Act of Settlement, which provide the proper remedy\\nfor the temporary evil, by a perpetual and fundamental law, securing\\nthe Protestantism of the throne; supported by the positive refusal of\\nthe House of Lords, in the 4th and 5th of Queen Anne, to treat it as\\na fundamental law; by the facts of its not being ventured to be pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed as a final regulation at the Scottish Union, though the test and\\ncorporation acts were so proposed, and unsuccessfully; with the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvision in the articles of that Union, which, while it defines the articles\\nthat were to be held fundamental, declares that the oath and decla\u00c2\u00ac\\nration shall continue to be taken only until the British parliament\\nshould otherwise provide; and with the express provisions of the\\nlegislatures of Great Britain and Ireland, at the Irish Union, to the\\nsame effect; supported as I am by the records of parliament, and the\\nundeniable facts of history, by the acts of the last fifty years, which,\\nif this principle were a sound one, would have been a continued out\u00c2\u00ac\\nrage on the constitution; with the authority of the illustrious men\\nwho were cotemporary with that system of conciliation; Dunning,\\nPitt, Fox, Burke, Sheridan, Wyndham, enlightened statesmen, who\\nsaw their way, and engaged in this order of restoration on no light\\nor superficial views, but on careful results, as wise and deliberate as\\nthey were liberal and noble, and who were well aware that if this\\ncourse were to end in anything short of the full renovation of civil\\nrights, it would have been, not a plan of policy, but a paroxysm of\\nfrenzy; supported by these great names, and not encountered by\\none which nas had sufficient buoyancy to float along the stream of\\ntime; with these authorities, I ask, have I not redeemed (I had al-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0218.jp2"}, "219": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n209\\nmost said triumphantly) the pledge which I threw down, when I ar\u00c2\u00ac\\nraigned the principle of exclusion as founded on a radical ignorance\\nof the essence and stamina of our constitution. Triumph, sir, I can\u00c2\u00ac\\nnot feel when I miss the ornaments of this house, when there is\\npainfully obtruded on my mind the recollection of the losses which\\nthis cause and this country has more recently sustained of Mr.\\nWhitbread, the watchful and incorruptible sentinel of the constitution;\\nthe more than dawning talents and virtues of Mr. Horner; the ma\u00c2\u00ac\\ntured excellencies of Sir Samuel Rom illy, a light extinguished, which\\nthrew a steady lustre, not merely on his profession and his country,\\nbut over all the interests of mankind; Mr. Ponsonby, the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional statesman, who led the ranks of opposition with disinterested\\nhonour, equally revering the constituted authorities and the people\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nrights; my ever-lamented friend Mr. Eliot, noble in his nature as\\nhe was liberal in his sentiments, a model of what aristocracy ought\\nto be, a bond between the people and the throne; Sir Arthur Pigott,\\nthe genuine representative of the sound, honest, constitutional English\\nlawyer; above all, when I revert to this last and heaviest disaster,\\nthis dark and overwhelming calamity on which I dare not trust my\u00c2\u00ac\\nself to speak\u00e2\u0080\u0094I feel anything but triumph; I feel that in passing be\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore the images of these illustrious men, there is a funeral gloom\\nthrown over this great procession, in which we are moving to offer\\nup our bad passions and angry prejudices upon the altar of freedom\\nand of concord. But, sir, though I feel no triumph, I boldly appeal\\nto the sense and candour of the house, whether what I have endea\u00c2\u00ac\\nvoured to demonstrate does not require some better answer than\\nvague and general assertions, that the principles of the constitution,\\nand of the reformation, and of the revolution, are hostile to the claim\\nof civil rights, and whether the Roman Catholic can consider himself\\nas fairly dealt with while his exclusion is rested on such gratuitous\\nand arbitrary dogmas.\\nI am conscious that I press on the indulgence of the house, but\\nthere remains one topic to which it is absolutely necessary that I\\nshould closely and earnestly address myself, because 1 know that\\nthere are many persons, most worthy, respectable, and liberal, who\\non the score of religion, and of constitutional principle, are quite\\nalive and friendly to the claims of the ioman Catholics, but who, at\\nthe same time, have serious apprehensions that the removal of their\\ndisabilities might endanger our establishments in church and state.\\nCould I believe that the measure of redress involved consequences of\\ninjury or of danger to these establishments, dear to my heart as I\\nhold the interests of my Roman Catholic countrymen, I should aban*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0219.jp2"}, "220": {"fulltext": "210\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ndon their long-asserted claims, and range myself with their oppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nnents but haviug the most entire conviction of the groundlessness\\nof the apprehension, and entertaining a sanguine hope that such alarms\\nmay be removed from the minds of those who are sincere in their\\nprofession of them, I particularly entreat the attention of the house.\\nTo the right honourable member for. the university of Oxford,* I\\nbeg leave especially to address myself, and I assure him I do so with\\nall the respect due to his talents, his acquirements, and his integrity;\\nto his high principles as a statesman and as a gentleman; I am well\\naware that there is no member of this house whose opinions are so\\nlikely to have influence on this subject, or whose being confirmed in\\nhis prejudices (if they are prejudices) is so likely to produce serious\\ninjury to the country.\\nIs it true then, that the church is not exposed to any danger I\\ncertainly will not take it on myself to make the assertion; but I say\\nthat this danger, whatever it may be, exists at this moment, and that\\nthe proposed measure, therefore, cannot produce it; I say, that it is\\nnot calculated to increase it; I go further, and I assert that it is, in\\nthe highest degree, calculated to diminish it.\\nSir, the question is unfairly dealt with when it is asked what se\u00c2\u00ac\\ncurity have we for the Protestant church, if we adopt this measure\\n1 answer, every security which you have if you do not adopt it, and\\na great many more. The fallacy consists in supposing that we pro\u00c2\u00ac\\npose to pass from a state of security and ease, to an untried scene of\\ndifficulty and danger whereas the danger at this moment exists\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthe disproportion between the Roman Catholic population, and that\\nof the establishment (I speak of Ireland) is not produced by this\\nmeasure; the insecurity is in the narrowness of the basis, which\\nneither this nor any other measure can either cause or remove, though\\nit may in some degree remedy it; and it is beyond the reach of hu\u00c2\u00ac\\nman art to provide an adequate remedy in any other way than by\\nmaking it the interest and duty of this population to abide by and\\nto support the establishment. Let those who propose not to med\u00c2\u00ac\\ndle with this question, but to leave it to tide and time, consider the\\nnature of the dangers as stated on a former occasion by the right\\nhonourable member for Oxford, or suggested by him, and every one\\nof which exists at this moment in all its dimensions, without any re\u00c2\u00ac\\nference to this measure. I shall endeavour to enumerate them sub-\\ntantially as put forward by him, or as necessarily resulting from the\\nstatements made by him.\\nFust, the exceeding disproportion of the Roman Catholic to the\\nMr. Pf.el (afterwards Sir Robert).", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0220.jp2"}, "221": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n211\\nProtestant population in Ireland. The right honourable member did\\nnot, I believe, profess to state it exactly I myself believe that it is\\nmuch greater than is generally supposed,\u00e2\u0080\u0094certainly more than four\\nto one\u00e2\u0080\u0094but for the purpose of this argument it matters not.\\nNext, this great majority principally contribute to the support of\\nthe establishment to which they do not belong. Besides this, they\\nexclusively support their own clergy.\\nBy the principles of their religion they are in direct communication\\nwith a foreign potentate, through the medium of their clergy. This\\ncommunication is uninterrupted and uncontrolled by the state.\\nThough the Roman Catholic clergy possesses a most extensive in\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluence over the passions, opinions, private and political principles\\nand actions of the laity, yet the state neither exercises nor possesses\\nany control over their appointment.\\nThe established religion is not merely that of the small minority,\\nbut one which has dispossessed the great majority. This has been\\neffected, not as in England, by a reformation of public opinion, but by an\\nact of state, leaving the necessary consequences, irritation and hostility.\\nThis great majority is in the unprecedented situation of being ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncluded from a great proportion of the franchises, offices, and honours\\nof the state, not on account of any moral or political delinquency, but\\nmerely on account of its religion. They are at the same time ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted to the full enjoyment of substantial power, including the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmand of our fleets and armies.\\nThis ejected majority, if they are actuated by the motives by\\nwhich man is ordinarily actuated, and by the feelings which nature\\ninspires, must have views hostile to the religious establishments of\\nthe state.\\nThough they disavow such principles on their oaths, still they must\\nentertain them, and therefore they have been admitted to their pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent privileges on the faith of oaths which, if they are sincere in their\\nreligious opinions, cannot bind them.\\nThey are, therefore, required by the legislature, and have accord\u00c2\u00ac\\ningly stooped to stain themselves with the odious crimes of hypocrisy\\nand perjury; the liberal feelings of the right honourable gentleman\\nwill, no doubt, induce him to say that he does not impute to them\\nthe wilfulness of perjury, but that they deceive themselves; be it so;\\nas to the extent of the danger it matters not; they are swearing\\nagainst nature, and their oath affords no security; our danger is as\\ngreat as if they were admitted without the oath, with this difference,\\nthat it is admitted that the oath which they are ready to take, can\u00c2\u00ac\\nnot, on such a subject, bind them.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0221.jp2"}, "222": {"fulltext": "212\\nelunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nBeing thus incapable of being bound by oaths, they are, at this\\nmoment, shut out from what is sought by oaths only.\\nThe country in which all these dangers and anomalies exist is se\u00c2\u00ac\\nparated by nature from that to which it is united by law. It once\\nhad an independent existence; within twenty yeais had an indepen\u00c2\u00ac\\ndent legislature, and still has its separate courts of justice and dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinct departments of executive government.\\nNow, sir, mark, if these are at all to be considered as causes of\\ndanger. Such is our existing state. An ejected majority of four to\\none; irritated and hostile; subject to the unbounded influence of a\\nclergy appointed by a foreign potentate, unregulated by the state;\\nplaced in a portion of the empire separated by nature, recently and\\nimperfectly united by law; and observe, this hostile majority, not an\\nuneducated rabble, but the leaders now, and all of them, in the natural\\ncourse of things, growing to be a wealthy, powerful, thriving, pros\u00c2\u00ac\\nperous body; actually admitted to every thing which constitutes real\\npower in the state; and this on the strength of oaths which cannot\\nbind them, without overturning the laws of nature; and at the same\\ntime, the remaining barriers and bulwarks of the state, resting on\\noaths and on oaths alone\\nSir, I ask any man really anxious for the safety of the Established\\nChurch of Ireland, is this the state in which it ought to be left Is\\nthis the bed of roses on which the right honourable gentleman is\\ndisposed to rest himself? These, if he is right, are the existing\\ndangers, which at this moment threaten the safety of the establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment and amidst this rocking of the battlements we are told that\\nthe true and statesman-like conduct is to share in the repose of the\\nright honourable gentleman.\\nSir, no man sensible of the dangers which really exist, and duly\\nimpressed with the vitality of the connexion between church and\\nstate, can suffer this momentous question to depart from his mind;\\nit is a problem of difficulty the most extreme, but until it is solved,\\nthere is no safety for the country.\\nThe way in which the right honourable gentleman has argued the\\nquestion is, to my mind, most alarming. The Roman Catholics, he\\nsays, if they have organs, senses, affections, passions, like ourselves,\\nnay, if they are sincere and zealous professors of that faith to which\\nthey belong, will aspire to the re-establishment of their church, in\\nall its ancient splendour. Why, sir, according to this view they\\nought to aspire to it! They ought to be sincere and zealous in their\\nfaith, and if so they will aspire to it. Why then, this subversion of\\nthe establishment, which we are bound to the last extremity to resist,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0222.jp2"}, "223": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n213\\nthey are bound by an equally imperious duty to aim at! And then\\nthe right honourable gentleman tells them they have before their\\neyes the example of Scotland, which, with her Presbyterian Church,\\nhas been united to England with her Episcopal Church, all jealousies\\nburied in oblivion and the political union completed.\\nWhy then, having left the country committed in this manner; the\\nestablishment of the Protestant minority in Ireland opposed, not\\nonly to the schemes, but to what he considers as the rightful, natural,\\nand necessary views of the Roman Catholic majority, who, if they\\nare sincere in their religion, must desire to restore the ancient splen\u00c2\u00ac\\ndour of their church, backed as they are by a sound constitutional\\nprecedent in the establishment of Presbytery in Scotland we being\\ndetermined, nevertheless, as I trust we all are, to hold our establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment; bound to do so as we value our laws, our liberties, and the\\nconnexion between the two countries and they being equally bound\\nto subvert it\u00e2\u0080\u0094urged by the irresistible impulses of nature, by their or\u00c2\u00ac\\ngans, senses, affections, and passions, and sanctioned by the awful calls\\nof religion in doing so\u00e2\u0080\u0094Sir, this is to leave the Protestant establishments,\\nand the Roman Catholic people of Ireland, committed in necessary\\nind interminable hostility, the one side insisting on subversion, and\\nthe other struggling for existence and the right honourable gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman says, it is a shame to come forward with indigested schemes,\\nand to disturb this happy and halcyon state of security and comfort.\\nSir, if I could view the question in the same light with the right\\nhonourable gentleman, I should indeed not propose to legislate; I\\nshould, like him, abandon it; but not like him with satisfaction;\\nnot under the impression that, in doing so, we were to continue in\\npossession of the freedom and the glory derived from the constitution\\nof our ancestors but under the deep and afflicting conviction that\\nour glories and our freedom were doomed to perish. I should, like\\nhim, remain inactive, but not at rest; I should turn from the ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, not to a state of tranquillity, but of torpor; the prelude, not to\\nrepose, but to dissolution.\\nSir, I am sure the right honourable gentleman is not aware of the\\nconsequences to which his position would lead. It goes to establish\\nthis monstrous doctrine, that the Roman Catholic who is sincere in\\nhis belief is bound to aim at the subversion of the establishment, and\\nso divides society into two classes, those whose duty it is to support\\nthe establishment, and those who are bound to overthrow it. It\\nleaves no alternative. Every honest man in the country must be\\nranked on the one side or on the other. The bigotry which he im\u00c2\u00ac\\nputes to the Roman Catholic imposes the duty of intolerance on our-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0223.jp2"}, "224": {"fulltext": "214\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nselves. If it is of necessity a principle of their religion to overturn\\nour establishment, it becomes our duty to put down their religion. If\\nthis serpent is fostered under their altars, we must put down their\\naltars. This alarming doctrine makes the distinction between tole\u00c2\u00ac\\nrating their religion, and giving power to those who profess it, mere\\nrant and folly. If that religion contains the spark which is to con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsume our establishments, we must extinguish that religion. Tolera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion would be a crime. This imputed duty frightfully recoils upon\\nourselves, and the doctrine resolves itself into the most sublimated\\nspirit of bigotry.\\nIt is, therefore, most consolatory to me, that, in resisting the argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of the right honourable gentleman, I at the same time vindi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncate the Roman Catholics from the unmerited charge of hostility\\nwhich is imputed, and relieve the Protestant from the hateful dijty\\nof intolerance which results from the imputation.\\nSir, on behalf of the Roman Catholics, I am bold to say that,\\nthough they prefer their own religion to ours, yet that they find the\\nProtestant religion established by law, by the same law by which their\\nown lives, liberties, and properties, along with those of all the other\\nsubjects of this realm, are secured; that, if the right honourable\\ngentleman were to state, to any well-informed Roman Catholic, the\\nprecedent of Scotland, he would laugh at his precedent; because he\\nknows that the Presbyterian religion was the reformed religion of\\nScotland, that it was so established at the reformation, that it was\\nso confirmed at the revolution, and so ordered and perpetuated by\\nsolemn compact between the two countries at the Union; that on\\nthe contrary, the Protestant established religion of England was, in\\nIreland, established at the reformation, confirmed at the revolution,\\nand perpetually incorporated at the Union that it forms a part of\\nthe fundamental unalterable law of the empire; that he therefore\\nprefers a Protestant establishment and an unimpaired state to a\\nRoman Catholic establishment and a subverted one that he consi\u00c2\u00ac\\nders the possessions of the Protestant clergy as their absolute pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nperty, secured to them as sacredly as the private possessions of any\\nindividual are secured to him that he abides by the oath which he\\nhas taken, to maintain that establishment, and that, so far from con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidering himself under any obligation to subvert it, he holds himself\\nobliged, by the most solemn ties which can bind him to society, as\\na man, a citizen, and a Christian, to resist all attempts at its over\u00c2\u00ac\\nthrow, from whatever quarter they may proceed. Most iniquitous\\nand absurd would it have been in the legislature to require that such\\nan oath should be taken by the Roman Catholics, if, as such, they", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0224.jp2"}, "225": {"fulltext": "i\\nCATHOLIC RELIEF. 215\\nwere under a religious and moral obligation to violate it; the suppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition would be equally degrading to the legislature which imposed,\\nand to the Roman Catholic who submitted to it.\\nOn what authority does the right honourable gentleman, in oppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition to their oaths, burn and brand on the Roman Catholics this\\nodious stigma What have they done What have they said\\nWhat have they sworn He will not try them by their declarations,\\ntheir oaths, or their actions; but, on view\u00e2\u0080\u0099s of what he calls human\\nnature, he not only proscribes the great mass of the Irish people from\\nthe honours of the state, but on principles which, if justly imputed,\\nought to shut them out from the pale of human society.\\nSir, the sources from which the right honourable gentleman de\u00c2\u00ac\\nrives his view of human nature are not those to which I have had\\naccess. I cannot find in them that a Roman Catholic gentleman,\\nenjoying every privilege of the British constitution, and with every\\navenue to wealth, and power, and place, and honour opened to him,\\nshould wish for the subversion of the state, in order that his priest\\nmay have a mitre. The alliance between church and state is not\\nfounded on any such supposed propensity in the nature of man, but\\non a principle of policy, for the security of the state, and of all reli\u00c2\u00ac\\ngion within it, and by which all sects are benefited by having the\\nprinciples of religion incorporated with the state; and therefore to\\nsuppose that a man, sincere in his religion, must wish it to be the\\nestablished one, argues an equal want of acquaintance with the na\u00c2\u00ac\\nture of man and the institutions of society. There 1 is a profound\\npolitical wisdom in this alliance, and every man who regards the wel\u00c2\u00ac\\nfare of the state, be his religion what it may, is bound to uphold it;\\nand he would be an absurd sectarian, as well as a wild politician,\\nwho, on such motives as are imputed, would engage in the experi\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of heaving the establishment from its centre, and overturning\\nalong with it the constitution of Great Britain.\\nBut, sir, this I can read in the book of human nature, that if men\\nare harshly excluded from the privileges of citizens; if the door of the\\nstate is closed against them; if they are stopped short in the career\\nof honourable ambition; if they are made an invidious exception to\\nthe principle which allows the talents and virtues of every man to\\nrise to the level, that it may flow in the bed of the constitution; if\\nthey are told that they and their children, to the end of time, nati\\nnatorum, et quo nascentur ab illis are to be stigmatized as a caste,\\nand to be for ever excluded from honour, and station, and confidence;\\n1 do read in the book of human nature, that such persons have ground\\nlor discontent. And I cannot but admire the persevering cordiality", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0225.jp2"}, "226": {"fulltext": "216\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwith which men so circumstanced have fought the battles, and shared\\nthe dangers, and borne the burdens of their country. But I would\\ndisdain to make their patience an argument for their exclusion, nor\\ncan I shut my eyes to the danger which may result from its conti\u00c2\u00ac\\nnuance.\\nWhat then is my remedy for the dangers which really exist And\\nwhat is the difference in this respect between the views of the right\\nhonourable gentleman and mine\\nFirst, I propose to regulate and legalize, within its proper limits,\\nthe intercourse with the see of Rome, so as to satisfy the state that\\nthe communication for spiritual purposes shall not be perverted to\\nbecome an instrument of political intrigue. What is the remedy of\\nthe right honourable gentleman To leave the intercourse as it is,\\nsecret and uncontrolled.\\nNext, I propose to regulate the appointment of the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic bishops, so as to assure the government of the country, that they,\\nand through them all the Roman Catholic clergy, shall be well affected\\nto the state. What is the remedy of the right honourable gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman To leave the appointment as it is, unregulated and subject to\\nthe unmixed influence of a foreign power, which may be friendly, which\\nmay be neutral, or which may be hostile. The right honourable\\ngentleman really seems so much in love with the perfection of his\\ndanger, that he is afraid of having it spoiled by any alteration.\\nBut, sir, my third proposition, and that to which all others must\\nbe secondary and subordinate, is to incorporate the Roman Catholics\\nwith the state. So to bind them to the present order of things, that\\ntheir interest shall be our security. To give to the well-affected the\\nreward of his loyalty, to take away from the revolutionist the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntext and the instrument of his treason. To rivet the honest Roman\\nCatholic to the state by every good affection of his nature, by every\\nmotive that can affect his heart, by every argument that can convince\\nhis reason, by every obligation that can bind his conscience; not by\\nadding the weight of a feather to his power, but by relieving his\\nfeeling from everything that is contumelious, insolent, and personal,\\nby abolishing every odious distinction, every aflfrontful suspicion,\\nevery degrading exclusion. What is the remedy of the right\\nhonourable gentleman To leave them as they are. Gracious hea\u00c2\u00ac\\nven To leave the great body of the Irish people bound by the\\nlaw of their nature to plot the subversion of the state I say of the\\nstate, because I trust that every man who hears me will say, that to\\nsubvert the Protestant establishment is to subvert the state.\\nI propose, not to take tile shackles from his limbs. He is un-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0226.jp2"}, "227": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n217\\nshackled, free, and strong as we are. But to take the brand from\\nhis forehead, and the bitterness from his heart, and the sense of de\u00c2\u00ac\\nbasement from his mind.\\nThe plan of the right honourable gentleman is, to leave him for\\never a marked man and a plotting sectary. Mine is to raise him\\nfrom exclusion and disability to the consciousness of having the full\\npossession of the highest situation that can be occupied in civilized\\nsociety; I mean the full participation of the rights, the privileges,\\nand the honours of a free-born British subject. Do not, I conjure\\nyou, turn your backs on this proposal of grace, of justice, and of\\nsecurity. Do not drive your Roman Catholic brother from your bar,\\nas a sulky and discontented outcast. You have admitted him into\\nthe bosom of the state, civil and military; do not in the same\\nbreath insult him by saying that he is, and that he ought to be, its\\nenemy.\\nSir, in considering the argument of the right honourable gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman, I have not stopped to meet the supposition that the power of\\nthe Roman Catholic body to effect any hostile purposes can be aug\u00c2\u00ac\\nmented by, or grow out of this measure. He has, I think, truly\\nsaid, that in the natural, and therefore certain order of things,\\nthe Roman Catholic must constitute by far the most powerful body\\nin Ireland.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The right honourable gentleman has notions far too\\njust and statesman-like to suppose that their power can, in any ma\u00c2\u00ac\\nterial degree, be effected by their obtaining seats in parliament or\\nadmission to the excepted offices. No; their number, their wealth,\\ntheir exercise of all professions, their possession of land, of com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmerce and manufactures, their constituting and commanding our\\nfleets and our armies; these the right honourable gentleman well\\nknows are the imperishable materials of political power, and that\\nwherever the wealth, and knowledge, and arms of a state reside,\\nthere is its real power. Since the first foundations of the civilized\\nworld, steel and gold have been the hinges on which its gates have\\nhung, and knowledge has been the guardian of their keys; any\\nattempt on the part of man to overturn this eternal scheme of nature,\\nthis fixed law of Providence, is shallow and presumptuous. The\\npower, therefore, to subvert cannot be created by this act of justice;\\nwill the desire be kindled by it Will the Roman Catholic feel a\\nrespect for the establishment only on the condition of its being the\\ncause of his exclusion from the state gratified by the injury, indig\u00c2\u00ac\\nnant at the redress These are puerilities to which the right\\nhonourable gentleman will not condescend. I agree with him in his\\nmanly view of the subject; if this measure is carried, we are to ex-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0227.jp2"}, "228": {"fulltext": "218\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\npect and wish that in progress of time (probably a very gradual\\none) the admission of the Roman Catholics may have a fair propor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion to their qualifications but I trust he will agree with me, that\\nthe power of making an impression on the government, or on the\\npeople of this country, will depend, not on the circumstance of their\\nclaims being personally asserted within these walls, but on the jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice and exigency of the claims themselves. The voice of the hum\u00c2\u00ac\\nblest subject of the realm, claiming the privileges of a citizen, will\\nfind its way to the honest members of this house, and to the honest\\npeople of this country, from the remotest corner of the empire it will\\nfind an echo in every independent mind and in every generous breast.\\nIn all continued struggles between a lawful government and a free\\npeople there can be but oue issue. That party must prevail which\\nhas truth and justice on its side, otherwise there is an end of free\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom or of government, it must end in despotism or anarchy. While\\nyou resist the claim of civil right, the Roman Catholic is armed with\\ntruth and justice. Grant him what he ought to have, and if he re\u00c2\u00ac\\nfuses the reasonable conditions or aspires to more, you transfer to\\nyourselves these invincible standards, and you may look with confi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence to the result.\\nIf it is said that the objection is not so much to any particular\\nmeasure as to the principle of concession, and to the difficulty of\\nascertaining its limit; I do not find it easy to ascertain the exact\\nmeaning of the argument. Is it meant that no concession should\\never have been made? That Ireland should have been left in the\\nsituation to which the penal laws had reduced her a jungle fit for\\nthe habitation of wild beasts\u00e2\u0080\u0094a moral waste, in whidh every prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple of social order, and of political regulation, and of honourable\\nfeeling was defied No the right honourable gentleman says he\\nrejoices that the system was departed from he says so consistently\\nhe must say so; he justly admits that restriction is in itself an evil,\\nand if so, the removal of it must in itself be good.\\nIt must mean then that there is a point at which concession ought\\nto stop. I admit it. Have we passed that point Wnere ought\\nwe to have stopped And are we to retrace our steps No the\\nright honourable gentleman says, we have not gone beyond it, but\\nwe arrived at it precisely in the year 1793, and by the arrangement\\nthen made he abides.\\nHe will not, I know, condescend to the disingenuity of sayiug that\\nour measure is bad because it involves a principle of concession, and\\nthat the principle of concession is dangerous because our measure is\\na bad one.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0228.jp2"}, "229": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF.\\n219\\nWell then, the concessions of 1793 were wise and salutary, but\\nanything more would be dangerous and unconstitutional.\\nThe Irish parliament, it seems, was so fortunate as to hit the exact\\npoint to which concession ought to go, and beyond which it ought\\nnot to be carried why then, may I ask, is it not to be carried to the\\nsame extent in Great Britain Why should not this just and critical\\nmeasure, which has admitted the Irish Roman Catholic to the grand\\ninquest, to the magistracy, to the constituency, and to various high\\noffices in the state,* be extended to the English Roman Catholic, who\\nis shut out from all of them, though with every claim, from rank and\\ndignity, from patience and long suffering, and who is unaffected, be\u00c2\u00ac\\nsides, by those circumstances of danger which have excited so much\\nalarm as to Ireland? Surely, were it for this purpose alone, the\\nhouse ought to go into a committee. But, sir, I think there would\\nbe some difficulty, if we examine the details of the Irish act of 1793,\\nin demonstrating their perfect wisdom and consistency. The Roman\\nCatholi c there may be chief commissioner of the revenue, and yet may\\nnot hold the lowest office in the most petty corporation. He may\\nbe owner in fee of the estate to which the whole corporation right is\\nannexed, he may transfer it, he may entail it, he may name every\\ncorporator and every officer, and yet he has not civil worth\u00e2\u0080\u009d to en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntitle him to the meanest of these offices. He may be proprietor of\\na borough, so as substantially to nominate the member to serve in\\nparliament, and yet the state would be shaken if he were himself\\nthat member.\\nSir, to enumerate all the inconsistencies of this supposed measure of\\nfinal adjustment would be endless; but there is one-so glaring that\\nI must beg leave particularly to allude to it. You admit the Roman\\nCatholic, both here and in Ireland, to the bar, you invite him to\\nstudy the laws of his country, to display his knowledge on a public\\ntheatre, where his talents and his acquirements are tried and known;\\nyou engage him in a career of honourable competition; you see him\\ndistinguished by the approbation of his countrymen; you see every\\nrelative connected with him gladdened and gratified by his successful\\nprogress; and when his heart is beating high with the consciousness\\nof desert, and the hope of fame and honour, you stop him in his\\ncourse, you dash his hopes, you extinguish his ambition, you leave\\nhim disgraced and mortified, sitting on the outer benches of your\\ncourts of justice, and imparting the gloom of his own hopeless exclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion to every one connected with him by consanguinity, friendship, or\\nreligion. Sir, in the name of the Protestant bar of both countries,\\n1 call on parliament to rescue us from this disgrace, to relieve us", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0229.jp2"}, "230": {"fulltext": "220\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nfrom the odium and shame of this degrading monopoly, and to re*\\nstore us to the privilege of equal and generous and honourable emulation.\\nOne word more and I have done. It has been asked, where is\\nconcession to stop I say, precisely where necessity, arising from\\npublic good, requires the continuance of the restriction. Exclusion\\nis like war, justum quibus necessarium Beyond this it would be\\nfolly to proceed. Short of this it is folly and injustice to stop. By\\nthis test let the claim be tried. If there is any office the possession\\nof which by a Roman Catholic would be dangerous or injurious to\\nour establishments, let him be excluded from it. If there is any\\nfranchise, whose exercise can be attended with real danger, let it be\\nwithheld. Such exclusion, or withholding, is not an anomaly, or in\u00c2\u00ac\\nconsistency, in our system of conciliation, because, when the exclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion is not arbitrary and gratuitous, there is no insult. Snch an ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nclusion forms no link of the chain, and the Roman Catholic will\\nsubmit to it cheerfully; just as it would be the duty of the Protestant\\nif, for similar reasons, a similar sacrifice were required from him.\\nLet him know, in intelligible terms, the reason and the necessity, and\\nhe is satisfied. But do not, in so momentous a concern, give him\\nwords, and think to reconcile him. Talk to him of the Protestant\\nestablishment, and he understands you; he bows to it; he sees it\\nengraved in capitals on the front of the political fabric. But if you\\ntell him of Protestant ascendancy, or Protestant exclusion, he asks\\nin vain where its title is to be found he looks in vain for it in the\\nelements of our law or its traditions, in the commentaries of its sage\\nexpositors, in the reformation, the revolution, or the Union\u00e2\u0080\u0094he sees\\nin it nothing -but insult and contumacy; and he demands, in the\\nname of the laws, and in the spirit of the constitution, that he may\\nbe no longer its victim.\\nSir, I move, That this house do resolve itself into a committee\\nof the whole house, to consider the state of the laws by which oaths\\nor declarations are required to be taken or mad e, as qualifications\\nfor the enjoyment of offices, or for the exercise of civil functions, so\\nfar as the same affect his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Roman Catholic subjects; and\\nwhether it would be expedient, in any what manner, to alter or mo\u00c2\u00ac\\ndify the same, and subject to what provisions or regulations.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe reports state that the right honourable and learned member was heard\\nthroughout with the most profound attention, interrupted only by the loudest\\nexpressions of admiration and respect.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nPeel replied, avowing, as he commenced, the charge of presumption to which\\nany man would be liable who attempted to answer such a speech. He knew\\nwell that under any circumstances his adversary would be an overpowering\\nantagonist; but under the present, when he replied to a speech which he (Mr.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0230.jp2"}, "231": {"fulltext": "DR. MILNER.\\n221\\nPeel) had made five years ago, and which he, having the power of tearing to\\npieces then by that extraordinary faculty of reasoning which he possessed, chose\\nto leave unanswered until that night, when, besides his great talents, lie had\\nevery other advantage, the difficulty was beyond calculation increased.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Allud\u00c2\u00ac\\ning then to the virtues and genius of Grattan, he hailed his successor in the\\nperson of the right honourable gentleman, one than whom no man was more\\nworthy to wield the arms of Achilles.\u00e2\u0080\u009d After a long and vehement speecn\\nagainst the motion, he concluded by declaring that no result of the debate\\ncould give him unqualified satisfaction. He was, of course, bound to wish that\\nthe opinions which he honestly felt might prevail; but their prevalence would\\nstill be mingled with regret at the disappointment their success must eutail upon\\nothers.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Sir James Mackintosh, who spoke next in support of the motion,\\nbegan with rapturous applause of Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c That great display of\\nthe prodigious talents of his right honourable friend, who had often been admired\\nfor his commanding powers, never so greatly exercised as upon that night, when\\nhe had shown himself to be the greatest master of eloquence and reasoning now\\nexisting in public life.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Dawson of Derry, Charles Grant, and Castlereagh\\nspoke the only other remarkable speeches of the debate. It was the last time\\nCastlereagh addressed the house on the subject, and differing from those friends\\nwith whom he usually agreed on other political and national questions,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he em\u00c2\u00ac\\nphatically repeated his opinion that the Catholics ought to be emancipated, and\\nthat as an insurance of the Protestant church establishment, the Catholic clergy\\nought to be pensioned. The house then divided, and the motion was carried by\\na majority of 6, in a house of 448.\\nDR. MILNER.\\nMarch 16, 1821.\\nOx the 2nd of March, Plunket stated to the house the course which he pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed to pursue. He would, in the first instance, submit resolutions to the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmittee on which a bill was proposed to be founded\u00e2\u0080\u0094the first reading of which\\nwould be taken on the next Tuesday, and the second on the Monday following.\\nThe house then went into committee, the resolutions were agreed to, a bill or\\nbills ordered to be brought in thereupon, and the house ordered to be called over\\non the 16th.\\nOn the 16th, Mr. Wilberforce presented a petition from \u00e2\u0080\u009ccertain Roman\\nCatholics of Staffordshire and Warwickshire against the bills now in progress\\nfor the relief of the Catholics,\u00e2\u0080\u009d declaring, at the same time, that he did not con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncur in their prayer. Among the petitioners was Dr. Milner, who alone of the\\nEnglish vicars apostolic, had refused to sign the petition presented by Lord\\nNugent, and whose acts and writings on the question had led to angry and\\nvaried controversy among the Irish and English Catholics. At one time violently\\nand almost disrespectfully assailed by O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell as a vetoist, at another ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npelled from the English Catholic Board for a too temerarious zeal, and detested\\nby all the Protestant partizans of the cause as an unmanageable bigot, it is\\ndifficult to understand the prelate\u00e2\u0080\u0099s position. In noticing the petition, Sir T.\\nLethbridge triumphantly pointed to his signature as a proof that no measure\\ncould or would satisfy the Catholics. Upon this Plunket rose and said\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThe honourable baronet has thought proper, in 6ome degree, to\\nanticipate the discussion of the subject, to which the attention of the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0231.jp2"}, "232": {"fulltext": "222\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhouse will shortly be directed, and I feel it necessary, therefore, to\\nmake one or two observations in reply to what has fallen from him.\\nWith respect to the signature of Dr. Milner, from which the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable baronet appears to derive so much satisfaction, 1 cannot help\\nsaying that in that individual it is only an act of undeviating, consis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntent bigotry. If I have felt some exultation in my mind that a mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure of the highest possible public good should now be apparently\\non the point of attainment, it is with the deepest regret that I witness\\nan attempt to darken the prospect of happiness and security. The\\nsame evil spirit which in 1813 came forward to blast the hopes of\\nthe Catholics, is once more at work. The name of Dr. Milner is\\nnot at the head of this petition, but I am persuaded that he is\\nthe prime instigator of it\u00e2\u0080\u0094I am satisfied that he is at the bot\u00c2\u00ac\\ntom of a measure, the object of which is, to destroy once more the\\nhopes of his Catholic fellow-subjects. Sir, I have a right to say, that\\nthe sentiments of the Homan Catholics of this country cannot fairly\\nbe collected from this petition. The petition of the Homan Catholics\\nof England, which was laid before the house a few nights ago, was\\nsigned by seven apostolic vicars. Now, there are eight apostolic\\nvicars in this country, and the eighth apostolic vicar, whose name\\nwas not annexed to that petition, who has disavowed that spirit of\\nconciliation which animates his brethren, is the same upon whose in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntervention the honourable baronet has this night thought proper to\\ncongratulate the house. That gentleman is the same person, who,\\nin 1813, came forward on the eve of the adoption of a measure for the\\nrelief of the Catholics, and by whose interference that measure was\\nabandoned. He has been censured and disowned by the Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic board; and the house will judge of the bigoted spirit of a\\nman, who could publicly declare, that the day on which Catholic\\nemancipation was granted, would be a day of downfall of the Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic religion in this country. What is the object of this man\\nWhat, but to prevent the possibility of Roman Catholic emancipation\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094to destroy all hopes of conciliation\u00e2\u0080\u0094to keep alive religious dissen\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion\u00e2\u0080\u0094and render discord and dissatisfaction interminable, by per\u00c2\u00ac\\npetuating the distinction between Protestants and Catholics.\\nCertainly, sir, I never expected a general concurrence; for it\\nis visionary to expect the concurrence of bigotry. Bigotry is un\u00c2\u00ac\\nchangeable. I care not whether it be Homan Catholic bigotry\\nor Protestant bigotry\u00e2\u0080\u0094its character is the same\u00e2\u0080\u0094its pursuits are\\nthe same. True to its aim, though besotted in its expectations\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0\u00e2\u0080\u0094steady to its purpose, though blind to its interests, for bigotry time\\nflows in vain. It is abandoned by the tides of knowledge\u00e2\u0080\u0094it is left", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0232.jp2"}, "233": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\n223\\nstrand 3 d by the waters of reason, and vainly worships the figures\\nimprinted on the sand, soon to be washed away. It is inaccessible to\\nreason\u00e2\u0080\u0094it is irreclaimable by experience.\\nTHE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\nMarch 16, 1821.\\nThe debate on the second reading was then gone into, and Plunket rose to ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nplain the bills:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nHe said it was not then his intention to trespass at any great\\nlength on the time of the house; indeed, after the indulgence\\nwhich he had so largely experienced on a former night, it would fur\u00c2\u00ac\\nnish but a bad specimen of taste to go a second time into a general\\nconsideration of the question. When he took the liberty of\\nopening his views on the question, he had described the measure\\nas having for its primary object a great end of public justice. He\\nhad expressed a hope that it would be favourably regarded by all\\nthose whose interests it was designed to promote; and he had re\u00c2\u00ac\\nceived great pleasure in finding, from all that had passed in the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry with which he was most nearly connected, that his hopes had been\\nmore than realized for he must take leave to say, that he never en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntertained the chimerical notion of being able to conciliate the appro\u00c2\u00ac\\nbation of all persons on such a subject. There were persons by whom\\nthat general satisfaction would be felt as a grievous calamity, who\\nprized the religious hostility which they bore to other Christian sects\\nand denominations as a valuable inheritance descended to them from\\ntheir ancestors, and which it was incumbent on thSm to leave as a\\nlegacy to their children. With such persons he Nvould not argue;\\nthey lived in a territory of their own, wholly inaccessible to any reason\u00c2\u00ac\\ning which he could employ. It was however some consolation to\\nknow that the measure, if carried, could not interrupt their happiness,\\nbut that they would rise the next morning in possession of as much\\ncomfort and security as they had ever before enjoyed, and as he hoped,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094for they were very worthy and respectable persons\u00e2\u0080\u0094they would\\nlong continue to enjoy. He must take that opportunity also of re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmarking, that he had never applied the term bigotry\u00e2\u0080\u009d to th\u00c2\u00a3 great\\nbody of Protestants with whom he had the misfortune to differ ou\\nthis subject. Nothing could be more foreign from his disposition;\\nand in truth, he felt the utmost degree of deference for sentiments,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0233.jp2"}, "234": {"fulltext": "224\\nplunket s speeches.\\nwhich, although they appeared to him to originate in prejudice and\\nerror, might be so regarded by him through his own prejudices and\\nerrors. Those errors, if they were such, he was ready to yield to the\\nforce of argument, and to a proof of actual danger arising to the es\u00c2\u00ac\\ntablishments so justly dear to us, from admitting the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics to share in the full advantages of the constitution.\\nIt had been his endeavour, and that of the distinguished indivi\u00c2\u00ac\\nduals who were associated with him in the preparation of this bill,\\nto proceed with the greatest caution, and to evince a deference tor\\nthe opinions of those classes to whom he was now alluding. Their\\nobject was not only to give security against danger, but to satisfy\\nevery reasonable apprehension. They had felt it to be their duty\\nalso to defer to the apprehensions and jealousies of the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics. It was their wish to reconcile both Protestants and Catholics,\\nby not yielding on the one hand what was necessary to the security\\nof the establishment, nor demanding on the other what must violate\\nthe religious scruples of the Roman Catholics. The present state of\\npublic affairs, and the state also of the public mind, seemed to him\\npeculiarly favourable to the success of this important measure. He\\nconsidered that the indifference and apathy spoken of by an honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable member, as characteristic of the public mind, proved only that\\nthe people willingly left the decision of this question to the wisdom\\nof their representatives. They were satisfied that nothing would be\\ndone by parliament to endanger the constitution, and they suppressed\\ntheir own feelings from their confidence in the legislature. The\\ntime, therefore, was most favourable to a full consideration of those\\nclaims which had been so often and hitherto so unsuccessfully urged\\non behalf of the Roman Catholics. Without furiher preamble, he\\nshould proceed to state the substance of the bill, endeavouring only\\nto set himself right with the house, as to what had fallen from him\\nin the former discussion. He had then asserted, that admission to\\nthe franchises and offices of the state was the right of every Roman\\nCatholic liege subject, and that exclusion from eligibility was incon\u00c2\u00ac\\nsistent with the first principles of the constitution. In the sense in\\nwhich he had stated, and in which alone he could be supposed to\\nhave stated it, he now re-asserted that proposition. The right of\\nthe Roman Catholic was precisely the same as that of the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant but he never was so absurd as to maintain that that right\\ncould not be controlled by the exigencies or necessities of the state. If\\never a clear case were made out to him of expediency arising from\\ndanger serious enough to countervail a general principle, he would\\nsay at once that the Roman Catholic must yield to the imperious", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0234.jp2"}, "235": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\n225\\nrule which that expediency would dictate. But whence did the Pro-\\ntestaut derive his claim to vote at elections, or to hold himself eligi\u00c2\u00ac\\nble to sit in parliament Not from any written law or charter that\\nhe had ever met with but from the first elements, from the essence\\nand the stamina of the constitution. The Roman Catholic complained\\nt hat since the reign of Charles the Second he had been subjected to\\ncertain disabilities. He did not deny the right of parliament to\\nimpose them, but stated that they were originally designed to be\\ntemporary, and were enacted in consequence of a suspicion that the\\nreigning monarch was not a Protestant. The Roman Catholic\\nadded, that those circumstances had gone by that there no longer\\nexisted any danger of a Popish king, or of a Popish successor.\\nTherefore, he submitted, as the danger had ceased, so ought the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nstrictions which that danger alone had justified. If the Protestant\\ncould show no overruling necessity for the exclusion of the Catholic,\\ncould he show any principle by which it was made an essential or\\nfundamental part of the constitution The Catholic denied it: he\\nchallenged discussion; he contended that such a proposition was at\\nwar with the first principles on which that constitution was founded.\\nHe was the more anxious to set himself right upon this point, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause he had been supposed to argue the case of the Protestant dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsenter, as well as of the Roman Catholic. But the truth was, that\\neach question stood on its own special grounds that of the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant dissenter was altogether distinct. As regarded the Roman\\nCatholic, it was a question of danger between letting him in and\\nshutting him out; but the situation of the dissenter was extremely\\ndifferent. Perhaps the house would allow him to explain the actual\\nstate of the Protestant dissenter in Ireland, as he believed the public\\nwas in general ignorant of it. The Protestant dissenter was not\\nthen subject to any test in Ireland, nor had he been for the last\\nforty years. An act passed in the year 1780 exempted him from\\nthe operation of the Test Act; the exclusion of the Roman Catholic\\ndid not, therefore, involve the Protestant dissenter. As he was now\\non this subject, he could wish to put the house in possession of a\\ncurious fact. The act of 1780 relieved the Protestants from the\\nsacramental test; the words were distinct and positive, that from\\nand after the passing of the act the Protestants should not be bound\\nby the sacramental test. In 1793, an act passed to relieve the\\nRoman Catholics t and it went on to state, that the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics should be subject to no other disqualification or disability in this\\nrespect than those to which the Protestants were liable. Some per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons, however, thought that the Protestants of the Established Church", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0235.jp2"}, "236": {"fulltext": "226\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwere not included, and that the act exempting from the sacramental\\ntest did not apply to them; and as some doubts and difficulties\\narose in consequence with regard to the Catholics, a statute passed\\nthe Irish House of Commons to explain the act of 1780, and to\\nexempt the Protestants of the Established Church. It was sent up\\nto the House of Lords, and there, on consulting the journals, it ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npeared that it had been read with unexampled celerity three times\\nin one day; that an amendment by the insertion of the simple word\\nnot was introduced, in fact negativing the whole object of the mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure and that being returned to the Commons, it passed in that\\nshape unanimously. Under the operation of the law thus explained,\\nthe Homan Catholic in Ireland was therefore still liable to the sacra\u00c2\u00ac\\nmental test. He had thought it right to put the house in possession\\nof this fact, to show how what had been meant here as a piece of\\njustice, grace, and favour to the Catholics was marred in Ireland,\\nby trick, artifice, and management.\\nHe would now proceed to state particularly the nature of the bill,\\nas framed by the committee on the resolutions of the house. The\\nbill for removing disqualifications comprised two distinct objects.\\nFirst, the disqualification by reason of the oath of supremacy; and\\nsecondly, the disqualification by reason of the declaration of tran-\\nsubstantiation. As to the last, he need not long occupy the time of\\nthe house for he had never heard any man, whether clerical or lay,\\ncontend for the propriety of that declaration it was justly consi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndered injurious to the best interests of Christianity, and incapable of\\naffording any real benefit or security. Though it contained several\\npoints besides transubstantiation, such as the invocation of saints and\\nthe sacrifice of the mass, yet it formed but a small portion of the\\nfaith of the Roman Catholics and if in the progress of investigation,\\nor in the course of time, those points were to be changed, there\\nwould still remain the doctriues of purgatory, the sacraments, and\\nauricular confession. It was also imperfect in this respect; for if\\nthe object were to exclude the Roman Catholics, it did not effect\\nthat object. A man might subscribe this declaration for his conve\u00c2\u00ac\\nnience, and yet continue a Papist; and therefore it was not the sort;\\nof security the house ought to have. A Roman Catholic might say,\\nI choose to sacrifice to my interest the strictness of my religion,\\nand become a member of parliament. If this were discovered, it\\nwould be the duty of the house to expel such an individual. And\\nwhy Because he had sacrificed his religion, because he had com\u00c2\u00ac\\nplied with the strictness of the penal laws of the Protestants, which\\ntempted men to set the desire ot the honours of the state above the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0236.jp2"}, "237": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS. 227\\nclear dictates of conscience. On this account he stated, that the law\\ncarried on the face of it the marks of haste and imperfection.\\nHe would now pass without further remark to that part of the bill\\nthat related to the oath of supremacy. It had struck him to-night\\nwith some degree of surprise to find that the right rev. gentleman\\nwho presided over the Catholics in the midland district of this\\ncountry had taken upon himself to say that the explanation or mo\u00c2\u00ac\\ndification of the oath of supremacy in the intended bill was inconsis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntent with the doctrines of the Roman Catholics; because, if any\\npoint could be established by undeniable documents anterior to the\\nReformation itself, it was, that the condition of the complete and\\nabsolute dominion of the king of these realms, as to all civil and\\nreligious rights, was perfectly reconcileable with the doctrines of\\nCatholicism. He would state one or two facts upon this subject.\\nBefore the Reformation, the great body of the acts was passed by a\\nRoman Catholic parliament, and the exclusion of the see of Rome\\nfrom interfering with the political concerns of the kingdom was per\u00c2\u00ac\\nfect before one of the doctrines was changed in it. In the time of\\nHenry VIII., any one who would have been hanged as a traitor for\\ndecrying the authority of the king would have been burned as a\\nheretic for impugning the doctrine of transubstantiation. When the\\nstatute of Philip and Mary, which restored all the Roman Catholic\\ndoctrines, passed, it contained in itself an express saving of all the\\nacts prior to the 28th Henry VIII. He next caute to the proceed\u00c2\u00ac\\nings of Queen Elizabeth and he had already noticed her admoni\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion published at the beginning of her reign, and the accompanying\\nadmonition and injunction afterwards incorporated in the act passed\\nin her fifth year. He begged to recal the attention of the house to\\ntne precise words of the queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s admonition they were these:\u00e2\u0080\u0094*\\nFor certainly her majesty neither doth nor ever will challenge any\\nauthority other than that was challenged and lately used by the said\\nnoble kings of famous memory, King Henry VIII. and King Edward\\nVI., which is and was of ancient time due to the imperial crown of\\nthis realm that is, under God, to have the sovereignty and rule\\nover all manner of persons born within these her realms, dominions,\\nand countries, of what estate, either ecclesiastical or civil, soever\\nthey be; so as no other foreign power shall or ought to have any\\nsuperiority over them. And if any person that hath conceived any\\nother sense of the said oath shall accept the same oath with this in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterpretation, sense, and meaning, her majesty is well pleased to\\naccept every such in that behalf as her good and obedient subjects,\\nand shall acquit them of all manner of penalties contained in the said", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0237.jp2"}, "238": {"fulltext": "228\\nPLUNKETS speeches.\\nact against such as shall peremptorily and obstinately refuse to take\\nthe same oath.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Thus, what the vicar of the midland district denied\\nwas expressly stated. The honourable gentleman, in further con\u00c2\u00ac\\nfirmation, read the opinion and explanation given by Bishop Burnet\\nupon the subject, which showed the policy of the queen, and the\\nobstacles that stood in the way of what she desired to accomplish.\\nThe only other point on which he would trouble the house was that\\nof supremacy, which was fully explained in the 37th article of our\\nchurch The king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s majesty hath the chief power in this realm\\nof England and other his dominions unto whom the chief govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or\\ncivil, in all causes doth appertain; and is not, nor ought to be, sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject to any foreign jurisdiction.\u00e2\u0080\u009d There was not a word in the whole\\nof it which the Catholics were not ready to adopt. It proceeded:\\nWhere we attribute to the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s majesty the chief government,\\nby which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to\\nbe offended, we give not to our princes the ministering either of\\nGod\u00e2\u0080\u0099s word or of the sacraments the which things the injunctions\\nalso lately set forth by Elizabeth our queen do most plainly testify;\\nbut that only prerogative which we see to have been given alw ays\\nto all godly princes in Holy Scriptures by God himself\u00e2\u0080\u0094that is,\\nthat they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge\\nby God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with\\nthe civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Such were the terms\\nof the articles\u00e2\u0080\u0094such the terms of the admonition\u00e2\u0080\u0094and such the\\nterms of the act of parliament in which it was incorporated; and\\nafter all this, it was really too much to say, that in putting this in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterpretation on the word, the framers of the bill were at war with\\nthe principles of the Reformation.\\nHe now begged permission to read the terms in which the ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nplanation of this oath had been framed in the bill upon the table.\\nThey were the following\\nAnd whereas by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great\\nBritain and Ireland, the oaths of abjuration, allegiance, and supre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmacy, therein provided, are required to be taken for certain purposes\\ntherein mentioned; and the said oath of supremacy is expressed in\\nthe following terms:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u0098 I, A.B., do swear, that I do from my heart\\ndetest and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine\\nand position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope,\\nor any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered\\nby their subjects or any other whatsoever; and I do declare that no\\nforeign prince, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0238.jp2"}, "239": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC bills.\\n229\\njurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority ecclesias\u00c2\u00ac\\ntical or spiritual within this realm. So help me God/\\nAnd whereas his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Roman Catholic subjects in Great\\nBritain and Ireland have been at all times ready and desirous to\\ntake the said oath of allegiance in common with his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s other\\nsubjects, but entertain scruples with respect to taking the oath of\\nsupremacy, so far as the same might be construed to import a dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaimer of the spiritual authority of the Pope or Church of Rome in\\nmatters of religious belief.\\n44 And whereas it appears from the admonition annexed to the\\ninjunctions of her majesty Queen Elizabeth, published in the first year\\nof her majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reign, and sanctioned by the act passed in the fifth\\nyear of her reign, entitled, 4 An act for the assurance of the queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nregal powers over all estates and subjects within her dominions,\u00e2\u0080\u0099 that\\nsuch disclaimer was originally meant only to extend to any such ac\u00c2\u00ac\\nknowledgment of foreign jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-emi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnence, or authority as is or could be incompatible with the civil duty\\nand allegiance which is due to his majesty and successors from all\\nhis subjects.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nHere he proposed to introduce an amendment by the insertion of\\nthe following words 44 or with the civil duty and obedience which\\nare due to his courts, civil and ecclesiastical, in all matters affecting\\nthe legal rights of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He had added these\\nwords to meet the doubts aud accommodate the fears of all parties.\\nNeither he nor the honourable friends whose assistance he had had\\nin framing the bill, were tenacious of words. All he entreated was\\nthis\u00e2\u0080\u0094that no gentleman would look at this bill with the eye of a\\nmetaphysician, a casuist, or a critic; but with the plain good sense\\nthat the subject demanded, in order to see whether the distinction\\nwas not plainly marked between what was merely conscientious and\\nwhat was an interference with the rights and powers of the king.\\nComing to the clause relating to the declaration against transubstan-\\ntion, he proposed to strike out the words 44 and may therefore pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nperly and safely be abrogated,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and insert the following\u00e2\u0080\u0094 44 as a\\nqualification to enable his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects to take, hold, or enjoy\\nany civil right, office, or franchise.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The house was aware that by\\nthe disabling code, the Catholics were shut out from the inheritance\\nof landed property, but certain relaxing statutes removed the disa\u00c2\u00ac\\nbility on the taking of the prescribed oaths of abjuration, allegiance,\\nand supremacy. If the words as they now stood were adopted, they\\ncould succeed without any such oaths; and if he were to act accord\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to his own views, he should abolish all distinctions between the\\nt", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0239.jp2"}, "240": {"fulltext": "230\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nCatholics and Protestants, but still he thought that so important a\\nchange of the law ought not to be effected indirectly. He did not\\nknow that all the Roman Catholics would adopt the construction put\\nin the bill upon the oath of supremacy; the greater number were\\nunquestionably ready to do so, but he could not answer for the scru\u00c2\u00ac\\npulousness of some nice consciences. A few might complain that they\\nhad received an injury from this bill\u00e2\u0080\u0094that at present they could suc\u00c2\u00ac\\nceed to landed property on taking certain oaths, with a certain inter\u00c2\u00ac\\npretation which they could allow; but that their conscience would\\nnot permit them to take the oaths with the interpretation now an\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexed. To avoid this objection, he had framed a separate clause\\nwhich gave the Roman Catholic the opportunity, at the time the oaths\\nwere administered, of stating the interpretation he gave to the oath\\nof supremacy. It appeared to him most desirable that there should\\nbe no division or separation of oaths nothing to make the Catholic\\nseparate or distinct from the Protestant, but that as much uniformity\\nas possible should be introduced. It might be desirable not to part\\nwith oaths, to the continuance of which the great body of the Catholics\\nhad no objection. With reference to this part of the subject, he must\\nsay that he thought the oath a question of theoretical discussion. It\\ncould be considered and discussed in the committee, and it would be\\nvery easy, if then there should appear an imperative necessity for\\ncontinuing this oath, to engraft it upon the bill.\\nHaving stated what was the general scope of his bill, he now\\ncame to the exceptions which it contained. It provided, in the way\\nof exception, as follows That nothing herein contained shall\\nextend, or be construed to extend, to enable any person, being a\\nRoman Catholic, to hold and enjoy the office of lord high chancellor,\\nlord keeper, or lord commissioner of the great seal of Great Britain,\\nor of lord lieutenant or lord deputy, or other the chief governor or\\ngovernors of Ireland.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The exceptions in the bill went no farther\\nthan these offices. It would be open for any honourable member\\nto propose other exceptions if he thought proper; but the reason he\\nfelt these enough was, because he was quite satisfied with the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\npriety of admitting the Catholics to possess eligibility to all other\\noffices. These offices were essentially vested in the choice of the\\ncrown, and he saw little necessity for apprehending that the\\nCatholics would ever look up to them. He was aware that a right\\nhonourable gentleman opposite (Sir W. Scott), and others who\\nthought with him, were decidedly hostile to admitting Catholics to\\nan eligibility to seats upon the bench. He felt peculiar respect for\\nthose who conscientiously differed from him, but he really thought\\nt", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0240.jp2"}, "241": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\n231\\nthe right honourable gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s argument in support of his objec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion quite insufficient. The right honourable gentleman candidly\\nadmitted that, if Catholics were elevated to the bench, he did not\\nmean\u00c2\u00abfo insinuate that, in their general administration of justice,\\nthey would act unbecomingly but his apprehension was, that if a\\nquestion arose upon any subject connected with religious feeling be\u00c2\u00ac\\ntween a Protestant and a Catholic, the Catholic judge must neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsarily lean to the interest of his own religious persuasion, and against\\nthat of the Protestant. He begged the right honourable gentleman\\nto consider the consequences of his argument, and to what a danger\u00c2\u00ac\\nous extent it might be carried. If the Protestant were justified in\\nraising this inference on account of the naturally religious partiality\\nof the judge, what must be the feeling of the Catholic when his\\nrights are at stake, from the Protestaut judge sitting alone, without\\nthe assistance of a judge of another religious community But this\\ninference could never be maintained the apprehension was perfectly\\ngroundless. Away with such unworthy distrust! It went at once\\nto dash the cup ot conciliation from the lips of the Catholic, and to\\nbereave him of his just hopes. He was satisfied no Catholic had\\nthe least idea that he did not receive the fullest justice from the\\njudges on the bench. The Catholics had the most perfect confidence\\nin them and he entreated that Protestants would view with the\\nsame just and liberal feeling the acts of their Catholic fellow-sub\u00c2\u00ac\\njects in whatever situation they might happen to be placed. With\\nrespect to the two universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the bill\\nprovided that all their existing institutions should remain in exactly\\nthe same situation in which they stood at present. The test laws\\nwere left as they stood, and liable only to the operation of the annual\\nindemnity bill.\\nHe would now come to the second bill, the title of which was,\\nTo regulate the intercourse between persons in holy orders, pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfessing the Roman Catholic religion, with the see of Rome.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It set\\nout with stating, that it is fit to regulate the intercourse and corres\u00c2\u00ac\\npondence between the subjects of this realm and the see of Rome.\\nIt states that, whereas it is expedient that such precautions should\\nbe taken in respect to persons in holy orders professing the R man\\nCatholic religion, who may at any time hereafter be elected, nomi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties,\\nor functions of a dean, in the said church, within any part of the\\nUnited Kingdom, as that no such person shall at any time hereafter\\nassume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions\\nwithin the United Kingdom, or any part thereof, whose loyalty and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0241.jp2"}, "242": {"fulltext": "232\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\npeaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascertained to the\\nsatisfaction of his majesty, his heirs, or successors.\u00e2\u0080\u009d On the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject of the intercourse between the Catholic clergy and the see of\\nHome, he was entitled to assert that it had long been carried on\\nmerely for spiritual purposes, and that in no single instance was it\\nfound to have been carried on for any factious or party purposes.\\nWith respect to the appointment of the Roman Catholic bishops by\\nthe Pope, the nomination was formally made in that manner, but to\\nall intents and purposes not practically. In no instance did the\\nPope, in point of fact, practically exercise this right: so that in\\nmaking any provision respecting the appointment of the Catholic\\nbishops by the Pope, he was providing a theoretical remedy against a\\ntheoretical danger. Although there was no practical evil to be guarded\\nagainst, there was yet that sort of apprehension upon which the\\nProtestant mind had a right to be satisfied. As to the actual nomi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation of the Catholic bishops in Ireland, there had been a series of\\ndisputes and a variety of claims. It was first among the Catholics\\ncontended, that the bishops of the province should elect one to fill\\nthe vacant see then, that the dean and chapter should; and, lastly,\\nthe parish priests put in a claim to the right of election. But, in\\nall these instances, the nomination by the Pope was practically ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncluded. The Pope had, therefore, practically as little to do with\\noriginating the nomination of the Catholic bishops in Ireland as he\\nhad with the nomination of the Protestant bishops in England.\\nBut to give satisfaction to particular scruples, he had introduced this\\nproviso into his bill, however practically unnecessary and it stipu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated that an oath in the following terms should be taken by every\\nRoman Catholic individual who was initiated as a clergyman into\\nholy orders, for the purpose of satisfying the state that their inter\u00c2\u00ac\\ncourse with the see of Rome should be confined exclusively to eccle\u00c2\u00ac\\nsiastical matters. The proposed oath was as follows\\nI, A. B., do swear that I will never concur in or consent to the\\nappointment or consecration of any Roman Catholic bishop, or dean,\\nor vicar apostolic, in the Roman CatholiG church in the United King\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom, but such as I shall conscientiously deem to be of unimpeachable\\nloyalty and peaceable conduct; and I do swear that I have not and\\nwill not have any correspondence or communication with the Pope\\nor see of Rome, or with any court or tribunal established or to be\\nestablished by the Pope or see of Rome, or by the authority of the\\nsame, or with any person or persons authorized or pretending to be\\nauthorized by the Pope or see of Rome, tending directly or indirectly\\nto overthrow or disturb the Protestant government, or the Protestant", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0242.jp2"}, "243": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\n233\\nchurch of Great Britain and Ireland, or the Protestant church of\\nScotland, as by law established and that I will not correspond or\\ncommunicate with the Pope or see of Rome, or with any tribunal\\nestablished or to be established by the Pope or see of Rome, or by\\nthe authority of the same, or with any person or persons authorized\\nor pretending to be authorized by the Pope or see of Rome, or with\\nany other foreign ecclesiastical authority, on any matter or thing\\nwhich may interfere with or affect the civil duty and allegiance which\\nis due to his majesty, his heirs, and successors, from all his subjects.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nHe would not say that this bill was likely to receive the unquali\u00c2\u00ac\\nfied assent of the Roman Catholics at large: that it would be at once\\nreceived as a popular or favourable measure but he did think and\\nexpect that it would be gratefully received by the great majority of\\nthe Catholic clergy and laity. He begged to assure the right ho\u00c2\u00ac\\nnourable gentleman (Mr. Peel) that if he referred to the resolutions\\nof the Catholic clergy in 1813, as indicative of their permanent opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnion or wishes upon the subject of a legislative measure for their re\u00c2\u00ac\\nlief, he greatly deceived himself. Their declaration in 1813 was not\\nthat the bishops would not give the crown a voice in the nomination\\nof their body, but that they could not then grant it without incurring\\nschism, until they received the consent of the Pope. So far only\\nwent the resolutions of the Catholic prelates in 1813. The case\\nwas altered since; for the Catholic clergy of Ireland had had an\\nopportunity of communicating upon the subject with the Pope, who\\nhad given his consent to the arrangement, and had declared that he\\nsaw nothing in it inconsistent with the principles of his church. The\\nCatholic prelates had received this opinion of the Pope they had\\npronounced no expression of disapprobation thereon. The right\\nhonourable gentleman did not put the point fairly, when he declared\\nthat he wanted the bishops\u00e2\u0080\u0099 approval of the bill of 1813. To expect\\nthis public expression of approbation was neither just to the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic clergy nor respectful to the legislature. Was it right that the\\nlegislature, before it enacted a measure which it conceived founded\\nin justice and necessity, should canvass about for the opinions of\\nparticular individuals upon the specific measure If any measure\\nwere in it3 accomplishment calculated to sow discord among a large\\nportion of the people, it would be wrong to press it. But, was it\\nright to call upou the bishops, in the first instance, for a public\\navowal of their sentiments, where no reason existed for supposing that\\nthey entertained a contrary opinion It hud been said that although\\nthe Pope was desirous for the veto, the great majority of Catholics\\nwere against it, Tnis certainly showed how groundless were the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0243.jp2"}, "244": {"fulltext": "234\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nfears of those who apprehended so much mischief from the direct\\ninfluence of the Pope upon the Catholics; for they, it seemed, were\\ngenerally determined to have an opinion of their own, notwithstand\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the power of the Pope. For his own part he believed the mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure would be very palatable, and that the people would gladly receive\\nwhat parliament was, he trusted, disposed liberally to grant. When\\nthe measure was before parliament, he had expressed his opinion in\\nfavour of domestic nomination. But in framing the bill he knew not\\nhow to arrange it for domestic nomination; for he could not find that\\nthe Catholics had any definitively fixed system of domestic nomina\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion among themseives. It was therefore impossible to fix one upon\\nthem without unjustifiably obtruding upon them laws for the internal\\nregulation of their own ecclesiastical regulations.\\nHe owed it also to the house to state the reason why he did not,\\nas in the bill of 1813, consolidate the ecclesiastical and civil arrange\u00c2\u00ac\\nments of the question, and why he preferred that they should be kept\\ndistinct, and made the subject of two specific bills. The one bill did not\\nnecessarily arise out of the other, as cause and effect; for the Catholic\\nlayman was entitled to his civil rights, without any connexion with the\\necclesiastical rules of his communion. When he drew this distinction\\nhe admitted the propriety of their legislating upon both points at the\\nsame time. They were now, he hoped, going to put his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nRoman Catholics upon the same footing as the rest of the people,\\nand to put an end for ever to these impolitic and jealous distinctions.\\nWhen performing this great work he thought it expedient to embrace\\nthe whole of the question in one comprehensive view, and to legis\u00c2\u00ac\\nlate for it at once. They were, in doing so, justified in guarding\\nagainst the possible abuse of the control of a foreign potentate over\\na clergy in the dominions of another sovereign who had naturally\\nconsiderable influence over the subjects of that prince. He still\\nthought it right that the ecclesiastical parts of the measure should be\\nseparated from those which were purely belonging to the laity. He\\nhad also another reason. The clergy might feel disposed to assist\\nin carrying the ecclesiastical arrangements into effect, and yet might\\nnot wish to do so at the actual time when the particular question of\\nthe laity was at issue :\u00e2\u0080\u0094that is, they might have some delicacy in\\nseeing the two matters mixed up together, lest the one should appear\\nlike a compromise or a barter for the other. When he stated this\\nnecessity for keeping the bills separate, he claimed credit from the\\nhouse when he said, that both he and the gentlemen who had assisted\\nhim in preparing the bill were perfectly ready to admit that, if the\\nfirst bill were passed, the second must go on. Indeed, if the first", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0244.jp2"}, "245": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\n235\\nbill went in its present shape through a committee, he was ready to\\nsay that there might arise no objection to the consolidation of the\\ntwo bills in the committee. Of course he made this observation\\nwith reference to tbe event of the main principles of the first bill\\nbeing adopted. The bill he proposed consisted of various parts;\\nit might have been granted in toto or in part. It might be either\\nin a small or in a great part conceded. If only in a trifling part\\n(which he could not possibly anticipate), the concession might not\\njustify them in calling upon the Catholics for these ecclesiastical\\narrangements. A case might arise\u00e2\u0080\u0094he hoped it was very unlikely\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthat the first bill should pass in such a shape as to be stripped of those\\ninducements upon which the concessions were grounded and justified.\\nSuppose, for instance, the house should decide upon merely granting\\ntbe English Catholics the same privileges which the Irish had long\\nenjoyed, that concession to the English would be no boon to the Irish\\nCatholic, and would not justify the legislature in exacting conditions\\nfrom him, where it conferred no advantage. The Irish Catholic\\nwould gain nothing by the alteration, and ought certainly, in such\\nau event, not to be called upon for any alteration of ecclesiastical\\narrangements. It was therefore desirable that the house should, in\\ntiie first instance, proceed with two bills, and when in the committee\\nit would be time enough to consider how far it would be proper to\\nconsolidate their principles.\\nAn honourable gentleman (Mr. Croker) had suggested that it would\\nbe right to propose a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. He\\ncould not concur with the honourable gentleman in the expediency\\nof pressing his suggestion at the present moment. When the prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples of the present bills were admitted and acted upon, then such a\\nsuggestion might be made with propriety, and, he doubted not, with\\nsuccess. The present time was, however, quite unsuitable for its intro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduction. The clergy would look at it as if it were a treaty into which\\ntiiey were called upon to enter as a condition for securing to the laity\\ntheir civil rights. Indeed, he doubted the competency of any mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber to bring it forward without the concurrence of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvisers. The moment was favourable for enabling the crown to derive\\nwhatever popularity might attach from a boon to the clergy. When\\nQueen- Elizabeth manifested a desire to extend the liberality of her\\ntoleration, she was thwarted by the foreign measures in which she\\nwas compelled to embark. Such was the state of things up to the\\ntime of the revolution; and, unfortunately, after that event, the\\nmeasures of the Pretender continued to assume such a character, as\\nprevented liberal sovereigns from acting upon their own feelings to-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0245.jp2"}, "246": {"fulltext": "236\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwards the Catholics. Ireland during the same length of time was\\nstill more unfavourably circumstanced; for, before the Euglish pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsessed Ireland, a pure religion, considering the state of the times,\\nwas professed in that country, and Popery was introduced there by\\nthe English, and made to supplant the form of religion which had\\npreceded it. Ireland, he repeated, became essentially Popish by the\\nact and effort of England. It was not till the revolution that the\\nCatholics of Ireland were in a settled state in the country. In Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland there have been two rebellions and one insurrection since that\\nperiod, and yet the Catholics of Ireland have been uniformly tranquil;\\nand upon that proof of their allegiance they ground their claim for\\na removal of those disabilities which are now prolonged against\\nthem. It is the uniform tenor of this conduct which justifies the\\nproviso of the bill.\\nCan the rebellion in 1798 justly be called a Catholic one? Did\\nit not originate among Protestants Were not the leaders in it\\nProtestants? Was it not commenced amongst the Protestant popu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlation of the north of Ireland, while, at the same time, the Catholic\\npopulation of the south of Ireland remained tranquil Did it not\\nappear, that when the French invasion took place in 1796, there\\nwas not a single rebellious organization of men in the whole southern\\npopulation, from Dublin to Cork Not a single Catholic in that\\nextensive province It was the uniform tenor of this conduct which\\njustified the recital in the bill which he had brought into the house\u00e2\u0080\u0094t\\nthat after the due consideration of the situation, dispositions, and\\nconduct of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Roman Catholic subjects, it appeared just\\nand fitting to communicate to them the full enjoyment of the bene\u00c2\u00ac\\nfits and advantages of the constitution and government happily\\nestablished in this United Kingdomthus putting an end to reli\u00c2\u00ac\\ngious jealousies, consolidating the union between Great Britain and\\nIreland, and uniting and knitting together the hearts of all his ma\u00c2\u00ac\\njesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects in one and the same interest, for the support of his\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s person, family, crown, and government, and for the de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfence of their common rights and liberties.\\nI have now trespassed longer upon the time of the house than\\nI had at first intended, in submitting to them the details of\\nthe two bills. I implore the house to adopt them; to conci\u00c2\u00ac\\nliate that kind-hearted, enthusiastic, and loyal people; to enable\\nthe throne, at the moment when happily it might do so with\\nsafety and advantage to the state, to confer the high and\\ngenerous privileges, which belonged to the free subjects of a free\\ngovernment, upon the Roman Catholics of this realm\u00e2\u0080\u0094to en-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0246.jp2"}, "247": {"fulltext": "THE CATHOLIC BILLS.\\n237\\nable the monarch to enjoy the highest gratification of which his en\u00c2\u00ac\\nlightened mind can be susceptible; namely\u00e2\u0080\u0094the gratification of\\nseeing the hearts of his subjects throb with gratitude for his gracious\\nacts, and approach his throne ready to shed the last drop of their\\nblood, and to spend the last shilling of their treasure,, in support of\\nthose laws and that constitution, in the whole benefits of which they\\nwere now allowed to participate.\\nHe then moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Roman\\nCatholic Disabilities Removal Bill, and the speaker put the question that,\\nthe bill be now read a second time.\u00e2\u0080\u009d After a short silence, Mr. Bankes\\nopposed the motion by a long, a temperate, and an argumentative speech: his\\nobjections to it were, that it would not satisfy the Catholics, and would endan\u00c2\u00ac\\nger the Protestant ascendancy. Mr. Wilberforce replied to him.\\nOf those who advocated the bill in this stage of it,\u00e2\u0080\u009d says Charles Butler,\\nthe voice of none was more grateful to the Catholics, or heard by the house\\nwith greater attention and respect, than that of Mr. Wilberforce. The high\\nopinion entertained universally of his ability, integrity, and beneficence, and\\nthe reputation which he has deservedly acquired by his successful exertions for\\nthe abolition of the slave trade\u00e2\u0080\u0094the greatest triumph obtained in our times in\\nthe cause of humanity\u00e2\u0080\u0094have endeared him to the public, and rendered his\\npatronage of any cause of incalculable value. His mild and persuasive elo\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence was exerted in this, as it is on every other occasion in behalf of the\\naggrieved. \u00e2\u0080\u0098When I see, 7 said this excellent person, Roman Catholics pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsessed of intelligence, rank, and property, how can I but wish to see them fur\u00c2\u00ac\\nnished with the means of using that intelligence, holding that rank, and enjoy\u00c2\u00ac\\ning that property, in a manner which, wdiile it best conduces to their own hap\u00c2\u00ac\\npiness, will most contribute to the welfare of their country. Their disabilities\\nare the relics of a long course of oppression. They are not restrictions they\\nare a degradation to continue them is making them wear a prison-suit, after\\nthey are left to go at large. Is it in the order of things, is it reasonably to be\\nanticipated,, that a great, a high-minded, a gallant people, when treated with\\nkindness, should not feel, should not be sensible of that kindness?\u00e2\u0080\u0094should not\\nbe grateful for it?_should not serve with fidelity and zeal those from whom\\nthey had received it Mr. Wilberforce concluded by stating, that with what\u00c2\u00ac\\never apprehension he approached the subject, a feeling with which, from his\\nsense of its importance, he was deeply impressed, a feeling which, from his\\nheart, he did certainly entertain ;\u00e2\u0080\u0094(for there were many who knew with what\\ntenderness and caution he had at length come to a conclusion, which was some\u00c2\u00ac\\nwhat in contrariety to that which he had formerly entertained on the matter),\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nvet, after hearing much, and reflecting much, he then thought that the object\\nof the motion before the house was calculated to ensure the ultimate security of\\n2 he country.\u00e2\u0080\u0099 This explicit declaration in favour of the bill, by a niember so\\ngreatly loved and venerated, could not but recommend it to every part of the\\nhouse.\\nMr. Wilberforce was followed by Mr. Bragge Bathurst, who moved, as an\\namendment, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months\\nIbis Sir James Mackintosh opposed in a speech, not of much length, but of\\ngreat power. Mr. Peel followed him. He admitted that excluding Catholics\\nfrom high office and power was both an evil to them and an evil to the state f\\n9", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0247.jp2"}, "248": {"fulltext": "238\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nbut contended that doing away the exclusion would be a greater evil than con*\\ntinuing it. Mr. Canning replied to Mr. Peel, and the house finally divided\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nfor the original question, 254 against it, 243: so that there was a majority of\\n11 for the second reading of the bill.\\nTHE STATE OF IRELAND.\\nApril 22, 1822.\\nThis session again, Sir John Newport brought forward a motion to inquire into\\nthe state of Ireland, in a speech manly, vivid, and statesmanlike. The historian\\nof this period will find no documents that throw such light upon the condition\\nof the Irish people as the speeches of this model Irish member. The reader will\\nremember that Plunket suported his former motion on the subject, and Sir John\\nearly expressed his regret that on this occasion the motion would no longer be\\nbenefitted by his right honourable and learned friend\u00e2\u0080\u0099s assistance. Plunket\\nspoke late in the debate, and shortly after a bigoted rigmarole from Master\\nEllis, of the Court of Chancery, the successful rival of young Henry Grattan for\\nthe representation of Dublin:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nMr. Plunket said, Ire would not at that late hour trespass long on\\nthe time of the house, and iu a few remarks he had to make on the\\nmotion of his right honourable friend, he should confine himself strictly\\nto the main question. The house might feel assured that it was far\\nfrom his intention to follow the honourable and learned gentleman\\nwho spoke last, through the details of his disgusting attack upon the\\npopulation of that country which had returned him to parliament.\\nHe owned, that when the honourable and learned member was first\\nabout to desert the duty which belonged to him in the Irish court of\\nchancery, in order that he might devote his attention to parliamen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntary duties, he (Mr. P.) felt very great regret; but he now withdrew\\nfrom the bottom of his heart, every regret on that account, and re\u00c2\u00ac\\njoiced that the honourable and learned gentleman had had an oppor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntunity of displaying to the British parliament, and in the face of the\\nwhole country, the tone, and temper, and manner, which had long\\ndistinguished the treatment received by the great body of the people\\nof Ireland from those who ought to be the advocates of their rights.\\nIt was often asked, in a tone of triumph, by the enemies of the\\nCatholics, \u00e2\u0080\u009cWhy are you not satisfied with the boon granted to you?\\nWhy are you not content with the concessions you have received\\nDie reason was, because concession had been followed in every stage,\\nby the curse and malediction of those bigots, whose prejudices neither\\nime nor ..circumstances could remove\u00e2\u0080\u0094who, like au unwholesonw", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0248.jp2"}, "249": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OF IRELAND.\\n239\\nblight, like a destructive mildew, intercepted every ray of royal\\nfavour, or of legislative beneficence. He was free from alarm as to\\nany argument which the honourable and learned gentleman might\\nplease to bring forward, but argument he adduced not. The honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable aud learned gentleman relied upon what he denominated facts i\\nAnd those facts would, in all probability, produce a very different\\neffect from that which the honourable and learned gentleman had\\nanticipated. The honourable and learned gentleman had spoken of\\ntransactions with respect to the disturbances that now prevailed in\\nIreland, and he (Mr. P.) must say, as he had been an eye-witness of\\nthose transactions, that if any part of the statements of the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable and learned gentleman were literally true, in spirit and in appli\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation to the question they were totally and absolutely false. The\\ntruth was, that the insurrectionary movements in Ireland were con\u00c2\u00ac\\nfined entirely to certain districts of the south. Limerick, Cork,\\nKerry, and a part of Tipperary, were in a state of disturbance. The\\nentire population, speaking of the lower classes of the people in those\\ndistricts, were Roman Catholics. It was a well-known fact that the\\ndisturbances were confined to the lower orders, and did not extend\\nbeyond them but, overlooking this fact, the honourable and learned\\ngentleman had traced the disturbances to a religious feeling\u00e2\u0080\u0094those\\nwho were engaged in them being the dregs of the people, and all the\\nlower classes professing the Catholic faith. The object of those in\u00c2\u00ac\\nsurrectionary movements was, in fact, to level the property of the\\ncountry; and, in the pursuit of that object, the unfortunate persons\\nwho were engaged in this design directed their efforts against both\\nProtestants and Roman Catholics. The respectable Catholics were\\nas much exposed as the Protestants to their depredations, and they\\nexerted themselves with the same zeal and energy in repressing those\\ndisturbances, as the members of the Established Church did. When,\\nas public prosecutor, the painful task of bringing* some of those mis\u00c2\u00ac\\nguided men to punishment devolved on him, the direction he gave to\\nthe persons who were to empannel the juries was, that no distinction\\nshould be made, in admitting Protestants and Roman Catholics to\\nserve on those juries. They were indiscriminately empannelled; and\\nit could not be asserted\u00e2\u0080\u0094it could not be suspected\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the Roman\\nCatholics did not perform their duty in every instance. These were\\nfacts which he positively knew. With respect to the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic clergy, he would affirm, that from the highest dignitary of the\\nchurch to the lowest parish priest, they exerted themselves zealously\\nand energetically, aud honestly, to put down the spirit of insubordi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation. It was not merely a tormal discharge of their duty\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0249.jp2"}, "250": {"fulltext": "240 plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nnot merely making declarations from the altar, which as the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable and learned gentleman had said, might be true or untrue\u00e2\u0080\u0094might\\nbe sincere or hypocritical\u00e2\u0080\u0094no, it was an active interference and he\\nwould assert, that if the lives, if the eternal happiness of the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic clergy depended on their exertions, they could not do more to put\\nan end to those disturbances than they had done. If these men,\\ninstead of being zealous opponents of the discontented, had remained\\nneutral, and still more, if, as had been insinuated, they had counte\u00c2\u00ac\\nnanced this\u00e2\u0080\u0094he would not call it contemptible conspiracy, because,\\nif not put down in time, it might assume a form that would require\\nthe whole strength of the country to subdue it\u00e2\u0080\u0094if these men had\\nproceeded in a different course from that which they had promptly\\nadopted, would not the danger have been infinitely more terrific\\nThe honourable and learned gentleman told them that his great mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure was to put down every symptom of insubordination by force,\\nwithout inquiring into the cause in which it had originated. The\\nhonourable and learned gentleman would employ 50,000 or 100,000\\nmen to effect this object. He (Mr. P.) would indeed have been sur\u00c2\u00ac\\nprised if such a doctrine had not been marked by the indignation of\\nthe house. For if such a principle were once adopted, the two coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntries would be opposed to each other in endless hostility.\\nHe begged pardon for having been led away from the considera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the immediate motion before the house, by the observations of\\nthe honourable and learned gentleman, which had already been suffi\u00c2\u00ac\\nciently answered, by the effect they had produced in the mind of\\nevery person who had heard him on both sides of the house. Thefe\\nwas one particular transaction, however, which had been mentioned\\nby the honourable and learned gentleman, and in which he (Mr. P.)\\nwas personally concerned, to which he must shortly advert. The\\nRoman Catholic priesthood had undoubtedly an opportunity of ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nerting a most powerful influence on the minds of their flocks; but\\ntheir influence in restraining their flocks from the perpetration of\\ncrime must depend on their power of preserving the confidence of\\ntheir flocks. It had been well observed by an eminent historian, Dr.\\nRobertson, that the influence of the priesthood was most strong\\nwhen united with the discontented portion of the population; but\\nthat when allied with the government, their influence over the mind?\\nof their flocks was proportionally diminished. Subject to this draw*\\nback, their influence was undoubtedly strong in restraining from\\nthe commission of crime but if, instead of exerting their influence\\nas clergymen, they came forward as witnesses in cases of imputed\\ncrime, thev would lose the confidence of their flocks, and the govern-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0250.jp2"}, "251": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OF IRELAND.\\n241\\nmenfc would consequently lose all the advantages which it now derived\\nfrom their influence and interference in the prevention of outrages,\\nin the transaction to which the honourable and learned member had\\nalluded, the priest had rescued the unfortunate man from the crowd\\nby which he was surrounded, at the extreme hazard of his own\\nperson, and had succeeded in conveying him to a place of safety.\\nAfter this the party returned, seized upon the priest, and threatened\\nhim with the loss of life if he did not immediately deliver the man\\ninto their hands, declaring at the same time that he should receive\\nno injury. The unfortunate man was delivered up, and after an\\ninterval of half an hour he was put to death. The priest did not\\nknow the persons who actually perpetrated the murder: he did not\\neven believe that those who were apprehended were the most guilty\\nindividuals. Hh knew, it was true, some of the faces of those who\\ncomposed the numerous crowd and, though lie did not think that\\nthose whom he knew, were the individuals who had actually imbrued\\ntheir hands in blood, he was aware that, composing part of a multi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntude who had committed murder, they were considered as having\\njoined in the deed, and were liable to be executed as murderers.\\nThe priest, therefore, refused to give evidence, or to disclose the\\nnames of those who were present. He (Mr. P.) was willing to\\nadmit that a Catholic clergyman could, no more than a Protestant,\\nconceal a crime, and that this priest was therefore liable for the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsequences of illegal conduct; but in this case he did not think it\\nwould have been advisable to inflict the punishment. By giving evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence against these persons, the priest not only exposed himself to\\npersonal danger, perhaps to assassination, but deprived himself of\\nall capacity of being employed as an instrument to prevent future\\ncrimes. Having a choice, therefore, of compelling him to appear\\nin the witness-box, and of punishing him if he refused to give evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence, or of employing the confidence which he enjoyed with those\\nwhose lives would be affected by his testimony to prevent future out\u00c2\u00ac\\nrages, he (Mr. P.) notwithstanding that by so doing he exposed\\nhimself to the censures of the honourable and learned gentleman,\\nhad preferred the latter course, and he now appealed to the house\\nfrom the decision of the honourable and learned gentleman, and\\nasked if he was not entitled to their approbation and thanks for\\nhaving so done\\nHe would now address himself to the motion of his right honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable friend. His right honourable friend, he was sure, could intend\\nuo unkindness towards him by the manner in which he had alluded\\nso his conduct in 1816, and stating thai he then joined with him in", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0251.jp2"}, "252": {"fulltext": "242\\nPLUNKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099S SPEECHES.\\na motion similar to the present. Neither could his other honourable\\nfriend who had so ably supported his views, and who had quoted\\npassages from his speech on that occasion. But as every man was\\nanxious to maintain his character and to defend his consistency, he\\nmight be excused for offering some explanation by which his conduct\\nia then supporiing his right honourable friend\u00e2\u0080\u0099s mo ion was recon\u00c2\u00ac\\ncilable with his negative vote on the present occasion. The motions,\\nthen, he would say, were not exactly similar, nor brought forward\\nunder similar circumstances. On the former occasion, a vote had\\nbeen proposed in the army estimates for 25,000 men, for preserving\\nthe peace of Ireland, and the motion of his right honourable friend\\nwas intended to obtain a previous inquiry into the state of the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such a force was neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary in the present instance the house had voted the necessary force,\\nand had, to arrest existing outrage, conferred additional powers on\\nthe Irish government. The latter fact was even embodied in the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nsolution now before the house. With respect to the latter part of\\nthe resolution, which pledged the house to assist his majesty in car\u00c2\u00ac\\nrying into execution the most beneficial measure for the peace and\\nprosperity of Ireland, and was intended to stimulate the government\\nto more active exertions in the cause, he could not adopt it without\\ndeclaring by his vote, that government required reproof for its indif\u00c2\u00ac\\nference, and consequently did not enjoy its confidence. Now, that\\nit enjoyed his confidence was proved by his sitting on that side of\\nthe house. To those who knew him best he would leave the decision,\\nwhether he had placed that confidence in the present administration\\nbecause he had joined them, or had joined them because they had ob\u00c2\u00ac\\ntained his confidence. He believed in his conscience, that govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment was doing all in their power to find a cure for the evils with\\nwhich Ireland was afflicted. His right honourable friend (Mr. C.\\nGrant) who had that night spoken with such eloquence, and evinced\\nso much statesmanlike talent and views, and who by his speech had\\nacquired additional claims to the gratitude of his country, had enu\u00c2\u00ac\\nmerated the causes of the present state of Ireland. Many of these\\ncauses, it would be obvious, could not be immediately counteracted, and\\nmany of their effects could not be immediately remedied; but he was\\nconvinced that the government of that country was sincerely desirous of\\ndiscovering a remedy, and would be zealous in applying it. Everything\\nthat could be done, he was convinced would be done. With respect\\nto the great question of Catholic disabilities, he would at present say\\nuothing, although he hoped that it would soon be satisfactorily set-\\ntied. The house would recollect that the question last year obtained", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0252.jp2"}, "253": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OF IRELAND.\\n243\\nnew position; that a bill had been agreed to in that house, had\\npassed through all its stages, and was only lost in another place,\\nlie confessed that he, therefore, looked forward with increased con\\ntidence to the final success of that great measure of security, ot\\nstrength, and of justice; but it was too important a question to be\\nmixed up with the discussion of that evening. A part of it would\\nshortly come before the house on the intended motion of his right\\nhonourable friend (Mr. Canning), for the admission of Catholic peers\\ninto the other house of parliament; and at an early period of the\\nnext session, as he (Mr. Plunket) had formerly announced, he intended\\nto submit the w r hole question to parliament; when he had no doubt\\nit would receive that fall, temperate, and satisfactory discussion which\\nits momentous consequeuce deserved.\\nAmong the circumstances which had had a beneficial tendency\\nwith regard to Ireland, and which, without reference to the success\\nof the question to which he had alluded, increased his confidence in\\nthe future tranquillity of Ireland, was the late visit of his majesty\\nto that part of his dominions. That gracious proceeding had been\\nundervalued, and viewed with affected indifference, by the various\\ndescriptions of persons with various objects; but a wiser and more\\nbeneficial measure, he was convinced, could not have been taken.\\nIts importance had been under-rated by those who were averse to\\nsee any lustre thrown .around the throne, and by the petty factions\\nof both sides who distracted that unhappy country; but the great\\nbody of the people had appreciated the visit as it deserved. His\\nmajesty had knocked at the hearts of his Irish subjects, and had been\\nanswered with inexpressible enthusiasm and gratitude. That visit\\nhad been followed by another measure of conciliation, on which they\\nlikewise set its proper value\u00e2\u0080\u0094he meant the appointment of the Mar\u00c2\u00ac\\nquis Wellesley to the government of Ireland. He would not then\\nenter into any eulogium on that noble lord, who did not require any\\npraises of his; but he should be wanting in that justice which he\\nowed to him, if he did not state the wise and impartial views with\\nwhich he entered upon his office\u00e2\u0080\u0094the zeal and vigour with which he\\napplied himself to discover a remedy for the existing evils of Ireland,\\nand the anxiety which he showed to administer the law, and to put\\ndown those who rose up against it, in whatever party, and under\\nwhatever banners, they appeared. He (Mr. Plunket) entertained\\nfrom these and from other circumstances great hopes of approaching\\nprosperit} to Ireland; and he begged leave to say that some of his\\nhonourable friends had drawn too gloomy a picture of its past con\u00c2\u00ac\\ndition, when they spoke of an uninterrupted misgovernment of three", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0253.jp2"}, "254": {"fulltext": "244\\npluneet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ncenturies. Within the latter part of this period they might hare\\nfound many subjects of consolation. The penal laws for religion had\\nbeen within the last forty years entirely repealed; nothing now re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmained but one great measure of policy and justice that should re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmove all civil disabilities on account of religious faith. It should\\nalso be recollected that since the year 1782 that country had been\\nrestored to commerce and to all the commercial rights enjoyed in\\nother parts of the empire. These advantages had been followed by\\nan Union which placed Ireland on a footing with Great Britain, in\\nall other privileges and rights. He had opposed that Union; he\\nhad done so openly and boldly, nor was he now ashamed of what\\nhe had done; but though in his resistance to it he had been pre\u00c2\u00ac\\npared to go the length of any man, he was now equally prepared to\\ndo all in his power to render it close and indissoluble. One of the\\napprehensions on which his opposition was founded, he w r as happy to\\nsay, had been disappointed by the event. He had been afraid that\\nthe Irish interests, on the abolition of her separate legislature, would\\ncome to be discussed in a hostile parliament: but he could now\\nstate, and he wished when he spoke that he could be heard by the\\nwhole of Ireland, that during the time that he had sat in the united\\nparliament, he had found every question that related to the interests\\nor security of that country entertained with indulgence, and treated\\nwith the most deliberate regard. When he considered all these\\nthings\u00e2\u0080\u0094when he considered the privileges granted and the disabilities\\nremoved\u00e2\u0080\u0094and when he considered the effects that must result from\\nthe cordial efforts of a united legislature, he could not entertain\\ngloomy ideas on the subject of the future prospects of Ireland. If\\nan improved system of police were established in that couutry, and\\nif the landed gentry discharged with zeal the duties of their character\\nand station, we should soon see a manifest amelioration of the state\\nof the sister island, and should find that, instead of being a source\\nof weakness and distraction, it would become an arm of security and\\nstrength to the whole empire.\\nHis right honourable friend (Mr. Grant) had adverted to the causes\\nof the present state of society in Ireland, under the heads of the tithe\\nsystem, the police, the magistracy, and education; and though he,\\nwhen he rose did not intend to say one word upon them, he would\\nnow, as he was on his legs, address himself briefly to them. He\\nconfessed he approached the tithe system with great reserve aud de\u00c2\u00ac\\nlicacy. The legislature had a right to meddle with that property, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause there were no limits to its power; but, on the same principle that\\nit could interfere with tithes, it might interfere with any other species", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0254.jp2"}, "255": {"fulltext": "THE STATE OF IRELAND. 2 15\\nof property. As to any forcible diminution of their amount, or com\u00c2\u00ac\\npulsory commutation of them, he could never agree to any measure\\nfor that purpose, nor could parliament, on any just principle, enter\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain the question for a moment. In opposition to frequent complaints,\\nhe was of opinion that the clergy of Ireland were not adequately pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvided for. They did not receive what they were entitled to demand,\\nand the clamour raised against their alleged exactions was most un\u00c2\u00ac\\nfounded and most unjust. He wished to speak with respect of the great\\nbody of Irish landlords but he was compelled to say, that, generally\\nin the west and in the south of Ireland, they exacted so much rent\\nthemselves, that they left little for the tithe of the clergy, and joined\\nin the cry of exaction when that little was attempted to be recovered.\\nThey sometimes let their land at from seven, eight, nine, or ten\\npounds per acre. Whatever the poor occupier could spare beyond\\nmere subsistence, the proprietor claimed in the shape of rent, and\\nthus left the clergyman, in the recovery of his tithe, to deal with an\\ninsolvent fund. If the latter surrendered his rights, he was left with\u00c2\u00ac\\nout an income, and praised for his generosity if he exacted them,\\nthe cry of rapacity was raised against him. In the meantime, the\\npoor occupier of the land gained no advantage by the clergyman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nforbearance; as what was remitted in tithe was exacted in rent.\\nThe cry raised against the clergy for their enjoyment of that portion\\nof the produce which the law awarded them from the land, always\\nappeared to him illiberal and ill-founded. He kuew of no class of\\ncountry gentleman more useful than the clergy, even independent of\\ntheir sacred duties, and none better entitled to the property which\\nthey enjoyed. They spent their income in the country, in the en\u00c2\u00ac\\ncouragement of industry, as usefully as laymen; they w r ere better\\neducated they were more capable of directing their inferiors and,\\nindependently of the religious instruction which they conveyed, they\\nset a better example of morals and private conduct. But he\\nagreed with those who thought that some change might be madi\\nwith advantage, in the mode of collecting tithes, though he was\\nopposed to any measure for compulsory commutation. The subject\\nwas certainly surrounded with difficulty, but he thought some means\\nmight be contrived, by which the clergy might be enabled to treat\\nwith the proprietors instead of the occupiers of land. In this man\u00c2\u00ac\\nner an agreement, not amounting to a commutation of tithes, might\\nbe entered into, by which the clergyman might receive a certain sum\\nibr a certain number of years; and this arrangement might be far\u00c2\u00ac\\nther perfected by making the tithe an actual charge upon the land\\ninto whatever hands it might fall. This would prevent that perpe-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0255.jp2"}, "256": {"fulltext": "246\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ntual recurrence of vexatious pretensions which was now the source\\nof so much dissension between the clergyman and the occupier of the\\nland, and the effect would be extremely beneficial in another point of\\nview. The occupier of land was generally a Roman Catholic, who\\nwas naturally disinclined to contribute to the support of a religion\\nwhich he did not profess but if the transfer which he had just\\nalluded to were adopted, the Protestant clergyman would no longer\\nhave to deal with a Catholic occupier, but with the proprietor, who\\nwas generally a Protestant. He did not despair of some such mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure being matured so as to be capable of being laid before parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. This subject was now under the consideration of wiser heads\\nthan his but he must deprecate the introduction of any measure,\\nunless that measure had been precisely limited and ascertained for\\nhe thought the Protestant clergy ought not to be exposed to the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsequences of any indefinite arrangement, the exact limits and ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ntent of which were not known previously to its being made the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject of deliberation. With regard to the system of police and the\\nmagistracy of Ireland, he could assure his right honourable friend, that\\nthose subjects were now occupying the serious attention of his ma\u00c2\u00ac\\njesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government. The system of education had often received\\nthe attention of the house, and many measures had been passed with\\nregard to it. Whether all the beneficial effects which had been ex^*\\npected had resulted from those measures, he would not pretend to\\nsay but he was sure that the government would readily give its\\nattention to any propositions which might be brought forward on the\\nsubject. He begged pardon for having trespassed so long upon the\\nhouse. Indeed, it was not his intention to have occupied any por\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of their attention, had he not felt himself called upon to make\\nsome counter statement to the evidence of the honourable and learned\\nmember for Dublin.\\nTHE BOTTLE RIOT.\\nFebruary 3, 1823.\\nAll the facts concerning this celebrated prosecution are so clearly, fully, and\\nconsecutively narrated in the speech that it needs no introduction. I quote part\\nof Shed s description of the trial:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cThe grand jury, composed in a great degree of affiliated Orangemen, threw\\nout the bills of indictment tendered by the crown against the perpetrators of the\\noutrage at the theatre. Mr. Plunket announced his resolution to proceed by\\nex officio information and a day was appointed for a trial at bar. The moc*\\nanxious suspense awaited its arrival A deep pulsation throbbed through tU", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0256.jp2"}, "257": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT,\\n247\\ncity. The ordinary occupations of life appeared to be laid aside in the agitating\\nexpectation of the event which was to set a seal upon the future government of\\nIreland. It engrossed the thoughts and tongues of men, and exercised a pain\u00c2\u00ac\\nful monopoly of all their hopes and anticipations. At length the day of trial\\nappeared amidst the heaviness of a gray and sombre morning. As soon as the\\ndoors were opened, one tremendous rush filled in an instant the galleries and\\nevery avenue of the court. There was not a murmur in the court; but the\\nfirst glance at the auditory would have satisfied you that deep passions ivere\\nworking there, and could not long be hushed. The signs of this were most ap\u00c2\u00ac\\nparent in the galleries: You saw it in the scowling brows of the Orange parti\u00c2\u00ac\\nsans, and few else were there\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the compressed lip\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the roll of ferocious\\nconfidence with which their eyes went round the scene that reminded them of\\ntheir strength\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the glare of factious recognition with which they greeted the\\naccused, and assured them of a triumph. My eye next rested upon the crowded\\nbenches of the bar. They, too, betrayed a consciousness of being themselves\\nupon their trial. Instead of the legal nonchalance with which they usually\\nawait the coming-on of the most important cause, they now presented a series\\nof countenances quivering with political resentment. It was easy to trace\\ntheir emotions in their looks\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the fixed and deadly sneer\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the flush\\nof haughty indignation\u00e2\u0080\u0094in the impassioned gestures with which, in whispers\\namong themselves, they arraigned the wdiole proceeding, and foretold the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nasters it would bring upon the land. The business of the day opened with a\\njoke. Mr. Wunket rose to call the attention of the court to a matter of some\\nimportance:\u00e2\u0080\u0099 a dead silence prevailed. The attorney-general proceeded with\\nmuch gravity to state, that he had been anxiously waiting the arrival of his\\ncolleagues, the solicitor-general and Mr. Serjeant Lefroy and that, after a long\\nsearch for them in all directions, it had been just discovered that they were both\\nin one of the avenues of the court, firmly wedged in among the populace, with\\na prospect of immediate suffocation, unless their lordships should be pleased to\\ninterfere in their behalf.\u00e2\u0080\u0099 The political tenets of the two learned sufferers were\\nwell known and the most bigoted Orangeman in the galleries could not refrain\\nfrom a loud giggle at the notion of two such personages writhing under the hor\u00c2\u00ac\\nrors of a popular embrace. Mr. Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech was on a level with his sub-\\nject, but scarcely with himself. The solicitor-general\u00e2\u0080\u0099s was tame and technical\\nhe felt t much sympathy with Orange principles, and he openly avowed them,\\nto prove a formidable denouncer of Orange excesses.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nMy Lords and Gentlemen of the Jury,\u00e2\u0080\u0094It becomes now my duty\\nto lay before you the case on behalf of the crown, and to put you in\\npossession of the grounds on which the present prosecution has been\\ninstituted, and of the evidence by which it is intended to be sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nported. It has often been my lot, in the eventful history of this\\ncountry, to appear in the character of a public prosecutor, and still\\nmore frequently to be a witness of the course and conduct of public\\nprosecutions. But certainly never in my life have I approached a\\ncourt of justice with sensations of more deep anxiety, or with a more\\nintense feeling of the importance of the subject to be decided on, than\\nI feel at the present moment. It is case, my lords and gentlemen,\\nnot touching the life of the parties; the offence as laid amounting", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0257.jp2"}, "258": {"fulltext": "248\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SPEECHES.\\nonly to a misdemeanor. It is undoubtedly, howevtr, to them a case\\nof no small importance involving them, if the facts charged be\\nproved, in very heavy penal consequences. But with respect to the\\npublic at large, it is a case of as deep and vital importance, as for the\\nlast fifty years has been brought under the consideration of a court\\naud of a jury. It is a great satisfaction to me, and a great part of\\nmy object has been achieved in knowing, that this case is now ready\\nto be brought fully before an intelligent court and jury and that\\nwhatever its merits may be, it is impossible they can be stifled or ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinguished, but must be fairly brought under the consideration of the\\ncourt, the jury, and the public. The charge is one of no light or or\u00c2\u00ac\\ndinary character. You are already, my lords, probably apprised of\\nit from public rumour the nature of it has been more particularly\\nstated by my learned friend who has opened the informations. It\\nimports no less a crime, than having assaulted.the person of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nrepresentative in this country of having committed a riot in his pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsence for the purpose of insulting him and of having done so in pur\u00c2\u00ac\\nsuance of a deliberate conspiracy previously entered into for the pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose.\\nThis is a charge which ought not lightly to be made and one,\\ngentlemen, on which you ought not to act, unless fully and distinctly\\nproved. But I should consider it as an insult to your character and\\nunderstandings, to urge any argument to establish the enormity of the\\ncrime, if fully ascertained to have been committed. I should blush\\nfor our country, were it necessary to state in a court of justice, that\\na deliberate insult to the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative, in a public theatre,\\nthe result of a previous conspiracy, is no light or trivial or ordinary\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2offence. In the mind of every man who has not banished the feelings\\nof a gentleman, and who is not lost to every public and private con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsideration, there can be but one sentiment\u00e2\u0080\u0094a deep sense of indignity\\nat th3 outrage, and an entire conviction of the necessity of vindicating\\nthe national character and the dignity of the laws, by affixing pun\u00c2\u00ac\\nishment, if deserved.\\nBut, my lords, daring and unexampled as is the crime, I hesitate\\nnot to say, that the enormity of the act is lost in the boldness and\\ndescription of the motives. I fairly tell you, that I come not hero\\non the part of Lord Wellesley, to ask for personal redress, or even to\\ncall for public justice so far as he is personally concerned; not even\\non the part of the lord lieutenant of Ireland, to seek atonement for\\nthe outrage committed against the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative but on be\u00c2\u00ac\\nhalf of the country and its laws on behalf of its hopes of peace and\\nsafety; to .claim your aid, backed by all the authority of opinion, it?", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0258.jp2"}, "259": {"fulltext": "TUB BOTTLE RIOT,\\nU9\\nputting down a desperate and insolent attempt to overawe the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ngovernment in Ireland; and to compel his representative, by the\\narm of personal violence, and by the demonstration of a force above\\nthe law, to change the measures of his government. I call on you\\nto put down a base conspiracy of a contemptible gang, who have as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsociated to put down the laws and to overbear the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s represen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntative, because he has presumed to execute the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s commands.\\nI think I know the feelings of the illustrious personage against whom\\nthis villany has been directed; with respect to his own personal\\nsafety, much as it has beeu endangered, the attack was fitted only to\\nrouse his gallant mettle;- indignant as he must have felt to be \u00e2\u0080\u009chawked\\nat by such mousing owls\u00e2\u0080\u009d as these; their base attempt excited\\nno terror, it left no resentment. That there should have been in\\nthis land hearts capable of conceiving, and hands capable of execut\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, such an outrage against their countryman, must have excited\\nsensations of regret and pain; but in this respect the national cha\u00c2\u00ac\\nracter has been redeemed, by the universal expression of indignation\\nwhich has issued from the hearts of the Irish people. But beyond\\nall this, much remains to be done; it is necessary to put down the\\ndaring pretensions of those who have associated themselves for the\\npurpose of defying the king and the law, and setting up an autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity superior to them both. They and all others who announce\\nsuch projects, must be taught that their plans are vain and hopeless\\nas they are insolent.\\nThis I freely avow as my object. I trust that no unworthy pre\u00c2\u00ac\\njudices, that no angry feeling, that no sentiment other than that\\nwhich belongs to the conscientious discharge of public duty, has\\nbeen suffered to mingle itself in the course of public justice. I shall\\ngo away from this court humiliated and under the heavy sentence of\\nself-reproach if, after the evidence in this case shall have been dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nclosed, any honest or impartial man shall censure me for instituting\\nthis prosecution or shall hesitate to think that it would have been\\na mean abandonment of duty to have shrunk from it.\\nYou are apprised, by lords, that this is an ex officio information\\nfiled by his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney-general upon his own authority you-\\nwe also probably aware that this ex officio .information has been\\nfiled, after bills had been perferred against the same persons for the\\nsame offence, and had been ignored by a grand jury of the country.\\nBefore I proceed to trouble your lordships with any observation upon\\nthe exact nature and on the legality of this proceeding, I wish to dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nembarrass the case of a few topics which may attach to it. In the\\nproceeding which I have thought it my duty to institute, though", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0259.jp2"}, "260": {"fulltext": "250\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhave been governed by my strong impression that public justice had\\nnot been effected, I do not involve in this conclusion any imputation\\non the sheriff who returned the grand jury still less on the grand\\njury themselves, who have acted on their oaths in throwing out those\\nbills. For the purposes of the present trial, whatever opiuions I\\nmay entertain on that subject, I have no right to advert to them.\\nThe sheriff who returned that grand jury is not on his trial, and it\\nwould be gross injustice to arraign his conduct when he cannot de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfend it. The grand jury are not on their trials, and it would be in\u00c2\u00ac\\njustice equally gross to make a charge against them, where they can\\nhave no opportunity of vindicating themselves; a time may come,\\nand an occasion may arise, in which these considerations may be\\nproper and necessary and most certainly I will not, in that event,\\nbe found wanting to the discharge of any duty, however painful,\\nwhich may devolve on me. But in the meantime, and with refer\u00c2\u00ac\\nence to the present proceeding, I wish distinctly to be understood as\\ndisclaiming all imputations upon either; I am ready to suppose, for\\nthe purposes of this trial, that if the parties and the cause were the\\nexact reverse of what they now are that if it had been the plea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure of the government to direct that the statue of King William\\nshould be dressed on the 4th of November, and a body of Roman\\nCatholics feeling themselves insulted, had risen against the law and\\nthe magistracy, and had flung a bottle or other missile at the lord\\nlieutenant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s head, and these facts had been before the grand jury,\\nthey would have ignored the bills; as, so help me God, I would,\\nunder the same circumstances, had I remained the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney-\\ngeneral, have filed my information ex officio. I claim only for my\u00c2\u00ac\\nself equal credit for the purity of my motives, and the fair discharge\\nof my sworn duty.\\nI am told that it has been alleged that this proceeding on the\\npart of the attorney-general, by an ex officio information, is illegal.\\nI do not know whether what has been said in this respect has been\\nrightly reported or whether it is meant, that the proceeding is in\\npoint of law invalid, or that the resorting to it, though a legal right,\\nis not a fair exercise of discretion. I am led naturally, without\\ngoing out of the pleadings, to make a few observations upon this\\npart of the subject; for although all the traversers have put in pleas\\namounting to not guilty, yet two of them have thought proper to\\nput upon the record what cannot properly belong to that plea_a\\nsort of preamble or inducement, in which they state that those infor\u00c2\u00ac\\nmations have been filed against them after a grand jury had ignored\\nbills for the same charge. My learned friends, who framed those", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0260.jp2"}, "261": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT.\\n251\\ndefences, knew perfectly well that on that allegation no issue could\\nbe joined, either of law or of fact. It amounts, therefore, to nothing\\nelse than a plea of not guilty. But I presume they thought it might\\nbe made use of (though scarcely to your lordships or the jury whom\\nI address) to swell the cry, ^which amongst the vulgar of the public\\nhas been raised against the legality of this proceeding.\\nI think that on that subject I need occupy but little time in ad\u00c2\u00ac\\ndressing the court, before which I have now the honour to appear.\\nWhat I am about to say is rather with a view to set right the pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic mind, and that it should be known that I have stated, in the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsence of this enlightened court, what is the law upon this subject. I\\nassert then, that the ignoring of a bill by a grand jury is, according\\nto the known and established principles of our law, no bar to any\\nsubsequent legal proceeding against the same individual for the same\\noffence. It is competent to the crown or the prosecutor to send up\\nanother bill to the same or any other grand jury and the same\\npower belongs to that public authority in which is vested the right of\\ntiling an information. A party who has been already tried, may pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntect himself against a subsequent prosecution for the same offence.\\nHe may do so by plea ;.it is a principle of our law that no man shall\\nbe twice tried for the same offence if he has been already acquitted\\nthere is a known legal form of pleading as old as the law itself, by\\nwhich he can defend himself. But it is settled by authorities coeval\\nwith the law itself, that the plea of autrefois acquit is not sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nported by evidence, that a bill of indictment for the same offence has\\nbeen preferred to a grand jury and ignored. It must be an acquittal by\\na petit jury. Your lordships would consider it a waste of time to refer\\nto authorities in support of such a position. It is laid down by Lord\\nHale, Lord Coke, and every writer on the subject of crown law. I\\nshall not consume time by adverting to cases for recognition of known\\nprinciples; the thing can only be doubted by those who are igno\u00c2\u00ac\\nrant of our laws and constitution. That another indictment could\\nbe sent up is clear.; and I think I go a good way to show its lega\u00c2\u00ac\\nlity, by calling upon those who deny it, to show me any form o i\\npleading by which it can be resisted. There is no legal right be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlonging to any subject of this realm, which the law has not afforded\\nhim a mode of setting forth and therefore if there be no form of\\npleading, (and if there were such, my learned friends, in whose\\nhands the interests of the traversers are so effectually secured, would\\nhave discovered it) by which the throwing out of a bill by a grand\\njury, may be set up as a bar to a subsequent information, that is in\\nitself a full proof of the legality of such a proceeding. They have", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0261.jp2"}, "262": {"fulltext": "252\u00e2\u0080\u009c\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nindeed distinctly admitted it, by putting in pleas not denying the\\ncompetence of the attorney-general to file, or of the court to enter\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain, the present information, but asserting their innocence of the\\ncharge imputed to them. In an ordinary case, not affecting the\\nrights of the crown, this court is in the habit of granting criminal\\ninformations; the right formerly exercised by the master in the\\ncrown office has been narrowed by statute, and is now subject to the\\ndiscretion of the court. Has it ever been heard of, that the Court of\\nKing\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench would refuse an information, because a grand jury had\\nignored the bill\\nSo much trash has been circulated, and the public mind so much\\nabused upon this subject, that I hope your lordships will excuse my\\ncalling your attention to it. So far from its being considered an\\nobjection, that a grand jury has ignored the bill, it is often a reason\\nwhy the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench grants an information. I have often\\napplied for liberty to file an information, when I had the honour of\\npractising in this court; and the court has asked me whether I had.\\ntried a grand jury; saying, that if they refused to find a bill, they\\nwould then entertain the application. The Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench\\nin England in the last term granted an information in a case where\\nbills had been twice ignored by a grand jury, and because they had\\nbeen ignored. So far therefore is that circumstance from being con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidered an objection to putting a party on his trial,, that it is fre\u00c2\u00ac\\nquently insisted upon as a requisite condition. Thus it is where\\napplication is made to the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench. This is an infor\u00c2\u00ac\\nmation filed by the sworn officer of the crown, in whom the law has\\nvested that privilege. Were I to come in as attorney-general, and\\napply for liberty to file an information against these parties, what\\nwould be your lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s answer ?\u00e2\u0080\u0094the same as was given by my\\nLord Mansfield to De Grey, aud I think to Sir Fletcher Norton;\\nnamely, \u00e2\u0080\u009cWe will not file an information at your suit; the law has\\nmade you the sole judge of its propriety; if you think it proper, you\\nlave a right to file it; if not, why should we do so 1 am not\\nnow applying myself to the soundness of this exercise of discretion,\\nbut to the new-fangled notion of the illegality of this information.\\nIt is the privilege of the lowest subject in the realm, if by the error\\nor impropriety of a grand jury he do not obtain justice, to apply to\\nthe Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench for a criminal information but the king,\\nit fis said, is to be in a totally different situation aud though for an\\ndfience indictable the court would grant au information because a\\ngrand jury has ignored the bill, the sovereign himself shall not have\\nthat redrefes which is open to the meanest of his subjects. A pro-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0262.jp2"}, "263": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE KI0T.\\n253\\nposition this too monstrous to bear debate. I am asked for an\\nauthority; permit me to say, this is not quite a fair requisition; where\\na circumstance is totally immaterial, it is not to be expected that it\\nshould be the subject of notice and therefore we are not to be sur\u00c2\u00ac\\nprised, if in the greater number Of reported cases of informations it\\nshould not appear whether a grand jury had previously thrown out\\nbills or not; such a fact would be totally immaterial- It cannot be\\nstated in a plea; it could not be proved in evidence, and therefore\\nit would be too much to say that because it is not mentioned the\\ncase has not existed.\\nIt has been my principle to hold in utter contempt the vile and\\nscurrilous publications which have been circulated through the city,\\niu order to prejudge the matters to be tried, and affect the character*\\nof the persons employed as public functionaries. But I have, by the\\ngenerosity of some of their authors, been furnished with a case di\u00c2\u00ac\\nrectly in point, in which, by accident, the fact of bills having been\\nignored by the grand jury before the information filed does dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinctly appear.\\nI shall detail the facts as they appear in the Commons\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Journals.\\nIn the latter end of the reign of Queen Anne, in the year 1713, on\\nKing William\u00e2\u0080\u0099s birthday, the play of Tamerlane was to be repre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsented. King William, as your lordships are aware, was compared\\nto Tamerlane, and very deservedly so, if the possession of every\\nvirtue that could ennoble a monarch entitled him to the distinction.\\nThe name of Tamerlane had been connected with his. A prologue\\nto the play, written by Doctor Garth, was very generally repeated\\nat the time. The doctor it seems was more happy as a poet than\\nas a courtier, and his reverence for King William led him to com\u00c2\u00ac\\npliment that monarch in terms not sufficiently guarded to avoid giv\u00c2\u00ac\\ning offence to Queen Anne. The government therefore thought it\\nright that the prologue should not be repeated. When the play there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore came on for representation, the actor omitted to repeat it, and\\nby so doing, gave great offence to the audience.. They were full of\\nrespect for the memory of William, and did not wish that attention\\nto Queen Anne should break in on the ancient practice. Mr. Dudley\\nMoore, a zealous Protestant, who was in the house, leaped upon the\\nstage, and repeated the prologue. This gave rise to something like\\na riot. The government indicted Mr. Moore for the riot. The bills\\nwere sent up to a grand jury, who. retarned a true bill, and were\\nthen dismissed, in about half an hour after, the foreman came into\\ncourt, and made an affidavit that billa vera was a mistake, and\\ntnat they meant to return iynoramus The court refused to re\u00c2\u00ac\\nft", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0263.jp2"}, "264": {"fulltext": "plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\no 4\\ncaive his affidavit; but then came in the three and twenty, and\\nswore positively to the same fact to which their foreman had de\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed. The party was notwithstanding this, in my opinion ver}\\nunwisely, put to plead to the indictment. But the attorney-general,\\nthinking it would be hard to compel him to plead when the bill had\\nbeen in fact ignored, moved to quash the indictment, which was\\ndone. Do I overstate the matter when I say, that things were then\\nin the same situation as if the bill had been ignored by the grand\\njury? And yet under these circumstances, the attorney-general\\nthought himself at liberty to file an ex officio information against the\\nsame person for the same offence. Sir Constantine Phipps, who\\nwas then lord chancellor, and one of the lords justices, was con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsidered by many .as a great Tory and Jacobite, and as an enemy to\\nthe Protestant interest. History has done more justice to him in\\nthat respect than in the heat of party he received from his contem\u00c2\u00ac\\nporaries. He interfered with the prosecution; he sent for the lord\\nmayor, and lectured him as to the mode in which he was to conduct\\nhimself. He was even supposed to have interfered with the return\\nof the jury. The whole matter was brought before the House of\\nCommons, who addressed the throne to remove Sir Constantine\\nPhipps for intermeddling in the trial. No fault was found with the\\ninformation though directly before them, but the trial was treated\\nas legally depending, and a petition presented against the chancellor\\nfor interfering with that trial. Do I not here show a case in which\\nan ex officio information had been filed after a bill had been thrown\\nout, and where though the zeal of party generated an anxiety to\\nlay hold of anything that could warrant an imputat on on the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding, as the information filed was never questioned, but the chan\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellor and chief governor petitioned against for interfering with the\\nproceeding.\\nI shall not trouble your lordships farther upon the legality of this\\nproceeding. With respect to the soundness of the exercise of my\\ndiscretion, under the circumstances, in resorting to the prerogative\\nright, I shall reserve myself uutil I shall have laid before the court\\naud the jury the facts which will be proved in the case. I have\\nalready said, that I will prove that an attempt has been made by a\\ngang in this city for the purpose of controlling the law, and putting\\ndown the authority of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s lieutenant. It is unfortunately ne\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessary to show, that the individuals concerned in this outrage are\\npersons belonging to a society known by the name of the Orange\\nsociety. But it is particularly necessary, gentlemen of the jury, that\\nyou and the court and the public should understand what was for-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0264.jp2"}, "265": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT.\\n255\\nraerly uttered by me, and what I now repeat. I am desirous of ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressly stating, that with the general nature of the Orange societies,\\nin relation to the laws, the interests, and happiness of the country, I\\nhave on this trial nothing to do. Upon this subject I have my\\nopinions, which at a proper place and season I shall not shrink from\\navowing. But with the present investigation they have no concern.\\nI do believe in my conscience, that the greater proportion of persons\\nassociated in that society feel as strong and lofty a contempt for\\nthose concerned in this disgraceful attack as I do, and are as inca\u00c2\u00ac\\npable of participating, authorizing, vindicating, or palliating it.\\nEvery public man must expect to be the subject of no very candid\\ncriticism. I wish distinctly to have it understood, that this is no\\nafter-thought of mine, for the purpose of qualifying expressions\\neither inadvertently or too strongly used. Had I applied these ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressions indiscriminately to the Orangemen of Ireland, I should\\nhave violated my duty, and stepped beyond that line of conducting\\nthis prosecution, which was distinctly agreed upon between me and\\nthe eminent and respectable persons by whom I have been advised.\\nI am glad to take this opportunity once for all, of returning my\\nthanks to my learned colleague, by whose high talents, enlightened\\ninformation, and extensive knowledge, I have been assisted in every\\nstage of this proceeding, and to whose cordial zeal and co-operation\\nno terms can be too strong to render justice and express my grati\u00c2\u00ac\\ntude.\\nMy lords, I am anxious to proceed to an immediate statement of\\nthe facts of this case, and to disperse that mass of scurrility and false\u00c2\u00ac\\nhood which for some weeks past has disgraced this city. I must\\nhowever first trespass on your time with some preliminary observa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions.\\nIt is impossible to lay this case truly before the public without*\\nbriefly reverting to the political events in which the conspiracy ori\u00c2\u00ac\\nginated.\\nThe foundations of it were laid so long back as the period when\\nhis majesty was pleased to honour this country with his presence.\\nIt is not, my lords, my intention to occupy your time by attempt\u00c2\u00ac\\ning a description of what took place on that occasion. From the\\nminds of those who witnessed the transaction, the splendour and\\nglory of that day never can be effaced. To those who have not, no\\npowers of mine can give an adequate dcsciiption. It falls to me to\\nhave the less pleasing task of remarking, that even then some indi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncations were to be found, that his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s gracious dispositions\\nwere not likely to be met with that degree of gratitude and respect", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0265.jp2"}, "266": {"fulltext": "256\\nplukket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nto which they were entitled, and that even before he left the Irish\\nshore the elements of mischief were at work. It was understood that\\nthe king, before he honoured the Mansion House with his presence,\\nhad signified his desire that the glorious memory should not be given\\nas a toast. I. must entreat your excuse, my lords, (it connects itself\\nintimately with the matter of this trial) if I advert more particularly\\nto this topic, and endeavour to disabuse the public mind upon the\\nsubject.\\nPerhaps, my lords, there is not to be found in the annals of history\\na character more truly great than that of William the Third. Per\u00c2\u00ac\\nhaps no person has ever appeared on the theatre of the world, who\\nhas conferred more essential or more lasting benefits on mankind;\\non these countries, certainly none. When I look at the abstract\\nmerits of his character, I contemplate him with admiration and reve\u00c2\u00ac\\nrence. Lord of a petty principality\u00e2\u0080\u0094destitute of all resources but\\nthose with which nature had endowed him\u00e2\u0080\u0094regarded with jealousy\\nand envy by those whose battles he fought; thwarted in all his\\ncounsels; embarrassed in all his movements deserted in his most\\ncritical enterprises\u00e2\u0080\u0094he continued to mould all those discordant ma\u00c2\u00ac\\nterials, to govern all these warring interests, and merely by the force\\nof his genius, the ascendancy of his integrity, and the immoveable\\nfirmness and constancy of his nature, to combine them into an indis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsoluble alliance against the schemes of despotism and universal do\u00c2\u00ac\\nmination of the most powerful monarch in Europe; seconded by the\\nablest generals, at the head of the bravest and best disciplined armies\\nin the world, and wielding, without check or control, the unlimited\\nresources of his empire. He was not a consummate general; mili\u00c2\u00ac\\ntary men will point out his errors; in that respect fortune did not\\ntavour him, save by throwing the lustre of adversity over all his vir\u00c2\u00ac\\ntues. He sustained defeat after defeat, but always rose adversa\\nrerum immersabilis unda. Looking merely at his shining quali\u00c2\u00ac\\nties and achievements, I admire him as I do a Scipio, a Regains, a\\nFabius; a model of tranquil courage, undeviating probity, and\\narmed with a resoluteness and constancy in the cause of truth and\\nfreedom, which rendered him superior to the accideiits that control\\nthe fate of ordinary men.\\nRut this is not all\u00e2\u0080\u0094I feel, that to him, under God, I am, at this\\nmoment, indebted for the enjoyment of the rights which I possess\\nas a subject of these free countries; to him I owe the blessings of\\ncivil and religious liberty, and 1 venerate his memory with a fervour\\nof devotion suited to his illustrious qualities and to his godlike acts.\\nDid our gracious sovereign come here to trample on the memory", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0266.jp2"}, "267": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT.\\n257\\nof. the most illustrious of his predecessors No, my lords; the high\\nerrand on which he landed on our shores was worthy of him, and\\nbespoke a kindred mind to that of the immortal personage whose\\nname and character he vindicated. He knew that the whole life oi\\nKing William was a continued struggle against intolerance that th\u00c2\u00ab\\npolicy of his reign was opposed, and his most favourite objects for\\nthe peace and happiness of his people were baffled, by the folly and\\nbigotry of those who surrounded him; and that the career of his glorious\\nlife was obstructed, as the lustre of his glorious memory has been\\ntarnished, by the absurd and intolerant dogmatism of those who were\\nrescued by his exertions from that yoke which they sought, in op\u00c2\u00ac\\nposition to his eager wishes, to impose on others. It was the unhappy\\nbut inevitable result of the circumstances in which the people of this\\nunfortunate country were placed, that they had to meet that great\\nman, not as subjects, but as enemies. The peculiar good fortune of\\nthe British people was, that every feeling of religion corresponded\\nwith their innate love of freedom to alienate them from the cause of\\nthe exiled monarch. His designs, his determinations against their\\ncivil and religious liberties, were notorious aud unalterable. An in\u00c2\u00ac\\nflexible bigot and despot, he was too intense in both characters to\\nendure the appearance of a compromise with toleration or with free\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom. Yet every man knows through what difficulties and dangers they\\nhad to struggle before the house of Brunswick was firmly seated on\\nthe throne. Even with the full tide of religion running in their\\nfavour, the principle of loyalty to an hereditary succession was so\\nindigenous to the British character, that it was not until after the\\nlapse of nearly a century that the principles of Jacobitism were finally\\nsubdued.\\nBut in unhappy Ireland the exiled king was the professor and\\npatron of the religion to which they were enthusiastically devoted.\\nHe must be a preposterous critic who will impute as a crime to that\\nunhappy people, that they did not rebel against their lawful king,\\nbecause he was of their own religion, even if they had been so fully\\nadmitted to the blessings of the British constitution as to render\\nthem equally alive to the value of freedom. They seem, therefore,\\nby the nature of things, almost necessarily thrown into a state of\\nresistance nothing could have saved them from it but so strong a\\nlove of abstract freedom as might subdue the principles of loyalty\\nand the. feelings of religion. No candid man can lay so heavily on\\npoor human nature; nor fairly say, that he thinks worse of the\\nBoman Catholic, for having on that day abided by his lavyful sove\u00c2\u00ac\\nreign and his ancient faith. What was the result? They were con-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0267.jp2"}, "268": {"fulltext": "258\\nPLUNKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099S SPEECHES.\\nquered\u00e2\u0080\u0094conquered into freedom and happiness\u00e2\u0080\u0094a freedom and hap\u00c2\u00ac\\npiness to which the successful result of their ill-fated struggles would\\nhave been destructive. There is no rational linnan Catholic in Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland who does not feel this to be the fact. Even the name of the\\nexiled family is now unknown the throne rests on the firm basis of\\nthe unanimous recognition of the entire people. The memory of\\ntheir unfortunate struggles is lost in the conviction of the reality of\\nthose blessings, which have been derived from their results equally to\\nthe conqueror and to the conquered. What wise or good man can\\nfeel a pleasure in recalling to the minds of a people so circumstanced\\nthe fact that they have been conquered? What but the spirit of\\nfolly and of mischief can take a satisfaction in interrupting them in\\nthe enjoyment of the blessings of their defeat, by tauniing them with\\nthe recollection that they were defeated? Why is conquest desirable\\nto any one but the trooper Because it opens the way to peace and\\nharmony; but to those I have now to deal with, the fruits of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nquest are valueless, without the perpetuation of the triumph.\\nHe is a mischievous man who desires to remind the people of this\\ncountry that they are a conquered people, lie is a mischievous man*\\nwho, for the gratification of his own whim, desires to celebrate, in\\nthe midst of that people, the anniversary of their conquest. Never\\nwas there a subject more loudly calling for and justifying the gracious\\nand saving interposition of the royal wisdom.\\nIn the history of royal lives there seldom has occurred an instance\\naffording a more gratifying subject for the historian to dwell on, than\\nthe royal visit to Ireland. The statement of splendid victories, the\\ndevelopment of profound schemes of policy, the application of able\\ncounsels, and of powerful resources, the defence of the liberties of the\\nworld; all these are the subjects of historic detail, and may be the\\nfair subjects of political controversy. But here, by the mere impulse\\nof his own feelings, the heartiness of his nature, a moment wa\u00c2\u00bb\\ncreated in which, without calling on any of the common places of\\nroyalty, without the aid of force, or fear, or flattery; without arms,\\nor power, or patronage by the mere indulgence of his kind and\\ngenerous nature, he gained to himself the most exalted privileges\\nwhich a human being can exercise\u00e2\u0080\u0094that of bestowing happiness on,\\nand sharing it with, millions of his fellow-creatures. The promptness\\nwith which this moment was seized\u00e2\u0080\u0094the gracious and condescending\\nmanner by which it was improved\u00e2\u0080\u0094the thousand and ten thousand\\nblessings which are to be derived from it\u00e2\u0080\u0094all these may be subjects\\nof just applause and of sober criticism. But here the true value of\\nUie act is its simplicity. To enter into the hearts and become mas*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0268.jp2"}, "269": {"fulltext": "T1IE BOTTLE RIOT.\\n259\\nter of the enthusiastic affections of an entire people, merely by show\u00c2\u00ac\\ning himself the friend and father of them all, was a felicity to him\\naud them uuparalleled in the eventful history of this nation; it was\\nworthy of a successor of the great monarch, whose talents and vir\u00c2\u00ac\\ntues he emulated, and whose memory he rescued from the disgraceful\\norgies by which it had been tarnished. Equal in the motive and the\\nfeeling\u00e2\u0080\u0094happier in this, that the hard fortune of William the Third\\ncompelled him to visit this country as a conqueror; but it was re\u00c2\u00ac\\nserved for the peculiar felicity of George the Fourth, that he was the\\nfirst British king who ever placed a friendly footstep upon the Irish\\nsoil.\\nI have already had occasion to remark, that the intimation of his\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s pleasure on the subject of public concord was not perfectly\\nagreeable to a certain portion of his subjects. Some little clouds were\\nseen flitting along the horizon, which indicated the probability of a\\nfuture storm. How far the government of the country were enabled\\nto act on the personal recommendation and parting injunctions of the\\nking\u00e2\u0080\u0094what were the difficulties the Irish government had to encounter\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094what were the means they used to surmount them, these are mat\u00c2\u00ac\\nters which do not belong to the present subject. I pass to the period\\nof Lord Wellesley\u00e2\u0080\u0099s arrival in this country. He found a great por\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the south of Ireland in a state of licentiousness, surpassing the\\nworst excesses of former unhappy times. He had to deal with dan\u00c2\u00ac\\ngerous and secret conspiracies in other parts of the country. In what\\nmanner the lord lieutenant applied the powerful energies of his great\\nmind to meet these complicated difficulties does not fall within the\\ncompass or limit of this trial. It would ill suit with my notions of\\nwhat is due to the Marquis Wellesley, and of his temper and charac\u00c2\u00ac\\nter, to offer up the suspicious praises which an Irish attorney-genera)\\nis supposed bound to tender to the lord lieutenant. I am too sensible\\nof the well-formed taste of this illustrious person, not to be convinced\\nthat he would reject with disdain the vulgar incense of official adula\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, if I could stoop to offer it. No, my loidt, it woMd be an uu-\\nsuited return for the kindness, the confidence, I will presume to say,\\nthe friendship, with which he has honoured me I kuow too well his\\nlofty feelings and noble nature, w cui male si palpere recalcitrat\\nundique tutus \u00e2\u0080\u0094but I will not be deterred by the apprehension of\\na suspicion which I disdain, and to which I trust the character of ray\\nlife renders me superior, from expressing my sentiments of that exalted\\npersonage, when he has become the object of vulgar scurrility, and\\nwhen an open and desperate attack is made upon his person and his\\ngovernment. 1 will not be deterred from saying, that had our gru-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0269.jp2"}, "270": {"fulltext": "2fiO\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ncions sovereign surveyed the extent of his dominious in search of on$\\nfitted to execute the magnificent purposes of benevolence to his peo\u00c2\u00ac\\nple, with which his royal breast was filled, he could not have found\\na person whom the gifts of nature, improved by every noble art, and\\nmellowed by a long and arduous experience in the most difficult exi\u00c2\u00ac\\ngencies of this great empire, so. eminently qtualified for the task or\\none whose heart so entirely and cordially vibrated in unison with the\\ngracious aud paternal interest which was felt for the welfare of his\\nnative land. That noble peer entered on the government of this\\ncountry under this royal instruction; he had to explore a very diffi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncult and dangerous and untried path, but he had the parting admo\u00c2\u00ac\\nnition and the renewed injunctions of his sovereign for his pole star.\\nHe entered on that government, carefully distinguishing his opinions\\nand duties as a politician and a legislator, from those which neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsarily involved the system of government of the country committed to\\nhim. Never abandoning, but carefully distinguishing, his individual\\nopinion from his official duties, he applied himself strictly and exclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsively to effectuate the orders of the king, by the equal administration\\nof the existing laws, and by the promotion of peace, happiness, and\\nconcord among all the various classes of his subjects. I defy the\\nmalignity of criticism to point out a false move in the government of\\nthat noble person; one instance in which he departed from the spirit\\nof that mission of conciliation which was confided to him; an act or\\nan expression calculated to excite offence or disapprobation in the\\nmind of any honest man or lover of his country, be his sect or his\\nparty what it may. Pursuing his clear and undeviating course;\\nraised above all party, the laws for his guide, aud the public happi\u00c2\u00ac\\nness for his object, his fame is independent of the praise of his friends,\\nand above the malice of his enemies. It is our business, my lords, to\\nguard his person and his government against their secret machina\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions and their open violence.\\nThe discontinuance of the public insults to which I have already\\nalluded, and which has been so highly disapproved of by the king,\\nnecessarily had a place in the system of the lord lieutenant. The\\noffensive toast which had been renewed in the presence of the late\\nlord lieutenant was withheld in t ie presence of Lord Wellesley. I\\ngrieve to say that a spirit of mutiny and dissatisfaction on this sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject wa3 giddily and rashly encouraged by many who knew and ought\\nto have reverenced the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s commands. The lord lieutenant, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never highly he disapproved the giving the toast on public occasions,\\ndid not think it became him to take any further r.tep, having taken\\ncare that the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s authority should not,,, in his presence, be insulted", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0270.jp2"}, "271": {"fulltext": "TH BOTTLE RIOT. 2,151\\nby it. Anotuer subject, or rather another part of the subject* called\\nhis attention.\\nThe statue of King William, you all know, has been, for some\\nyears back, bedaubed with ridiculous painting and tawdry orange\\ncolours\u00e2\u0080\u0094a ludicrous specimen of bad taste, with which, however, his\\nexcellency did not feel himself called on to intermeddle. But beyond\\nthis, a set of low persons, whose names were not avowed, had been\\nfor some years back in the habit of mounting the statue.in the night\\nof the 3rd of November, and of the 11th of July, and putting on it\\na fantastic drapery of orange scarfs, in themselves ridiculous, if they\\nhad not been meant as a mark of triumph over a certain portion of\\ntheir fellow-subjects. This being done by a party of sworn Orange\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen, and for the avowed purpose of insult, had been resented by the\\nRoman Catholics whom it was intended to insult; and on the 12th\\nof July last a serious riot had occurred, the insulted party conceiving\\nthat they had as good a right to undress, as the other had to dress,\\nthe statue of King William. In the course of this affray lives had\\nbeen endangered, the peaceable inhabitants of College-green seriously\\nalarmed, the tranquillity of the metropolis disturbed, and evil passions\\nof the most furious kind engendered in the minds of the parties. It\\nis obvious that one of these three courses was to be pursued. Either\\nthe dressers of the statue were to be protected by public force and\\nthe constituted authorities; or they were to be forbidden and pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nvented or the parties were to be left to fight it out, till outrage, riot,\\nand bloodshed arrived at such a height that the civil power must act\\nagainst both. I have never heard it distinctly stated, or that it was\\ndistinctly stated by any person, that either the first or the last of\\nthese courses ought to have been proved; either that the public\\nauthorities should have been called to assist the nightly party in\\nmaking the toilet of King William, and to apprehend any person who\\nshould presume to interrupt them or that the streets of the capital\\nshould be disgraced by the continuance of these senseless brawls.\\nThe first question on which his excellency had to satisfy his mind\\nwas, whether the continuance of the practice of dressing the statue\\nmight, under such circumstances, be legally prevented.\\nHe was advised that it clearly mightthat these mummers had\\nno right to lay their hands on this public ornament, whether for the\\npurpose of decoration or dedecoration. Gentlemen, I remember that\\non one occasion a set of ruffians mounted this statue, and daubed it\\nover with lampblack. Neither they nor any other persons had a\\nright to meddle with the public ornaments, either to adorn or dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ngrace them. But independently of this, his excellency was adviced", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0271.jp2"}, "272": {"fulltext": "262\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthat this being proposed to be done, not in discharge of any\\nacknowledge 1 duty, or in the prosecution of any known business,\\nor in the exercise of any right of property or franchise, either by\\ngrant or usage, and being found by experience to have a tendency\\nto produce and to have actually produced a breach of the peace, and\\nit being proved on oath that it had done so, and that its continuance\\nexcited well-grounded apprehensions for the safety of their persons\\nin the minds of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects residing in the neighbourhood,\\nseveral of whom, persons of known respectability, and Protestants\\ntoo, had made affidavit to that effect, his excellency was advised,\\nthat he would be well warranted in using the civil force to prevent\\nthe dressing of the statue.\\nI am ashamed to think that it should be necessary to say, in a\\ncourt of justice, that they were Protestants. I say this, because\\nthere arc persons weak, enough to imagine that the oath of a Catholic\\nis not to be attended to on this subject, and because it has been un\u00c2\u00ac\\ntruly stated that these were affidavits of Catholics of the lower order.\\nI owe an apology to the good sense and feeling of the court and the\\njury for stating what their religion was it is a disgrace to our\\ncountry that such topics should be adverted to. Gentlemen, I have\\nbeen public prosecutor in this country at a period when the passions\\nof men were most alive; and never in the course of my official expe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrience have I given any other advice to the solicitor for-the crown\\nthan to select honest and fair men, without reference to their religious\\nopinions, and I have never felt myself disappointed in the result;\\nand therefore you will not suppose that the circumstance of these\\npersons being Protestants was necessary to prop their credit in my\\nestimation.\\nI am glad to have this opportunity of stating, that being called\\non in the discharge of my sworn duty for my opinion, I gave it as\\nhave stated, and I challenge any man who respects his character\\nas a constitutional lawyer to correct its soundness. It is no light\\nmatter to charge the executive government with acting contrary to\\nlaw against any portion of the people it begets in their minds the\\nnotion, that in resisting the civil authorities they are resisting not\\nlaw, but power\u00e2\u0080\u0094such a course is calculated to bring the government\\nof the country into contempt; and when the acts so spoken of have\\nbeen done in pursuance of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s instructions, it is a violation of\\nthe personal respect which is due to him, independently of its ten\u00c2\u00ac\\ndency to weaken the authority of his government in this country.\\nHis excellency was, independently of any respect which his kind\u00c2\u00ac\\nness might dispose him to attach to the opinion of his law advisor,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0272.jp2"}, "273": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT*\\n263\\nperfectly satisfied of the illegality of the Dractice in question; and I\\nam authorised to take this public opportunity of stating, that having\\ncommunicated on the subject with the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government in Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, he was sanctioned by their unanimous opinion in using the\\ncivil power for the prevention of these illegal practices. I am fur\u00c2\u00ac\\nther authorised to state, that since his excellency adopted the mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsures which are so publicly known for the carrying that opinion into\\neffect, his conduct has received the unanimous approbation of the\\nentire British cabinet, and has, above all, been crowned by the\\nhighest reward which a subject can receive for the faithful discharge\\nof his duty\u00e2\u0080\u0094the personal approbation of his sovereign, whose com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmands he executed, and whose government he sustained.\\nBefore his excellency resorted to any public means for the sup\u00c2\u00ac\\npression of this practice, he tried every expedient, by persuasion and\\nremonstrance, to obviate the necessity of public interference. It is\\nbut justice to say that many, very many of the principal persons\\nwho were supposed to have an influence over the Orange associa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions did exert their authority for the purpose; but whatever were\\ntheir exertions, they were unavailing; they found they could not\\ngovern the party with whom they had associated themselves. So must\\nit ever be, when rank and station and education condescend to com\u00c2\u00ac\\nbine in a secret bond with the vulgar and the ignorant. They must\\nnot expect to govern them so long as they run in the same course\\nof party and opinion, they may be suffered to lead but in vain will\\nthey endeavour to alter the direction or moderate the violence\\nWhen the evil spirit is unchained and let loose, the spell that raised\\nit will be unavailing to allay it: for the purposes of a greater ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncitement they may be powerful and dangerous for those of repres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion and restraint altogether impotent* The lower classes of these\\npersons declared they would di. Obey the lord mayor\u00e2\u0080\u0099s proclamation\\nand resist the magistrates. Furious and absurd speeches were made\\nat public meetings, tilled with vulgar invectives against the consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntuted authorities and preparations were made for resistance to the\\nlaw. The dressing of the statue on the night of the third and day\\nof the fourth of November was prevented but on subsequent nights,\\nparticularly on the night of the 6th of November, several of the\\nparty assembled for the purpose, and were not dispersed without con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsiderable disturbance and difficulty. On this occasion the traverser\\nHenry Handwich was particularly active; he headed a party vrho\\narrayed themselves against the magistracy for the purpose of dress\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the statue. He was, it seems, the regular mantua maker to\\nKing William. He collected subscriptions on the night between", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0273.jp2"}, "274": {"fulltext": "plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches\\n2fi4\\nthe fifth and sixth of November; he mounted on the statne, and\\nnailed upon it the tawdry ornaments with which he was furnished.\\nWith some difficulty he and his party were suppressed they were\\ndispersed before morning. Two or three similar attempts were\\nafterwards made, but the firmness of the magistrates was sufficient\\nto put them down.\\nIn this situation of affairs, the lord lieutenant availed himself of\\nthe first opportunity which the various claims of public care allowed\\nhim, to announce his intention of honouring the Theatre Royal with\\nhis presence a play was accordingly announced, and, notice given.\\nI shall now state the facts of this case, which will be so clearly\\nproved, and placed so far beyond all doubt, that no gentleman whom\\nI have the honour of seeing in that jury box, can leave it with a\\ndoubt upon his mind as to the real nature of the transaction. Cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain persons met together, and conceived that this would be a good\\nopportunity of marking their public indignation against the Mar\u00c2\u00ac\\nquess Wellesley, for presuming to enforce the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s command in for\u00c2\u00ac\\nbidding the dressing of the statue. One of those persons, gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen, (melancholy, if this be so, is the situation of the lord lieu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntenant) holds high situations under the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government, a place\\nin the post office, and another in the customs, producing nearly \u00c2\u00a3800\\na year. I allude to a man named William Heron. This person, and\\nanother of the name of M\u00e2\u0080\u0098Cullogh, who holds a situation in the\\nMeath hospital; a man named Atkinson holding a situation in the\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2custom house, and others, on the night of Wednesday or the morning of\\nthe Thursday before the play, consulted as to the best means of deal\u00c2\u00ac\\ning with the subject. The result they came to was, that this would be\\na proper opportunity for acting in the theatre in such a manner, as\\nto evince the unpopularity of the lord lieutenant and his govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, and make it necessary for him to leave the house, and eventu\u00c2\u00ac\\nally to leave the country. It was determined that a subscription should\\nbe raised to purchase tickets. Well knowing that the true expres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of the public sentiment would be strong in favour of his excel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlency, they resolved, in order to thwart it, to collect a party and\\npack the theatre. They thought the persons who were associated\\nwould of themselves be sufficient for the pit and the middle gallery\\nbut that for the inferior orders, seats must be purchased. Accord\u00c2\u00ac\\ningly a subscription of \u00c2\u00a32 was collected by Heron, and sent by him\\nto Atkinson. This was to be communicated to an Orange lodge,\\nassembled at the house of one Daly in Werburgh-street, in what is\\ncalled the Purple Order of the lodge. That, gentlemen, is not con-\\nleired upon any person until he has been for a certain time a morn*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0274.jp2"}, "275": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT.\\nber of the General Institution. This subscription was given to the\\nparties present at the lodge, and an additional subscription was raised\\nby them. Two of those lodges were concerned. The traverser,\\nJames Forbes, is a member of the lodge 1660. lie is deputy mas\u00c2\u00ac\\nter of that lodge. William Graham is secretary of the same.\\nHenry Handwich and Matthew Handwich are members of the lo(lge\\n780, of which Henry is deputy master; and William Brownlow is\\na member of 1612. Although it is necessarily my duty to show who\\nand what these persons are, I do not meddle with the general cha\u00c2\u00ac\\nracter of Orange lodges in Ireland, the merits of which are for an\u00c2\u00ac\\nother place. I am well satisfied that the great body of Orangemen\\nfeel as much abhorrence at this crime as any individual can tlo.\\nWith this subscription a number of pit tickets were purchased on\\nSaturday morning from the box keeper at the play house. This was\\nfor the purpose of filling the upper gallery. It was thought that the\\nmembers who were able to purchase tickets for themselves would be\\nsufficient for the pit and middle gallery. One pit ticket was to be\\ngiven to every three. Forbes was present Avhen this subscription was\\nraised. On the Saturday morning, Forbes, M\u00e2\u0080\u0098Culloch, and Atkinson\\nwent together to the theatre, and purchased the tickets. They re\u00c2\u00ac\\ngularly proceeded to fashion the conspiracy in all its parts. It was\\ndetermined that an inferior Orange Lodge, to which Handwich be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlonged, and which met at Mrs. Daly\u00e2\u0080\u0099s in Ship-street, should be ready\\nto go to the Theatre to execute the plan. Application was made in\\nthe morning to Matthew Handwich at his work, and he was desired\\nto communicate with his brother Henry. Accordingly, about tour\\no\u00e2\u0080\u0099clock in the evening of Saturday the parties met\u00e2\u0080\u0094Forbes, Atkin-\\nj sou, the Handwiches, and others. They were first supplied with drink.\\nI They came armed with sticks. Handwich had been asked, if he could\\nfurnish sixty men. He said he could. He had not quite so many\\nat first, but the number was completed in the passage to the Theatre.\\nThey were dispatched from the place of meeting in parties of three,\\ni each with a pit ticket. The number was at first sixty, but afterwards\\nincreased to near an hundred. They were armed with bludgeons.\\nThe residue of the whiskey they had been drinking they put into a\\nbottle aud carried to the theatre. The last words of Handwich, on\\nleaving the place of meeting, were boys be wicked.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It was settled\\nthat the duty of Lodge 1612 should be, to go to the pit door, and\\nbeset it before it was open, and to rush in in a body, and occupy that\\npart of the pit next to his excellency\u00e2\u0080\u0099s box. Their directions were,\\nthat as soon as God save the King\u00e2\u0080\u009d was played, the \u00e2\u0080\u009cBoyne Water\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nshould be called for, and if it were refused, that the play should oe", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0275.jp2"}, "276": {"fulltext": "266\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nstopped, and that a system of hissing, groaning, and violence should\\ncommence. One of the party had a large rattle in his hand, for the\\npurpose of riot. I should tell you, that at the meeting held of the\\nPurple Order, on Friday evening, and at which Forbes was present,\\nthe plan was fully announced of compelling the lord lieutenant to\\nleave the theatre, and if possible, the country. One of the party\\neven offered to lay a wager that before March he would be out of\\nthe country. Findiug that these conspirators entertained such seri\u00c2\u00ac\\nous views, that their object was to make such a demonstration of\\nhostility as to compel his excellency to quit the country, and that\\nthis was to be effected by resistance, by riot, and even by personal\\nviolence, one of the parties engaged took the alarm. He was shocked\\nnt the extent to which their fury might go. At one time he had\\nformed the resolution of going to the lord lieutenant, and apprising\\nhim of the truth, and the danger to which he was exposed. He went\\nto the park; a sentinel at the gate of the viceregal lodge asked him\\nhis business; his mind was in that situation, in which a trivial cir\u00c2\u00ac\\ncumstance makes an alteration\u00e2\u0080\u0094he hesitated, and returned, and the\\ndisclosure was not made.\\nGentlemen, the party (1612) which had been arranged for the\\npurpose, rushed into the pit, and occupied that part of it which was\\nnearest the viceregal box the upper gallery party, to the number of\\n60, went there with the pit tickets. They had fixed upon a watch\u00c2\u00ac\\nword, look outthey seated themselves on the left hand side of\\nthe gallery, where the violence was carried on during the night.\\nForbes placed them at their posts in the upper gallery, armed with\\nbludgeons; the police occupied the opposite side of the house, and\\nlike faithful watchmen fell asleep on their posts no interruption was\\ngiven to the merriment or to the mischief of the party. To show the\\ndeliberation of their plans I should mention, that previously to the\\nplay, handbills were struck off, containing expressions insulting to\\nthe lord lieutenant; such as Down with the Popish government,\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nc., and other expressions insignificant and contemptible, except as\\nevincing deliberation and concert. These handbills were brought to\\nthe theatre, and disposed of by the members of the conspiracy;\\nseveral were thrown by M\u00e2\u0080\u0098Gulloch, from the lattices over the lord\\nlieutenant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s box, and others from various parts of the house. It will\\nbe proved, that from the opening of the tneatre, the grossest system\\nof insulting and offensive expressions was commenced; groans were\\nraised for the Popish Lord Lieutenant,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and cries of no Popish\\nGovernment.\u00e2\u0080\u009d There were also groans for the house of Wellesley.\\nThey did not confine themselves to the noble lord at the head of the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0276.jp2"}, "277": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT.\\n267\\ngovernment\u00e2\u0080\u0094they extended to the Duke of Wellington, and the other\\nbranches of his illustrious family. Not satisfied with that, these\\nadvocates of religion gave a clap for the Calf\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Head,\u00e2\u0080\u009d an allusion\\nto a monstrous outrage committed in or near Ardec, by some ruffians\\nwho profaned a Roman Catholic place of worship by placing such a\\nthing upon the altar. They applauded also Sheriff Thorpe, with the\\nCalf\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Head. There was a groan for the bloody Popish Lord\\nLieutenant.\u00e2\u0080\u009d I cannot remember all the terms of outrage which\\nwere used. Some persons, not connected with the gang, cried out\\nShame, shame\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094of these some were severely beaten, and one man\\nhad a narrow escape by getting down from the upper into the mid\u00c2\u00ac\\ndle gallery; several were alarmed and left the house. When the\\nlord lieutenant came in, there was a general expression of approba\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion from the audience, which for some time bore down the hisses of\\nthe conspirators. Rut when an opportunity arose, a violent hissing\\nand groaning were set up. These tilings went on till God save the\\nKing\u00e2\u0080\u009d was played at that period, a bottle was thrown from the up\u00c2\u00ac\\nper gallery, which hit the stage curtain. The fact will be proved\\nby a variety of witnesses, who will leave no doubt upon it in your\\nminds. It was flung from the gallery by Henry Handwich. He\\nwill appear to have been a leader of the party. You will have the\\ntestimony of several distinct and independent witnesses, who can\\nhave no other object than to tell the truth. Several persons saw the\\nbottle in its progress. Amongst the idle reports which have been\\ncirculated as to this transaction, it has been said, that this came from\\nthe carpenters\u00e2\u0080\u0099 gallery\u00e2\u0080\u0094and from the pit\u00e2\u0080\u0094but gentlemen, we shall\\nput the fact beyond all controversy. As to the precise point where\\nit hit the curtain, there is a diversity of opinion; but that it hit\\nsomewhere nearer to the lord lieutenant than to the centre, all ths\\naccounts concur. Some of the witnesses say it struck within four\\nfeet of the side next the lord lieutenant, and within four feet of the\\nstage. Another says, that it was the breadth of a festoon. But all\\nconcur in this, that it was thrown, and that their impression was that\\nit was directed.against the lord lieutenant. It was thrown from the\\nsame side on which his excellency sat. You will ask why did they\\nget to that side. The right hand side had been early occupied by\\nother persons and the conspirators feeling it necessary to be in a\\nbody, were obliged to-go. to the left. The precise situation in which\\nHandwich was placed when he threw the bottle, will be proved to\\nyou. He threw it under him, or by a side motion, and not over him.\\nAny person who will attend to the position in which he was, as well\\nas to that of the lord lieutenant, will easily account for the aberration", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0277.jp2"}, "278": {"fulltext": "2G8\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s- speeches.\\nof the instrument. All the witnesses agree in stating it to be their\\nimpression that the bottle was directed against his excellency. Be\u00c2\u00ac\\nsides the general proof to show that the bottle came from the upper\\ngallery, there are three witnesses who distinctly saw Henry Hand-\\nwich throw it. One whose arrival we hourly expect, had his atten\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion excited by some expression of Handwich, and immediately\\nmarked him. He swears positively to his having thrown the bottle.\\nGeorge Graham was one of the principal rioters. He had a large\\nrattle which lie used at first for the purpose of making a noise; and\\nwhen it had performed its services in that department, he converted\\nit into an instrument of personal attack. He broke it into two pieces,\\nand it will be distinctly proved, that he came forward and took de\u00c2\u00ac\\nliberate aim at the lord lieutenant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s head; so good an aim, that it\\nstruck the cushion of the next box, and with such force, that it cut\\nthe cushion and rebounded on the stage. If it had taken effect, in\\nall probability it would have put an end to his life. When I state\\nthat a bottle was thrown at the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative, and that imple\u00c2\u00ac\\nments of violence were flung at his person, such is the state of the\\npublic mind, that it is listened to as if it were a mere bagatelle, a\\njeu d\u00e2\u0080\u0099esprit, a trifle of v hicli the lord lieutenant need not take any\\nnotice, and which is below the attention of the government and the\\nlaw officers.\\nWhy, gentlemen of the jury, are we awake Can we be insen-!\\nsible to the effect of such occurrences upon the honour and safety of\\nthe country Can we reflect without indignation that such an out\u00c2\u00ac\\nrage should be committed in a civilized country against the person of\\nhis majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative, because he had the presumption, in op\u00c2\u00ac\\nposition to a desperate gang, to execute the parting injunctions of\\nthe king, in a manner not calculated to give offence or excite ani\u00c2\u00ac\\nmosity The sentiments of the audience were roused some rushed\\nup to the gallery. Graham first flung the heavy part of the rattle,\\nand then the light. It will be produced to you. Forbes, as L\\nhave already stated, was a party to the entire system of the party,\\nand was present at the sending the men from Daly\u00e2\u0080\u0099s to the gallery\\nwith bludgeons. He stationed them in the upper gallery at tHe.ii\\npost. After the bottle and rattle had been thrown, he was observed:\\nin the lattices or pigeon-holes, immediately adjoining the left side of\\nthe upper gallery, in which he had previously stationed the party;\\nhe was separated from them only by the spikes, dividing those twc\\nparts of the house. He was seen actively encouraging the rioters;\\nhe held in his hand a whistle with which he sounded the alarm, and\\ngave a signal which w^s answered through the whole house. He", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0278.jp2"}, "279": {"fulltext": "THE BOTTLE RIOT.\\n2G9\\nwas asked by a magistrate, why he used the whistle, to which he\\nreplied, \u00e2\u0080\u009cfor fun.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He was then arrested, but liberated on promise\\nto give bail. It wall be proved that he went from the theatre to a\\ntavern in Essex-street, kept by a person of the name of Flanagan.\\nHe and William Graham, one of the distributers of the bills, and\\nwho was active in the riot, William Brownlow, the Atkinsons, and\\nothers, went in a party to this public house. They communicated\\ntogether as persons well acquainted with each other, and talked\\nabout what had passed at the theatre. Some one said to Brownlow,\\nWhy did not you go to your place in the gallery He said he\\nwas as well where he was in the pit; and afterwards boasted of the\\nshare he had had in the business, saying, that others had not done\\nso much. A conversation ensued as to the occurrences at the thea\u00c2\u00ac\\ntre. Forbes referred to the part he had taken. This conversation\\nwas overheard by two gentlemen, Mr. Farley, an attorney, and a\\nMr. Troy, who will be produced to you. Forbes spoke as a person\\nconscious that he had committed a crime. He said he had only one\\nlife to lose, but that he was ready to sacrifice that for the accom\u00c2\u00ac\\nplishment of his one object. He was ready, he said, to go to Botany\\nBay, but that if he did, he would establish an Orange Lodge there.\\nNay, he said he would be willing to go to hell, but that one great\\ndrawback to his happiness there would be, that he was sure to meet\\na Papist in it.\\nThis is a specimen only of his sentiments; but, what is more ma\u00c2\u00ac\\nterial for our present purpose, he expressed his regret that the bottle\\nhad missed its aim, but he trusted and hoped that the next time their\\nplan would be better laid, and the attempt be more effectual. Here,\\ngentlemen, is a person engaged in planning the whole attack who\\ncollected bludgeons and ruffians to execute it, who directs violence\\nagainst the lord lieutenant, and who, after his excellency\u00e2\u0080\u0099s life was\\nendangered, expressed his regret, not that they went beyond their\\ninstructions, but that they had not executed them in their full extent.\\nAmi now to justify myself in your opinion, and in that of the pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic, for the exercise of my discretion in this ex officio information\\nby which I have been enabled for the first time to bring these facts\\nbefore the public I ask any man who has a principle of candour\\nor honesty in his composition, whether he is not bound to acquit me,\\n,and whether I should not have basely betrayed the king whom T\\nserve, and the office with which he has honoured me, if I suffered\\npublic justice to be stifled and obstructed? When these transac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions were brought under the consideration of the government, the\\nlaw officers were consulted by the magistrates. We bestowed the\\ns", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0279.jp2"}, "280": {"fulltext": "270\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nmost patient attention and laborious investigation on the case; for\\nfive or six days we were occupied at this business every day some\\nnew light was thrown upon it, until it at length Assumed an aspect\\nso formidable, as to lead us to the apprehension that his excellency\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nlife had been directly aimed at. When we learned that Forbes had\\navowed his approbation of the act; when after the conspiracy had\\nshown itself in its most desperate effects, he expressed his regret at\\nits failure, aud his determination to make another attempt more effec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntual\u00e2\u0080\u0094we felt, when called upon for our advice upon his application\\nto be discharged, that we could not justify it to our conscience and\\nour sworn duty, or to the respect due to the high personage aud\\nillustrious character who had been offered at, if we had suffered him\\nto go at large till we knew the whole of the transaction. There was\\nat that time evidence, not only sufficient to warrant a grand jury\\nfor finding a bill for conspiracy to murder, but even for a petty jury,\\nto found a verdict for conviction. It was one thing to consider the\\nproper species of committal, and another in what way we should ulti\u00c2\u00ac\\nmately proceed. When that point came to be finally decided on,\\nand we had reason to believe that the whole of the evidence was\\nbefore us, our determination was not to proceed on the capital charge.\\nIt was infinitely better we should be censured for the tameness of\\nour proceeding, than that we should be arraigned for its rigour. We\\nfelt that before we sent up an indictment containing a capital charge,\\nwe should be clearly satisfied that the primary object of the conspir\u00c2\u00ac\\nacy was to take away the life of the lord lieutenant, and that if any\\ndoubt rested on the case, it would be better to be blamed for the\\ntimidity and forbearance of the prosecution than exposed to the heavy\\ncharge of exerting a rigour beyond the law we were glad to show\\nin the instance of the most illustrious personage of the realm a strict\\nobservance of the law. What satisfied my mind against sending up\\na bill of indictment on a capital charge was this, that the object of\\ndriving the lord lieutenant by violence from the theatre, and from the\\ncountry, though it involved the imminent hazard of the life of the\\nlord lieutenant, was distinct from the notion of a conspiracy to\\nmurder him. When it clearly appeared that the object was to put\\ndown the lord lieutenant s government, and force him from the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry, although this plot involved in it an outrage on his person, I did\\nnot think that in n capital case a jury could be called upon to say\\nthat murder w as the aim of the conspiracy. Under these circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, therefore, we thought it right to seud up the indictments for\\nthe misdemeanors, which the grand jury have thrown out.\\nThe nature of these informations has already been laid before you.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0280.jp2"}, "281": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n571\\nThere are two distinct informations one is for a riot and the other\\nfor a conspiracy to riot. The counts vary; but in each there is\\nalleged, first, a conspiracy to riot, and then a conspiracy to hoot,\\ngroan, hiss, and assault the lord lieutenant. In point of law, either\\nor any part of these charges, if proved, will justify a verdict. I\\nhave no doubt of being able to prove the whole. I have stated this\\ncase without exaggeration against the traversers at the bar. I have\\nno feelings in the discharge of my duty, except the desire faithfully\\nto acquit myself of what I owe to my country and to my sovereign.\\nI may have expressed myself with warmth, I hope not with intem\u00c2\u00ac\\nperance. But after I have disabused your minds of the ten thousand\\nfalsehoods which have been circulated on this subject, I feel it would\\nbe trifling with public justice to say, that this was the act of a few\\nmisguided ruffians, growing out of any sudden impulse. It is a\\nproceeding originating with a gang within the limits of this city,\\nassociated for the purpose of putting down the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government, of\\ndriving the lord lieutenant from this country, and of showing that he\\nhas not the power, against their wishes and their authority, to dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncharge the duties belonging to his exalted station.\\nThe trial, with its long muster of witnesses and its eloquent array of counsel\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nan oration for each traverser\u00e2\u0080\u0094went on, and ended in a disagreement of the jury.\\nThe traversers were let out upon bail, Plunket threatening to prosecute again;\\nbut the proceedings were never revived.\\nEX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\nApril 15, 1823.\\nThe umbrage excited among the Orange party by the high-handed manner in\\nwhich Plunket had proceeded against the bottle-rioters soon vented itself in\\n.pamphlet and speech, and Saurin, whose party spirit was seasoned by private\\nspite, zealously fomented the attacks upon him.: I will quote Sheil\u00e2\u0080\u0099s sketch of\\nthis feeling, of which he was a keen spectator.\\nSaurin,\u00e2\u0080\u009d he says, 4 protested (and he is in the habit of enforcing his assevera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions by appeals to the highest authority, and by the most solemn adjurations)\\nthat in his opinion the conduct of Mr. Plunket, in proceeding by ex officio in\u00c2\u00ac\\nformations, was the most flagrant violation of constitutional principle which had\\never been attempted. He seemed to think that the genius of Jefferies had by a\\nkind of political metempsychosis been restored in the person of William Con-\\nyngham Plunket. He became so clamorous in his invocations to liberty, that\\nhe almost verified the parable in the Scriptures. The demon of Whiggism, after\\na long expulsion, seemed to have effected a re-entry into his spirit, and to have\\nbrought a seven-fold power along with it. He was much more raicorously", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0281.jp2"}, "282": {"fulltext": "272\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nliberal than he had ever been, even at the period of his hottest opposition to tha\\nUnion. Little did he think, in this sudden but not unaccountable paroxysm of\\nconstitutional emotion, that his own authority would be speedily produced as a\\nprecedent, and that his great rival would find a shelter under the shadow ot\\nso eminent a name. It was not, however, to convivial declamations that his\\ninvectives were confined. The press was resorted to, and a pamphlet entitled\\nA year of Lord Wellesley\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Administration\u00e2\u0080\u0099 appeared. It was written with\\nskill, but without power. It was destitute of real eloquence, but exhibited that\\nspecies of dexterity which a veteran practitioner in Chancery might be expected\\nto display. It was believed that if not actually written by Saurin, he supplied\\nthe materials. The poison was compounded by other hands. This book was a\\ngood deal read, but owed its circulation rather to the opinions which it incul\u00c2\u00ac\\ncated, than to the language in which they were conveyed.\\nHaving succeeded in exciting the public mind to an adequate tone of irrita\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, Mr. Saurin resolved to push his attack into his enemy\u00e2\u0080\u0099s territory, and to\\ninvade him in the House of Commons. The selection which he made of one of\\nhis instruments for this purpose was a little singular. His oratory illustrates a\\nphrase of the satirist, tenero supplantat verba palato.\u00e2\u0080\u0099 The spirit of Saurin,\\nhowever, breathed some of its masculine natui-e into his soul, and he exhibited\\na sort of Amazon intrepidity in his encounter with Mr. Plunket. His coad\u00c2\u00ac\\njutor was more appropriately chosen, and a certain noble lictor was felicitously\\nselected for the scourging of the attorney .general.* That the latter was guilty\\nof some indiscretion in revenging the affront which was offered to the viceregal\\ndignity, his firmest advocates do not now dispute. He was probably actuated\\nby an honest desire to pierce into and disclose the penetralia of Orangeism, but\\nthis object he might perhaps have attained without committing the rioters for\\nhigh treason against the representative majesty of the noble marquis. He lent\\nhimself not a little to the personal exasperation of that distinguished nobleman.\\nLord Wellesley regarded the bottle affair not only as a violation of his honour,\\nbut as an attempt upon his life.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe attack, as Sheil states, was led by Mr. Brownlow, who, on the 15th of\\nApril, moved:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThat it appears to this house that the conduct of his Majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney-\\ngeneral for Ireland, with respect to the persons charged with a riot in the\\nDublin theatre, on the 14th of December last, particularly in bringing them to\\ntrial upon informations filed ex officio after bills of indictment against them for\\nthe same offence had been thrown out by a grand jury, was unwise; that it\\nwas contrary to the practice, and nor congenial to the spirit of the British con-,\\nstitution; and that it ought not to be drawn into a precedent hereafter.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nMr. Plunket said, that in rising on such an occasion as the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent, the house would naturally suppose that he felt some degree of\\nembarrassment. He had listened with great attention to the speech\\nof the honourable gentleman. Many of the observations which had\\nfallen from him were entitled to his entire approbation, and, allowing\\nMr. Charles Brownlow (the late Lord Lurgan) was the leader of the par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliamentary attack upon Mr. Plunket. The noble lictor\u00e2\u0080\u009d was Colonel Barry,\\nau officer of militia, and representative of the county of Cavan. He succeeded\\nto the barony of Farnham upon the death of hi 3 cousin, the fourth baron, in\\nJuly, 1323.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0282.jp2"}, "283": {"fulltext": "EX OFEICTO INFORMATIONS-\\n273\\nfor some undue warmth which had characterised a portion of his\\nspeech, he was rather disposed to thank than to blame the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable member for the temper in which he had brought forward this\\nsubject. But, at the same time that the honourable member had\\nentitled himself to this acknowledgment, he could not but observe\\nthat he had indulged himself, in a very considerable degree of lati\u00c2\u00ac\\ntude, in the charge which he had felt it his duty to bring against the*\\nindividual who now addressed the house. He could not help com\u00c2\u00ac\\nplaining, that when the honourable member brought forward a spe\u00c2\u00ac\\ncific charge against him for having filed an ex officio information,\\nafter a bill of indictment had been ignored by the grand jury, he\\nshould have endeavoured, by all the powers of his eloquence, to in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolve him (Mr. P.) in all the odium which attached to the system\\nof ex officio informations in general. The argument of the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable member went the length of arraigning the power of the crow a\\nto file ex officio informations in all cases, whether through its law\\nofficer or the Court of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench. The honourable member had\\ncontended, that a grand jury was the constitutional barrier between\\nthe prosecutions of the crown and the safety of the subject; but, if\\nit were essential to the safety of the subject that a party should in\\nno case be put upon his trial without the intervention of a grand\\njury, the whole system of informations must fall to the ground. If\\nthe proceeding by information were odious, illegal, and unconstitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional, he (Mr. P.) was not liable to the charge of having imported\\nit from Ireland; for among all the institutions incorporated into the\\nlaw of this country, there were none of more unquestioned antiquity\\nand admitted legality than the proceeding by information. If such\\na proceeding were opposed to the genius of our free constitution, it\\nwas somewhat extraordinary that it should not have been abolished\\nin the lapse of a thousand years. He would admit, that no length of\\nantiquity could sanction a practice which could be shown to be\\nwrong but he must think it somewhat hard; that he should be\\nselected as the object of censure, and that his conduct should be\\ncompared with that of Sir George Jefferies, of infamous memory\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nwith that of Empson and Dudley, and all persons who had inflicted\\nmisery on their country, and whose acts had brought down vengeance\\non their own heads. It was rather too hard that the accumulated\\nodium of a thousand years should be reserved for this day, and\\nthundered on his devoted head. The honourable member had con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntended, that the functions and privileges of a grand jury were im\u00c2\u00ac\\npeached by this proceeding. It was impossible that anything could\\nbe more eloquent, or more calculated to excite an auditory, than the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0283.jp2"}, "284": {"fulltext": "274\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nobservations of the honourable gentleman. He had touched a string\\nwhich could not fail to vibrate. But, to what extent did the hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable gentleman mean to lay down the principle. Did he mean to\\nsay, that no criminal proceeding could be instituted without the in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntervention of a grand jury He admitted that the functions of a\\ngrand jury ought not to be called in question, nor could any public\\nfunctionary be guilty of a more gross breach of decorum than by\\nvilifying a grand jury for the exercise of that discretion with which\\nthe constitution had invested him. But, was there anything in his\\n(Mr. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) conduct which would justify a comparison with that of\\nthe odious Jefferies When the grand jury returned their verdict,\\nhe was free to say, that he, in common with the court and auditors,\\nwas filled with astonishment, and that he did say on that occasion\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nThey have a duty to discharge within their province on their\\noaths, and they have exercised their discretion; I also have a duty\\nto discharge, and, with the blessing of God, I will discharge it fear\u00c2\u00ac\\nlessly and honestly!\u00e2\u0080\u009d After hearing all the arguments which had\\nbeen urged against him, he did not feel that he had been guilty of\\nanything that was inconsistent with the law and constitution of the\\ncountry. He would put it to the candour of the honourable mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber whether it was fair to couple any observations upon his conduct,\\nwith a reference to the filthy and disgusting Billingsgate which\\nflowed from the lips of Sir G. Jefferies, when he reprimanded\\nthe grand jury, and sent them back a second and a third time\\nBut, said the honourable gentleman, though Jefferies sent the grand\\njury back a second and a third time, he did not venture to file an\\nex officio information. The reason why Jefferies did not proceed to\\nthis extremity had not occurred to the honourable gentleman, but it\\nwas a very simple one Jefferies was not then attorney-general, but\\nchief justice of the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, and had no more right to\\nfile an ex officio information than the honourable gentleman had.\\nAnother ground of complaint against the honourable gentleman\\nwas, that it was utterly impossible to collect the extent of the charge\\nwhich he had brought against him. The honourable gentleman had\\nintroduced a charge unconnected with the present question namely,\\nthat of his (Mr. P\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) having advised the committal of the parties for\\na capital offence, who were afterwards prosecuted only for a misde\u00c2\u00ac\\nmeanor. This question had been already disposed of by the house,\\nnor was there, in point of fact, any evidence to show that the parties\\nwere committed at his (Mr. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) desire. The honourable member\\nhad brought forward a motion for censure, without any evidence to\\nsupport it, but he would not act so unworthy a part as to shelter", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0284.jp2"}, "285": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n275\\nhimself behind the total want of evidence. The magistrates who\\ncommitted those individuals were responsible for their own act, and\\nthere was no evidence that they had resorted to his (Mr. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) advice.\\nHe would frankly avow, however, that the magistrates did resort to\\nhis advice. The honourable member said, he had been assured by\\nhigh legal authority, that no man ought to be committed on a capital\\ncharge, unless there was irresistible evidence of his guilt. He begged\\nto say that no such irresistible evidence was necessary to warrant a\\ncommittal upon a capital charge. In the present case, he had held\\nhimself Itound to advise the committal upon a capital charge, although\\nhe did not think it advisable to follow it up by a capital prosecution.\\nThe information upon which he had advised the committal had not\\nbeen laid before the house. It had been very properly withheld; not\\nfor the purpose of screening himself, but for the purpose of protecting\\nthe magistrates. He, however, was perfectly ready to meet the\\nhonourable member, and to state the grounds upon which he had\\ngiven that advice. He was perfectly ready to state again the grounds\\nupon which he had acted; and he felt it due to his own character\\nand honour to show that he had not subjected any man to the depri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvation of his liberty, on hasty, light, or insufficient grounds. When\\nthe parties had first been taken up, they had been committed upon\\nthe charge of misdemeanor. He (Mr. P.) had at that time only\\nheard the circumstances attending the riot; and, although he had\\nthought them daringly outrageous, he had not thought that they\\namounted to what would constitute a capital charge. Some persons\\nin the theatre had done that which endangered the life of the lord\\nlieutenant; but he had not seen anything to warrant his believing\\nthat there had been a conspiracy to take away the life of the lord\\nlieutenant. In the course, however, of the seven days\u00e2\u0080\u0099 examination\\nwhich followed, facts had come out which tended to show that the\\nriot had been the result of premeditation, and that the person who\\nhad been the principal agent in the conspiracy, and who had assisted\\nin packing the house for the purpose of making the riot, had con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnected himself with the attack upon the person of the lord lieutenant.\\nIt had been attempted to throw ridicule upon that attack, through\\nthe implements with which it had been made. It was easy to make\\njokes upon a rattle or a bottle; but neither a rattle nor a bottle\\nwould be a very pleasant joke, if flung at the head of any honourable\\ngentleman. If that bottle had struck the lord lieutenant on the\\nhead, instead of striking the cushion of the box in which he sat, it\\nwould in all probability have taken away his life. And what fol\u00c2\u00ac\\nlowed the throwing of these weapons Why, Mr. Forbes at once", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0285.jp2"}, "286": {"fulltext": "276\\nplun\u00c2\u00a3et*s speeches.\\nexpressed bis regret that they had missed. One of the oifenaet\\ndeclared that they were determined to hazard their lives for the at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainment of their object, and hoped, on another opportunity, that\\nthey should be more successful. It was said that this man was\\ninfuriated with drink, and that he should not be made responsible\\nfor words so inconsiderately spoken. But, the same intemperauce,\\nthe same uncontrolled fury of passion, which allowed him to use\\nthese expressions against the lord lieutenant, might prompt him to\\ndeeds which would put the life of his excellency in peril; and he\\n(Mr. P.) would not have discharged his duty, if he had no* advised\\nthat the parties should be held in custody until full deliberation upon\\nthe proper mode of prosecution could be had. Accordingly, three\\npersons were arrested; the man who flung the bottle, the man who\\nflung the rattle, and the man who had made use of the expressions\\nbefore mentioned.\\nThere was one thing to which he would entreat the attention of the\\nhouse, and particularly that of the country gentlemen and that was\\nthe state of the law and the practice with regard to grand juries. He\\ntrusted he should be able to satisfy the house, that it was no novel,\\nviolent, or unconstitutional thing to question their decisions. He\\nhoped to be able to show that there was nothing in it so very hostile\\nto freedom, or so adverse to the spirit of the constitution as had\\nbeen alleged. In doing this, he would, in the first place, point out\\nthat trials upon information were really the law. This was the more\\nnecessary, not only on account of what had been said by the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable gentleman, but ou account of what had been detailed in news\u00c2\u00ac\\npapers, and taken up and repeated till the ears of the country had\\nrung again. On this account he felt it necessary to go at some\\nlength into the proof of the legality. In the first place, there was no\\npoint of the law more clear than this, that the ignoring of a bill by\\na grand jury was no bar to subsequent proceedings by indictment.\\nNay, the bill might be again and again sent to the grand jury, and\\nagain and again ignored, toties quoties. It might be questioned by\\nthe same grand jury or another, and from this it was evident that\\nthe verdict of a grand jury was not a sacred thing. In the next\\nplace, he hoped he would be able to show, that the method of pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding by indictment upon information was as old as the constitu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, and, as such, formed part of the constitution itself; that it\\nformed a part of the general administration of justice as much as\\nanything else which belonged to that administration; and not only\\ntnui, but the reason was distinctly assigned; namely, to guard the\\ncrown and the public against the delects of the administration o*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0286.jp2"}, "287": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n277\\njustice. Before the revolution, this power of filing informations was\\nassigned to two officers\u00e2\u0080\u0094the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney-general and the master\\nof the crown office. The attorney-general exerted it for offences\\nwhich were peculiarly against the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s person or government. The\\nmaster of the crown office exerted it for the prosecution of offences\\nof a lower degree, which were not so easily rendered amenable to\\nthe ordinary process of law. Each of these officers was at liberty\\nto exert the right of tiling informations their power was co-existent;\\none of them could do it to the same extent as the other; nor had\\none of them greater authority than the other. This was the case\\ndown to the time of the revolution. The honourable member had\\nreferred to this power, as if it were a remnant of the jurisdiction of\\nthe star-chamber, so justly odious. Whereas, at the abolition of the\\nstar-chamber tribunal, a period remarkable for the constitutional jea\u00c2\u00ac\\nlousy of parliament, it had been expressly stipulated, that nothing in\\nthose proceedings should impeach the right of the crown to proceed\\nin particular offences by filing informations. This of itself proved,\\nthat the power, even in the period of the greatest jealousy as to the\\nliberties of the country, was held to be quite compatible with the\\nconstitution. The right of the crown had been exercised in the man\u00c2\u00ac\\nner he had before described, down to the period of the revolution.\\nThe act of the 4th and 5th William and Anne introduced some new\\nregulations. In the debates upon that act, the mode of proceeding\\nby information was brought into question. Some members were, of\\nopinion, that it would be a good thing to get rid of it altogether.\\nRepeated conferences were held upon the subject; and especially upon\\nthat part of it which related to informations consequent upon parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nmentary proceedings. The act at length passed, by which the power\\nbefore enjoyed by the master of the crown office was brought under\\nvery considerable restraints, and that officer was disabled from pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding by information, except under the permission of the Court of\\nKing\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, to which he must address his application under affi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndavit. But the power of the attorney-general was reserved unmo\u00c2\u00ac\\nlested, and was to exist in just the same extent as before the passing\\nof the act; and therefore the attorney-general must be considered\\nas having the same power and discretion in proceeding by informa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, as the master of the crown office had before the statute of Wil\u00c2\u00ac\\nliam. The act gave the attorney-general no power which was not\\nenjoyed by the master of the crown office. It did not enlarge the\\njurisdiction of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench in any degree. He prayed the house\\nthen to attend to the direct and reasonable inference. If the attorney-\\ngeneral had a power co-extensive with that of the master of the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0287.jp2"}, "288": {"fulltext": "278\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ncrown office before the passing of the statute, so he must be held, as\\nfar as the right of filing informations went, to hold a power co\u00c2\u00ac\\nextensive with that of the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench. At any rate, thi3\\ncould not be disputed with him in regard to that class of informa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions which went to prosecute offences against the state. If this\\nwere not admitted, they would be driven to the monstrous conclusion,\\nthat before the statute of William, the master of the crown office had\\ngreater power and authority than the attorney-general, a proposition\\nmuch too wide for discussion; and therefore he would not involve\\nthe house in it. He thought he might safely assume that the^attor-.\\nney-general enjoyed this power in a concurrent degree with the Court\\nof King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, and that he was at liberty to proceed by information\\nor indictment, according to his discretion. He appealed to the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfessional members, if there was a single case in the books which\\naffected to establish a difference, as to the rule of law, between pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceedings by indictment and by information. It was the clear and\\nestablished principle of law, that no subject could be called on to\\nplead to, or be tried for, the same offence twice. But there was\\nno protection from further proceedings until after the trial. Now,\\nthe presentment before a grand jury was no trial; it was only a pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding towards putting the defendant on his trial; and therefore\\nhe must show, not the decision of a grand jury, but the acquittal by\\na petty jury. He defied any lawyer to show that the application of\\nthe principle had ever admitted any distinction between proceedings\\nby indictment and by information. Ignoring the bill was no bar to\\na new prosecution either way nor anything short of an acquittal\\nby a tribunal competent to try the information.\\nTo establish these points, he had had recourse to that place where\\nalone it was possible to come at the precedents which guided him\\nand he would now proceed to state what were the results of that in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvestigation. The case had all along been treated as if it were some\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing quite new to have recourse to an information after the ignor\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of an indictment, and as if he had acted in a manner highly in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndecorous in making any remark on, or attempting any opposition to,\\nthe finding of the grand jury. The house would see how this as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsumption accorded with the fact. The crown office had been searched,\\nand he was now to inform the house what was the result. The first\\ncase was, the King against Hope\u00e2\u0080\u009d (Trinity Term, 8 and 9 George\\n2nd). The motion was tor an information on a charge of trespass\\nand assault. It was insisted in the defence, among other things,\\nthat the prosecutor had already proceeded by indictment, which was\\nignored by the grand jury. This was the very case on which they", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0288.jp2"}, "289": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n279\\nwere now at issue. Yet there was no condemnation on those who\\nquestioned the exercise of these functions by the grand jury\u00e2\u0080\u0094there\\nwas no complaint of throwing a slur or attempting to discredit them.\\nIt had been asked, was it not most unjust to impeach the conduct of\\nthose who, being sworn to secrecy, could not be allowed to explain.\\nThis, if true, was equally applicable to the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench.\\nBut the fact was, that neither the court nor the grand jury were\\ncalled on for a defence. The question was not between the court\\nand the jury, but between the criminal and the public\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether\\noffenders should be allowed to escape through a failure in the exer\u00c2\u00ac\\ncise of the functions of grand juries or not. The defendant in the\\ncase before-named pleaded that an indictment which had been pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsented was ignored. The answer given by the court was, that the\\nignoring of the bill was the very reason why the information should\\nbe granted and that it was one of the great privileges of the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject to be secured, by this mode of proceeding, from the loss of his\\njust remedy on cases where, from little party heats and local irrita\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions, that was likely to happen; and this was assented to per\\ntotam curiam. It appeared from the report that the grand jury\\nattempted to send the witnesses away that they were unwilling to\\nask them any questions, and appeared to wish to turn the whole\\nmatter into ridicule. Here was not only the case of passing by the\\ndecision of the grand jury, but the particular grounds of conduct in\\nthe grand jury were also alleged. Here were reasons given which\\nwent beyond the statement just now made by the honourable mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber. And who said this He could assure the house he was not\\nusing the words of Judge Jefferies, nor of Empson or Dudley;\\nnor of any other of the odious authorities with whom he had\\nbeen compared. This was the decision of Lord Hardwicke, in\\nwhich it was declared that the a;tainmeut of justice was not\\nto be frustrated through little party heats and local irritations.\\nThe next case to which he would allude was that of the King against\\nThorpe. This was a prosecution for a nuisance. In this case it\\nwas alleged that an ignoramus had been returned by the grand jury.\\nThis was not a case in which there were political ferments, and in\\nwhich the jury had got into little party heats; yet Mr. Bearcroft\\nsaid there was reason for filing the information, and Lord Mansfield\\nmade the rule absolute, upon the ground that some of the grand\\njury had. been influenced in favour of Thorpe. The next case was\\nthat of the present king against the inhabitants of Berks, in the\\nmatter of the repairing of a bridge. From the affidavits, it appeared\\nthat this case had been sent to the grand jury, and had been ignored.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0289.jp2"}, "290": {"fulltext": "280\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nA second presentment was made, when Lord Folkestone was in the\\nchair. This was again ignored and it was presented a third time,\\nwhen Mr. Dundas was in the chair and it was a third time ignored,\\nupon which an information was filed. He hoped he had now ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced cases enough to prevent the notion from becoming universal,\\nthat the inoculation of this obnoxious right had not been communi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncated by him; that the taint to the constitution could not be of his\\ngiving, but that it was as old at least as the time of Lord Hard-\\nwicke. Now, if in this country it was necessary to have a check\\nover the local heats and the misconduct of grand juries, he would\\nappeal to the house whether it would be safe that a similar check\\nshould be withdrawn in Ireland He had looked over files of the\\nrecords of the courts in that country, and he had found no fewer\\nthan thirteen cases since the year 1795,* and these had had the sanc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of Lord Clanwilliam, Lord Kihvarden, and Chief Baron Downes.\\nThe first to which he would allude was in February, 1795, and it\\nwas for perjury. Some of the other cases were trivial, but if in the\\nstrong ones there was misconduct, that was sufficient to establish the\\nnecessity of the right. In another case, the grand jury of West\u00c2\u00ac\\nmeath had thrown out the bill; and the affidavit stated that this\\nhad been done by the address of one of the grand jury. He would\\npass over the other cases, except two, which were valuable; inas\u00c2\u00ac\\nmuch as the affidavits upon which the informations were filed con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntained no charge of misconduct. These cases were, the King against\\nPaterson, and the King against Crawford, and they were both for\\nsending letters with a view to provoke challenges, and in neither of\\nthem was any accusation made against the grand jury, further than\\nthat they had ignored the bills by some influence unknown to the\\ndeponent. He should trouble the house with one more case, the\\nmore important as it referred to the very grand jury who had ignored\\nthe bills preferred by him. What would the house think when he\\ninformed them that at that very hour a conditional order of the\\nCourt of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench of Ireland existed, to set aside the finding of\\nthat very grand jury, on the ground of misconduct at the very same\\nsessions He had the copies of the affidavits on which that condi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional rule was granted; but as the case was still pending, he felt\\nsome difficulty as to the manner of expressing himself from a reluc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntance to mention names. The affidavits allege the misconduct of the\\ngrand jury as the ground for setting aside their finding. The bill\\non which they found ignoramus charged A. and B. with a conspi\u00c2\u00ac\\nracy to defraud a third party. A. got B. to make oath that he\\nhad received a sum of money for the purpose of defeating the claim", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0290.jp2"}, "291": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n231\\ncf C. Two witnesses were examined. The grounds of misconduct,\\nas alleged in the affidavits, were, first, the refusal to receive a letter\\nof one of the accused, because they would have nothing to do with\\na written document; and next, that they would not admit con\u00c2\u00ac\\nspiracy, because the witnesses would not swear that the parties com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted perjury. The interrogatories were curious. Did poor\\nM\u00e2\u0080\u0098Mahon,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said the jury (that was not the real name), to your\\nknowledge commit peijury.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Witness\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009cNo, the charge is for\\nconspiracy.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The witness was then shown the door, and the bill\\nwas ignored.\\nHe had now concluded his reference to cases, and should next\\napply himself to the argument that was drawn from the want of pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ncedent. He had been asked, if he was justified in the course he had\\ntaken where were his precedents Where, he would ask, in all\\nthe cases he had alluded to, could they have looked for a record\\nThe truth was, that where, after a bill being ignored, an attorney-\\ngeneral subsequently filed an ex officio information, it was impossible\\nthat, either on the information, the evidence, or the defence, the find\u00c2\u00ac\\ning could be found; as it was wholly immaterial to all. When,\\ntherefore, he was asked for precedents, his answer was, that from\\nthe nature of the question, it was impossible to produce them. And\\nyet the honourable mover had been pleased to taunt him with hav\u00c2\u00ac\\ning pursued a course for which he could produce no precedent in the\\nhistory of the country. Every man acquainted with the subject was\\naware, that it was rarely that an attorney-general felt it necessary to\\nseek the intervention of a grand jury. He had, however, in the\\npresent instance, deviated from the custom, and made a reference to\\nthat constitutional barrierbut, after the lesson that had been\\nread to him, he was free to confess that he did not feel much disposed\\nto repeat the application. No man would deny that the treatment\\nthe king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative received at the theatre at Dublin, was of\\nthat marked character, as to have justified his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney-\\ngeneral in having recourse to the habitual practice of both countries,\\nand filing an ex officio information. What, then, was his crime\\nNot that he had tiled such an information, but that he had gone to\\na grand jury. It was for this crime that he had been assailed with\\nall the lightning of the honourable mover\u00e2\u0080\u0099s eloquence; it was for\\nthis that all the terrors of the violated constitution had been arrayed\\nagainst him. But it was said, it was a mockery to go to a grand\\njury, unless you were determined to abide by their finding.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Such\\nan observation was inconsistent with the first principles of justice,\\nJle could, were it necessary, refer to cases where it was laid dowq", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0291.jp2"}, "292": {"fulltext": "282\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nby judges on the bench, that, with the view of saving expense to\\nparties in the country, the reference to a grand jury in the first in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance was desirable. But he could easily suppose a case where an\\nattorney-general would feel a desire to have his own judgment\\nbacked by the opinion of a jury of sound and honest men. Was it\\ntherefore to be concluded, that if that functionary had reasons to know\\nthat, in place of that sound and honest opinion, the case submitted\\nto that jury had been decided under sinister and improper feelings,\\nhe was therefore to allow the principles of justice to be defeated\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nthat he was bound by a step in the pursuit of justice, to allow the\\nends of justice to be subverted He would suppose the case of a\\ngrand jury, who, when a number of witnesses were introduced for\\nexamination, placed their hands on their ears, and threw their legs\\nacross, in evident demonstration of the determination to pay no atten\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion\u00e2\u0080\u0094would any man, under such circumstances, assert that the\\nprinciples of justice were satisfied? If, in addition to this, it could\\nbe shown, that the finding of such a grand jury was wholly dispro\u00c2\u00ac\\nportionate to the evidence produced before it, would any sound mind\\nventure to pronounce that such a jury had arrived at a legitimate de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncision Admit the opposite inference, and what must be the conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquence It would be this\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the very constitutional barrier, em\u00c2\u00ac\\nphatically dwelt upon by the honourable mover, and with the viola\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of which he (Mr. P.) was accused, would become inoperative.\\nIf while it was open to the subject, redress was refused to the crown,\\nno future attorney-general would venture to go before a grand jury;\\nand thus by the very argument of the advocate of that great consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntutional security, all its valuable results would be lost to the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject. It was, perhaps, unnecessary to state, that after the finding\\nof a grand jury, the crown could obtain no redress from the Court of\\nKing\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench. The language of the court was, that u We will not\\ndo it, because you, the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney, can do it yourself*\u00e2\u0080\u009d If, there\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore, it was illegal, after a grand jury had ignored a bill, for an at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntorney-general to file his information, to the king would be denied a\\nright of redress, to which the meanest subject was entitled. The\\nright honourable gentleman then proceeded to read from Burrow\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nK. ports, cases in which the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench had refused to\\ninterfere with the finding of a grand jury where the crown was a\\nparty, on the very ground that its interference was unnecessary, as\\nthe king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney possessed the power. With respect to the case\\nof Moore, he should first say, that it was by accident, and from the\\npeculiarity of the circumstances which arose out of it, that it was\\npossible to cite it as a precedent. The grand jury had, in that in-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0292.jp2"}, "293": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n283\\nstance, found the bill where they intended to find ignoramus. They\\nsubsequently made affidavits, stating it to be a clerical error, and\\nwith the hope of being allowed to rectify it. The court refused the\\napplication. The attorney-general, unwilling to put the party on his\\ntrial after such an admission from the jury, quashed the indictment,\\nby issuing a noli prosequi. He then filed his information ex officio,\\nThe circumstances excited considerable public attention the notice\\nof parliament had been attracted to it. After an examination of the\\nquestion, parliament petitioned for the removal of the judge (tha\\nhouse would mark that fact), while no complaint whatever was even\\nsuggested against the attorney-general, for filing his information.\\nHere, then, he might rest his defence, did he not know that far more\\nimportant considerations demanded of him to show, that in the case\\nof the Dublin grand jury, had he acquiesced in their finding, the\\nends of public justice would have been defeated. He would first\\napply himself to the finding. It appeared from the papers, only that\\nnight presented to the house, that thirteen witnesses had been exa\u00c2\u00ac\\nmined before that grand jury, exclusively of other witnesses produced\\non the trial of the traversers. He had no hesitation in saying,\\nthat any impartial person, looking at the evidence, would at once\\ndeclare that there was no part of that bill of indictment, whether it\\nreferred to the conspiracy, to the riot, or to the assault, that was\\nnot completely and demonstratively proved. There was no sound\\nmind that would not admit that the men who could have brought\\nthemselves to such a conclusion as the Dublin grand jury had, could\\nnot have arrived at it by legitimate means. It had been distinctly\\nproved, that a plan had been formed to commit a riot; that in fur\u00c2\u00ac\\ntherance of that plan, a number of persons assembled at the theatre;\\nthat a missile had been thrown by Graham that Forbes had gone\\nthe day before to the theatre to buy tickets for the purpose of pack\u00c2\u00ac\\ning an aucfence\u00e2\u0080\u0094that Forbes was taken with the whistle in his hand\\nwith whiclHie incited the rioters that at a subsequent meeting at\\na tavern, he had expressed his concern at the failure of their pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose, and his hopes of success on a future occasion. Yet, with such\\nevidence, the grand jury ignored the bill. He would candidly put\\nthe house in possession of what he felt to be the impressions under\\nwhich that jury acted. It was his conviction\u00e2\u0080\u0094a conviction which he\\nfelt with all the force of a moral certainty\u00e2\u0080\u0094that they, the grand jury,\\nconceived the plan of these rioters to be a very right and proper plan.\\nThey conceived that, when the lord lieutenant, in compliance with\\nthe expressed desires of his sovereign, had exerted himself to concili\u00c2\u00ac\\nate the various classes of the Irish people, and to put an end to the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0293.jp2"}, "294": {"fulltext": "284\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nheart-burnings which had so long embittered that community, it was\\nextremely proper and lawful, that certain persons, whom, for some\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing or for nothing, he (Mr. P.) had designated as a \u00e2\u0080\u009cgang,\u00e2\u0080\u009dshould\\nseize the first opportunity that presented itself, for marking their\\npowerful disapprobation of such an acquiescence in the express com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmands of his majesty. To that extent they felt it highly proper the\\nopposition should proceed though they were not prepared to go the\\nlength of thinking that it was right to fling bottles and rattles at his\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative. That, in his conscience, he believed to be\\nthe decided conviction of the grand jury\u00e2\u0080\u0094a conviction, he also be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlieved, which the greater portion of the Dublin corporation did not\\nconsider erroneous. Such, indeed, was the statement of one of the\\ncounsel, who, on the subsequent trial, defended the traversers. It\\nwas, however, not the opinion of the chief justice who tried them\\nfrom whose charge he would read a short extract:\\nBefore I proceed to sum up the evidence, it will be necessary for\\nme to examine a doctrine asserted by the traverser\u00e2\u0080\u0099s counsel, in oppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition to what I have announced as the opinion of the court upon\\nthe law of the case. It has been insisted that in a public theatre,\\nany man has a right to disturb and terrify the audience by expres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsing his censure or approbation of public and political characters;\\nthat such right has been constantly exercised and enjoyed in the\\ntheatres of both countries; and that such a disturbance of the peace,\\nunder such circumstances, loses its illegal character, and becomes\\nexcusable. There is no such right. It is a position not founded in\\npoint of law. If allowed to go abroad uncontradicted, it would be\\nproductive of the most dangerous consequences. The rights of an\\naudience at a theatre are perfectly well defined. They may cry down\\na play or other performance which they dislike, or they may hiss or\\nhoot the actors who depend on their approbation, or their caprice.\\nEven that privilege, however, is confined within its limits.^hey must\\nnot break the peace, or act in such a manner as has a tendency to ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncite terror or disturbance. Their censure or approbation, although it\\nmay be noisy, must not be riotous. That censure or approbation must\\nbe the expression of the feelings of the moment. For, if it be premedi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntated by a number of persons confederated beforehand to cry down even\\na performance or an actor, it becomes criminal. Such are the limits\\nof the privileges of an audience, even as to actors and authors. But\\nif their censorial power were to be extended to public or political\\ncharacters, it would turn the theatre into a den of factious rioters,\\ninstead of a place of cultivated amusement, or, as some conceive, of\\npjorai improvement. What public man in any department would", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0294.jp2"}, "295": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n285\\nhimself go, or would take his family to a theatre, if he were to incur\\nthe risk of being hissed or insulted by a rabble, instigated by ruf\u00c2\u00ac\\nfians, exasperated perhaps against him by the- discharge of some pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic duty We are, therefore, anxious to disabuse you as to this topic,\\nwhich has perhaps not unjustifiably been used by the counsel for the\\ntraversers, but which we are bound to discountenance; and to tell\\nyou, that no length of time during which licentiousness may have\\nremained unpunished can be sufficient to sanction so mischievous a\\npretension, or protect it from the reprehension of a court of justice.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nSuch was the view of the law as taken by the chief justice of the\\nKing\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench. Such was not the view of the law taken by the Dub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlin grand jury. They, in their wisdom, thought the public conduct\\nof the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative a fit and proper subject of animadver\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion and outrage at a public theatre. When they had ignored the\\nbills, they had determined to throw their protection around those\\nwho had seized the first occasion of showing that the experiment of\\ngoverning the people of Ireland under the protection of equal laws,\\nwas a dangerous experiment to him who had the virtue and the\\ncourage to try it; they had determined to give a decisive proof that\\nin Ireland there was a power hostile to its population, and superior\\nto the throne itself. It was in opposition to such feelings and such\\na determination that he appealed to the law, as the functionary of\\nthe crown. Were he even on the ground of form to be made the\\nobject of the censure of that house, the principles on which he had\\nacted would nevertheless be to him the source of unceasing consola\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. It had been said, that he had no right to justify himself for\\nthe course he had pursued by any reference to what the evidence\\non the subsequent trial disclosed. To that he must reply, that if\\nany man found the conclusion to which he had arrived borne out\\nby results, he was entitled to refer to those results, in order to prove\\nthe propriety of the course he had adopted. What, then, was made\\nmanifest on that trial It was proved, that a plan had been con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerted at a meeting of an Orange lodge. It was with reluctance he\\nintroduced Orangeism into the discussion. He had lived many years\\nin the city of Dublin, and in habits of intercourse with very respect\u00c2\u00ac\\nable persons, supposed to be attached to such associations, and never\\nin his life had he had any altercation with them. I have, however,\\n(said Mr. Plunket) ever deprecated their existence. I hold them to be\\nillegal, and subject to the penalties of the statute law. I consider\\nan association, bound by a secret oath, to be extremely dangerous\\non the principles of the common law; inasmuch as they subtract the\\nsubject from the state, and interpose between him and his allegiance", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0295.jp2"}, "296": {"fulltext": "286\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES,\\nto the king. As an exclusively religious association, their unequi\u00c2\u00ac\\nvocal tendency is, to defeat the power to govern by equal laws, and\\nto keep the various classes of the population in a state of positive\\nwar. The natural consequence of their existence has been, and must\\nbe, to produce exclusive Catholic associations, equally hostile to good\\ngovernment, each arrayed against the other, and both against the\\nlaw. As a public officer of the constitution, I have felt it to be my\\nduty to enforce the law against Catholic secret associations. From\\nthat duty, when circumstances called for its exercise, I have never\\nshrunk. But how should I reflect upon my own actions, if I were\\ncapable of visiting with the terrors of the law the one class of the\\ncommunity, while I shrunk from its application to the other It is\\nthe system of Orauge associations that places the Protestants of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland in imminent danger. The support of the Protestant is in the\\nlaw.\\nIt was only when he stepped beyond the precincts of law, and\\nchallenged the population of Ireland to hostility, that he endangered\\nhis safety and risked the security of the establishment. It is because\\nI wish well to that establishment that I deprecate the existence of\\nOrange societies. But, to suppose that I could descend from my rank\\nand character in society to prostitute both, through rancour against\\nany party, is an imputation of which I feel myself to be undeserving.\\nIf my life and character is not a shield against such a suspicion, no\\ndefence that I can offer would be entitled to the attention of this\\nhouse.\\nTo return to the evidence: it was proved that five persons, one of\\nthem enjoying a lucrative office in the post-office, had arranged the\\noutrage against the lord lieutenant. They had determined to give\\na proof of the unpopularity of his administration, on the first oppor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntunity. The visit of his excellency to the theatre furnished that\\nopportunity. When apprised of that intention, it was determined\\nby the rioters to drive him from the theatre, and by such a manifes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntation of opinion to compel him to desist from the course of rule\\nthat he had followed. It was to be remarked, that whatever private\\nopinions the lord lieutenant might entertain on certain questions, he\\nhad abstained from mixing them up with his public acts. It did so\\nhappen, that from the control of events, without any reference to\\ninclination or otherwise, he had not conferred a single office on a\\nRoman Catholic from the commencement of his government. His\\noffence was, that he had endeavoured to give effect to the mandate of\\nthe king. And yet, these were loyal, very loyal men, who assaulted\\nthe king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s representative On the trial it was proved by witnesses,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0296.jp2"}, "297": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n287\\nand enforced by counsel, that there was not a more loyal subject to\\nthe king than Mr. Forbes, who packed the audience. Loyal no\\ndoubt he was, most loyal\u00e2\u0080\u0094so long as the king governed his subjects\\nin the way that Mr. Forbes approved. In that acceptation of the\\nword, there were not more attached members of the community than\\nthe Orange lodges of Ireland. And truly loyal, and most estimable\\nin every consideration, they would prove themselves, would they but\\nthrow aside the follies of their secret associations. But it was the\\ninevitable consequence of associations which confounded the respec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntable part of society with the low and the turbulent, that the first,\\nby the unnatural connexion, lost their superiority and influence, while\\nthe other were emboldened in their violence. To resume his narra\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive the theatre was packed; persons were sent to occupy different\\nparts of it, whose admission was purchased, and who were inflamed\\nwith ardent spirits, according to the arrangement of Forbes, who\\nwent himself into the lattices, or upper-boxes, to keep up a commu\u00c2\u00ac\\nnication with the rioters, who were to act under his direction. When\\nsuch were the facts which had been established by evidence, was he\\nnot right in his opinion that the grand jury had acted upon a false\\nprinciple in coming to the conclusion which they had done The\\nhonourable member had called on him, on the supposition of a variety\\nof facts which had nothing to do with the motion. He had not,\\nhowever, made out his case. While he (Mr. P.) had not only grounds\\nfor impeaching the decision of the grand jury, but also the manner\\nin which it had been impannelled. He had reason to know tiiat\\nthe sheriff was related to two of the traversers, in the close affinity\\nof first cousin. This, had he known it at the time, would have been\\nground of challenge to the array. He had also in evidence upon\\noath, that the sheriff declared that the traversers need not be afraid\\nof the result of the trial, as he had a list of Orangemen for the jury\\nin his pocket. Another circumstance would show the spirit in\\nwhich the grand jury was empannelled. There was a person named\\nPoole, who was desirous of serving on the grand jury. The sheriff\\npromised him previously to the riot, that he should be on the jury\\nbut, after the riot, he found that his name was not on the list, and\\nwhen the sheriff was applied to on the subject, he said, Do you\\nsuppose I would allow a man to be on the grand jury, who said he\\nwould abide by the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s letter He (Mr. P.) did not mean by\\nsuch statement to inculpate the members of which the grand jury was\\ncomposed. It was, indeed, a gross impropriety in the sheriff, if he\\nselected jurors under manifest prejudice but as to the jurors them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves, they were not perhaps aware of the prejudice, or if they were", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0297.jp2"}, "298": {"fulltext": "258\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthey would forego it. There was another objection to the mode of\\nempannelling the jury. When he found that a whole day had passed\\nwithout finding the bills, he procured the panels of the five preced\u00c2\u00ac\\ning years. He found on inspection that there were from about 70\\nto 100 on each panel, and that on calling the panel it was with diffi\u00c2\u00ac\\nculty the requisite number of the jury was made up after calling the\\nwhole list. In the present instance the number was only about 50,\\nof which there were about 26 names that he did not find on any\\nother panel, and the whole number attended, w r ith the exception of\\ntwo or three they answered in regular order, and before the 26th\\nname was called the jury was completed. He would put it to the\\ncandour of the house if he would have been justified in going back\\nwith the case to such a grand jury. He would ask the honourable\\nmember himself this question, as a man of honour, and he was sure\\nhe would answer it fairly. He\u00e2\u0080\u0099would put it to the candour and\\nhonour of the house, whether he had acted in a manner which the\\ncircumstances of the case did not justify. He had the affidavit of a\\nperson w r ho assisted in the office of sheriff, to the effect, that when\\nthe jury was about to be struck, according to the usual course of the\\noffice, the sheriff ordered the panel to be brought to him, and said\\nhe would prepare it himself\u00e2\u0080\u0094he who was a relation of two of the\\ntraversers and the deponent swore that he believed this course was\\ntaken to enable the sheriff to deal with the panel as he pleased,\\nthough he was sworn to do impartial justice between the parties!\\nThe right honourable gentleman then adverted to the evidence of a\\nperson named Farley before the grand jury. He was a person who\\nhad overheard, at the tavern in Essex-street, a conversation respect\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the riot in which Forbes was principally Concerned. That per\u00c2\u00ac\\nson deposed that he saw a man in the tavern who stated certain\\nthings\u00e2\u0080\u0094that man was Forbes though the deponent did not know\\nhis name at the time. He was asked by the jury if he knew the\\nman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s name; he said, No, but that he saw the man in the travel\\nser\u00e2\u0080\u0099s box that morning, and he now knew his name to be Forbes.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nHe was told by the jurors that it was no matter what he knew\\nnow; he should confine himself to what he knew at the time.\\nThis person went back two or three times to give his evidence, and\\nit was always received as evidence against a person unknown. This\\nevidence had been confirmed by that of a man named Troy and it\\nwould be seen by his examination, that the jury were determined\\nthe question should be considered as exclusively Irish. The jury\\nwished to throw some imputation on Farley, who was a Protestant,\\nas being a Roman Catholic, and this they attempted to do through", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0298.jp2"}, "299": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n289\\nthe evidence of Troy. They wished to learn from the oath of Troy,\\nwho was a Catholic, whether Farley was a Catholic also, that he\\nmight be disregarded on his oath when Troy was so interrogated,\\nhe said he believed not. A juror said, tell us what you know, not\\nwhat you believe. Troy answered, I believe you to be a Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant, and in the same way I believed Farley to be onebut on that\\nground the jury would not believe that Farley was not a Catholic.\\nHe next alluded to the evidence of a person named Ryan, who was\\nasked whether he was counselled or instructed to appear there He\\ndeclared he was not; he was asked what motives he had in coming\\nforward to give his evidence He was also asked, whether he\\ncould be mistaken as to the person of the man who threw the rattle?\\nHe said it was impossible. He was asked what description of per\u00c2\u00ac\\nson he was He said he was a sallow-looking young man, whom\\nhe should know again, though he never saw him before. He was\\nasked were there not many men alike. He was asked, did he not\\nsay that he might be mistaken in the person He said no. The\\njuror replied, you did, for I have it down in my notes. He believed\\nhe had succeeded in showing the legality of the power which he had\\nexercised; if, however, it was allowed that the power was legal, but\\nthe exercise of it unconstitutional, he professed he could not under\u00c2\u00ac\\nstand the distinction. If it was unconstitutional to exercise a pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nrogative, it ought to be taken away; but it might be said, the power\\nwas both legal and constitutional, yet it had not been exercised with\\na sound discretion, and for such exercise the party was answerable.\\nThe cases were very different. If the power was illegal, the fact of\\nhaving exercised it would have been a prima facie case against him,\\nand the very statement would have put him on his defence. But, if\\nthe power was legal, and to be exercised on a sound discretion, then\\nit lay upon his accuser to show that he had acted culpably in its ap\u00c2\u00ac\\nplication. And what evidence was there of this There was no\\nevidence but what came from his own lips. His own explanation\\nfurnished the evidence; and on that evidence he was sure, that, in\\nthe opinion of the house, he should stand acquitted. The mode pur\u00c2\u00ac\\nsued was not a fair way of dealing with a public functionary. He\\nshould not be condemned for the exercise of a discretionary power,\\nunless it was shown that he made use of it as an instrument of op\u00c2\u00ac\\npression and injustice. But, where was there any evidence to show\\nthat he had turned the prerogative of the crown to party quarreis, or\\nprivate resentment He would allow that others might have acted\\nmore wisely in the same situation than himself; but he denied tnat\\nany could have acted more honestly. If he had acted on a mistaken", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0299.jp2"}, "300": {"fulltext": "290\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nmotive, let it be shown but no man could prove that he had acted\\nunconstitutionally. He disdained the imputation of an improper\\nmotive. He had spent a long life connected with politics, and every\\nman who knew him was aware that he never had been actuated by\\nthe feelings and sentiments of party. Much of the obloquy which\\nhe had lately endured, and endured, too, from those who were never\\nbefore united on any one point, was occasioned, he believed, because\\nhe would not lend himself to party views. He, however, had never\\nsought to benefit himself by treading in such crooked and devious\\npaths. He was opposed to zealots of every party. He was inimi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncal to the little sects and the little policy which did so much mischief\\nin his native country, and he should feel happy if they were done\\naway. The present question was one of great importance. It in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolved the proposition, whether in future the laws were to be admi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnistered in Ireland on the principle of impartial justice\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether the\\nking was to be permitted to exercise, for the benefit of the people of\\nthat country, the gracious disposition which he had shown towards\\nthem; or whether they would tolerate a party which was alike cal\u00c2\u00ac\\nculated to put down the king and the law He had now put the\\nhouse in possession of his case; and he would leave it to their\\nhonour and justice. As it nearly concerned him personally, his\\nsituation was one of great delicacy; he should withdraw during the\\ndiscussion, and leave the house to the free and unconstrained exer\u00c2\u00ac\\ncise of its judgment. The right honourable gentleman then withdrew,\\namidst loud cheering.\\nAfter Plunket had withdrawn, Mr. W. Courtenay with a brief and manly de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfence of his conduct, moved that the other orders of the day be read. In the\\ncourse of the debate, the English attorney-general declared his opinion curtly,\\nthat the proceeding had been perfectly legal and proper. Finally, the original\\nmotion was withdrawn, on the undertaking of Sir Francis Burdett to move an\\ninquiry into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin.\\nTHE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\nApril 17, 1823.\\nThe annual farce,\u00e2\u0080\u009d so designated in this debate by Sir. F. Burdett, of present\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the Catholic petition happened this year under angry auspices. Plunket at\\nthis time was in the complete confidence of the Irish Catholics. But the Radicals\\nsympathised with the Tories in reprehension of his conduct as attorney-general,\\nand the ministry was divided by diametrically opposite views of the Catholic ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. A few days before the motion came on, Canning (then secretary for foreign\\n^^flirs) had used language which created the impression that it was hopeless to\\nthink of inducing any English government to carry Catholic emancipation. It", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0300.jp2"}, "301": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n291\\ncertainly looked like an absurdity to see a member of the government, in which\\nLord Liverpool was premier, Lord Eldon chancellor, and Peel home secretary, ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npearing as the Catholic parliamentary champion; and Plunket had upon this\\nground left himself peculiarly open to attack, by denouncing, in his speech of 1813,\\nthe dishonesty of any ministerial compromise on a topic so momentous.\\nAt the very beginning of the debate, Sir Francis Burdett declared that he\\nwould give no countenance to the present motion. They had heard not longer\\nthan two nights ago from the former eloquent advocate of the Catholic claims*\\n(Canning) that there was not the least chance the question would be carried in\\nfavour of the Catholics; if this was the case, why consent to practise a deception\\nupon the house and the country. He had stated that it was impossible a go\u00c2\u00ac\\nvernment or rather an administration should ever be formed in which this ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion should be carried; and that if it was possible to form such an adminis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntration, he, to accomplish it, would willingly leave office, but in fact his acceptance\\nof office had really been the cause of all this compromise of the public safety.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAs for Plunket, In bringing forward their claims that night he thought the\\nright honourable gentleman was not doing a service to the Catholics either of\\nEngland or of Ireland.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Finally, in declaring that He would withdraw from\\nthe house when the motion was introduced, he justified the course he meant\\nto take by reading the passage from Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech of 1813, which was direc\u00c2\u00ac\\nted in fact against the very same cabinet, into which after ten years he had\\nentered by virtue of its last coalition, in which he describes one half of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nministers encouraging the Catholics to seek without enabling them to obtain\\nthe other half not decided; some holding out an ambiguous hope, others announ\u00c2\u00ac\\ncing a never-ending despair;\u00e2\u0080\u009d and in which he denounced the consequences of\\nsuch a course as disastrous, not merely in the tumult and discord which they are\\ncalculated to excite, but in their effect upon the character of the government and\\nthe times.\u00e2\u0080\u009d There was loud and long continued cheering at this apposite quota\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion.\\nThe petition was ordered to lie on the table. The Speaker then called upon\\nMr. Plunket, upon which Sir F. Burdett, Mr. Hobhouse, Lord Sefton, Mr. Ben-\\nnet, Sir R. Wilson, and several other members on the opposition benches left the\\nhouse. After a short interval,\\nMr. Plunket rose. He commenced by observing, that it was his\\nintention to have that day presented a petition from the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics of Ireland, which had been agreed to by a considerable num\u00c2\u00ac\\nber of gentlemen\u00e2\u0080\u0094considerable, not merely with reference to their\\nnumbers, but also with reference to the rank and station which they\\nheld in society. Owing, however, to some mistake in furnishing the\\nnames of the petitioners, it was impossible for him, that night, to\\nlay the document before the house. This circumstance did not, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never, conclude him from introducing the Catholic question, because\\nhe was authorized by the Catholics of Ireland to appear in that\\nhouse as their advocate. Never in his life did he address the house\\nunder circumstances of such extreme difficulty as those under which\\nhe was placed at the present moment. He found he had to sustain\\nthe cause of the Catholics, not only against those who nad been\\nalways opposed to them, but also against a considerable portion of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0301.jp2"}, "302": {"fulltext": "292\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthose who had been ever looked upon as their friends. The cause\\nhad sustained a severe loss by the secession of a large portion oi\\nhonourable members who were in the habit of giving it their suppoit,\\nand who had very ostentatiously withdrawn themselves, for the pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose of marking their sense of the impropriety of the manner in\\nwhich it was brought forward. But, if the cause had sustained a\\nloss from the secession of those honourable members who had retired,\\nit had suffered a still heavier loss from the speech of the right hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable gentleman (Mr. Tierney) who remained within the house,\\nwith the intention of giving his vote in its favour. The right hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable gentleman had always been the friend of the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic claims he had always acted so; and he did not mean to impeach\\nhis sincerity. But he would say, that the greatest enemy which\\nthat cause ever had never gave it so deep a wound as had that\\nnight been inflicted upon it by its ancient friend. It was in vain\\nthat the right honourable gentleman and others endeavoured to throw\\non him the responsibility of the failure of the question. The respon\u00c2\u00ac\\nsibility of that failure lay upon those who had foretold in such omi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnous tones its defeat, and who treated the subject as a mockery, a\\nfarce, a delusion, while they animadverted on the personal demerits\\nof the individual who was to bring it forward. Under these circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, he felt that he should not be considered, in the just and\\nhonest minds of the Roman Catholics either of England or of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, as acting an insincere part when he introduced this question;\\nand he was not at all afraid of encountering, and throwing aside,\\nthose imputations which honourable gentlemen had been pleased to\\nlevel at him. He was really at a loss to furnish himself with any\\nplausible reason why the right honourable gentleman should think\\nthat this question was not now entitled to support from every mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber of that house, because it was in the hands of a divided adminis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntration. The right honourable gentleman had, in his recollection,\\nfrom the year 1807, supported the Catholic cause, though the admin\u00c2\u00ac\\nistration was divided. The cause, during that period, had made re\u00c2\u00ac\\ngular and daily advances, though only a portion of the cabinet was\\nin favour of it. He did not find, when the question was brought\\nforward by any individual on the right honourable gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s side\\nof the house, that he had ever damped the cause or thrown out such\\ndisheartening presages of failure as he had indulged in on the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent occasion. He would ask the right honourable gentleman how\\nlie could reconcile it to his feelings as a patriot\u00e2\u0080\u0094as a man who viewed\\nthis question, not as it referred to party, but as it respected the\\npeople\u00e2\u0080\u0094to embarrass the proceedings of those who were ffiendlv to", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0302.jp2"}, "303": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n293\\nit, merely because the individual who brought forward the motion\\nsat on the ministerial, instead of the opposition side of the house\\nHe had always considered the Catholic cause as being too high for\\nparty. He ever considered it as separate from all petty interests;\\nand he was proud to say that his coming over from one side of the\\nhouse to the other, had not injured him in the opinion of the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics of Ireland as the advocate of their cause; and he could state\\nthat it had not in the least effaced the impressions of unalterable zeal\\nwith which he had ever come forward to support their claims. The\\nright honourable gentleman appeared to think that there was some\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing extraordinary in the circumstance of his having moved from\\none side of the house to the other. He was not aware that there\\nwas anything in this alteration which ought to surprise the right\\nhonourable gentleman; for, if his recollection did not fail him, the\\nright honourable gentleman himself had performed the figure of\\nmoving from one side of the house to the other and back again, as\\ngracefully and adroitly as it could be executed by any honourable\\nmember. He did not, however, know but his votes might afterwards\\nhave been very correct. Doubtless, he could give a very satisfactory\\nreason for them. But, if he were asked, why he was not now Sit\u00c2\u00ac\\nting on the same side of the house with the right honourable gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman, he thought he could make out a case that would be equally\\nsatisfactory. Words which he had used ten years ago, had been\\nquoted in the course of the debate, and had been introduced with\\nmuch sarcastic observation. He had on that occasion expressed\\nstrongly the feelings which he strongly felt, and he did not think his\\npresent conduct was inconsistent with those expressions. He did\\nthen certainly point out in strong terms the dangerous consequences\\nof a divided cabinet on this question; for he believed a large portion\\nof the cabinet of that time were utterly and entirely insincere. He\\nthought so from the manner in which that administration had come\\ninto office, and other circumstances; and he did not hesitate to ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npress what he felt. He might, however, remind the right honourable\\ngentleman, that he had the honour of holding office under an admin\u00c2\u00ac\\nistration of which the right honourable gentleman Avas a distinguished\\nmember. That was a divided cabinet. They were content to bring\\nforward a very contracted measure on this subject, and even that\\nthey would have abandoned at the time, if the feelings of his majesty\\ncould have been propitiated, and the necessity for their going out of\\noffice avoided. He did not censure them for that conduct; indeed,\\nhe thought they had acted wisely on that occasion. In making ihe\\nchange which the right honourable gentleman had alluded to t fie haa", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0303.jp2"}, "304": {"fulltext": "294\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nnot been influenced by any mean or mercenary motives. He came\\nto that side of the house on which he now sat, feeling that he was\\nperfectly justified towards the Catholics in doing so; knowing that\\nthose members of the cabinet who advocated the Catholic claims were\\ndecidedly and conscientiously sincere in their opinions; and seeing\\nthat the Catholic cause was making rapid strides under that portion\\nof the administration, so divided, who were favourable to it. The\\nright honourable gentleman did him too much honour, if he supposed\\nthat his (Mr. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) conduct was of such extreme importance to the\\nviews and objects of the Catholics of Ireland; but he would say that,\\nhumble as he was, if he thought his coming over to the ministerial\\nside of the house was likely to injure the Catholic cause in the slight\u00c2\u00ac\\nest degree, the right honourable gentleman would never have seen\\nhim where he then was. He had made sacrifices in that cause. He\\nhad not rested on theatrical words or rhetorical flourishes; but he\\nhad willingly consented to sacrifices, which gentlemen ought to have\\nremembered. Yes! he had made sacrifices which rendered him in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvulnerable to the attacks that had been that night directed against\\nhim.\\nHe feared he had too long trespassed on the house, in referring to\\na matter which was personal to himself. He would here drop it,\\nand proceed with ,the important motion itself. He owed it to the\\nhouse, perhaps, to offer some explanation, why he had not brought\\nforward this question during the last session, and also why he re\u00c2\u00ac\\nfrained from postponing it now. With respect to the motives of his\\nown conduct, he was always ready to sacrifice his own views and\\nhis personal feelings to the paramount interest of the great question\\nitself; and he could not help feeling that on the present occasion,\\nthe cause which he had so much at heart was perhaps placed at\\nsome risk by the secession as well as by the forebodings of some of\\nthe honourable gentlemen opposite. Notwithstanding this untoward\\ncircumstance, he owed it to the country to redeem the pledge he had\\ngiven, and he felt he should do essential injury to the cause itself\\nwere he, because some ten or twelve gentlemen chose to pronounce\\nti funeral elegy upon it, and then withdraw, to abandon that ground,\\nthe maintenance of which honour and duty had imposed upon him.\\nHis reasons for postponing the question last year were simply these.\\nThe friends of the question, whose views he was bound to consult,\\nwere, from the then state of Ireland, divided in opinion as to the\\npropriety of agitating the subject at that moment, and the Catholic*\\nof Ireland were disposed to leave the decision in the hands of their\\nfriends. Thus placed, he yielded to the wishes of some, and post-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0304.jp2"}, "305": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n205\\nponea the renewal of the discussion. And here he must beg leave\\nto deprecate the idea, that he was bound to make this an annual\\nquestion. He had never looked upon it in that light, nor had his\\ngreat predecessor, Mr. Grattan. He had never considered it as strictly\\nan annual topic of discussion; but rather thought that great advan\u00c2\u00ac\\ntages were derived from giving the people of England time for pe\u00c2\u00ac\\nriodical reflection upon the subject, an opportunity of which, to their\\nhonour, they had amply availed themselves. His own opinions had\\nbeen early formed upon it\u00e2\u0080\u0094long before he had a prospect of taking\\na part in public life; and the opinions which he had at first instinc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntively formed had been confirmed by his education and professional\\nstudies, and fixed and strengthened by a thirty-five years\u00e2\u0080\u0099 residence\\nin Ireland. Indeed, he thought the question rested upon principles\\nso demonstratively clear, so congenial with the principles of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution, and so cogent upon grounds of public necessity, that he\\nwas astonished to find it still in any quarter pertinaciously opposed.\\nHe by no means meant to say that the refusal of emancipation would\\nbe followed by any thing like insurrection or rebellion in Ireland.\\nThe Roman Catholics were too sensible of the value of the privileges\\nthey had already received, to put them in risk by any such intem\u00c2\u00ac\\nperate and ill-advised proceeding. They were grateful for what had\\nbeen bestowed upon them; they were aware of the progress of public\\nopinion in their favour; they were satisfied that, sooner or later, the\\nquestion must be carried. No man could say that the question\\ncould remain where it was. To retrograde was impossible; the\\nmarch must be progressive. Let no man say that the subject only\\naffected one class of the community. It was impossible such an ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nclusion could fail to be felt as a degradation, by the humblest as\\nwell as the highest individual of the class affected by it. The his\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory of Ireland showed that the consequence of perpetuating these\\ndisabilities must always be felt in the perpetual watching and fever\u00c2\u00ac\\nish vigilance attendant upon a state of discontent, which kept that\\ncountry out of its natural place in society, affected the resources of\\nthe British empire both in peace and in war, and diminished her con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsequence in the scale of Europe.\\nThe right honourable and learned gentleman then took a rapid re\u00c2\u00ac\\nview of the parliamentary history of the Catholic question, and ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nverted to the sanction by the House of Commons of the principle ct\\nconcession in the year 1821, and in the bill of last year. The num\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers and property of the Catholics had, he said, been exaggerated in\\ntheir reference to the result of the measure and he was convinced\\nthat, were the bill passed, the youngest man now alive would not in", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0305.jp2"}, "306": {"fulltext": "206\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches*\\nhis time see twenty Catholics returned to parliament. However, al\u00c2\u00ac\\nthough the danger from their admission to the House of Commons\\nwas, in his opinion, visionary, yet he was ready to declare that were\\nthe bill in a committee he would not abandon it, if any gentleman\\nthought proper to limit the number of Catholics to be admissible into\\nparliament. Twice, then, by specific bills, had the House of Com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons sanctioned the principle of concession; but those bills had been\\nstopped elsewhere. It was irregular for him to allude to the cause\\nof that obstruction; but the alleged reasons had gone abroad, and he\\nmight be permitted to notice them. It was said, that these bills in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntroduced a new principle, hostile to the Protestant establishment of\\nthe country, and subversive of the settlement laid down at the Re\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolution, and to which the house of Brunswick owed their security\\nupon the throne. But, was it true that the House of Commons had\\ntwice sanctioned a principle of so alarming and unconstitutional a\\nnature or were they to be told that the throne rested on a separate\\nparliamentary basis, of which the House of Commons formed no part?\\nHe positively denied that the throne was exposed to such a risk;\\nand contended with great earnestness that the principle which he ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvocated was not only congenial with, but inseparably involved in the\\ngreat principles which were declared and established at the Revolu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion.\\nBefore he proceeded to speak of the bill, for leave to bring in\\nwhich he should wish to move, he was desirous of making two or\\nthree further preliminary observations. And first with respect to\\nsecurities. Securities had hitherto been the subject of much diffe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrence and discussion. By some they had been considered useless\\nby others those which had been offered had been deemed insufficient.\\nFor himself, he had always been decidedly of opinion that some se\u00c2\u00ac\\ncurities were absolutely and indispensably necessary; so much so,\\nindeed, that he should object to passing any bill without them.\\nAnother objection to former bills was, that they did not contain any\\nprovision in favour of Protestant Dissenters but that they relieved\\nthe Roman Catholics from disabilities to which they left the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant Dissenters. He was glad of an opportunity to disabuse the\\npublic mind on that poiut. Nothing could be less true. The ten\u00c2\u00ac\\ndency of the bills was, to put the Roman Catholics on the footing of\\nthe Protestant Dissenters, and nothing more. It was singular how\\nuninformed the public were in many respects. It was generally\\nimagined that the Protestant Dissenters had no right to sit in the\\nDu use of Clemmons. On the contrary, he had as much right to sit\\nin *uat house and in the House of Lords, as the member of the Pro-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0306.jp2"}, "307": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n297\\ntestant establishment. It was also contended that if the measure\\nwhich he proposed were carried, the test and corporation acts must\\nalso be repealed. That he denied. There was no necessary con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexion between Catholic emancipation and the repeal of the test and\\ncorporation acts. Besides, the test act had been repealed in Ireland\\nfor forty years and that repeal had not only failed in increasing,\\nbut had actually very much cut down the dissenting interest in that\\ncountry. If at some future period, the repeal of the test and cor\u00c2\u00ac\\nporation acts were proposed, he would most cordially support the\\nproposition; but he^ must decline mixing it up with the Catholic\\nquestion.\\nHe would now call the attention of the house to the argument\\nfounded on the principles connected with the Reformation. He ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted that from the Reformation must be justly dated the rights and\\nliberties of the people. But he claimed it as an admitted position,\\nthat the exclusion of the Roman Catholics or the Dissenters from\\noffice, or from constituting any part of the government, rested on\\nstatutable prohibition, and was in direct contradiction to any presump\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion founded on constitutional principles. They must look at the\\nstatute law alone, then, as the ground of the exclusion. The act of\\nuniformity of Elizabeth must be regarded as an isolated statute, to\\nbe construed by the light of history. At the period of the Reforma\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion three principles were operative: the first was the unalienable estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishment of the Protestant religion in these realms as far as human\\nregulation could affix permanence; the second was to put down and\\nprevent the exercise of all religious professions, as contumacious, which\\nwere at variance with the religion so established: the third was, to\\ngive the state a power of distinguishing the well-affected from the\\ndisaffected, and to disable and disqualify the latter from being admit\u00c2\u00ac\\nted into its high offices. Of those principles the first was the most\\nimportant, and was inalienable the second, after having been con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntended against for three hundred years, was at length abandoned by the\\nrepeal of the law against recusancy; the third was intended as a test\\nto separate the well-affected from the disaffected, and for that pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose the oath of supremacy was framed. What the friends of eman\u00c2\u00ac\\ncipation sought was, a qualified oath of supremacy, such as might be\\ntaken by a conscientious Roman Catholic, who must always acknow\u00c2\u00ac\\nledge a certain degree of spiritual authority in the head of his church.\\nTne right honourable and learned gentleman then referred to three\\ndocuments, at the period of the Reformation, to show the sense in\\nwhich the spiritual jurisdiction of the crown was understood at that\\ntime. The first was the act of supremacy, by which the crown was", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0307.jp2"}, "308": {"fulltext": "293\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ninvested with the jurisdiction over its subjects which was claimed by\\na foreign power. Now, he contended, that interference in the spiri\u00c2\u00ac\\ntual concerns of a sect was not claimed or given by that act; and,\\neven if the Roman Catholics gave it at the present day, it could not\\nbe exercised by the crown. The only authority which that act gave\\nto the sovereign, was the power over the Established Church, which\\nwas claimed by the Pope, and which was denied to him. The next\\ndocument was the declaration of the queen, by which, in explanation\\nof the act, she claimed only such a jurisdiction as would exclude the\\nadmission of any foreign authority over her subjects. The third do\u00c2\u00ac\\ncument was the act dispensing with the taking of the oath in certain\\ninstances by Roman Catholics the queen being, as was stated, other\u00c2\u00ac\\nwise assured of their loyalty. This, then, was all the act required;\\nit was not looked upon as a test of religion, but as a guarantee of\\nloyalty. The oath of supremacy required the person who took it to\\ndeclare, that no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or\\nought to have any jurisdiction, ecclesiastical or spiritual, or any au\u00c2\u00ac\\nthority whatsoever within these realms. Now, the oath in the bill\\nof 1821 (and which he proposed to continue) was to the same effect,\\nbut it added\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, c., contrary\\nto the allegiance due to the sovereign of this country.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The Roman\\nCatholic was now ready to take this oath: and he would ask what\\nfarther would be required of him as a test of his loyalty\\nThe right honourable gentleman then went on to cite several author\u00c2\u00ac\\nities, for the purpose of showing that this was the sense in which that\\ntest was understood at its first enactment; that it applied, not to\\nreligion, but to loyalty; and that several noblemen and gentlemen\\ntook the oath in Elizabeth\u00e2\u0080\u0099s time, not conceiving it to compromise\\ntheir religion. This was further proved by the act of the 27th of\\nElizabeth, in which severe penalties were enacted against Jesuits and\\npriests exercising their clerical functions; but these penalties were\\ndispensed with in the cases of such as took the oath. Now, it was\\nClear that these priests were Roman Catholics, and the legislature of\\nthat time could not have been so absurd, could not have added insult\\nto injury, by requiring them to purchase their exemption from penalties,\\nby taking an oath which no Catholic could take, if it had the meaning\\nwhich was now sought to be put upon it. It was not until there was\\nadded to the oath a declaration, that the Catholic worship was super\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitious and idolatrous, that it was understood to be against the reli\u00c2\u00ac\\ngion, and that Catholics, generally, refused to take it. The Pope, at\\nthe time of passing the act of supremacy, claimed au authority over\\nthe whole English church\u00e2\u0080\u0094the power of appointing to bishoprics\u00e2\u0080\u0094", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0308.jp2"}, "309": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n299\\nof receiving the profits of the sees while vacant\u00e2\u0080\u0094of deposing the king\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094of excommunicating him and the people. The act denied to him any\\nsuch authority: and the Roman Catholics were all ready to swear,\\nthat he neither had nor ought to have such authority, and they were\\nwilling to take any stronger oath to the same effect if it could be de\u00c2\u00ac\\nvised.\\nThe right honourable gentleman then went on to answer many of\\nthe usual objections urged against the measure amongst others, that\\nthe dispensing with the oath to Catholics, while it continued it to\\nProtestants, would be inconsistent. But, the Protestants would not\\nbe in a worse situation than they were at present. They all took it;\\nbut none took It in the sense that the Pope had no authority in these\\ncountries, for it was clear he had some spiritual power; but it was\\nready to be sworn by all Roman Catholics, that he neither had nor\\nought to have any which was inconsistent with the power and sover\u00c2\u00ac\\neign authority and supreme jurisdiction of the king of England, or\\nin any manner opposed to it. All the researches which had been made\\nin connexion with this subject, had produced but one solitary case in\\nwhich the head of the Roman Catholic church could act in opposition\\nto the law of the state. Persons of that degree of consanguinity,\\nwhich admitted of their marrying without offending the laws of the\\nProtestant church, could not marry by the laws of the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic church. From this circumstance, in a particular case where\\nthe restoration of conjugal rights might be decreed by our laws, the\\nlaws of the Roman Catholic church might oppose it. But those laws\\ncould not deny the validity of the marriage, nor the legitimacy of the\\nchildren of such marriage, nor could they do anything that might\\naffect the rights, liberty, or property of the subject. They could\\nmerely exclude the parties from participation in the rights of their\\nchurch. The power of the Pope was no longer what it used to be.\\nHis devouring lion, as it had been called when the oath of supremacy\\nwas framed, had become tame and harmless in our time\u00e2\u0080\u0094had in fact\\nbeen rendered innocent as a suckling lamb. Whatever danger might\\nbe supposed to attach to the influence which the Pope, as head of the\\nCatholic church, might exercise in his realm, the danger existed now\\nin as great a degree as it could rationally be expected to exist after\\nthe. claims of the Catholics should have been granted. If the Catholic\\nwere disposed to trifle with his conscience, what could prevent him\\nfrom misconstruing the oath which he was now called upon to take.\\nIf he were honest, the new oath to be proposed to him would bind\\nhim, if dishonest, the oath at present proffered would not.\\nThe right honourable gentleman again referred to the reign of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0309.jp2"}, "310": {"fulltext": "300\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nElizabeth, and quoted the letter of Lord Burleigh to her majesty, in\\n1583, in which he stated, that considering the urgency of the oath of\\nsupremacy must in some degree beget despair, for many Catholics\\nmust in taking it either do that which they thought unlawful or be\\ndeemed traitors, he submitted to her majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s consideration, whether\\nit would not be better for her security, and for the satisfaction of the\\nCatholics themselves, to let the declaration be, that whoever refused\\nto swear that he was ready to bear arms in her majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s defence\\nagainst all foreign powers or states opposed to her, should be deemed\\ntraitors; this would be a better proof of their loyalty. But (Lord\\nBurleigh added) if it should be said, that in an oath of this kind they\\nmight dissimulate, or expect that the Pope would absolve them from\\nits observance, he would reply, so they might in the oath of supre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmacy and they who would keep one, might be trusted with the ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nservance of the other. These were the sentiments of that great and\\nwise statesman, above two hundred years ago; but it seemed we grew\\nwiser as the world grew older, and refused to have any reliance upon\\nthe faith of oaths. We, who admitted that the whole security of the\\nstate\u00e2\u0080\u0094the safety of society\u00e2\u0080\u0094depended upon the sanctity of oaths,\\nnow refused to place any reliance upon them. To be consistent, if\\nwe distrusted the oaths of the Catholics, we should undo what had\\nbeen already done in their behalf\u00e2\u0080\u0094we should go back to the full se\u00c2\u00ac\\nverity of the penal laws, and proceed against them even to extermi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation we should wield the iron rod of conquest, and when we had\\ngot the strong man down, we should not content ourselves with cut\u00c2\u00ac\\nting off his hair, which would grow again, but should cut off his head\\nwhich could not be replaced.\\nHe now proceeded, with reluctance, to notice the arguments drawn\\nfrom the revolution against Catholic emancipation. There was no\\ngreater mistake than that which was fallen into by those persons who\\nsupposed that the revolution and settlement had anything to do\\nwith the system established by the 25th and 30th of Charles 2nd.\\nSo far from this being the case, the revolution was at right angles\\nwith that system. The fact was, Charles 2nd had ceased to be the\\nprotector of the state the crown had formed the project of over\u00c2\u00ac\\nturning the established religion. The acts of the 25th and 30th of\\nthatereign were not intended to make the throne fundamentally Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant, but were framed as a substitute for such protection. It was\\nobvious that such a system could not be lasting. The parliament,\\nin effect, said to the king, we cannot trust you we will keep you\\non the throne, yield you dutiful obedience; but we will not suffer yoia\\nto change the religion of the state.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The first measure of the Revo*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0310.jp2"}, "311": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n301\\nIntion was in direct opposition to the system of Charles 2nd. It\\naltered the law by making the throne fundamentally and essentially\\nProtestant. King William\u00e2\u0080\u0099s parliament altered the oath of supre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmacy, and proposed to repeal the test and corporation acts. Now,\\nhis (Mv. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) measure proposed no such innovations on the act of\\nWilliam, as William had made on those of Charles 2nd or as Charles\\n2nd had made upon those of the reformation. These alterations\\nwere made according to the altered circumstances of the times; and\\nit was upon the alteration in the circumstances of the country at the\\npresent period, that he founded the expediency of the proposed mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure. It wa3 said, that the settlement at the revolution ought not\\nto be shaken\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the principles then established were principles of\\ntoleration, of civil and religious liberty, and of equal protection to all.\\nThe revolution was not marked by any such principles of pure and\\nreligious toleration. It quite shut out the Roman Catholics of Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland and Ireland: it enacted severe penalties against priests being\\nengaged as schoolmasters so that the Roman Catholics were not\\nmade objects of toleration, but victims of persecution. The age of\\npure and religious toleration did not in fact begin until the 18th of\\nthe late king; and then were the true foundations of civil and reli\u00c2\u00ac\\ngious liberty first laid. Those who opposed these claims on what they\\ncalled the principles of the revolution, by a perverse sort of chemistry,\\nextracted from it, for the sake of their argument, all that was bad\\nand intolerant, and left behiud all that was great, glorious, and free\\nin it, as a useless residuum. It had been often argued, that Mr.\\nLocke was good authority against the admission of Catholics to the\\nfull enjoyment of the constitution; it was urged that Mr. Locke had\\nlaid it down as a principle, that so long as the Roman Catholics de\u00c2\u00ac\\nlivered themselves up to the supremacy of a foreign prince, whose\\ncommands they held themselves bound to obey, even to the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\njudice of the state, they were not entitled to the privileges of tole\u00c2\u00ac\\nration. Mr. Locke was right in stating, that any portion of the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmunity who were leagued with a foreign power against the interests\\nof their own country were not entitled to a participation in its con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution. But, who would venture to say, that the Roman Catholics\\nof the present day were not entitled upon such ground And if so,\\nwhat became of the argument of Mr. Locke Mr. Locke went on\\nto say, that while the Roman Catholics acknowledged a foreign power,\\nsuperior to the laws of the country, they were not deserving of tole-\\nr ai m, and could not complain of not being considered good subjects.\\nN \u00c2\u00bbw, lie would ask, who would venture to say, that the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics of these realms were not good subjects v Were they to consider\\nu", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0311.jp2"}, "312": {"fulltext": "802\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\nthe concessions which already appeared on the statute book as mere\\nflattery, and not at all deserved by the parties to whom those con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessions were made But, if the Roman Catholics were considered to\\nbe good subjects, then he would ask, what became of the authority of\\nMr. Locke It was natural for the great men, who watched as it\\nwere the cradle of the constitution, to feel considerable alarm at the\\nconduct of the Roman Catholics, and to consider them as bad subjects,\\nin consequence of their readiness to join a foreign power. This was\\nthe doctrine of Lord Somers among others. But if the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics of the present day were loyal and firm supporters of the consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntution, why should they go back to former periods for a justification\\nof a line of conduct which, though perfectly right and reasonable\\nthen, was perfectly wrong and unreasonable at present It was\\ntrue that the great men of that period, such as Lord Clarendon, Lord\\nSomers, Mr. Locke, and others, were decidedly hostile to the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics but then gentlemen who referred to the writings of those men\\nshould take into consideration the circumstances of the times in which\\nthey wrote. He would next call the attention of the house to the\\ndoctrines held by Blackstone with respect to the Catholics. That\\ngreat writer, speaking upon the subject, said, the sin of schism, as\\nsuch, is by no means the object of temporal coercion and punishment.\\nIf through weakness of intellect, through misdirected piety, through\\nperverseness and acerbity of temper, or (which is often the case)\\nthrough a prospect of secular advantage, in herding with a party,\\nmen quarrel with the ecclesiastical establishment, the civil magistrate\\nhas nothing to do with it; unless their tenets and practice are such\\nas threaten ruin or disturbance to the state. He is bound indeed to\\nprotect the Established church and if this can be better effected by\\nadmitting none but its genuine members to offices of trust and emolu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, he is certainly at liberty so to do .the disposal of offices being\\nmatter of favour and discretion. But, this point being once secured,\\nill persecution {pr diversity of opinions, however ridiculous or absurd\\nthey may be, is contrary to every principle of sound policy and civil\\nfreedom.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This was exactly the doctrine upon which he now called\\nupon the house to act. The same author went on as follows u As\\nto Papists, what has been said of the Protestant Dissenters, would\\nhold equally strong for a general toleration of them provided their\\nseparation was founded only upon difference of opinion in religion,\\nand their principles did not also extend to a subversion of the civil\\ngovernment. If once they could be brought to renounce the supre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmacy of the Pope, they might quietly enjoy their seven sacraments.;\\ntheir purgatory, and auricular confession; their worship of relics and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0312.jp2"}, "313": {"fulltext": "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC QUESTION.\\n303\\nimages: nay, even their transnbstantiation. But while they acknow\u00c2\u00ac\\nledge a foreign power superior to the sovereignty, of the kingdom,\\nthey cannot complain if the laws of that kingdom will not treat them\\nupon the footing of good subjects. So that if it appeared that the\\nRoman Catholics were at present good subjects, as he contended they\\nwere, then there was at once an end to all the arguments both of Mr.\\nLocke and Blackstone. Was it not a formidable argument to set up,\\nthat out of a population of seven millions in Ireland, five millions\\nwere bad subjects, disaffected to the government, and undeserving of\\na participation in the constitution If it could be shown that there\\nwere in Ireland five millions of men disaffected to the government,\\nthen he would say, that the right honourable the secretary for foreign\\naffairs would be furnished with a stronger argument in favour of neu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrality, than any which even his own powerful and argumentative\\nmind had been able to urge. If they were obliged to employ the\\nforces of the country in watching over a disaffected population of five\\nmillions in Ireland, then adieu to the power and glory which had\\nhitherto distinguished this country. They might live on in a state ot\\nfeverish discontent and uncertainty; but it was impossible that great\\nor permanent good could be effected in such a state of things. The\\nright honourable and learned member went on to quote Lord Hard-\\nwicke, for the purpose of showing that the real security to the Estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlished church of this country was to be found, not in the oath of\\nsupremacy, not in the declaration, but in that wise and salutary law\\nwhich made the crown of these realms essentially Protestant.\\nBefore he sat down he owed it to Scotland to say a few words upon\\nthe law upon this subject as it now stood in that country. The\\nmeasure which he proposed only went to remove the oath of supre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmacy, and the declaration. But, there was a Scottish law which\\nwent to disable Catholics from being electors or elected, in choosing\\nor being elected to serve in certain public offices. This law he be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlieved was still unrepealed; and he should feel happy if any honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable representative of that country would propose a clause in the bill,\\nfor the repeal of this law of disqualification. By the eleventh article\\nof the Scottish union, it was provided, that the British parliament\\nwas competent to abolish any Scottish law, for the purpose of assimi\u00c2\u00ac\\nlating the constitution of both countries, and every alteration of pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvate law was admitted which tended to the advantage of that country.\\nHaving gone through the various topics, he could not sit down with\u00c2\u00ac\\nout saying a word or two upon the declaration. It was satisfactory\\nto know, that neither clergyman nor layman had opened his lips in\\nfavour of it. He hoped that this blot would not much longer be al-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0313.jp2"}, "314": {"fulltext": "304\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nlowed to remain upon the statute book; for he did not believe that\\na single human being existed, who would assert that it was war\u00c2\u00ac\\nranted by any principle of religion. The enemies of the Catholic claims\\nfeared those who worshipped the same God, and acknowledged the\\nsame Redeemer\u00e2\u0080\u0094for his part he dreaded only those who worshipped\\nno God, and acknowledged no Redeemer. They feared that the Ro\u00c2\u00ac\\nman Catholics were disloyal\u00e2\u0080\u0094he only dreaded lest severity and in\u00c2\u00ac\\njustice should make them so. The right honourable gentleman con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncluded with moving, that this house do resolve itself into a com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmittee of the whole house, to consider the state of the laws by which\\noaths or declarations are required to be taken or made, as qualifica\u00c2\u00ab\\nlions for the enjoyment of offices, or for the exercise of civil functions;\\nso far as the same may affect his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Roman Catholic subjects\\nand whether it would be expedient, in any and what manner, to alter\\nor modify the same, and subject to what provisions or regulations.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe reports proceed to say, that after the motion had been read from the\\nchair, a loud and general cry of question, question,\u00e2\u0080\u0099 was raised.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Several speak\u00c2\u00ac\\ners attempted to prolong the debate amid an impenetrable uproar\u00e2\u0080\u0094each side of\\nthe house appearing equally anxious to hustle the question aside. As Mr.\\nLambton closed a short emphatic speech with a declaration that he looked upon\\nthe manner in which the question was brought forward by the Irish attorney-\\ngeneral, as a gross deception upon the Roman Catholics,\u00e2\u0080\u009d the cries changed to\\nadjourn,\u00e2\u0080\u009d divide,\u00e2\u0080\u009d clear the gallery,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and strangers were ordered to with\u00c2\u00ac\\ndraw. The house remained with closed doors for an hour and a half, and, after\\ndividing on a motion of adjournment to the following day, in which the noes\\nhad 292 votes to 134 ayes, it was moved that the debate be adjourned for six\\nmonths. Whereon a motion was made and the question put, that the house\\ndo now adjourn,\u00e2\u0080\u009d which was carried. Thus the present motion dropped ineffec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntual.\\nThis debate demonstrated to the Catholics of Ireland the necessity of pres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure from without in assisting parliament to come to a conclusion. The Catholic\\nAssociation was formed in the following month, and gratefully passed in its first\\nproceedings a strong vote of thanks to Flunket. On the day alter the debate,\\nhe was asked in his place whether he meant to renew the question this session.\\nHe said he was in the hands of its friends, but that for his own part he was\\naverse to a renewal of the notice this session.\\nCONDUCT OF THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN.\\nApril 22, 1823.\\nFjik following week, Sir F. Burdett\u00e2\u0080\u0099s motion for inquiry into the conduct of the\\nSheriff of Dublin was brought forward. In introducing it, he passed a liberal\\neulogy upon Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s conduct\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c The first law officer of the crown endeavour", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0314.jp2"}, "315": {"fulltext": "THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN.\\n305\\ning to reduce a party to the government of the law that had long domineered\\nover the people, and anxious to secure the multitude against the vexation of\\nlong imposed and organised oppression.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Plunket followed him.\\nMr. Plunket said, he meant to trouble the house with a few ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nservations on what had fallen from the honourable baronet. He\\nbegged leave, in the first instance, to assure him, that he did not\\nmean to offer any opposition to the motion. He was, indeed the last\\nperson in the house from whom such an opposition could be expected.\\nHe thought, however, that his case did not stand on the ground on\\nwhich the honourable baronet had thought fit to place it. He had,\\nit was true, in the discharge of his duty, exercised a power which\\nappeared to give offence to some persons; and the question ultimately\\nresolved itself into this\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether he had exercised a sound discretion\\nin the application of that power The opinion of the house was\\ntailed for on this point\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether he had used his discretion unduly,\\nOppressively, or improperly? It was not, whether under the same\\ncircumstances, he should again exercise the same power\u00e2\u0080\u0094or whether,\\nin the peculiar situation of Ireland, it was necessary to resort to his\\nlegal prerogative These were not the disputed points. The ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion was\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether he had exercised the power intrusted to him with\\na fair and honest intention It was not because others would, per\u00c2\u00ac\\nhaps, under similar circumstances, have acted differently, that he was\\nto be censured. Different individuals would take different views of\\nthe expediency or inexpediency of exercising a discretionary power\\nbut still their intentions might be equally pure and upright. The\\nsituation of a public functionary would be most lamentable, if, because\\nhe differed from others in the use of a discretionary power, he was,\\ntherefore, to become the object of censure, no matter how just and\\nproper his motives were. In order to make a public functionary the\\nfair object of censure, the house must arrive at this conclusion\u00e2\u0080\u0094that\\nhe had acted on some sinister principle. If what he had done, and\\nwhich he considered neither unconstitutional nor illegal, come to be\\ninquired into, no censure could be directed against him, unless the\\nhouse was of opinion that he had acted from a love of oppression,\\nfrom a malicious intention, or from some other base and unworthy\\nmotive. If they could not arrive at this opinion, he was discharged\\nfrom all matter of accusation. He thanked the honourable baronet\\nfor the fair and candid mode in which he had brought forward this\\nproposition; and he would do him the justice to say, that on no oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncasion did he ever forsake that gentlemanly urbanity of manners\\nwhich he had displayed that night. Under the circumstances of the\\ncase, he (Mr. P.) had, on a former evening, stated the reasons which", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0315.jp2"}, "316": {"fulltext": "306\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\ninduced him to act as he had done. He, however, knew, that the\\nstatement which he had then made for the purpose of absolving him\u00c2\u00ac\\nself, must of necessity draw after it this inquiry. But he would ask\\nwhether this brought the question to the poiut\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether., in exercis\u00c2\u00ac\\ning his legal power, he was, or was not censurable In his opinion\\nit clearly did not. If he brought forward charges against individuals,\\nlie might on that account, lay himself open to the censure of the house;\\nbut that censure could have nothing to do with his conduct in the\\nexercise of his legal prerogative. Having stated the general grounds\\non which he conceived his conduct to have been justifiable, he next\\nstated the particular grounds on which, as it appeared to him, it be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncame peculiarly necessary that he should adopt the discretion which\\nhad given rise to so much animadversion. In the course of that\\nstatement, he certainly had advanced matter which involved a very\\nhigh censure on an individual holding a situation of great importance.\\nWhat he asked of the house to give him credit for on that occasion\\nwas, not that the charge was exactly as he had stated it\u00e2\u0080\u0094not that\\nlie knew it of his own knowledge to be a perfect truth\u00e2\u0080\u0094but that it\\nwas conveyed to his mind in such a manner as fully impressed him\\nwith an idea of its truth. Now, he would ask, if he were completely\\nsatisfied in his own mind that those facts were true, was he not jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntified in acting on that impression It was a case of very great im\u00c2\u00ac\\nportance to the country\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was a case in which he felt that justice\\nought to be done as speedily as possible; and therefore he pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeded by the readiest mode. Was he, under all the circumstances,\\nto forego any proceedings against the rioters until he could procure\\naffidavits which would enable him to institute a prosecution against\\nthe sheriff? If he had done so, he thought it would have been a\\ngross violation of his duty. The only question, therefore, was\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nwhether he had that reasonable conviction in his mind of the truth\\nof those facts which would form a fair ground for adopting the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceedings to which he had resorted He certainly felt that convic\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion and therefore he contended that the proposed inquiry was one\\nin which he had no more interest than the honourable baronet, or\\nany other person in that house except that he should be sorry if,\\nby any chance, it could be supposed that he brought a charge against\\na public officer lightly or unadvisedly. He meant not to allege any\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing which could give rise to acrimonious feeling; but this he would\\nsay, that his suspicions with respect to the conduct of the sheriff\\nwere not removed, but were considerably strengthened, by what had\\nsince taken place. He had no hesitation in declaring, that he\\nthought the conduct of the sheriff was a very proper object for pro-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0316.jp2"}, "317": {"fulltext": "THE SHERIFF OF DUBLIN. 3\u00c2\u00bbV\\nsecution. He deemed it right now to state, without meaning to\\ninterfere with any course which the house might think proper to pur\u00c2\u00ac\\nsue, that if the business were not taken out of his hands by the\\nhouse, it was his intention to institute such a prosecution, for the\\npurpose of arriving at the real justice of the case. He agreed with\\nthe honourable baronet that it would be an essential denial of jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice, if the sheriff were not afforded an opportunity of entering on\\nhis defence. If the house proceeded with this inquiry, the case\\nwould, of course, be taken out of his hands. If, however, the house\\ndeclined interfering, he would institute such a prosecution as the\\ncase called for. Having said thus much, it would, perhaps* be ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npected that he should give some explanation to the house as toffiis\\nnot having proceeded sooner. It might be asked, Why did you\\nnot proceed against the sheriff before, if you considered him liable t c\\nprosecution?\u00e2\u0080\u009d He would, in answer to that question, state what\\nmust appear to every candid mind a full and sufficient reason, He\\nhad received the information with respect to the conduct of the sheriff\\nfrom different quarters. As that information reached him, he com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmunicated it to the lord lieutenant; and it was from time to time\\ncommunicated to his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government. To show that the ide i\\nof a prosecution was no after-thought, he had to observe, that he\\nhad stated to the government that it would be a matter of grave and\\nserious consideration whether a prosecution should not be instituted\\nagainst the sheriff, for his conduct in empanelling the grand jury.\\nFrom the first moment the information was given to him relative to\\nthe manuer in which the sheriff had conducted himself, the impres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion was strong on his mind that the matter must be probed to the\\nbottom. The trial of the rioters commenced on the 24th or 2.5th of\\nJanuary, and certainly that was not the fit time for instituting a pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nsecution. Mr. Sheriff Thorpe was the person by whom the panel for\\nthe grand jury was returned. At his (Mr. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s) desire, he wished\\nthe two sheriffs to join in that panel, the thing being perfectly legal:\\nhe conceived that would have been the better way, as two of the\\ntraversers were related to Mr. Sheriff Thorpe. The fact, however*\\nwas, that the panel was signed only by Mr. Sheriff Thorpe; for,\\nthough he showed it to his brother sheriff, no alteration was made iu\\nit. He, however, had hoped that the petty jury for the trial of the\\ntraversers would have been differently returned and that thus a fair\\ntrial would take place. Therefore it was that he did not think it\\nnecessary to stop the proceedings for the purpose of prosecuting one\\nof the sheriffs. Soon after his arrival in town, the honourable mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber for Armagh gave notice of a charge which he meaut to bring", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0317.jp2"}, "318": {"fulltext": "308\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nagainst him in that house. He asked whether he would have beets\\njustified if, when accusations were pending against himself, he had\\ninstituted a prosecution against the sheriff. When the honourable\\nmember for Armagh gave notice of his motion, he (Mr. P.) entreated\\nthat it might be brought forward immediately. He complained ot\\nhaving that charge suspended over his head for two months. Until\\nfive minutes before he stood up to defend himself, he did not know\\nwhat the specific accusation against him would be. If, under these\\ncircumstances, he had instituted a proceeding against the sheriff,\\nwould it not have been said that it was intended as a set-off against\\nthe accusation levelled at himself? As regarded himself, he thought\\nthe question had been completely disposed of the other evening as\\nthe proposition that he was not influenced by any undue motive iu\\nthe exercise of his discretion was acquiesced in. As regarded the\\nsheriff, he repeated, that if the house did not take the matter out of\\nhis hands, he would institute a prosecution. He must do it also by\\nthe unfavourite mode of an ex-officio information for as to apply\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to a grand jury of the county of Dublin to find a bill against the\\nhigh sheriff, that would be utterly useless. Ho should file an ex-\\nofficio information, and he should next apply to the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nBench, that the case might be tried at the bar of that court, but\\nthat the venue might be directed to come from another county. The\\nsheriff would then have an opportunity, by the testimony of wit\u00c2\u00ac\\nnesses, and by other legal meaus, to make ids defence. If, on the\\nother hand, the house resolved to enter on an immediate inquiry, to\\nthat course he could not possibly entertain the slightest objection.\\nBut, as in the event of the institution of a prosecution he should be\\ncalled upon to prosecute, it was not his intention to give his vote\\neither for or against the motion. He, however, perfectly agreed\\nwith the honourable baronet, that it would be rank injustice if the\\nsheriff, who wished to vindicate his character, were shut out from a\\nfair opportunity of entering on that vindication.\\nEX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\nMay 2, 1823.\\nAr. Spring Rice moved that Mr. D. Macnamara and Mr. T. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Reilly, attor\u00c2\u00ac\\nneys in Dublin, be summoned to attend as witnesses at the bar of the house on\\nthe 9 th of May.\\nMr. Plunicet readily embraced the opportunity which this motion", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0318.jp2"}, "319": {"fulltext": "EX OFFICIO INFORMATIONS.\\n309\\nivfF^rcled him of stating a fact which had some connexion with it. ft\\nhad been charged that in filing an ex officio information after bills of\\nindictment had been ignored by the grand jury, he had acted in his\\noffice of attorney-general for Ireland without precedent, and had in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntroduced into the administration of the law a practice of which no\\ninstance had occurred since the Norman conquest. He had upon\\nthat occasion suggested, that from the authority of the Court of\\nKing\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, in cases which he cited, a fair analogy was to be\\ntraced, and sufficient to justify his proceeding. He had remarked\\nthat it was unfair, because he could not produce the precedents for\\nthe reasons he then stated, to suppose they did not exist. He had\\nsince received a letter from a Mr. Foley, an attorney of Ireland, a gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman whom he had not the honour of knowing, in which that gentleman\\nstated, that seeing the reports of those debates in parliament in which\\nthis subject had been mentioned, and the manner in which the ar\u00c2\u00ac\\ngument had been used, he was induced, from a sense of justice to in\u00c2\u00ac\\nform him that he believed a case took place in Ireland twelve years ago,\\nin which an ex officio information had been filed by an attorney-general\\nafter bills of indictment for the same offence had been ignored by the\\ngrand jury. He (Mr. Plunket) replied to this letter by thanking Mr.\\nFoiey, and requesting him to inquire into the subject; he had done\\nso, and the following were the particulars which he had transmitted:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nIn October, 1811, bills of indictment were preferred against a person\\nof the name of Leach, for writing a letter to Sir Edward Littlehales,\\nsoliciting the appointment of the place of barrack-master. The bill a\\ncontained three counts the first was for sending a letter, proposing\\nto give a bribe; the second for offering money by way of bribe; and\\nthe third for offering securities by way of bribe. These bills were\\nignored by the grand jury the court was surprised, and ordered fresh\\nindictments to be sent again to the same jury, who again ignored\\nthem. In November following, the then attorney-general, his prede\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessor, Mr. Saurin, filed an ex officio information containing the same\\ncounts, acting under the power which he (Mr. Plunket) had exercised;\\naud the case was tried in the same court. He held the papers in his\\nhand, which he did not mean to lay on the table, because he would\\nnot seem to inculpate the character of the right honourable gentleman\\nwho had preceded him; but he owed it to his own character to state,\\nthat twelve years ago the same thing had been done for which he had\\nbeen censured, and in which he was charged with having acted un\u00c2\u00ac\\nprecedentedly. The conduct of the attorney-general at that period\\nhad never been impeached, nor had any doubt been entertained of its\\nlegality or justice. He felt that this bore most strongly upon his owa", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0319.jp2"}, "320": {"fulltext": "310\\nPLUNKE^S SPEECHES.\\ncase, because that honourable gentleman had supposed he was only\\nacting in the course of his duty.\\nMr. Denman asked if any judgment had been passed in the case mentioned\\nby the right honourable gentleman.\\nMr. Plunket replied, that judgment had been signed for want of\\na plea; and it appeared, in consequence of the contrition expressed\\nby the defendant, and of his having lost a valuable appointment, that\\nno further punishment had been visited upon him, and the affair was\\ndropped.\\nMr. Abercrosiby had heard this statement with the greatest astonishment.\\nThere were two persons to whom, ex necessitate rei all the particulars of this\\ncase must have been known\u00e2\u0080\u0094the then attorney-general and the crown solicitor.\\nHe would ask the house to consider how the attorney-general for Ireland was\\nserved in the discharge of his duty, when no communication of this fact had been\\nmade to him If Mr. Saurin did not think fit to inform the right honourable\\ngentleman, this was a matter of courtesy of which he (Mr. Abercromby) had no\\nright to complain; but that the crown solicitor should not have informed him of\\nit, seemed something more than accident. It was for the purpose of impressing\\nupon the house the situation in which the right honourable gentleman was\\nplaced, the inconveniences of which, he believed, were also shared by the lord\\nlieutenant himself, that he called their attention to this singular conduct of the\\ncrown solicitor.\\nMr. Plunket was bound in justice to the crown solicitor to state\\nthat two gentlemen of the same name had held that office\u00e2\u0080\u0094they\\nwere father and sou; the father wa3 dead, and the son must have\\nbeen a very young man at the time to which he had alluded.\\nThis short scene closed Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s vindication in the Bottle Riot case. His\\nstatement is described as having electrified the house. It was notorious that\\nSaurin was the real promoter of the proceedings against him throughout, and\\nthe fact now discovered, that Saurin had himself, in precisely similar circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, resorted to the use of the ex officio information, at once marked the utter\\nunfairness of the whole proceeding. On the same day the committee, obtained\\nby Sir F. Burdett, commenced their inquiry. It sat for nine days, on the last\\nof which Plunket was examined. The chairman was directed to report the evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence to the house; and on the 8th of June, Mr. J. Williams, for Sir F. Burdett,\\nwho was absent through indisposition, gave notice of a motion founded on the\\nevidence. On the day fixed for the debate, Sir Francis was still indisposed, and\\nthe session ended, nothing done, on the 19th of July.\\nIRISH INSURRECTION ACT.\\nMay 12, 1823.\\nIn a despatch dated January 23, Lord Wellesley, referring to the tithe jacquerie\\nwhich at this time affected Clare, Limerick, Cork, and Tipperary, with selvages\\nof several of the adjoining counties, asked for a renewal of the Insurrection Act.\\nLord A. Hamilton a ticked Plunket for inconsistency, in sustaining measures", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0320.jp2"}, "321": {"fulltext": "IRISH INSURRECTION ACT.\\n311\\nMuch he had formerly stigmatised as an extinction of the constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094also for\\nhis conduct on the Catholic question\u00e2\u0080\u0094and for the spirit in which he opposed any\\nattempt to abate the payment of tithes.\\nMr. Plunket said, that as he had been much misrepresented, but no\\ndoubt unintentionally, by the noble lord who had just sat down, he must\\ntake the liberty of addressing a few words to the house upon this\\nquestion. He could not be fairly charged with inconsistency for the\\nsupport which he was now giving to this bill, inasmuch as he had ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvocated it last year, and also in 1806, when he was connected with\\nthe Duke of Bedford\u00e2\u0080\u0099s administration in Ireland. He allowed that it\\ncontained a most unconstitutional principle, seeing that it annihilated\\nthe trial by jury; and he lamented, as much as any man could do,\\nthe melancholy necessity which compelled the government to inflict\\nic at present upon Ireland. Still, the measure was to be only of a tem\u00c2\u00ac\\nporary nature, and was much better than the introduction of martial\\nlaw, which appeared so desirable to the honourable member for Cork.\\nThe introduction of martial law, he, for one, did not like; because it\\nwas sure to produce irritation, and it could not be attended, either di\u00c2\u00ac\\nrectly or remotely, by any conciliatory or beneficial consequences.\\nThe great evil under which Ireland at present laboured, was the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nluctance felt by individuals to come forward to give their evidences.\\nWould the introduction of miirtial law cure that evil? And if it\\nwould not, would martial law justify those who resorted to it in pun\u00c2\u00ac\\nishing individuals without any evidence at all If evidence could be\\nprocured, the present law would be sufficient to meet the grievance;\\nbut, unfortunately, there existed at present in Ireland a terror supe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrior to the terror of the law, and which paralysed every effort to carry\\nit into execution. The learned gentleman then proceeded to defend\\nhimself from the charge of inconsistency which had been brought\\nagainst him for his conduct in respect of the Roman Catholic claims.\\nHe contended, that to that question he had clung with adhesive\\ngrasp both in its good and in its bad fortune.\\nThe noble lord had said that, considering his conduct regarding\\nthat important subject, it was quite impossible to repose any confi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence either in his sincerity or in that of any of his colleagues. Urn\\nfortunately for the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s assertion, he had received from the\\nRoman Catholics of Ireland, since the late unfortunate decision on\\ntheir claims, the most satisfactory assurances that they approved\\nof every thing he had done to forward them. It was true that, in\\n1813, he had expressed his opinion of the disadvantage of bringing\\ntheir claims forward with a divided cabinet. He would again repeal\\nwhat he had then said, that, in his opinion, Catholic emancipation", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0321.jp2"}, "322": {"fulltext": "312\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nought to be a. sine qua non with every administration, and that it\\nwas a measure upon which the safety and tranquillity of Ireland prin\u00c2\u00ac\\ncipally depended. He thought that there was nothing in his expres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsions at that time which precluded him from obeying the orders ot\\nhis sovereign in taking office under the present ministry. In 1813\\nhe had entertained doubts of the sincerity of the ministers who then\\nadvocated Catholic emancipation. Those doubts had since been\\nremoved, in consequence of the great exertions which had been\\nmade to forward that cause by a noble lord now no more, and also\\nby a right honourable friend (Mr. Canning) who was now seated near\\nhim. In 1813 he had also thought it feasible to obtain a cabinet\\nwhose members should be unanimous in their opinions upon that sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject. At present he was convinced of the impossibility of ever see\u00c2\u00ac\\ning any such prospect realized. When, therefore, he saw that his\\nmajesty wished conciliatory measures to be adopted towards Ireland,\\nand also that the government in that unhappy country was deter\u00c2\u00ac\\nmined to discountenance the system by which its grievances and dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncontents had been so long fomented, he felt that he should not be\\nweakening the cause of Catholic emancipation, by going over to the\\nside of the house on which he new sat; and he therefore had gone\\nover to it, retaining all his eld.*and not adopting any new opinions\\nfor the guidance of his political conduct. He had made these remarks\\nin consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, whose obser\u00c2\u00ac\\nvations appeared to him to press more upon the individual who then\\naddressed them, than they did upon the question immediately before\\nthe house. He would now say, that were he inclined to vote for the\\ninquiry proposed by the noble lord, he would not vote for it as an\\namendment to the present motion. Without saying whether he would\\nor would not vote for that inquiry, were it brought forward as a sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nstantive motion, he would say this\u00e2\u0080\u0094that it deserved a separate dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncussion, and that at any rate it ought not to be obtruded on the\\nhouse as a secondary consideration, when it was necessary to obtain\\nan unanimous vote from it, in favour of the insurrection act, in order\\nto dispel any illusion which might exist in the mind of any misguided\\nwretches, respecting the light in which they were regarded by either\\nhouse of parliament. The learned gentleman then proceeded to ar\u00c2\u00ac\\ngue that he fras not inconsistent in giving his support to the present\\ntithe bill, after the opinions which he had formerly expressed regard\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the inviolability of church property. The noble lord had com-*\\nplained f the asperity with which he had condemned the proposi-\\nv.o.ia submitted to the housp by the honourable member for Aberdeen.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0322.jp2"}, "323": {"fulltext": "BURIALS IN IRELAND.\\n3ia\\nHe begged leave to assert that he had never intended to use any such\\ntone as the noble lord had attributed to him. All that he had then\\nsaid was, that the property of the church was not public property, to\\nbe cut up and carved at pleasure; and what he now maintained was\\nthis, that though the property of the church was as sacred as any\\nprivate property, it was still liable to those regulations of the legis\u00c2\u00ac\\nlature to which other private property was liable. In conclusion, he\\nagain lamented that this act should be necessary, and if any honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable member could propose a better, he would willingly adopt it. One\\nproof that the powers which it gave had not been improperly em\u00c2\u00ac\\nployed had been furnished them that evening by the honourable mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber for Cork, who had complained that they had been administered\\nwith too much lenity. He thought that, under such circumstances,\\nthe house might fairly bestow those powers once more upon the Irish\\ngovernment; seeing that tho only complaint which had been made\\nagainst it arose out of the discretion and moderation with which it\\nhad exercised the extraordinary powers committed to its charge.\\nLeave was given to renew the bill, by 162 ayes\u00e2\u0080\u0094noes 82, and the power of\\nsuspending the constitution was shortly afterwards placed in the hands of Lord\\nWellesley and his heterogeneous fidministra^cin. It cannot be complained that\\nthey abused their powers\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor was Plunket ever a merciless prosecutor. There\\nwas very little hemp used, considering the times, in his campaign against the\\nThreshers. He never countenanced the packing of juries; and the Bottle Riot\\ncase and Emmet\u00e2\u0080\u0099s are, perhaps, the only cases that can be shown where he ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nhibited an avenging animus in vindicating the law. In liis report, indeed, upon\\nwhich Lord Wellesley founded the application for renewing the Insurrection Act,\\nhe ask3 instead for the extension of an English Act which would enable him only\\nto transport for seven years. With such an instrument to work with,\u00e2\u0080\u009d says he,\\nI should entertain a confident hope of entirely subduing this offensive and dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ngusting association.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But the halter was the only weapon that the law then re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncognised for dealing with Irish grievances.\\nBURIALS IN IRELAND*.\\nMarch 22, 1824.\\nThis measure, it may be seen, had the useful and charitable design of diminish\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the asperities of sect in Ireland, by modifying the power possessed by the Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant clergy over the service of burials.\\nMr. Plunket rose to move the order of the day for the second read\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of the Burials in Ireland bill. The right honourable and learned\\ngentleman observed, that he would not Lave brought it forward at", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0323.jp2"}, "324": {"fulltext": "314\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthat moment, if he had not had some reason to flattter himself, from\\nthe general opinion which he had collected from all sides of the house\\nan the measure, that there was no likelihood of any material objection\\nbeing offered to it, nor of any discussion arising that would be at all\\ncalculated to produce a protracted debate. The house was already\\naware of the general scope and object of the bill. It related to the\\nburials, in Ireland, of persons dissenting from the doctrines and dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncipline of the Established Church, with those forms and ceremonies\\nwhich were peculiar to the religion professed by them. Every one\\nmust feel, that this was a subject of extreme importance, as it related\\nto the moral feelings, passions, and prejudices of the great bulk of\\nthe population of Ireland; and they must also perceive, that it was a\\nquestion of the greatest delicacy, because, as it referred to circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances which must occur in the precincts of Protestant churchyards,\\nit would naturally excite the attention of those who felt an interest in\\nthe security of the Protestant establishment. He therefore approached\\nthe subject with a considerable degree of caution, he would not say\\nut alarm because the measure had been so maturely considered, and\\nso nicely prepared, with reference to both sides of the question, that\\nwhile it would make the law easy, as to the burial of Dissenters, it\\nwould not create any just alaPm in the minds of those who were con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnected with the Established Church. But, when he stated that it\\nwas a subject of great difficulty and delicacy, he begged to observe,\\nthat it was not on that account that he had taken it out of the hands\\nin which it had been previously placed. Whether he considered the\\nquestion with a view to its importance, its difficulty, or its delicacy,\\nhe knew of no hands better suited to bring it forward effectually than\\nthose of his right honourable friend (Sir J. Newport). The course\\nwhich his right honourable friend had taken in the debate relative to\\neducation in Ireland, which occurred a few evenings since\u00e2\u0080\u0094the tone\\nof temper and moderation with which he had introduced that delicate\\nsubject, proved clearly that no man was more tit to conciliate the\\nopinions and soothe the passions of all parties. Still, however, he\\nthought it would be felt, that it was better that this question should\\nbe taken up by one who spoke the sentiments of the government of\\nthe country, rather than by any individual unconnected with the\\ngovernment. Many reasons could be adduced in support of this posi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. It was right, in the first place, that the public should know the\\nanxious solicitude which the government entertained, with respect to\\nthe welfare of the people of Ireland and next, it was important that\\nthe question should be now brought forward in such a manner as to\\nreconcile all class* 3 to it. This end could be much better attained", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0324.jp2"}, "325": {"fulltext": "BURIALS IN IRELAND.\\n315\\nby the government, than if the measure were introduced by any in\\ndividual, however respectable. Having said thus much to excuse\\nthe government of the country for entertaining this measure, it woultf\\nperhaps be expected that he should state some reason for its not hav\u00c2\u00ac\\ning been taken up sooner. Many circumstances existed in Irelaud\\nwhich would have made it unwise in government to have interfered\\nwith a question of this kind at an earlier period. Whatever incon\u00c2\u00ac\\nveniences existed in the actual state of the law\u00e2\u0080\u0094and he admitted\\nthose inconveniences to be many and considerable\u00e2\u0080\u0094yet still it was\\nfound.that very few of them were of a practical nature. Govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, therefore, had not thought it necessary to legislate on theoreti\u00c2\u00ac\\ncal principles, so long as the existing law appeared to work well.\\nBut a new state of things had sprung up, and it was now found ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npedient to make some change in the law. The first thing it was\\nproposed to do was, to repeal the act of the 9 th William 3rd, cap. 7.\\nlie believed, with respect to this point, there was an universal con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent on the part of every person concerned. He would now state\\nwhat the object of the act of William was. It was probably known\\nto most gentlemen in that house, that there were in Ireland a number\\nof abbeys and convents, the sites of places formerly used for religious\\nworship, and vested in ecclesiastical persons. These venerable places\\nwere looked on with considerable respect, if not reverence, by all\\nclasses of people in Ireland. They had been founded from motives\\nof piety, and though sometimes tenanted by superstition and bigotry,\\nyet it could not be denied, that they were often the abodes of genuine\\nreligion and pure charity. From them, in former times, the blessings\\nof hospitality had been disseminated amongst the poor and the needy.\\nThose plaees had long since been taken out of the possession of the\\necclesiastical proprietors, and vested in the several members of the\\nstate. But they were still viewed by the people with feelings of re-\\nsDect and veneration. Though no longer used as places of religious\\nworship, they were much resorted to as places of burial, not merely\\nfor the Roman Catholics of the country, but very frequently for the\\nProtestants; and he felt, that the remains of those ancient edifices\\nwere not the least interesting objects of contemplation to those per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons who visited Ireland. Looking to the disturbances, religious and\\npolitical, by which that country had been torn, it was a point ok.\\nwhich the mind reposed with some degree of pleasure, when it re\u00c2\u00ac\\njected, that in those cemeteries the Protestant and the Catholic, per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons of all ranks and persuasions, were buried in common. How\u00c2\u00ac\\never they might have differed in life, in death they were suffered to\\nrepose together; and the place of their interment was not made a", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0325.jp2"}, "326": {"fulltext": "plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nSI\\nscene for the display of acrimonious feeling and unseemly asperity;\\nThis state of things had prevailed, he believed, more or less, ever\\nsince the Reformation. It must seem extraordinary that, under\\nthese circumstances, the act of the 9 th of William was passed, by\\nwhich burials in those places were forbidden, as well to Protestants\\nas to Catholics. It seemed extraordinary, when the practice was\\ncarried on without offence to any party, that it should have been ir:-\\nerfered with by this law. He believed it was not with a view to\\nany direct interference with the rights of sepulture of any religious\\nsect that the law was enacted, but that it was framed in a spiiit of\\njealousy, which could not bear that any religious feeling should be\\nkept alive with respect to those old places of worship. Certainly,\\nwhatever might have been the object of the act, its provisions were\\nopposed to those affections and decencies, with reference to the de\u00c2\u00ac\\nceased, which ought always to be respected. The act was framed,\\nbut it fell still-born, as all measures must do when opposed to the\\nfeelings and sentiments of a country. In no one instance, for a series\\nof years, had the custom which had so long prevailed been interfered\\nwith\u00e2\u0080\u0094in no one instance had this obnoxious law been carried into\\neffect. If, then, there was an act on their statute-book, to enforce\\nwhich would be considered a crime, and to infringe it w r ould be looked\\non as a duty, it ought not to be suffered to remain and one object\\nof the measure now before the house was, to repeal this act. The\\nhouse would, however, observe, that there was a clause regulating\\nand narrowing that repeal. The reason of this was, that many of\\nthose places were diverted from their original purpose, and were pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsessed by individuals; and care should be taken, that no interfe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrence with private property was admitted under this measure which\\nwould be the case if persons, who were not in the habit of using par\u00c2\u00ac\\nticular places of this description for burying grounds, were suffered\\nto do so now. He would now, as shortly as he could, apply himself\\nto the more important provisions of this bill, so far as it professed to\\ngive the right of burial in Protestant churchyards, according to the\\nreligious ceremonies of the parties whose friends were brought there\\nfor interment. The noble lord who presided over the government of\\nIreland, and who had applied himself to this, as well as to every\\nother subject connected with the interests of that country, felt the\\ndeepest anxiety for the success of this measure aud he (Mr. P.)\\ninevv of no other reason why he now addressed the house, except\\nthat, from his constant intercourse with the noble lord, he had the\\nbest means of learning his views ou the subject. This measure\\noriginated with the noble lord, and had received the unanimous", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0326.jp2"}, "327": {"fulltext": "BURIALS IN IRELAND.\\n317\\nsanction of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government. The two great objects of the\\nbill were these, to secure to Dissenters of every denomination the\\nright of interment according to their own forms and ceremonies, and\\nto take care, at the same time, that nothing was done offensive to\\nthe dignity, or subversive of the security, of the Protestant religion^\\nBefore he proceeded further, it was necessary that he should de\u00c2\u00ac\\nscribe what was the state of the law on this subject as it now\\nexisted. In the first place, he would endeavour to put the house in\\npossession of what was the situation of the Protestant parson as to\\nthe right of burial. Gentlemen, doubtless, knew, that the freehold\\nof the churchyard was vested in the rector. The churchyard was\\nhis freehold, and no person could enter it, unless by his leave, with\u00c2\u00ac\\nout committing a trespass. But, besides the right which belonged\\nto him as the possessor of the soil, he was, as the parson, empowered\\nby law to superintend the mode of granting Christian burial in the\\nchurchyard. He was to grant the right of interment; and, by the\\nact of Uniformity, he was to read the burial service of the church\\nof Ireland, as by law established, and no other. He could not, himself,\\nread any other service neither could he depute any person to read a\\ndifferent service in the churchyard. He could employ another gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nman in orders to read the service of the church of Ireland; but he could\\nnot allow any layman, or a member of any other community, to read\\nit. If this law were acted on, and the Protestant clergy were in ever)\\ninstance to insist on reading this service, and going through the rites\\nand ceremonies prescribed by the church of Ireland, it would vir\u00c2\u00ac\\ntually deprive the great body of the people of the right of interment.\\nConsidering what their religious opinions were, such a practice would\\namount to actual exclusion. He did not mean to argue, whether\\ntheir feeling on this subject was a right one or not: it was his duty\\nmerely to state the fact. The opinions, feelings, and prejudices of the\\npeople of Ireland were such, that if the principle were insisted on, io\\nwould actually amount to an exclusion from the light of interment of\\nall the Catb ilics, at least, if not of all the Dissenters. This was the\\nsituation of the law on one side now let the house mark what it\\nwas on the other. According to the laws of the land, every person\\nhad a right to interment in the Protestant churchyard of the parish\\nwhere he died. His relatives had a right to claim it; but they were\\nentitled to claim it, subject to that right of the Protestant parson\\nwhich he had just mentioned. But, suppose he performed the rites of\\nthe Protestant church, or that he waived their performance, there was\\nno law which, in either case, prohibited the performance of dissenting\\nlies in a Protestant churcnyard. There was no law, where the\\nx", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0327.jp2"}, "328": {"fulltext": "318\\nPLUNKET s SPEECHES.\\nProtestant parson bad discharged bis functions* or waived them, to\\nprevent Roman Catholic ceremonies from being performed in the\\nchurchyard, however ostentatiously celebrated, or however calculated\\nto produce feelings of pain in the mind of the Protestant clergyman.\\nThere were a number of laws passed in Ireland, after the Reforma\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion on the subject of the Catholic priests. By those laws, besides\\ninflicting penalties on priests coming from abroad, there were others\\nwhich also imposed penalties on all priests who were not registered\\nin a regular manner. By the 21st and 22nd of the late king, the\\ngreater part of these penalties were removed, under certain restrictions\\nand conditions. One of them was, that the benefit of those act3\\nshould not extend to any Catholic priest who officiated in a Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant churchyard. It was supposed, that under this clause it was a\\ncriminal or penal act for a priest to perform the burial service in a\\nProtestant church-yard: but the supposition was entirely erroneous:\\nit had no other effect than saying, that the Catholic priest who per\u00c2\u00ac\\nformed the service in a Protestant churchyard, should not have the\\nbenefit of that particular law. He was liable to be indicted, not for\\nhaving performed the service, but for not having duly registered\\nhimself under the former act; which he was not required to do, pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvided he obeyed the restrictions enumerated in the 21st and 22nd of\\nGeorge III. Bat, whatever might have been the state of the law on this\\nsubject, growing out of the 21st and 22nd of George III., all difficulty\\nwas removed, in Ireland, by the law of 1793. By that law it was not\\nan illegal act for the Catholic priest to officiate. He could not be\\nindicted for it; he could not be prevented from doing it. If the con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrary were admitted: if the Protestant clergyman had a right to in\u00c2\u00ac\\nsist on performing the service of the church of Ireland, it would totally\\nexclude the whole body of Roman Catholics from interment. If the\\nProtestant clergyman chose to come in and perform his service, or if\\nhe waived his right to officiate, there wa3 no law to prevent the Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic priest from exercising his functions. This was the state of the\\nlaw; and, considering the situation of the parties, it was fraught\\nwith all the seeds and elements of discord and dissension. But\\nthough such was the fact\u00e2\u0080\u0094though the state of the law was calcu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated to produce conflictions and collisions between those opposing\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0parties\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was pleasing to state, that with very few and rare ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nceptions, those elements of discord and dissension had not created\\nany of those effects which might have been expected from them.\\nOne would, indeed, almost praise this state of the law; since it gave\\nan opportunity to people of all sects, and of all religious opinions, to\\ndisplay feelings the most liberal and charitable, lie must say, and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0328.jp2"}, "329": {"fulltext": "BURIALS IN IRELAND.\\n319\\nhe said it with great respect for the parochial clergy, that, until of\\njate years, they had not, in the smallest degree, interfered with the\\nright of interment in Protestant churchyards. They had forborne to\\nexercise a duty which was imposed on them by the common law of the\\ntountry, and by the act of Uniformity, because they felt that it would\\ncreate uneasiness and dissatisfaction. The Catholic clergymen also\\nhad conducted themselves in a most exemplary manner. He be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlieved the Catholic body in general were buried without any cere\u00c2\u00ac\\nmony but it was customary, on the interment of Catholics of the\\nbetter orders, to have, more or less, a sort of service performed by\\nthe priest. Sometimes he appeared in the stole, a sort of black robe,\\nand sometimes he officiated in his plain clothes but he never pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsumed to offer anything offensive to the Protestant Church. This\\nwas the way in which the matter remained, until lately, without any\\ndegree of offence being taken by the Protestant clergy. This would,\\nbe particularly stated; because it proved that there was not that\\nunmanageable texture in the sentiments of those who held different\\nreligious opinions in Ireland, that ought to shut out all hope of ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncommodation, that ought to lead the house to believe that it was\\nimpossible to smooth down those religious feelings, the asperity of\\nwhich had been the bane and curse of Ireland. When matters re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmained thus\u00e2\u0080\u0094when, on the one hand, there was no interference, and\\non the other, no offence\u00e2\u0080\u0094he thought it would have been unwise if\\ngovernment had legislated for prospective evils, that perhaps might\\nnever have arisen. But, about four or five years back, the perfor\u00c2\u00ac\\nmance of religious ceremonies by a Catholic priest in a Protestant\\nchurchyard was resisted. At the time this took place, such occur\u00c2\u00ac\\nrences were extremely unfrequent; and government thought it better\\nto get rid of them by giving them conciliatory advice, rather than\\nby exerting the strong hand of authority, or by calling on parliament\\nto take the business up. In the course of the last year, however.,\\nthe complaints on the subject had greatly increased. Whether the\\nright was more frequently claimed by the Catholic clergy, or con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntended for in a different degree or manner from what had been cus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntomary, he could not say; but a good deal of alarm had certainly\\nbeen excited. Whether that alarm was just or not he could not dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncover and he believed it would be very difficult to ascertain the\\nfact. If one person were asked, whether the ceremony were the\\n\u00c2\u00bbame as was heretofore performed, the answer was in the affirmative;\\nbut the next individual of whom inquiry was made would state ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nactly the reverse. In fact, individuals seemed to be guided rather\\nby their prejudices, than by any desire to elicit the truth. He", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0329.jp2"}, "330": {"fulltext": "PLUNKET 5 SPEECHES.\\n320\\ntherefore thought it would be much better to leave the circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances out of which this alarm had arisen, in the ambiguity in\\nwhich they were placed at present, than to attempt to explore them.\\nWhatever had been done by the Protestant clergy, was, he felt con\u00c2\u00ac\\nvinced, performed in the discharge of a conscientious duty. He paid\\na most ready and willing homage to the forbearance manifested by\\nthe great body of the parochial clergy of Ireland; and he was cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain, wherever they had recourse to resistance, they were impelled\\nto it by a sense of duty alone. The government, as he had already\\nobserved, were anxious to soothe all differences, by friendly and\\nconciliatory advice but it at length became necessary to examine\\nwhat the real state of the law was on this subject. If the law were\\nclear and plain\u00e2\u0080\u0094if its operation appeared calculated to produce peace\\nand union\u00e2\u0080\u0094then it was right that the people should kuow it; but\\nthe case was greatly altered when the law carried within itself the\\nelements of hostility: when the concord which had so long pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nvailed arose, not from a knowledge of the state of the law, but from\\nau ignorance of it. It would have been productive of the most un\u00c2\u00ac\\npleasant consequences, if it had been boldly stated, \u00e2\u0080\u009cYou, the\\npriest, h; ye a right to bury this mau\u00e2\u0080\u0094you may enter the church\u00c2\u00ac\\nyard wit i bell, book, aud candle, and perform the service in the\\nmost offensive manner possible.\u00e2\u0080\u0099* If the priest had the power to\\nexclaim to the Protestant clergyman, I am doing this by the autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity of the government, who have told me what the law is on the\\nsubject,\u00e2\u0080\u009d it would be the cause of constant feuds. Tnis pernicious\\nknowledge of their rights must end in continual conflicts between\\nthe parties; and therefore it was necessary, that the law should not\\nremain in its present situation. Heretofore, the law had not been\\ninsisted on\u00e2\u0080\u0094the proceedings of the Catholic clergy had been little\\ninterfered with. Had it been otherwise, the Catholics of Ireland\\nwould be driven from the tombs of their ancestors. It was not a\\nclaim of ambition which they put forward\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was not a political\\nprivilege which they demanded. What they contended for was the\\noffspring of those feelings of devotion and piety, which were inhe\u00c2\u00ac\\nrent in the nature of man, which were wholly independent of adven\u00c2\u00ac\\ntitious circumstances. There was no crime so barbarous, no ignor\u00c2\u00ac\\nance so profound, no philosophy so arrogant, as to deny the justice\\nof that feeling which was implanted in the nature of man, and which\\ninduced him to look with affectionate regret to the spot where the\\nremains of his ancestry were deposited. It was not the creature of\\nphilosophy it was the voice of that Being, who, when he had\\ndoomed us to the grave, inspired our hearts with the emSdent hope,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0330.jp2"}, "331": {"fulltext": "BURIALS IN IRELAND,\\nS21\\nthat rar affections and feelings wonld exist beyond that goal. If,\\nhowever, the Roman Catholic priest were openly told, that he might\\nperform his ceremonies in the most ostentatious manner, such a pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding would give alarm, and not unjustifiably, to the Protestant,\\nIt was therefore necessary that some alteration should be made in\\nthe law and the question was, which was the best mode of dealing\\nwith the subject There were three modes in which the existing\\nlaw might be altered. First, it would be possible* to give separate\\nburial-grounds to the Roman Catholics and the Protestants and\\nthis idea had, in fact, occurred to some Catholics of influence but\\nhe thought, for his own part, and he was convinced the house would\\ngo along with him in the feeling, that, of all remedies for the present\\nevil, no other so objectionable could be found. The allotment of\\nseparate burial places would not only, like the giving separate places\\nof education, tend to strengthen the line of demarcation already sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nsisting between the two religions, and to preclude for ever all hope\\nof that union in heart and political opinion which every sincere lover\\nof Ireland must hope for, whatever he might think as to its imme\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiate probability, but it would go to outrage the very commonest and\\nyet most sacred feelings of humanity. It would have the effect, the\\nhouse would see, in many cases, of separating families as to their\\nplace of burial. A husband could not be buried with his wife, a\\nbrother near his brother, a father by the side of his son. It would\\nhardly be necessary to say more upon the impracticability of intro\u00c2\u00ac\\nducing such an arrangement. The next proposition then, he would\\nsuppose to be this\u00e2\u0080\u0094to make the right of interment to the Dissenter in\\nIreland an absolute right\u00e2\u0080\u0094to have it a stern and unbending mandate\\nupon the Protestant parson, to admit him to burial, and then to restrict\\nthe exercise of this absolute right, so as to prevent its being used in\\na manner offensive to the feelings of the Protestant. This plan cer-\\ntaiuly did not carry, upon the face of it, so much positive unfitness\\nas the former; but still the house would hardly find it to be a u ise\\none, even if it was practicable, which he doubted: for the great dif\u00c2\u00ac\\nficulty in the way of such a regulation would be, not the unwilling\u00c2\u00ac\\nness of the Protestant parson to give up the absolute right, but his\\ndisability to do so. By the act of Uniformity, and the canon law of\\nthe country, he was bound to perform the right himself, and could\\nnot make over absolute power to another to do it. This, however,\\nwas as the law now stood the new act authorised the parson to\\ngive the desired permission; but if it was said, that the spirit and\\nthe terms of the act ought to be\u00e2\u0080\u0094not he may give permission, but\\nhe shall xdve permission, he (Mr. P.) denied the fitness of that course,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0331.jp2"}, "332": {"fulltext": "522\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nbecause the house should be aware, that even for the admission of\\ni Protestant to burial, there was nothing upon the parson mandatory,\\ni he Protestant himself could not be buried without permission from\\nthe parson. True, the parson might not withhold his permission,\\nunless upon some satisfactory reason; but, even if he did withhold it\\nwrongfully, he could not be indicted, or made liable to a civil action\\nfor so doing; he could only be censured in the Spiritual Court.\\nCases might be put, however, in a moment, in which the parson wa3\\nentitled to refuse, lie was not bound to bury a person who died\\nexcommunicated; or who had never been baptised; or one who had\\ncommitted suicide. In fact, he was generally to judge of the time,\\nthe convenience, and the fitness of the thing being done and if the\\nassent was not compulsory in the case of a Protestant, there were\\nadditional reasons in abundance why it should not be so in the case\\nof a Roman Catholic. When a dissenting clergyman applied to a\\nProtestant clergyman for permission to bury, the Protestant clergy\u00c2\u00ac\\nman was bound to judge, first, whether it were one of the applicant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nflock. He must ascertain whether the deceased was really a Roman\\nCatholic or not; because there had been cases, and not very uncom\u00c2\u00ac\\nmonly, in which that point had been disputed. There were other\\ncircumstances to be considered. Who was the applicant, for in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance Was he, as he professed himself, a Protestant clergyman\\nHe might be some mad fanatic Jumper, who had no right to make\\nany such application. All these were matters of which the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant clergyman had to judge and, if an absolute mandate was to be\\ngiven, they would all be special matters to be provided for. Further\\nspecialities would have to be considered\u00e2\u0080\u0094the mode and manner of\\nperforming the ceremony, the tapers, and other circumstances of os\u00c2\u00ac\\ntentation in the Catholic, which went beyond the modesty of the Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant church. But the present bill made arrangements which\\ncould hardly fail to satisfy all parties; for, as its avowed intention\\nwas, to give the Dissenter the benefit of interment according to the\\nrites ot his own church, in a Protestant churchyard, the Ootestaut\\nclergyman could no longer allege the difference of religion as a reason\\nfor withholding the permission to bury. He repeated that the pro-\\nsent act was one for which the Catholics of Ireland ought to feel\\nmost grateful; for it was in fact a charter of toleration, a direct de\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaration, that every person in Ireland, of whatever religions belief,\\nwas entitled to interment according to the rites of his own persuasion.\\nI he law, as regarded its effects, was put into the strongest practical\\nshape. The Protestant clergyman was to be applied to. If ho\\nthought fit to refuse permission- he was bound to state in writing tc", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0332.jp2"}, "333": {"fulltext": "BURIALS IN IRELAND.\\n323\\nthe applicant, and immediately, the cause of his refusal; and more\u00c2\u00ac\\nover, forthwith to certify the same cause to his ordinary, or the\\nbishop of his diocese, who was to forward it again without delay,\\nto the lord lieutenant, or chief government of the country. Thus\\nthere could be no reason to apprehend refusal on the existing\\nready ground\u00e2\u0080\u0094that of the difference in the religion in the party\\nmaking application; and still less would there be any danger of a\\nlight or frivolous objection, because it would be known that that ob\u00c2\u00ac\\njection was at once to go before authority. And further, with regard\\nto the extent of the act, it was virtually mandatory, though not\\nmandatory in terms, for he stated it as a principle of law, and if he\\nwas wrong he might be contradicted, that where a public functionary\\nwas legally enabled to do certain acts which were for the good of the\\ncommunity, the law which made it lawful for him to do those acts,\\nin fact made it his duty to do them. So that, on the one hand, the\\nact was mandatory, for the clergyman stood bound, in such a case,\\nto do that which it was lawful for him to do; and on the other\\nhand it would be observed, that in the prevision for the service to\\nbe performed, there was no permission for the burial service gene\u00c2\u00ac\\nrally, but specially for the service of the grave\u00e2\u0080\u0094an important point\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094because, in the Roman Catholic liturgy, the service of the grave\\nwas not the burial service, the burial service involving the most\\npompous display of the rites of the Catholic religion; and the service\\nof the grave being merely a short prayer and psalm, attended with\\nno parade of ceremony whatever. Still the law, no doubt, as it\\nwould stand, might by possibility be abused. He did not deny that\\nit might. It was possible, on the one hand, that a Protestant\\nclergyman might, in defiance of consequences, capriciously withhold\\nhis permission; and on the other hand, there might cases arise, in\\nwhich the privilege granted might be taken gross advantage of.\\nBut it was not, in his view, the spirit of legislation, to make laws to\\nmeet extreme and barely possible cases. He rather preferred in all\\narrangements, to leave such cases to be dealt with as they arose;\\naud he had no fear, upon the present question, but that the law\\nwould work perfectly well. With regard to the Protestant estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishment, he was not surprised that they should feel some alarm as\\nto the new law at first. It was certainly, up to a certain point, the\\nintroduction of a new right and power; it was giving the Catholic\\nchurch a right in the churchyard of the Protestant church: but a\\ngreat deal of this objection vanished when gentlemen considered,\\nthat the law in fact only took away a right which the Protestant\\nclergyman had never exercised. If il was said that the Protestant", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0333.jp2"}, "334": {"fulltext": "324\\nPLUNKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099S SPEECHES.\\nparson had only abstained from using his right, because the cere^\\nmony performed had been performed in the private house of the\\nCatholic, and not openly, as it would be now, in the Protestant\\nchurchyard\u00e2\u0080\u0094this might be said, and the case still would be exactly\\nwhere it was before for the very avowal conceded a principle just\\nas strong as that he now contended for. The ceremony was per\u00c2\u00ac\\nformed in the private house True but the Protestant clergyman\\nknew that it was performed there. He not only knew it, but he\\nmust, of necessity, be taken by his own act, to be cognizant of it;\\nbecause he could never be supposed to be permitting bodies to be\\ninterred without any ceremony of Christian burial. We could not\\nbear that the Protestant parson had been permitting human bodies\\nto be thrown into the ground like so many dogs; he could only\\nstand justified in his forbearing to perform the rites of Christian\\nburial according to his own religion, by the knowledge that those\\nrites, according to another form, had been performed already; so\\nthat, in fact, he acknowledged that the performance of certain rites,\\naccording to the manner of the Catholic faith, gave a body that\\ntitle to come into his Protestant churchyard, which, without those\\nrites, it could not have had. The act before the house went, in\\nprinciple, no further than this. There was nothing new in the effect\\nof what it did, the novelty was only in the form. No rational Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant parson would complain of being permitted by law to waive\\nthat right, which he had been all along accustomed to waive, with the\\nlaw against him in so doing. In the confidence that his measure\\nwould satisfy all parties, he should sit down by moving that the bill\\nbe read a second time.\\nUNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.\\nFebruary 11, 1825.\\nEarly in the year 1823, O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell proposed to Shiel and a party of friends who\\nwere dining with Mr. T. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Mara at Glancullen, the plan of an association for\\nthe management of the Catholic cause. At the aggregate meeting of the Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics, which took place in April, a resolution of the same design was carried\\nand on Monday, the 12th of May, the first meeting of the Catholic Association\\nwas held at Dempsey\u00e2\u0080\u0099s rooms in Sackville-street.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Thenceforward the Asso\u00c2\u00ac\\nciation in frequent sitting met at Coyne\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, the Catholic bookseller\u00e2\u0080\u0099s; and before\\na month had passed, was in active working order.\\nFrom small beginnings it became, in the course of a year, the most formidable\\npopular organization that the world ever witnessed. Its influence ramified into", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0334.jp2"}, "335": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n325\\nevery parish in Ireland. Its capacious sphere found place and work for every\\nmember of the Catholic body, the peer, the lawyer, the merchant, the country\\ngentleman, the peasant, and the priest\u00e2\u0080\u0094petitions to be accumulated, rent to be\\nlevied, deputations to the throne and to parliament, vigilant administration\\nof justice between Catholic and Protestant, stormy electioneering\u00e2\u0080\u0094and every week\\nthe passionate eloquent outbursting in speech and address of that fierce sense of\\nwrong and longing for freedom, which, for a century, had been smouldering in the\\nhearts of the people. Over all, the voice of O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell, like some mighty minster\\nhell, is heard through Ireland, and the empire, and the world\u00e2\u0080\u0094through all time\\ntoo.\\nIts historian says well, It guided the people and thus raised itself in raising\\nthe people. In the short space of two years, what had long defied the anxious\\nexertions of all preceding bodies was tranquilly accomplished. The three hands,\u00e2\u0080\u0099\\nthe three classes were found in one, the penal statute was the force which clasped\\nthem. The entire country formed but one Association.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nEmancipation had ceased to be the open question\u00e2\u0080\u009d of English statesmen. It\\nhad become the purpose of a people\u00e2\u0080\u0094a people, which from a mere mob, trodden\\nto the helot level of the law, had become as carefully arrayed, and as animate\\nm ith the sense of organization as an army. English statesmen felt that their\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009copen question\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 would soon be wrestod as a right, no longer conceded as a grace;\\nand prepared to cover their retreat. It was determined to accompany emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion with the suppression of the Catholic Association, and the disfranchisement\\nof the Catholic peasantry\u00e2\u0080\u0094the stout-hearted forty-shilling freeholdei-s.\\nThe bill for the first purpose was introduced by Goulburn, under the above\\nheading, and was defended by Plunket in the following speech.\\nMr. Plunket said, he stood in a situation which required the ut\u00c2\u00ac\\nmost indulgence of the house. The subject before the house had\\nbeen so fully discussed in all its parts, that he felt it impossible for\\nhim to add to the arguments that had already been adduced in its\\nfavour; and he should not have obtruded himself on the house in the\\ncourse of this debate, if it were not to declare his view of the state\\nof that country to which this question immediately related. That\\nwas his object, rather than the hope of throwing any additional light\\non the subject then before the house. Ho confessed that he never\\nhad risen in that assembly with emotions of greater pain, nor did he\\never approach any question with feelings of deeper apprehension than\\nhe approached this. It was said, that the measure now proposed was con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrary to the popular principles of the constitution and that it was in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntended, through a breach of those principles, to wound the cause of the\\nRoman Catholics. The measure had been denounced, by gentlemen\\nwhom he highly respected, as one that was likely to be attended\\nwith circumstances of the most ruinous nature. These, certainly,\\nwere very heavy imputations on the proposition made by his right\\nhonourable friend; but he must say, that down to the present mo\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, they rested on mere assertion, and were unsupported either\\nby argument or proof. Coming, however, from persons of so much", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0335.jp2"}, "336": {"fulltext": "326\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SPEECHES\\nsincerity and ability as those to whom he had alluded, he was led\\nalmost to doubt the evidence of his senses, and to distrust the proofs\\nwhich the converse of the proposition laid down by those gentlemeu\\nwas capable of receiving. He trusted that, upon consideration, it\\nwould appear to the house, that the proposed measure did not inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nfere with any of the popular privileges of this country he trusted\\nalso it would be found that it did not affect the Catholic question;\\nand he confidently trusted that none of those disastrous consequences\\nwould flow from it, which some gentlemen seemed to anticipate.\\nThe question rested not on ordinary grounds; it rested on the\\nground of imperious and essential necessity. The safety of the state\\nmade the adoption of this measure absolutely necessary. Before he\\nproceeded further\u00e2\u0080\u0094before he touched on incidental points, he would\\ncall the attention of the house to the real nature of the question which\\nwas proposed for consideration. It had been argued very generally\\non the opposite side of the house, that this measure attacked, most\\nmaterially, the privileges of the Catholic body; but he begged leave\\nto say, that it went to attack all illegal and unconstitutional institu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions, whether arrayed on behalf of the Roman Catholics or against\\nthem. This was not a single measure\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was not a measure hastily\\ntaken up: it was adopted in consequence of a communication from\\nthe throne, which communication also recommended, that the entire\\nstate of Ireland should be taken into consideration in the course of\\nthe session. The situation of that country was to be considered, not\\nwith reference to any particular point, but with reference to all points;\\nand from those of course it was impossible the Catholic question\\ncould be excluded. It was necessary to pursue this course, for the\\npurpose of curing the evil, of which the Catholic Association was\\nonly a symptom. He could not, therefore, conceive, let the indivi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndual be ever so sincere a friend to Catholic emancipation, how he\\ncould object to the proposed measure, accompanied as it was by the\\ndeclaration contained in the speech from the throne. It was said,\\nand truly said, that, at the moment when the peace of the session\\nwas likely to be disturbed by the bringing forward of this measure,\\nIreland was in a state of peace and tranquillity. And his honourable\\nfriend who spoke last, wondered why such a measure, under these\\ncircumstances, had been resorted to. He would admit that Ireland\\nwas in a state of peace and prosperity. She had participated in the\\ngeneral prosperity of the empire. She had been enabled, by the\\nnoble lord at the head of the government, and by the measures which\\nhe had matured (measures of the most wise and temperate descrip\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion), to enjoy the blessings which were the offspring of internal traa-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0336.jp2"}, "337": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n327\\nquillity. Those measures had been properly administered; and\\npublic confidence had, in consequence, been restored. The noble\\nmarquis, when sent to Ireland, had found that country in a state\\nnearly bordering on rebellion. He softened down the feelings of ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nasperation that existed, and the people soon placed confidence in the\\njustice and benignity of his administration. It was a great blessing\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was a most gratifying object\u00e2\u0080\u0094to behold that country now float\\ning on the tide of public confidence and public prosperity. She was\\nlying on the breakers, almost a wreck, when the noble marquis ar\u00c2\u00ac\\nrived and if he had not taken the measures which had been so\\nsuccessfully adopted, she never could have floated on that tide of\\npublic prosperity.\\nHe could not agree with the honourable and learned member for\\nWinchelsea when he asserted, that the return of peace and tranquil\u00c2\u00ac\\nlity to Ireland was attributable to the exertions of the Catholic As\u00c2\u00ac\\nsociation. But, even if that position were true, still it formed a\\nreason for adopting the present measure; because, as the honourable\\nmember for Galway (Mr. Martin) had very properly said, all argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment as to the necessity of this measure was at an end, if once the\\nexistence of so formidable a power was admitted. If the Catholic\\nAssociation could put down those who were illegally inclined, could\\nthey not raise them up again, if they thought proper Toilere sea\\nponere vult freta,\u00e2\u0080\u009d And here he would beg leave to say, that\\namongst the persons who were most active in effecting this restora\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of order and tranquillity, and in convincing the people of the\\nadvantages which were derived from an equal administration of the\\nlaws, were the Catholic priests of Ireland, not the Catholic Associa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, who arrogated to themselves all the merit, who wished to run\\naway with all the praise that was due to the nobility, clergy, and\\ngentry of the country. The Roman Catholic clergy had, without any\\ndictation from that body, preached to the people the principles of re\u00c2\u00ac\\nligion and of peace. He said this injustice to that most useful and\\nmost calumniated set of men. Having borne this testimony to the\\ntranquillity and prosperity of Ireland, the question naturally was\u00e2\u0080\u0094-\\nWhy, when the state of things is so flattering, do you bring this\\nmeasure forward He would answer, that, although he never re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmembered a period when greater prosperity prevailed in Ireland, yet\\nhe never recollected a time when so great, when so violent a degree\\nof excitation existed in that country; and he knew that much alarm\\nwas felt on account of the danger that might arise, if the present\\nsystem were allowed to go on with a progressive increase of strength.\\nThat very-considerable alarm existed in the minds of many Protest", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0337.jp2"}, "338": {"fulltext": "328\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\ntants, it was impossible to deny. He did not mean to contend that\\nthis alarm had not been exaggerated; that it had been very much\\nraised by wicked and interested persons, he readily admitted; but\\nthe desperate conduct of this society had tended to verify the justice\\nof the fears and apprehensions that had been conjured up. An hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable member had, in the course of his speech, admitted that in\\nthe parts of Ireland in which he had been, he had observed that this\\nexcitation was powerfully alive. He further said, that amongst the\\nRoman Catholic population he had observed more excitation and\\nexpectation than he ever remembered to have witnessed before and\\nhe asked, whether this was not a reason for immediately granting the\\nCatholic question He (Mr. Plunket) sincerely wished to graut the\\nclaims of the Catholics; but if they could not grant them, were the\\nlegislature, therefore, not to make provision for any circumstances of\\ndanger which they might have reason to apprehend\\n[Hear, hear, from Sir F. Burdett.]\\nThe honourable member for Westminster appeared to notice this pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nposition. He wished him to do so. If this measure of Catholic\\nemancipation were not granted by the house, was the refusal, he\\nwould ask, to be submitted to, or to be resisted Because the answer\\nto that question involved the justice or the reprobation of the measure\\nnow before the house. The fact was, that if the Catholic question\\nwas felt to be of that paramount importance which called for instant\\nadoption (and to that point he went), there was no necessity for this\\ninstitution; but if the measure of Catholic emancipation was not\\nadopted, and if the refusal was to be resisted by the physical force of\\nIreland, then, he contended, that this was an association which ought\\nto be opposed as well by the friends of the Catholics as by those who\\nwere adverse to their claims. Before he proceeded further, he would\\nvery shortly remind the house of the nature of this Roman Catholic\\nAssociation. He did not mean, after the luminous statement of his\\nright honourable friend, and the remarks which he had made in the\\ncourse of the debate, to give more than an outline of the association\\nconfining himself strictly to those points which he deemed essentially\\nnecessary. It appeared that this society was formed on a plan dif\u00c2\u00ac\\nferent from those numerous defiances of the law which had existed in\\nIreland A number of gentlemen had, it seemed, formed themselves\\ninto a club, not merely for the purpose of forwarding the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic question, but for the redress of all grievances, local or general,\\naffecting the people of Ireland.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He quoted the words of their own\\naddress; and he must say, that those parties undertook, on the mo\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, as many important subjects as ever engaged the attention of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0338.jp2"}, "339": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n529\\niny body of legislators. They undertook the great question of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliamentary reform\u00e2\u0080\u0094they undertook the repeal of the Union\u00e2\u0080\u0094they\\nundertook the regulation of church-property\u00e2\u0080\u0094they undertook the\\nadministration of justice. They intended not merely to consider the\\nadministration of justice, in the common acceptance of the term, but\\nthey determined on the visitation of every court, from that of the\\nhighest authority down to the court of conscience. They did not\\nstop here. They were not content with an interference with the\\ncourts they were resolutely bent on interfering with the adjudication\\nof every cause which affected the Catholics, whom they styled the\\npeople of Ireland.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Here was a pretty tolerable range for their ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nertions. He did not deny, that if a set of gentlemen thought fit to\\nunite for those purposes, it was in their power to do so but then\\ncomes the question as to the means which they employ; and those\\nmeans I deny to be constitutional. They have associated with them\\nthe Catholic clergy\u00e2\u0080\u0094the Catholic nobility\u00e2\u0080\u0094many of the Catholic\\ngentry, and all the surviving delegates of 1791. They have estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlished committees in every district, who keep up an extensive corres\u00c2\u00ac\\npondence through the country. This association, consisting originally\\nof a few members, has now increased to 3000. They hold perma\u00c2\u00ac\\nnent sittings, where they enter upon the discussion of every question\\nconnected with the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. This I think\\nis a pretty strong case in favour of the opinion, that their existence\\nis not compatible with the security of the state. With this, however,\\nthey were not satisfied. They proceeded to establish a Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic rent; and in every single parish of the two thousand five hun\u00c2\u00ac\\ndred parishes into which Ireland is divided, they established twelve\\nRoman Catholic collectors, which, taken together, makes an army at\\nonce of 30,000 collectors; unarmed I admit; unarmed in every thing\\nbut prayers, entreaties, and influence. Having raised their army of\\ncollectors, they brought to their assistance two thousand five hundred\\npiiests, the whole ecclesiastical body of that religion and thus pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvided, they go about levying contributions on the peasantry. Now,\\nI say that this is a direct violation of the principles of the British\\nconstitution. I do not say that it is illegal in the strict sense; for\\nif it was, the Irish government wonld be able to prosecute, and need\\nnot have come here for a remedy; but it is going far enough to say,\\nthat parliament is the recognised legislature, and that the association\\nhas gone so far as to assume its functions, to justify the position,\\nthat they had violated the prioeiples of the constitution.\\nIn proceeding to state my view of the constitutional question, I\\nim aware of the high authorities in whose present s I speik, and of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0339.jp2"}, "340": {"fulltext": "S30\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwhat I owe to them and to myself. But, nevertheless, I will\\nthat an association assuming to represent the people, and in that\\ncapacity to bring about a reform in church and state, is*directly con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrary to the spirit of the British constitution. Let me not be mis\u00c2\u00ac\\nunderstood. Do I deny the right of the people, under this free con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution, to meet for the purpose of promoting the redress of griev\u00c2\u00ac\\nances in church and state, by discussion and petition Most cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly not. Do I mean that they have a right to increase their\\nnumbers, and to form themselves into clubs and bodies? Certainly\\nnot. But I do deny that any portion of the subjects of this realm\\nhave a right to give up their suffrages to others\u00e2\u0080\u0094have a right to\\nselect persons to speak their sentiments, to debate upon their grie\u00c2\u00ac\\nvances, and to devise measures for their removal, those persons not\\nbeing recognised by law. This was the privilege alone of the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons of the United Kingdom; and those who trenched upon that\\nprivilege acted against the spirit of the British constitution. I will\\nnot assert that there may not be cases where no danger would be\\nlikely to arise from such an assumption of- authority. But I must\\ntreat the case now before the house as it really stands; and I con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntend, that if there be a body of people in Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094I care not whether\\nthey amount to 6000 or more\u00e2\u0080\u0094who stand forward as the represen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntatives of six millions of their fellow-subjects, such an assembly is il\u00c2\u00ac\\nlegal. That is the point which the house has to consider. So far\\nas that assembly is opposed to the authority cf the House of Com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons, it is, I maintain, guilty of a daring infraction of their rights.\\nIt was not (Mr. Piunket said) the amount of the rent\u00e2\u0080\u009d that he com\u00c2\u00ac\\nplained of: it was the principle that he complained of. For some\\npurposes, such a contribution might go on fairly but, in this instance,\\nmight not the Association, through the medium of the priests, declare,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cWe are the. persons who represent the Roman Catholics, and we\\nhave a right to wield the power of the state.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Was this a state of\\ntilings to be endured If they did not put it down, would it not,\\non the part of the legislature, be an abandonment of that duty which\\nthey took upon themselves to discharge for the benefit of the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry Could the government answer such a dereliction of duty to tho\\ncountry at large If the power of the country was seized and\\nwielded by those individuals, who could answer for the consequences?\\nEven if they were the wisest and worthiest men that ever wielded\\nthe resources of any state, he would not allow them to have a govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of this description. He would allow this species of power to\\nno man, unless he was subjected to that wholesome control, to that\\nsalutary check, which was formed for a purpose the most beneficial", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0340.jp2"}, "341": {"fulltext": "*JNL AWFUL SOCIETIES*.\\n331\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u0098\u00e2\u0096\u00bathat of preventing those abuses which might exist under any sys\u00c2\u00ac\\ntem of government. But, to whom were these individuals account\u00c2\u00ac\\nable Where was their responsibility Who was to check them?\\nWho was to stop their progress By whom were they to be tried\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094by whom were they to be rebuked\u00e2\u0080\u0094if found acting mischievously?\\nIf the executive in the state wielded great powers, the constitution\\npointed out the mode in which it was to be done. But, in this in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance, the society assumed the power both of the legislative and\\nExecutive bodies, and rejected all the checks by which the latter was\\nhemmed in and surrounded. Let the house look to the nice balance\\nwhich was preserved in this (for so he must denominate it), our popu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlar constitution. If the House of Commons could assemble whenever\\nit pleased\u00e2\u0080\u0094if it could continue to sit as long as it pleased\u00e2\u0080\u0094why, in\\na short time the entire authority of the state might be swallowed up\\nin the representative body. In that case, however, there was an effi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncient check; but these gentlemen were subject to no control. They\\nmet when they pleased and in point of fact they were in the habit\\nof sitting from January to December, and of exercising their powers\\nwith as much strictness and severity as any absolute monarch could\\ndo. Gentlemen in that house who did not know what was passing\\nin Ireland were not aware of the formidable instrument\u00e2\u0080\u0094more for\u00c2\u00ac\\nmidable than the sword or the purse\u00e2\u0080\u0094which was exercised by this\\nassociation in Ireland. Individuals connected with them went into\\nevery house and every family; they mixed in all the relations of\\nprivate life, and afterwards detailed what they had seen or heard\\nwith such a degree of freedom, with such a degree of publicity, with\\nso great a want of restraint, that it really required more courage than\\nbelonged to ordinary men to express a fair and candid opinion. The\\nnumbers of the association were increased, in consequence, from time\\nto time, by a body, he believed, of right unwilling conscripts. That\\nbody which, in its outset, was viewed without jealousy, had increased\\nto three thousand, who had actually met.\\nThere was but one other topic, and on that his right honourable\\nfriend the secretary for Ireland had already touched, to which he\\nfelt it necessary to refer\u00e2\u0080\u0094he meant the interference of the Catholic\\nAssociation with the administration of public justice. He could not\\nmceive a more deadly instrument of tyranny, or a proceeding more\\ntrreconcileable with justice, than this was. The association claimed\\nto represent\u00e2\u0080\u0094whom To represent six millions of the people of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland and then they claimed the right of denouncing, as an enemy\\nto the people of Ireland, and of bringing to the bar of justice, any\\nindividual whom they chose to accuse (no matter on what grounds)\\nv", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0341.jp2"}, "342": {"fulltext": "4\\n832 plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nof having violated the rights of that people. Was not this a\\nmockery Could the party so accused come safely to trial, when\\nthe grand inquest of the people of Ireland were his accusers and\\nwhen those accusers had in their power the application of money\\nlevied on the people of Ireland The consequence must inevitably\\nbe, that magistrates and persons in authority must yield to such a\\npower, or else they must array themselves against it. Looking to\\nthe consequences, he knew not which was the worst alternative. In\\neither case the country must be a prey to wretchedness. The courts\\nof justice would be converted into so many arenas, where the pas\u00c2\u00ac\\nsions of those who appeared in them would be displayed with the\\nutmost malignity. There party would be opposed to party, and\\nthus would those courts become scenes of factious contention. And,\\nwhen such was the state of things, the Marquis Wellesley must bo\\ncontent to lie under the heavy reproach, the painful imputation, of\\nnot having allowed this institution to die of its own follies! The\\nnoble marquis, in accordance with the rest of the government of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, wished to put that association down; and, in his (Mr. P.\u00e2\u0080\u0099s)\\nopinion, the determination was a wise one. Was it, he asked, to be\\ndesired, that an institution of this kind should be kept up, merely\\nbecause it was supposed by some individuals, that it was impossible\\nto carry the measure of emancipation by any other mode Of what\\nmaterials did gentlemen think the Protestants of Ireland were com\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed, if they imagined that the Protestant body would not estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlish a counter-association? Would they not seek the means of\\ndefending themselves He did not believe that amongst the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics there was any present intention of having recourse to force. Hje\\nbelieved they were peaceable in their intention; but he would say\\nthey were not theiip own masters. They must obey the command\\nand behests of those under whom they had placed themselves. Was\\nit the intent of those leaders to adopt violent /measures He di0\\nnot say it was but he would say that even those leaders were not\\ntheir own masters. If they got the dregs of the population under\\ntheir command, and if that population became irritated, they might\\nrest assured, however good their intentions might be, that desperate\\nmen would take the lead of them, and produce a catastrophe which\\nthey did not now contemplate. They would be forced down that\\nprecipice where they now meant to stop, as surely as a man, placed\\non the brink of a steep rock, and pressed from behind by a million gt\\npersons, must give way to the power which pushed him onwards.\\nIt was, therefore, no answer to his argument to say that the inten\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions of the assjciation were now honest and peaceable.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0342.jp2"}, "343": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n333\\nHe would now turn to another part of the subject. The conven\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion act, notwithstanding all the reprobatioii that had been bestowed\\nupon it, was a very useful act. It was framed by one of the ablest\\nlawyers of the day\u00e2\u0080\u0094the late Lord Kilwarden, at that time Mr.\\nWolfe. He was an honest man, a sound lawyer, and an ardent\\nlover of the constitution. At the very period of his death, he proved\\nhis attachment to the constitution. He expressed a wish that no\\nman should be brought to trial, or punished for his murder, except\\nin accordance with the established and known law of the land. The\\nconvention act provided for the case of election and actual delegation.\\nIt did not, however, touch the Catholic Association, where no elec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion or delegation actually took place. But did it not come to the same\\nthing, if an individual assumed to act on behalf of a great body, and\\ncalled meetings in every county throughout the country Was not\\nthe principle precisely the same Here were persons who proposed\\nto act in the name and on the behalf of the people. Surely those\\nagainst whom the convention act was directed did no more. It was\\nnot too much to say\u00e2\u0080\u0094as he had said in the outset\u00e2\u0080\u0094that they were\\ncalled on to legislate in the spirit of the constitution. The salus\\npopuli which was truly the suprema lex demanded that they should\\nput an end to this institution.\\nBut gentlemen said, although the mischief is great, you ought\\nnot to proceed, because there is another remedy\u00e2\u0080\u0094that is the granting\\nof Catholic emancipation.\u00e2\u0080\u009d He would state his opinion once for all\\non this subject. He considered Catholic emancipation, and he had\\nalways done so, as that measure, without which all other measures\\nto render Ireland contented and tranquil must be ineffectual. He\\nlooked upon the emancipation of the Roman Catholics as a claim of\\nright and justice. It would baffle human ingenuity to furnish any\\ngood argument against it. On public grounds of justice emancipation\\nought to be granted; and he thought it was utterly impossible much\\nlonger to delay it. Early in life he had set out with that impression,\\nand he was daily more and more convinced of the accuracy of his\\nopinion. He felt the policy as well as the urgency of granting it.\\nThese were his sentiments. They were such as he had always ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressed, and which he never would abandon. But, when this alter\u00c2\u00ac\\nnative was proposed to the house instead of the measure now before\\nthem, the question was, Can we have it He thought not. But\\nthose who opposed the proposition now under discussion, turned round\\nand said, Because we cannot have that measure, do not put down\\nthe mischief, the existence of which we admit.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This appeared to\\nhim to be bad reasoning. The question, then arose. By who^e fault\\nT", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0343.jp2"}, "344": {"fulltext": "334\\nPLUNKET\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SfEECIIES.\\nwas it that we could not have it Let that question be examined,\\nand let those by whose fault it arose give the answer; but, whether\\nor not they could name those with whom the fault lay, if fault did\\nexist, still there were circumstances which obliged them to resort to\\nthe present measure, as the only one which could immediately give\\nan effectual check to a great growing evil. He would repeat, if there\\nwere persons who had the power to do away with the necessity for\\nthe present proceeding, and neglected the means, they were answerable\\nfor the consequences.\\nHe would now, with the leave of the house, endeavour to examine\\nthat question and to meet it fairly, and would be ready to take his\\nown share of responsibility on the occasion. Before he proceeded,\\nhe entreated of honourable gentlemen on the opposite side, that if in\\nanything which he might feel it necessary to say for his own justi\u00c2\u00ac\\nfication, he should appear even for a moment to bear hard upon them,\\nthey would not consider it as an intentional attack. He assured them\\nhe had no such intention. Nothing was further removed from his\\nwish than any inclination to attack any members for the line of con\u00c2\u00ac\\nduct they might have thought proper to adopt; but it was necessary\\nthat he should state all that bore fully upon the point. He only\\nwished that, while he thus placed his own conduct under examinatiou,\\nand put himself upon his trial, he might be allowed to file a cross\u00c2\u00ac\\nbill, and put those who accused him on their trial along with him.\\nThe right honourable and learned gentleman then alluded to his for\u00c2\u00ac\\nmer conduct with respect to the Catholic question and to ministers,\\nin nearly the following words:\u00e2\u0080\u0094Sir, in the year 1813, I was, as I\\ntrust I ever have been, a zealous friend of the Catholic question. In\\nthat year the question was introduced by my lamented friend Mr.\\nGrattan, to whom the Catholics had already owed so much. Mv\\nfriend, on that occasion, was pleased to put a value on my services\\nto which they were not entitled; but undoubtedly he could not over\u00c2\u00ac\\nrate the zeal which dictated them. Sir, at that time, I argued the\\nquestion on its plain and firm grounds\u00e2\u0080\u0094those on which it had for\u00c2\u00ac\\nmerly been so ably urged by others. The speech which I then de\u00c2\u00ac\\nlivered was afterwards published. Honourable members may be\\nfamiliar with parts of it, for they have, from time to time, been quoted\\nhere by several gentlemen. A part of it was last night read by the\\nhonourable and learned member for Lincoln (Mr. J. Williams), and a\\npart on a former occasion by the honourable member for Westminster\\n(Sir F. Burdett). I do not mention this as having any objection to\\nit; I would not even object to the whole being entered amon the\\nstanding orders of the house, to be read by gentlemen as often as it", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0344.jp2"}, "345": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n335\\nanswered any purpose. In that speech, I said, that it was to be\\nlamented that the cabinet were so divided upon the question of Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic emancipation. I added, that if after having given the subject\\ntheir most mature consideration, they could not, as a body, make up\\ntheir minds upon it in one way or another, they were answerable to\\nthe public for the consequences of leaving such a measure as a con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstant source of irritation. If the honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett)\\ndoes not think that this is the meaning of what I said\u00e2\u0080\u0094if I added\\nanything more, that might seem to militate stronger against my sub*\\nsequent conduct and my present opinion, let him point it out, and I\\nassure him I will read it to the house immediately. I admit, with\\nhim, that the fair import of my observations on that part of the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject was, that as a friend to Catholic emancipation, I did not think I\\ncould, with honour, join any administration so divided upon it as the\\nthen cabinet was. This, sir, is, I think, a full and fair admission of\\nwhat were my sentiments in the year 1813. Now, sir, I as frankly\\nand distinctly declare, that I have since changed that opinion. I\\nonce did think that I could not with honour join an administration,\\ndivided as were the cabinet of that day on the question of emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. I have now altered that opinion. This declaration cannot be\\nconsidered an evasion of the charge brought against me. It does not\\nextenuate it, when I say that once I firmly held a strong opinion, which\\n1 have since changed and have acted on that change. But here I\\nadmit the question arises\u00e2\u0080\u0094Am I justified in having made that change\\nHave any circumstances occurred since then, which called for that\\nchange on my part I think I shall satisfy the house that there\\nhave and, in defending myself on the ground of those circumstances,\\nI cannot avoid throwing some blame on the conduct of honourable\\nmembers opposite. In my observations, in 1813, I stated, that I\\ndid not think the support given to the question by some members of\\nthe cabinet was much to be depended upon.\\nMr. Plunket here turned round towards Mr. Canning who sat near him, and\\nsaid:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nI can assure my right honourable friend, that my opinions in this\\nrespect had never any reference to him, whose sincere support of the\\nmeasure could never be doubted for an instant. My doubts had re\u00c2\u00ac\\nference to the conduct of a noble friend, now no more (Lord London\u00c2\u00ac\\nderry) and I confess I did at that time believe that in the support\\nwhich he gave to the Catholic question, he was not so sincere as I\\nafterwards found him. My noble friend, on that occasion, stated that\\nI myself was inconsistent in expressing my unwillingness to act with\\na cabinet divided on the anestion of emancipation, as I had before", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0345.jp2"}, "346": {"fulltext": "336\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nacted with a ministry who were not all united on that question\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nI allude to that which existed when the Duke of Bedford was lord\\nlieutenant of Ireland. In the Grenville administration, it was urged\\nby the noble lord, that there were some who were decidedly opposed\\nto the Catholic question. Lord Sidmouth was one, and Lord Ellen-\\nborough another. I own I did not think, at the time this argument\\nwas urged, that it was sufficiently conclusive to alter the opinion\\nwhich I had formed. I did believe that the administration of 1813\\nwere unfriendly to the claims of the Catholics; and I doubted, at\\nthat time, the sincerity of some members of it, who appeared to be\\nfavourable to those claims but I did think that an administration\\naltogether disposed to the concession of those claims might be formed\\nout of that side of the house with which I had then the honour to\\nact. Sir, in making this declaration of my former sentiments, and\\nof the change which has since taken place in them, I beg to be un\u00c2\u00ac\\nderstood as doing so, solely in justice to my own character and mo\u00c2\u00ac\\ntives. I do not consider that I am bound to give an explanation of\\nmy conduct to any man or particular set of men in this house. There\\nwas not one of the gentlemen with whom I had formerly the honour\\nto act, by the wisdom of whose counsels I would in all matters be\\nguided, except Lord Grenville. With respect to all the other mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers of that administration, I might have departed from them at any\\nmoment, without incurring the risk of being upbraided a 3 having\\ngiven up a party to whom I stood pledged.\\nBut to return to the progress of the Catholic claims. The mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure founded upon those claims continued to make its way. Through\\nthe zeal and activity of Lord Castlereagh, it obtained an extent of\\nlegislative support which, while it left me no doubt of its ultimate\\nsuccess, also removed every suspicion that I had entertained of the\\nsincerity of that noble lord in its support. It was at that time\\nargued with reference to the objections supposed to exist on the part\\nof the people of England, but not with reference to what were, or\\nwhat were not, the opinions of any boards or committees which had\\nbeen constituted to support it. As the discussion of the measure\\nproceeded, the number of its advocates increased, and before the\\ndeath of Mr. Grattan it had already gained very considerably on\\nthe public attention. After the lamented decease of my valued\\nfriend, I had the honour of introducing the measure. It was warmly\\nsupported by some of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers, and though opposed,\\nconscientiously, no doubt, by others, it passed this house, and was\\ncarried to the Lords, and there, after a warm discussion, it was re\u00c2\u00ac\\njected, only by a very inconsiderable majority. Now, sir, when I", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0346.jp2"}, "347": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n337\\nsaw those things take place, had I not a right to believe that the\\nquestion could be carried by a divided administration I had seen\\nit pass this house, and I saw it accidentally negatived by a small\\nmajority in the other Was not this one fair ground for the alte\u00c2\u00ac\\nration of the opinion I had formed in 1813\\nBut, I had other reasons for the change of that opinion. The gen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntlemen who sit on the opposite side of the house will do me the\\njustice to believe, that, whether as a body, or individually, I enter\u00c2\u00ac\\ntained and do entertain the highest respect for them. I respect the\\nmanly manner in which they put forward their objections to what\\nthey conscientiously believe to be wrong on this side. I do not for\\na moment assert that because I may differ from them, they must be\\nwrong and I right; but, whichever was right, it must be remem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbered, that without ceasing to sit on their side of the house, and\\njoining them where I could, I had frequent occasions to dissent from\\ntheir opinions. They no doubt adopted the course which they honestly\\nbelieved to be best. I claim the same construction of my con\u00c2\u00ac\\nduct in that which I pursued. In that which I looked upon as the\\nbest, I had daily occasions to differ from them. On the question of\\nthe continuance of the war\u00e2\u0080\u0094a question the most important in its\\nnature\u00e2\u0080\u00941 differed from them. On the question which arose out of the\\ndisturbances in 1819, I felt obliged to take my stand; and, on pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic grounds, I differed wholly from the view which they took of the\\nsituation of the country. On the question of parliamentary reform,\\nI also differed from them. In short, upon almost all the cardinal\\npoints connected with the general administration of public affairs, I\\nfound that our opinions were wholly different. But, it was not I\\nalone who differed from them in their views on many important ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions I found the public also differed from them on many most ma\u00c2\u00ac\\nterial points and that, not possessing the confidence of the public\\non so many questions, they did not contain within their body the\\nmaterials out of which a cabinet could be formed with any prospect\\nof carrying the question of Catholic emancipation. When I thus\\nfound, that on the one side there were a set of men, who, though\\nnot altogether agreed on the subject, could carry that question\u00e2\u0080\u0094when\\nI found on the other a party, who, though agreed upon that point,\\ndid not possess sufficient influence to carry it\u00e2\u0080\u0094and when I knew\\nthat on many very leading questions of great importance I was con\u00c2\u00ac\\nscientiously opposed to that party, to which I had never stood\\npledged, where, I ask, was my inconsistency in taking office, in obe\u00c2\u00ac\\ndience to the gracious commands of my sovereign I have thus\\nstated the reasons which induced me to take office, and to change the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0347.jp2"}, "348": {"fulltext": "338\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nopinion I had expressed in 1813. I am not ashamed of those rea*\\nsons, or unwilling that my conduct should be judged by them, either\\nin this house or before the public. And though I think those rea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons a sufficient justification of the course I have pursued, yet, if\\nthere should still exist any one who, directly or by implication,\\nshould impute to me that I have accepted office merely for the sake\\nof place or of profit, and without any regard to political consistency,\\nI will appeal to the history of my life, and to the sacrifices I have\\nmade for that consistency, for a proof of the fallacy of the imputa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. Let me but be judged by the facts connected with my whole\\npublic conduct, and such imputations will fall as unfounded calumnies.\\nIt was stated, sir, in the first discussion of this session, by the\\nhonourable and learned member for Winchelsea, that the influence\\nof the Catholic Association originated from a feeling, on the part of\\nthe Catholics, that they were deserted by their old friends. If this\\nwas intended as an allusion to any supposed conduct of mine, or to\\nany supposed irritation on the part of the Catholics at that conduct,\\nI must say that the honourable and learned gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s statement is\\nnot borne out by the fact. I have on four occasions, since I ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncepted office, received the public thanks of the Catholics, assembled\\nin aggregate and other public meetings, for my services in their\\ncause, and those thanks accompanied with expressions of confidence\\nin my continuance of those services. I here hold in my hand these\\npublished resolutions to that effect, but I will not read them. I\\nshould rather that were done by any other than myself. At a time\\nwhen the Catholic petition was sent to me to be presented, I refused\\nto undertake it, unless it were left to myself to use my own discre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion as to the time when I should present it, and whether I should\\nbring the question forward in that session or not. Those terms were\\nconceded, and the confidence of the Roman Catholics in my exertions\\non their behalf remained unabated. That confidence was not with\u00c2\u00ac\\ndrawn, even when I refused to present the petition as from the asso\u00c2\u00ac\\nciation. In November last, when it was resolved that the Catholic\\npetition should be confided to the care of the honourable baronet\\nopposite (Sir Francis Burdett), Mr. Wolfe, a gentleman of whom it\\nis but justice to say, that a man of greater merit or more promising\\ntalent did not exist in that association\u00e2\u0080\u0094I say, that in November\\nlast, on the motion of Mr. Wolfe, it was resolved, that the Catholics\\nthough they had confided the petition to another, still relied confi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndently upon the continuance of my usual support of the measure. I\\ndo not think they could have placed their cause in more efficient\\nhands than those of the honourable baronet j and I beg to assure", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0348.jp2"}, "349": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n339\\nhim, that when he brings the question forward, he shall have my un\u00c2\u00ac\\naltered support. When he introduces the measure to the house, he\\nmay feel assured that I shall not get up and walk out, leaving him\\nin the unpleasant situation in which I was placed on a former occa\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion. When I say this, I am far from intending to cast any impu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntation upon the motives of the honourable baronet on that occasion.\\nHe did that which he thought best. I do not blame him for I do\\nnot believe that either in or out of parliament there exists a more\\njust, consistent, and honourable character, whether viewed in the\\nvarious relations of public or private life. I am aware that the hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable baronet needs not any praise of mine, but justice compels\\nme to say thus much.\\nI beg pardon for having occupied so much of the attention of the\\nhouse in speaking of matters personal to myself; but what I have\\nstated was, I submit, called for by the fact of my being mentioned*\\nday after day, as one cause of the existence of this association, as if\\nthat could have proceeded from my alteration of an opinion which I\\nexpressed twelve or thirteen years ago. The right honourable and\\nlearned gentleman then adverted to an extract from his speech in\\n1813, which had been read yesterday by the honourable and learned\\nmember for Lincoln, as a sort of evidence of another act of incon\u00c2\u00ac\\nsistency on his part. He would now repeat the passage which the\\nhonourable and learned gentleman had quoted, and show the very\\nunfair advantage which had been taken, by separating two passages\\nwhich followed close one upon the other in the speech. The passage\\nwas\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c Sir, it appears to me most unfair to visit on the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics the opinions and the conduct of such public assemblies as pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfess to act for them; if they labour under a real and a continuing\\ngrievance, and one which justifies on their* part a continued claim,\\nthey must act through the medium of popular assemblies, and must\\nof course be exposed to all the inconveniences which attend discus\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion in such assemblies. In all such places, we know that unbounded\\napplause attends the man who occupies the extreme positions of opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnion, and that the extravagance of his expression of such opinion\\nwill not be calculated to diminish it. That there may be many in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndividuals anxious to promote their own consequence, at the expense\\nof the party whose interests they profess to advocate, is an evil in\u00c2\u00ac\\nseparable from such a state of things; and amongst those who sin\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerely wish to promote the interests of the cause, much may fairly\\nbe attributed to the heat naturally generated by long-continued op\u00c2\u00ac\\nposition; much to the effects of disappointed hope; much to the\\nresentment excited and justified by insolent and virulent opposition.\u00e2\u0080\u0099*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0349.jp2"}, "350": {"fulltext": "340\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nThe arguments which he (Mr. P.) then used were by no means in\u00c2\u00ac\\nconsistent with those he now held. He then condemned such asso\u00c2\u00ac\\nciations so he did at present; but he thought now as then, that\\nthe conduct of a few individuals ought not to be visited upon the\\nwhole body. If this was the whole of what he had then said on the\\nsubject, it would not prove inconsistency, but would show that he\\nwas consistent on both occasions; but, as he had made another re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmark at that time which would more fully explain his present mean\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, he thought it a want of candour in the honourable and learned\\ngentleman not to have made any reference to that part of the speech.\\nWhen he attacked a man for the inconsistency of his present opinions\\nwith those which he had delivered thirteen years ago, he ought, in\\ncommon justice, to have stated what those opinions were. If he had\\nonly read the paragraph of his speech immediately preceding that\\nwhich he quoted, it would have put his present and former senti\u00c2\u00ac\\nments on this point in their proper light, and shown that in both he\\nwas perfectly consistent. The passage omitted by the honourable\\nand learned gentleman was this: Sir, the conduct of the Roman\\nCatholics of Ireland has been resorted to as an argument for aban\u00c2\u00ac\\ndoning the pledge of the last session. Sir, I am not an advocate for\\ntheir intemperance; I am free to say that there have been some pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceedings on the part of the public bodies who affect to act for them,\\naltogether unjustifiable. Their attempts to dictate to the entire body\\nhow they are to act on each particular political occurrence\u00e2\u0080\u0094their\\npresuming to hold an inquisition on the conduct of individuals in\\nthe exercise of their elective franchise, and putting them under the\\nban of their displeasure, because they vote for their private friends,\\nand abide by their plighted engagements\u00e2\u0080\u0094all this is a degree of in\u00c2\u00ac\\nquisitorial authority, unexampled and insufferable and this by per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons professing themselves the advocates of unbounded freedom and\\nunlimited toleration, at the moment when they are extending their\\nuuparleying tyranny into the domestic arrangements of every Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic family in the country.\u00e2\u0080\u009d One would have thought, in reading this\\npassage, that by a happy anticipation he was foreseeing at that\\nperiod that which was happening at the present. The passage pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeded thus Sir, I am equally disgusted with the tone of unquali\u00c2\u00ac\\nfied demand, and haughty rejection of all condition or accommoda\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion so confidently announced by them; nor can I palliate the\\nintemperance of many of their public speeches, nor the exaggeration\\nand violence of some of their printed publications. To this tone I\\nnever wish to see the legislature yield; but as this indecent clamour\\nis not to compel them to yield what is unreasonable, I trust it will", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0350.jp2"}, "351": {"fulltext": "UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES.\\n341\\nnot influence them to withhold what is just.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now, he thought\\nthat if he had been endeavouring, without the appearance of egotism,\\nto procure some gentleman to introduce his former conduct as com\u00c2\u00ac\\npared with his present, he could not have selected any person who\\ncould have been more effectual in showing his consistency than the\\nhonourable and learned gentleman on this occasion.\\nOne word more as to the effect of the association. It was, he\\nthought, calculated to check the disposition of the people of this\\ncountry, which he perceived was daily inclining them in favour of\\nthe Catholic claims. He differed from his right honourable friend\\n(Mr. Peel) on this point, and thought that the public feeling on this\\npoint was not so confined as his right honourable friend had sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed. The people of England were beginning to see the question\\nin its proper light. They perceived that the game of governing by\\ndivision would no longer succeed, but that to have any hope of suc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncess in the mode of treating that country, a system of conciliation\\nmust be adopted. They began to be aware, that if a great deal was\\nnot done to blight the gifts which Providence had bestowed upon that\\ncountry, Ireland would not hang as a burthen on, but become one of\\nthe most fertile sources of, British prosperity. The idea of the sepa\u00c2\u00ac\\nration of the two countries was idle and absurd. It was possible,\\nthat in the lapse of ages England might share the fate of other great\\nempires. Whenever she did fall, Ireland would most certainly fall\\nwith her; but separate they never could be. To hold out the idea\\nof their separation as a threat to this country was puerile nonsense.\\nIn the event of a war England might rely upon Ireland. It was but\\nan act of justice to his countrymen to say, that they would be ever\\nfound foremost amongst the defenders of the empire. But foreign\\nnations not having the same means of knowing the real state of that\\ncountry, but judging from slight appearances, might be led to form\\nopinions with respect to its disposition towards England, as might\\ninvolve us in a foreign war. So that to the people of England the\\nstate of the sister kingdom was of great importance, inasmuch as it\\nmight be the means of inducing other nations to disturb our peace.\\nHe would not trespass longer on the attention of the house. It\\nwas almost unnecessary to add, that amongst the mischiefs which the\\nassociation was calculated to produce, that was not the least which\\nremoved the discussion of the Catholic question from the ground of\\nsound argument and good policy, on which they were invulnerable,\\nand substituted an idle display of physical force, as if physical force\\nwere intended to be arrayed against them. As a sincere and zealous\\nfriend of the Catholics, he would advise them to leave off the high", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0351.jp2"}, "352": {"fulltext": "342\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ntone which they had so long used. Their cause had great merits,\\nand needed not such adventitious aids. With respect to the effect\\nof the proposed measure, he was decidedly of opinion that it would\\nbe most favourably received by the best-informed and most respec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntable of the Irish nation. He did believe that people in that country\\nwere beginning to see the advantage which would result to them,\\nfrom taking their cause out of such hands. But it was said that\\nthe association spoke the sentiments of the Irish people. So they\\ndid\u00e2\u0080\u0094so did he (Mr. P.), and so would every man who advocated\\nthe cause of emancipation. But, beyond that, the association did not\\nrepresent the feelings of the country; and he most positively denied\\nthat the people of Ireland would think of resenting the abolition of\\nthat association. The clergy and the country gentlemen were begin\u00c2\u00ac\\nning to get tired of seeing their just influence with the people taken\\nfrom them by this body; and must naturally be favourable to any\\nmeasure by which it would be restored. Even the members of the\\nassociation itself would acquiesce quietly in the law which would put an\\nend to their power. Very many of them were sensible and clever\\nmen, and must be aware of the inutility of opposition to the will of\\nthe legislature. The gentleman who was the most prominent mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber of that body\u00e2\u0080\u0094Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell\u00e2\u0080\u0094would himself be of this opinion.\\nMr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell was a man of great talent and acquirements. He filled\\nthe highest rank at the bar which the laws permitted a gentleman\\nof his religion to occupy; and was deservedly considered as a man\\nof eminence in his profession. He only knew him professionally;\\nbut he had reason to believe him to be most amiable in all the rela\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions of private life. In his political sentiments, he looked upon him\\nas wild and extravagant; but, nevertheless, he was persuaded that\\nif this bill passed, neither he, nor Lord Fingall, nor Lord Gormans-\\ntown, nor any other gentleman connected with the association, would\\never descend to any pettyfogging tricks to evade its operation. He\\nbelieved that the great body of the people of the country would gladly\\nseize the passing of the proposed bill as a favourable opportunity for\\ngetting rid of the influence of that body.\\nThe debate was one of the ablest that occurred upon the Catholic question,\\nand was particularly distinguished by a masterly narrative statement of Canning as\\nto his own policy, and that of various cabinets in which he had acted, towards\\nthe Catholics. Brougham, who followed him, contrasted the language of Plun\u00c2\u00ac\\nket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Union speeches with the alleged violent debates of the association\u00e2\u0080\u0094a home\\nthrust which Plunket did not attempt to parry. Leave was given to introduce\\nthe bill by a majority of 155, and it passed in the course of the month, unac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncompanied, however, by any measures of relief, at which great indignation was\\nfelt in Ireland, until O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell drove a coach and four\u00e2\u0080\u009d through the act, and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0352.jp2"}, "353": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n343\\nformed the new Catholic Association for purposes of public and private charity,\\nand such other purposes as are not prohibited by the statute.\u00e2\u0080\u009d When the attor\u00c2\u00ac\\nney-general returned to Ireland, he found the association there before him, quite\\nimpregnable to indictment and if possible more powerful than before.\\nTHE CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\nFebruary 28, 1825.\\nOn the day after the third reading of the Unlawful Societies Bill, Sir F. Burdett,\\nby authority of the Association, presented the Catholic petition. The govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment divided in the debate\u00e2\u0080\u0094Canning for, Peel against the motion\u00e2\u0080\u0094the English\\nsolicitor-general also against, after whom the Irish attorney-general. The im\u00c2\u00ac\\nperfect report of this great speech is much to be regretted.\\nMr. Plunket said, that after the repeated discussions, year after\\nyear, which this question had undergone\u00e2\u0080\u0094after the recent protracted\\ndebates upon Irish affairs\u00e2\u0080\u0094and more particularly after it had fallen\\nso often to himself individually to claim the indulgence of the house\\nupon this very subject, he should have been strongly disposed, on the\\npresent occasion, to have repeated his opinion by a silent vote.\\nThere were, however, peculiar circumstances which compelled him,\\nthough reluctantly, not to allow this debate to pass without giving\\nthe reasons which still governed his vote. In doing so, he still felt\\nthat it would be bad taste to increase his trespass on their kindness\\nby taking a wide range of observation on this occasion, or to do\\nmore than to take a few leading points, and confine himself strictly\\nto their necessary consideration. He thought himself peculiarly\\ncalled upon to deliver his sentiments, as the management of the\\nquestion had been transferred from himself to the honourable baronet\\nopposite. He trusted that no man would suppose he harboured a\\nmotive so mean or unworthy, as to suffer his sentiments to be warped\\nby the change of hands into which the petition of the Catholics had\\npassed. He was ready to bear testimony to the judicious and dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncreet manner in which the honourable baronet had introduced the\\nmotion\u00e2\u0080\u0094to the temper, the perspicuity, the reason, and the justice,\\nwith which he had recommended it to their consideration; and he\\nshould endeavour to imitate the conciliatory tone, of which the hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable baronet had set so eminent an example, and in arguing this\\nquestion to keep clear of all topics of irritation on either side. As to\\nthe particular time when they were called upon to discuss the Catho~\\nlie claims, he did not mean to express what would have been his\\nopinion had he been consulted on that point; he should have found", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0353.jp2"}, "354": {"fulltext": "344\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nit, what he had no doubt the honourable baronet had done, a point\\nof much embarrassment, not as relating to his own opinions, but to\\nthose of others, entitled to some degree of deference. For himself,\\nhe had long since made up his mind on this question. With deep\\nand intense feelings for the maintenance of the best rights of the\\nempire, his decided and unalterable conviction was, that this measure\\ncould not be too speedily carried. No time was too early for its adop\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion none could arrive when it should not have his most zealous\\nsupport. With respect to what had fallen from his honourable and\\nlearned friend, the solicitor-general, why did he recur to the time of\\ndiscussing the question\u00e2\u0080\u0094why did he call upon those who differed\\nfrom him to consider that part of the consideration He must ask\\nhis honourable and learned friend, before he assented to go into that\\nargument with him, at what time he would be prepared to give his\\nconsent to such a motion as this He feared that his honourable\\nand L arned friend had made up his mind to a perpetual opinion upon\\nthis question, which would render, so far as he was concerned, any\\nargument as to the expediency of time a useless waste of words.\\nWere the time one of perfect calmness and tranquillity, doubtless his\\nhonourable and learned friend would say, Why agitate the topic\\nnow \u00e2\u0080\u0094non quieta movere \u00e2\u0080\u0094nobody calls for such a discussion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nWere the time one of trouble and difficulty, then the expression\\nwould be the other way\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c This is no time for embarking in such\\nmatters; every thing is too unsettled.\u00e2\u0080\u009d So that in calm or in storm,\\nthere would be found no time that was not quite inopportune, in his\\nhonourable and learned friend\u00e2\u0080\u0099s view of the matter. He entirely\\nagreed iu the observation of the honourable and eloquent member for\\nYorkshire, that there was a peculiar grace and fitness in the present\\ntime, for the concession of these claims to the Catholics. Some of\\nthe friends of that body had been induced, by what they felt to be\\na most painful necessity, to enact a measure of restriction against\\ncertain parts of that body. It was, therefore, just the time to show\\nthe Catholics generally, that, notwithstanding what he alluded to,\\nparliament was ready to consider the justice of their claims. He had\\nnot the same means of judging as other gentlemen had, what were\\nthe sentiments of the people of England upon the subject; but he\\nhad of late spoken with men of various habits of thinking respecting\\nit, and not one had he found who was prepared to say that this\\nquestion was never to be carried. He had others to contend against,\\nand they were the most formidable opponents of the measure, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause they met it boldly upon its own merits, and disdaiued the\\npaltry trick of appealing to the passions or prejudices of any classes", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0354.jp2"}, "355": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n345\\nof the people; who declared, that if they thought the accomplish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of such a motion as this would effect the tranquillity of Ireland,\\nthey would at once yield. These candid and able opponents were\\namong the best friends of the Established church, and when he heard\\nthat declaration from their lips, must he not believe that, in the\\nmeasure which he advocated, there was nothing\u00e2\u0080\u0094there could be\\nnothing\u00e2\u0080\u0094calculated to endanger the stability of the church of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland He solemnly assured the house, that, though this measure\\nwas as dear to him as it could be to any man, if he thought it could\\nrisk in any degree the security of the church of Ireland, instead of\\nbeing its advocate, he should be found among the foremost ranks of\\nits warmest opponents. He supported the question, because of its\\nperfect reconcileableness with the stability of the Protestant church\\nand he supported it further, because he thought the passing of this\\nbill would be found a measure eminently calculated to support that\\nchurch.\\nSome allusion had been made to former bills, and, among the rest,\\nto one of his own, upon this subject. To show how clearly on all these\\noccasions the security of the Established church was provided for,\\nhe would beg leave to read a paragraph from his own bill of 1821,\\nwhich was copied from the preceding bill of Mr. Grattan. It was as\\nfollows: And whereas the Protestant Episcopal Church of England\\nand Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof,\\nand likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and\\nthe doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, as between\\nGreat Britain and Scotland, severally and respectively, permanently\\nand inviolably in these realms.\u00e2\u0080\u009d These were the recitements of the\\ntwo bills. How, then, could it be said, that no adequate provision\\nhad been made for the security of the Established church His\\nhonourable and learned friend had promised to argue this question upon\\nits constitutional bearings; but he had listened in vain for the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nmised argument. He had heard, indeed, from him a good deal about\\nthe Catholic Association; a good deal about the avowed intentions\\nof the Catholic clergy; but nothing, or nearly nothing, of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitutional grounds on which he meant to resist the question. The\\nclaim of the Roman Catholics was a claim to be admitted members\\nof a free representative government\u00e2\u0080\u0094to be admitted to institutions,\\nthe advantages of which belonged equally to every subject of that\\ngovernment. He did not say that the right would admit of no ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nception or control. There was nothing in the social fabric concern\u00c2\u00ac\\ning which he would venture to make that assertion. Even the en\u00c2\u00ac\\njoyment of natural rights must be qualified, in a state of society, witfi", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0355.jp2"}, "356": {"fulltext": "346\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nconditions. Still more must this be connected with the artificial\\nrights given by the mere existence of society: but these conditions\\nought only to be imposed in the degree which would be the most\\nlikely to protect and preserve the rights and privileges of all. Whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther the rights enjoyed by individuals were of the character of natu\u00c2\u00ac\\nral or of chartered rights, they were liable to be withheld on the\\nground of general expediency. But, then, the expediency must be\\nclearly and unquestionably made out; and this was a maxim of the\\nconstitution, which went no less, though upon more circumspection\\nand discrimination, to affect the most obvious rights of individuals.\\nHe directed the attention of the house to the circumstances under\\nwhich our ancestors had thought it necessary to limit those rights, in\\na very peculiar manner, with respect to Roman Catholics. At the\\nReformation, it was found necessary to deal with those rights which\\nwere fully permitted before that period. The main object, then, was\\nto protect the rights of the throne against the claims of a foreign\\npower, and against the disaffection of those subjects who might reserve\\ntheir allegiance for that foreign power, to the detriment of the throne,\\nand of the state in general. This being the object, how did they\\nproceed They guarded, in the first place, against the evils ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nisting. There were the claims of the Pope to interfere with the in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterest, not simply of the Roman Catholic religion, which then was the\\nestablished religion of the state, but he claimed also the right of disposing\\nof benefices, of naming the clergy, of deposing the monarch, and of ab\u00c2\u00ac\\nsolving the people from their allegiance. The legislature accordingly\\nprovided\u00e2\u0080\u0094first, for the absolute and unconditional integrity and in\u00c2\u00ac\\nviolability of the church; further, for the spiritual prerogative of\\nthe crown, forbidding at the same time the exercise of any other than\\nthe established religion. What were the mischiefs dreaded, and what\\nthe provisions of the legislature To prevent the claims of the Pope,\\nor any other foreign power, to interfere with the church. Did they\\nhear of any claim to that interference, or to the right of deposing\\nkings, or absolving their subjects from their allegiance Was that\\nbelieved or asserted by any man in either kingdom Dangers there\\nwere still; but of a different kind. Those enactments were, therefore,\\ngradually done away. The law forbidding the exercise of any other\\nreligion was done away by the repeal of the act against recusancy.\\nThe only remaining one which could be at all supposed to contain\\nthat spirit, was the act of uniformity which could not be at all af\u00c2\u00ac\\nfected by the proposed measure. Thus far did parliament go, down\\nto the time of the Reformation. The wisdom of our ancestors watched\\nthe progress of time, and took their measures accordingly. In the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0356.jp2"}, "357": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n347\\nreign of Charles the Second they observed a new danger\u00e2\u0080\u0094a monarch\\ncareless about religion, or secretly affected to an unconstitutional one,\\nwho was to be followed by a Popish successor. Here their provi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence was as remarkable as before. They provided a remedy, not\\nadapted entirely to meet the evil, but the only one they could obtain;\\nwhich was to require certain oaths to be taken by those who were\\nready to take seats in parliament. That was found insufficient on\\nthe accession of James II., who openly maintained the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic religion against the constitution and the rights of his people.\\nThe legislature finding this resource fail, then prudently shifted their\\nground, and had recourse to a measure at once wise, bold, and salu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntary. They drove the monarch from the throne, for violating the\\nconstitution, and they resolved that the sovereign power should be\\nheld inviolable and unalterable in Protestant hands. Did he deuy\\nthat the throne must be Protestant Was he doing anything to\\nweaken its Protestant supremacy No such thing. Was there any\\nmode or device to make that supremacy surer, which the genius of\\nany man could suggest He was ready to incorporate it with the\\nproposed bill, or to have it introduced as a separate, yet concomitant\\nmeasure. What were the dangers which afterwards threatened the\\nestablishment? The claims of an exiled family driven from the\\nthrone, and the plots and agitations of a disaffected party retained\\nin its interests. He admitted, freely, that the Roman Catholics of\\nthat period were suspected justly. What was the course taken by\\nparliament All the former measures against the Papists were con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinued. They were held to be not good subjects, and were to be\\ntrusted neither with honour nor power in the state. They were\\ncoerced in their persons and property\u00e2\u0080\u0094they were deprived of their\\ncivil rights\u00e2\u0080\u0094they became sunk and degraded into that wretched\\nstate, from which they were relieved by the benignity of the last reign.\\nThis was a natural course of reasoning, though he did not conceive\\nit to be a very wise one; but it showed that our ancestors adapted\\ntheir remedies to the evils then existing, and pressing upon their\\napprehensions.\\nIn 1791, anew danger and an entirely new difficulty presented\\nthemselves. The Roman Catholics had proved themselves truly sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nmissive\u00e2\u0080\u0094they had been uniform in their peaceable conduct. Though\\nrebellion had twice raged in Scotland, no movement was made in Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland in favour of the exiled family. It had been found that the Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics, so sunk and degraded, were ineffectual to the protection of\\nthe government\u00e2\u0080\u0094that by the depression and privations imposed upon\\nthem, the heart\u00e2\u0080\u0099s blood of the state was impoverished. The landlord", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0357.jp2"}, "358": {"fulltext": "348\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nfound that the lands could not be sufficiently cultivated. The valu\u00c2\u00ac\\nable energies of labour were everywhere paralysed. If the annals\\nof that period were to be properly read and considered, the late king\\nwould be for ever illustrious in history, entitled as he was to the es\u00c2\u00ac\\npecial gratitude of every Roman Catholic in Ireland. That system\\nof beneficence which he introduced had been now in practice for the\\nspace of forty years. It had raised the Roman Catholics of Ireland\\nto a state of affluence, comfort, and respectability. It had given\\nthem a perfect equality of civil rights. It had caused them to par\u00c2\u00ac\\nticipate in the advantages of the institutions. What was the dan\u00c2\u00ac\\nger which they had now to dread Not the Pope\u00e2\u0080\u0094not the claims\\nof foreign potentates\u00e2\u0080\u0094not the assumption of a power to dissolve the\\nallegiance of the people\u00e2\u0080\u0094not the interests of an exiled family. The\\nRoman Catholics had perfected the proofs of their obedience, and had\\nbeen admitted to their civil rights, as good subjects who were en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntitled to everything which they could reasonably claim. The danger\\nnow to be apprehended was perfectly new, though not inferior, he\\nadmitted, to that of a dispute concerning the supremacy or the suc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncession to the crown. Better measures had prevailed\u00e2\u0080\u0094the state had\\nacquired sounder health\u00e2\u0080\u0094a current of wholesome blood was felt\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nfeelings of conciliation had been manifested\u00e2\u0080\u0094the Roman Catholic\\nsubjects, though not directly raised to power in the state, had ao\\nquired possession of the means of danger, and were on a par with\\nthemselves. The honourable member for Louth had spoken alarm\u00c2\u00ac\\ningly of the six, or five, or four millions of persons in the communion\\nof the Roman Catholic church. Now, what we feared was, to see four\\nmillions\u00e2\u0080\u0094taking them at the lowest\u00e2\u0080\u0094of subjects, having wealth,\\npower, and respectability on their side, and awakened to a full sense\\nof their condition, coming up, year after year, to claim the rights\\naud privileges enjoyed by their fellow-subjects, and retiring dejected\\nand disappointed. That was the danger which the house had to\\ncope with. Yet the honourable member for Louth would persist in\\ntelling them that they were not to look at the dangers of their own\\ntimes, but to go back to the Reformation, to the reign of James\\nII., and to the Revolution. He would say that the present danger\\nwas the greatest, perhaps the only one for them to consider.\\nThe other argument proves a want of acquaintance with human\\nnature it bespeaks our ignorant use and application of the manual\\nof history. Time, as has been said by one of the clearest observers\\nof his effects, is the greatest innovator of all. While man may\\nsleep or stop in his career, the course of time is rapidly changing\\nthe aspect of all human affairs. All that a wise government can", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0358.jp2"}, "359": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n349\\ndo is to keep as close as possible, to the wings of Time, to watch\\nhis progress, and accommodate their motion to his flight. Arrest his\\ncourse you cannot; but you may vary the forms and aspects of\\nyour institutions, so as to reflect his varying aspects and forms.\\nIf this be not the spirit which animates you, philosophy must be\\nimpertinent, and history no better thau an old almanack. The\\nriches of knowledge would serve no better than the false money\\nof a swindler, put upon us at a value which once circulated, but\\nhad long since ceased. Prudence and experience would be no better\\nfor protection than dotage and error. Did he admit that the danger\\nhere was serious He did not therefore inculcate dread. If the\\nCatholics were to come down to the bar to claim their rights with\\nclamour and shouts, he would laugh at them. Should they use threats\\nand defiances, he would despise them. Parliament could subdue any\\nforce raised on their side. JBut if they merely claimed the rights of\\nfree constitution, he had no armour to oppose to them. He had no\\nmode of dealing with them, but to open the arms of friendship\u00e2\u0080\u0094to\\nadmit them, as allies, as equals, to share the benefits and join with\\nhim in the defence of the constitution be it against foreign or do\u00c2\u00ac\\nmestic enemies; be it in peace, or be it in war.\\nThey were told that there was a bar\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the principles of the\\nconstitution were opposed to the admission of the Roman Catholics.\\nHe had read with eagerness\u00e2\u0080\u0094he had carried on his researches with\\ndeep anxiety\u00e2\u0080\u0094he had endeavoured hard to find out w here that prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple could be discovered, and he solemnly declared that he could not\\ndiscover it. Referring to the distinction which had been taken be\u00c2\u00ac\\ntween civil and political rights, was the fact so, that the constitution\\ndid not admit any to political power, however completely in the pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsession of their civil rights, unless they subscribed the doctrines of\\nthe Established church Did not every day\u00e2\u0080\u0099s experience disprove\\nthat assumption Was not the honourable member for Norwich\\n(Mr. W. Smith), whom they listened to day after day with satisfac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, an example of the contrary Where was the alarm for the\\ndisjunction of the interests of church and state Had there not\\nbeen a lord chancellor of England who was a Dissenter A man\\nwho refused to subscribe the doctrines of the church of England had,\\nin his official capacity, issued writs of summons to the peers of Great\\nBritain, and appended the great seal to them. He alluded to the\\nlate Lord Rosslyn. Were honourable members who contend for this\\nignorant of what had been doing in Ireland The test laws had\\nbeen there repealed for fifty years, and the dissenting influence had\\nbeen on the decline ever since. When that repeal was talked of\\nz", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0359.jp2"}, "360": {"fulltext": "350\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthere was great alarm. Dean Swift, with all his wit and talents,\\nfelt and spoke of it with horror and desperation, and prognosticatevi\\nfrom it the immediate downhill of the state. For forty years past it\\nh id not been ljeard of, and was almost forgotten by the house; the\\nDissenters had ever since declined. Had the Roman Catholic influ\u00c2\u00ac\\nence declined in the same period The former had been ever since\\nwithering under the hand of liberty; the latter had been fostered and\\ncherished by severity.\\nBut, it was said, the Roman Catholics might have their civil rights;\\nthey must not, however, expect political power; that the constitution\\nprohibited. Was there nothing of political power in what they pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsessed They had the right of electing members to serve in parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. Was that no exercise of political power? They acted as\\nmagistrates. Was that no exercise of political power? They served\\nas jurors. Was not that exercising political power This country\\nhad liberally imparted education to them. Did not that put the\\nmeans of political power within their reach Where was this line\\nof distinction between civil and political power marked iu the consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntution The warmth of discussion apart, he denounced the doctrine\\nas inconsistent with the principles of our free constitution, and only\\nfitted for the meridian of a despotic government. He had once en\u00c2\u00ac\\ndeavoured to define civil liberty to the house he had used the de\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription which he found in the books\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c Civil liberty consists in\\ndoing all that which the law allows a man to do.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But he went\\nbsyond that. There is a civil liberty, the enjoyment of which is given\\nby the laws themselves. Once admit men to enjoy property, personal\\nrights, and their usual consequences, and on what pretence could\\nthey be excluded from the institutions by which the whole of those\\npossessions must be guarded\\nIt was asked, what have the Roman Catholics to complain of\\nthey are only excluded from the parliament, the bench, and the high\\noffices of state which meant that they were only excluded from the\\nmaking and administering of the laws, from all posts of honour and dig\u00c2\u00ac\\nnity in the state. These were bagatelles, for which, according to the\\nargument, it was not worth while for the Catholics to contend\u00e2\u0080\u0094and,\\ntherefore, it was scarcely worth the while of the parliament to re\u00c2\u00ac\\nfuse. How would the honourable and learned gentlemen who used\\nthis argument like to be excluded from their chance of obtaining these\\ntrifles He begged to ask if these were not the very nothings\\nwhich Englishmen would cheerfully lay down their lives\\nDid they still talk of the danger of admitting the Catholics\\nput it to the house to consider, whether they would willingly see", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0360.jp2"}, "361": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n351\\na body represented anywhere but within the walls of parliament. To\\nshut them out from parliament, after giving them everything which\\nrendered them consequential short of it, was to teach them to array\\nthemselves elsewhere. Somewhere else they must go, if the house\\ncould not make room for them. God forbid the recurrence of bad\\ntimes! but it might happen that a bad prince might mount the throne,\\nand then perhaps, being refused admission where they had a right to\\nit, they would range themselves behind the throne, and assist in the\\nsacrifice of the public liberties. His honourable and learned friend\\nthe solicitor-general was satisfied as to the laity, whom he considered\\nas sufficiently good subjects. The danger which his honourable and\\nlearned friend apprehended was from the Roman Catholic priests. He\\ndreaded, in a country where the majority of the people differed from\\nthe religion of the state, the uncontrollable and all-controlling influence\\nof the priests, who were themselves detached from the state. France,\\nit had been said, had of late shown herself particularly tenacious on\\nthe subject of religion; and, looking at what might be her views with\\nregard to Ireland, it was said that there might be great danger. He\\nI supposed that the bill was intended to diminish so much of the influ\u00c2\u00ac\\nence of the Roman Catholic clergy over their flocks as arose out of their\\npresent grievances. Here was a danger admitted on both sides to\\nbe actually existing, and here was a measure proposed by the honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable baronet to meet that danger. Let the measure for bringing\\nthose priests within the pale of the constitution be proved to be cal\u00c2\u00ac\\nculated to increase their influence, and he would say something to it.\\nBefore I go further, I would ask those honourable members who\\nadmit the dangers which exist, whether they are prepared with a re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmedy? Some may, perhaps, tell me that I am to trust to time and to\\nproselytism. I admit that much may be expected from proselytism,\\nand that it is likely to be increased by the pious and exemplary lives,\\nthe kind and charitable behaviour, and the religious example of the\\nProtestant clergy and I am of opinion that the time will come when\\nthe religious differences between Protestants and Catholics will be\\nmuch lessened, and, though we may not see it, that our children\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nchildren may be witnesses of it. But, sir, this prospect is distant and\\nuncertain; the dangers which surround us are pressing and imminent.\\nSo long as you continue a line of demarcation between Protestants\\nand Catholics, so long do you hold up the latter as aliens to the state.\\nAnd, while you do this, let it be considered that your proselytism\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0will be at a stand. For any man who should become a Protestant\\nunder such restrictions would be considered an apostate, a wretch who\\nchanged his religion only for purposes of gain. Before I conclude,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0361.jp2"}, "362": {"fulltext": "352\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nI must take the liberty of stating shortly to the house a few of tine\\nmeasures which I consider calculated to remedy the existing evils.\\niFirst, I would take away all grounds of grievance, by placing the\\nRoman Catholic on an equal footing with the Protestant. I would\\ndo this in order to prevent their union in one body against one com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon oppression. Next, I would, as has been recommended by an\\nhonourable friend of mine, make a suitable provision for the Roman\\nCatholic priesthood. I have been told that the Roman Catholic priest\\nwould not consent to such an arrangement. Let me assure my hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable friend that he is deceived in his statement. The Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic clergy would not, it is true, purchase a permanent provision by\\nthe disgrace of having abandoned their flocks. But if Catholic emanci\u00c2\u00ac\\npation were granted\u00e2\u0080\u0094if the laity were once relievedfrom the disabilities\\nunder which they laboured\u00e2\u0080\u0094the Catholic priesthood would anxiously\\nand gratefully receive a permanent provision. Honourable members are\\nmuch mistaken, and know but little of Ireland, if they imagine that\\nthe Irish people or the Irish priesthood wish to usurp the property\\nof the Established church. The church of Ireland may be in danger\\nof being pulled down from other causes but if it were pulled down\\nto-morrow, and the livings offered to the Roman Catholic priests, the\\nlaity would not allow them to accept them. I speak this in the hear\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of many who are acquainted with Ireland, and who must know\\nthat it is not the wish of the laity to have their priests raised to in\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluence and authority by such means. The gentry of Ireland respect\\ntheir priesthood, but I can assure the house they are not priest-ridden.\\nBefore I sit down, sir, I must say one word more as to the danger\\nwhich I conceive to exist at the present period. If the priesthood\\nwere to express a desire to get possession of the church property, the\\nlaity would at once cry out against them. But, I would ask, are the\\nProtestant clergy right in saying, that they are determined to resist\\nthe claims of the Roman Catholics so long as they themselves existed\\nWhat was this but giving a form and substance to that which was\\nbefore but a wild chimera What was it but compelling the Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics to say, we must now oppose the Protestant clergy in self-de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfence, for, until they shall be deprived of their property, we have no\\nchance of obtaining our political rights All who know me, know\\nthat I am, and ever have been, a zealous supporter of the Established\\nchurch; but never, even when I have been most zealous in its sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nport, do I conceive myself to have rendered it better service than in\\ngiving it this warning, and placing its ministers on their guard. Sir,\\n1 feel convinced, that if a foreign enemy were landing on our coast\\nto-morrow, this house would not grant to the Roman Catholics any.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0362.jp2"}, "363": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC CLAIMS.\\n353\\nthing which it could not concede with honour and with safety to the\\nEstablished church. I trust to God no such period may arrive. I\\nfeel that if it ever does, it must be far, very far distant. But I know\\nthat, were it to come, such would be your firm and irrevocable deter\u00c2\u00ac\\nmination. And, sir, it is because I know there exists no such danger\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094it is because I feel that we are in a time of perfect safety and se\u00c2\u00ac\\ncurity, that I call upon you to do that now, which a sense of justice\\nought to compel you to do even in a time of the greatest danger. Let\\nme not be told, sir, that the people or the priesthood of Ireland wih\\nrefuse to accept any concession which we may make to them. I say, in\\nthe language of my honourable friend the member for the county of\\nYork, that it is for us to legislate; that it is for us to do what is right;\\nand if the Catholics of Ireland should refuse to accept what we offer them,\\nthey will be deprived of all power to do injury, because they will be\\ndeprived of all power to make just complaint. One word more, and\\nI have done. The alarm which exists with respect to the Roman\\nCatholics of Ireland, is, I can assure the house, unfounded. The\\nRoman Catholics of Ireland are not only tranquil but loyal. Nay,\\nmore, they are determined to continue loyal, no matter what may be\\nthe result of their application to parliament, because they feel satisfied\\nthat the growing feeling of liberality towards them, and the enlightened\\npolicy of England, will not allow them to labour long under their pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent disqualifications. For myself, I feel perfectly convinced of the\\nloyalty of the Roman Catholics and if the government of France\\nwere speculating upon their disloyalty, be assured of it, they will find\\nthemselves much mistaken for, should the day ever come when that\\nloyalty would be put to the test, they would be found to a man rally\u00c2\u00ac\\ning round the standard of the British constitution. And why is it\\nthat such conduct is to be expected from them It is because they\\nhave under that constitution enjoyed thirty-five years of conciliation\\nand progressive improvement. It is because they trust to the kind\u00c2\u00ac\\nness and the wisdom of the British legislature. But, sir, we want\\nsomething more from the Irish people than mere loyalty; we waul\\ntheir affection; we want their confidence; we want their cordiality; 4\\nwe want to induce them to deal with us as friends and brothers, in-\\norder to put an end to those anxieties which disturb us, and free us\\nfrom that feverish state, in which we have so long been placed. I\\nbeg pardon, sir, for having trespassed at such length upon the atten\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the house, and conclude by giving my most cordial support to\\nthe motion of the honourable baronet.\\nCanning had come down to the house from a sick bed, and on a crutch, to give\\nhis support to the motion. The opposition could afford to look on and allow the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0363.jp2"}, "364": {"fulltext": "354\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ngovernment to fight the question out, for Peel took upon himself the audacious\\ntask of replying to both his illustrious colleagues. Brougham closed the debate,\\nand the motion was carried by a majority of 13. Resolutions upon which to base a\\nbill were instantly assented to, and a committee formed to prepare the same. It\\npassed the Commons, and was lost on the second reading in the Lords; with all\\nits accompaniments, except the bill against the Association.\\nELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.\\n1825.\\nApril 26,\\nThis is the debate upon the forty-shilling freeholders. Brougham had pas\u00c2\u00ac\\nsionately referred to the Duke of York\u00e2\u0080\u0099s famous declaration in the House oi\\nLords on the preceding day, that in every position wherein he might be placed\\nby Providence, he would resist the measure of Catholic emancipation\u00e2\u0080\u0094the appre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhension of which had caused the insanity of his father. Plunket rose to order.\\nBrougham denied that he had been disorderly. In the parliament to which\\nthe right honourable gentleman formerly belonged, such a course might have been\\npursued; but not in an English parliament. An honourable\\nand learned gentleman (himself the most disorderly in the world), shall get\\nup and complain that you are out of order, not because anything irregular has\\nbeen said, but quid timet merely because he apprehends something possibly may\\nbe.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Sir John Newport spoke just before Plunket, but had to leave the house\\nfrom indisposition.\\nI shall not detain the house long; and I confess, sir, that I nevei\\nrose to address the house with more painful feelings than at the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent moment. I am particularly glad that my right honourable friend,\\nwhom indisposition has just compelled to leave the house, has pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nceded me on the present occasion because I feel greatly cheered by\\nthe reflection, that the sentiments of one of the best and most tried\\nfriends of his country differ, in almost every particular, from those of\\nmy honourable and learned friend. I am desirous of explaining to\\nthe house the ground on which I took the liberty of calling my hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable and learned friend to order. I do not regret the course that\\nI took; on the contrary, I feel its propriety still more strongly after\\nwhat has fallen from the honourable and learned member since I\\nadopted it. I do not, either from my habits in the Irish parliament,\\nto which my honourable and learned friend thought proper to allude,\\nor from the little experience I have acquired in this house, think he\\nwas entitled to say that I called him to order before he had really\\ncommitted a breach of it. He seems to have interpreted rather too\\nlargely the declaration from the chair, because, sir, you delicately\\navoided telling him in direct terms that he was grossly out of order.\\nI am fully aware that though it is not strictly regular to allude to\\nwhat passes in the other house of parliament, it would be absurd t\u00c2\u00ab", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0364.jp2"}, "365": {"fulltext": "ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.\\nSo 5\\nwatch over-anxiously particular instances of deviations from strict re\u00c2\u00ac\\ngularity, provided they remain within reasonable and proper limits.\\nBut I will call to the recollection of any body who heard my hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable and learned friend, whether this was not an occasion on which\\nmischief was about to be done, and on which I was warranted on an\\ninterference, which, on another occasion, might have appeared punc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntilious and pedantic.\\nIn one sentiment which fell from my honourable and learned\\nfriend I agree entirely. I agree in the necessity of passing this\\nimportant measure; and of passing it without the delay of an hour.\\nI must take the liberty, however, of saying, that many of the senti\u00c2\u00ac\\nments which fell from my honourable and learned friend were, in my\\njudgment, eminently calculated to defeat this measure of emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. I agree with my honourable and learned friend, that it is most\\nessential to the success of the Catholic cause, that the question of\\nemancipation should be carried by a large and overwhelming majo\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity. But I confidently appeal to every member of this house, whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther the speech of my honourable and learned friend was not calcu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated to defeat that object, and to interfere with the success of the\\ncause. I was somewhat surprised, sir, when my honourable friend,\\nthe member for Louth, came forward with arguments, which he thought\\nproper to urge in direct contradiction to his own evidence, under the\\nsolemn obligation of an oath. I would not, of course, be supposed\\nto throw the slightest imputation on the honourable member, nor even\\nto insinuate that that additional sanction would be more binding on\\nhim than his own sense of honour but, it certainly did sound strange\\nin my ears, to hear my honourable friend put forward arguments,\\ncompletely in the teeth of everything he had recommended to the\\ncommittee of the House of Commons. I shall not enter into the evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence from which such copious extracts have been read by my hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable friend, who brought forward this subject with so much ability;\\nbut, I wish to place before the house the argument of the honourable\\nmember for Louth, and the conclusions he has drawn, so much at\\nvariance with his own evidence.\\nThe honourable gentleman\u00e2\u0080\u0099s complaint against the measure is,\\nthat it does not go far enough, but that it should be extended to\\nthe disqualification of all holders in fee; but, does my honourable\\nfriend mean, that we should cany our principle to the length of dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nfranchising a body of men like the yeomanry of England Now,\\nwhat is the ground upon which the honourable member supports his\\nopinion Why, forsooth, because certain vagrants have settled in\\ncertain commons in Ireland who, by acts of rapine and disseisin,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0365.jp2"}, "366": {"fulltext": "356\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhave obtained a title to certain lands. Why, then, if this be so dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntressing an event to the honourable member, let him bring in a bill to\\ndisfranchise them. He admits there is a great existing evil, which\\nthis measure, as far as it goes, is well adapted to remedy; but, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause a parcel of travelling tinkers have migrated to the bogs of\\nDrumskele, in the county of Louth, he turns round upon us and says,\\nthat, unless we so change our measure, as to render it impossible for\\nany rational man to adopt it, he will resist it with all his might.\\nNow, if the speech of the honourable member, surprised me, the house\\nmay judge of my consternation, when I heard my honourable and\\nlearned friend, the member for Winchelsea, adopt his argument; nay,\\nmore, misrepresent it, and carry it to a length which the honourable\\nauthor himself never contemplated. Of course I do not mean for\\none moment to assert, that my honourable and learned friend would\\nbe capable of wilfully misrepresenting anything, either here or else\u00c2\u00ac\\nwhere, but so it is. Such is the wonderful power of his talent and\\neloquence, that, whatever argument is favoured with his adoption, re\u00c2\u00ac\\nceives a force and extent of which its originator was wholly uncon\u00c2\u00ac\\nscious and when my honourable and learned friend felt himself in\\nthat cruel and grievous situation which he has so feelingly depicted\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094impelled by a sense of duty to do that which might be detrimental\\nto a measure to which I know he is attached; I really do lament\\nmost heartily, that instead of applying all those powers of ridicule\\nin which he is unrivalled, and that faculty of exposure which belongs\\nto him, in a degree that I never witnessed in any other man in any\\nhouse, to demolish the argument of the honourable member for Louth,\\nhe should have exercised his transcendent abilities to embellish and\\nsupport it. But to come to the argument\u00e2\u0080\u0094I think I have some\\nground to complain of my honourable and learned friend. That he\\nis an ardent friend to Catholic concession, does not rest upon his asser\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion or on mine; he has given proofs of it too strong for any man to\\ndoubt his sincerity. The extent of his services cannot be over-rated;\\nbut, I have perceived on this occasion, and with great regret, what\\nhe has never shown on any other. His extreme rapidity of conception\\nand wonderful facility of utterance, has, by unremitting exercise, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncome a weakness, which leads him into statements, which, in tho\\nsober reflection of his cooler moments, his own excellent judgment\\nwould disavow. I appeal to the recollection of this house, whether\\nmy honourable and learned friend has not pressed into his service, in\\nopposition to this measure, which, for aught he knows (as he himself\\ndeclares), may be sound and salutary; for my honourable and learned\\nfriend set out by stating hi6 entire ignorance of the merits of the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0366.jp2"}, "367": {"fulltext": "ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.\\n357\\nmeasure, of which, I must do him the justice to say, he gave the most\\nconvincing demonstration as he went along\u00e2\u0080\u0094I would appeal, I say,\\nto all who hear me, whether the effect at least of his address was not\\nto awaken prejudices which might defeat the measure, the success of\\nwhich we all have at heart\\nMy honourable and learned friend says that the object of the m\u00c2\u00abi-\\nsure is to put down perjury, and he asks what right we have to in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterfere in such a question, when every man in the house perjures\\nhimself? And then, in one of his flights, he takes a range amongst\\nthe army and clergy; but what has all this to do with the question\\nAnd, to come to the real argument, even admitting that the qualifi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation for sitting in this house does lead to perjury, and supposing\\nthe army and church not exempt from the stain, are we in no instance\\nto cure the evil when we have it in our power If any other mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nber had pursued such a line of conduct, would not my honourable and\\nlearned friend have called it a jump Why should he resort to such\\na line of argument I cannot suppose he could have been desirous\\nto press into his service popular topics for the purpose of exciting\\nprejudice. Have I not a right to complain that my honourable and\\nlearned friend has all through his speech assumed as facts what he\\nwas bound to prove were facts He has condescended to nickname\\nthis measure, and then calls upon you to reject it. But, what right\\nhas he to call this a measure of disfranchisement Catholic eman\u00c2\u00ac\\ncipation, he says, would be a great good, and although not imme\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiately felt, would be materially beneficial, and would conciliate Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland whereas, this measure would be immediately felt by the people,\\nand felt as an injury. The whole scope of his argument is, that in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstead of producing content in Ireland, this measure will excite a ferment\\namongst the Catholics themselves; but, sir, let me inform my hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable and learned friend that this measure does not go to disfranchise\\na single human being now alive. If this be so, I would ask, what is\\nthere in the bill to justify the ferment which my honourable and\\nlearned friend anticipates amongst the Catholics or how can he re\u00c2\u00ac\\nconcile his desire for conciliation with this glowing appeal to their\\nprejudices He seems to apprehend that the Catholics of Ireland\\nwill be more alive to constitutional jealousies than to their own in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterests in the heat of argument he has prevailed upon himself to\\nbelieve that their constitutional feelings will be aroused by abstract\\nconsiderations. In his estimation, they must be most powerful and\\nacute reasoners, for they will overlook the general benefit to ba con\u00c2\u00ac\\nferred, whilst their feelings will be directed to the immediate opera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of a measure which can affect no man living. My honourable", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0367.jp2"}, "368": {"fulltext": "358\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nent differed\\nand learned friend seems to suppose, that the Irish parliament\\nfrom all others on points of order; and I should infer that he thinks\\nthe Irish people differed from the inhabitants of all other countries,\\nand entertained opinions repugnant to all the principles which regu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlate human actions. But, says my honourable and learned friend,\\nI do not know whether this bill is good or bad\u00e2\u0080\u0094I have kindly\\nfeelings towards it\u00e2\u0080\u0094I am not opposed to it.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But, to my mind, he pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsented as ugly an appearance as I ever witnessed; he exhibited very\\nlittle of that affection and endearment which distinguish a zealous\\nfriend from an adversary. One thing he could not at all endure he\\ncould not bear the idea of joining this measure with any other; ho\\nwas opposed to it, because it had the appearance of a bribe. But,\\nthe time presses\u00e2\u0080\u0094a large majority even will not carry the measure\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nnothing short of unanimity will accomplish the object\u00e2\u0080\u0094still he could\\nnot consent, such was his sense of duty, to the proposed measure.\\nThis really appears to me standing a little too much on the knight-\\nerrantry of logic. He will not consent to unite a measure which may\\nbe good, for aught he knows, to another measure, which, he contends, if\\naccomplished, must be beneficial to the empire. This appears to me\\nthe very romance of delicacy, and if my honourable and learned friend,\\nin addition to his other numerous avocations, should devote his talents\\nto the writing a novel, he might, no doubt, found a very interesting\\ntale on his delicate embarrassment, and introduce some sentiments,\\nwhich, although extremely suitable there, were ill adapted to the\\nsober discussions of an assembly like the House of Commons.\\nNow, I will frankly state my opinion of this measure; and, in\\ndoing so, I am not afraid of leaving my character for frankness in\\nthe hands of the house. My decided opinion is, that this measure is\\nin the abstract good; but even if I thought it, to a certain extent\\ninjurious, not unjust, but faulty in some respects or if I thought it\\ncalculated to accomplish a greater good, I would adopt and support\\nit, for the purpose of obtaining the higher benefit. That is my creed:\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00941 openly avow it, and there is notan honest man in the house who\\nwill condemn it. My honourable and learned friend complains, that\\nwe have joined this measure to the emancipation of the Catholics,\\nwhich has no natural connexion with it; and he states it as a griev\u00c2\u00ac\\nance, that it should be placed close by the side of the larger measure,\\nand that the motions of the one must wait upon the progress of the\\nother. But have they, in fact, no connexion Now, we propose to\\nadmit the Catholics to the participation of the constitution; and how\\nare we met What, (say our opponents) will you emancipate this\\nimmense Catholic population, and allow the mob to rush in and take", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0368.jp2"}, "369": {"fulltext": "ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.\\n359\\npossession of those seats And am I to be told that a measure\\nwhich takes away this power from the hands of the mob has no na-\\ntnral connexion with the great question of Catholic emancipation\\nBut, take the other view of the question. Suppose the question should\\nnot be carried, I know of no other way in which the Catholics can\\nadvance their cause, than through the agency of the 40s. freeholders;\\nso that, in fact, in every way in which the measure can be contem\u00c2\u00ac\\nplated, it is strictly and inseparably connected with the question for\\nremoving the Catholic disabilities. My honourable and learned friend\\ncomplained bitterly of the cruel situation in which he was placed; but\\nI never saw a man in such circumstances who appeared more happy,\\nor who drew upon his own rich resources in higher perfection. I\\nnever knew him disdain more completely the consideration before him,\\nand throw himself upon the energies of his own misd, and the extra\u00c2\u00ac\\nordinary powers of his fancy and eloquence, than upon this rack of\\ntorture on which he placed himself, complaining of us for having\\ntaken him by surprise, by the unexpected introduction of a measure\\nwhich, for the last three months, every body well knew was intended\\nto be submitted to the house. But now let us come to the measure\\nitself; and I would beg of gentlemen, whatever their opinions may\\nbe, to examine it in its own abstract shape. But, before I enter\\nupon this part of the subject, 1 wish to make one observation. Should\\nmy right honourable friend near me (Mr. Peel) think this measure\\nnot bad in itself, but likely to produce good, yet holding his particu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlar opinions on Catholic emancipation, I should not blame him if he\\nresisted this measure, on the ground that his opposition would defeat\\nthe more extensive question, which to his mind appears fraught with\\nevil; at the same time, I must say, and I speak it not in the nig\u00c2\u00ac\\ngardly spirit which is sometimes displayed of admitting sincerity on\\nthe ground of courtesy; I shall not use that uncourteous courtesy\\ntowards my right honourable friend but in the honest sincerity of\\nmy heart I say, that no man would be less disposed than my right\\nhonourable friend to defeat a measure which is good in itself, on ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncount of its connexion with any other measure to which he might be\\nopposed. We complain of the act of 1793, which has been so truly\\ndescribed by the honourable member for Louth, as having begun at\\nthe wrong end, by letting in the rabble and shutting out the higher\\nclasses; the consequence of which has been, that the country gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen of Ireland let out their land, and subdivided it into small free\u00c2\u00ac\\nholds. This was the system which led to all the unfortunate conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquences. If one of those poor wretches wa3 prosecuted for perjury,\\nhis landlord went bail for him, and he was never heard of afterwards.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0369.jp2"}, "370": {"fulltext": "860\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nWas not this in itself an evil of a serious nature The next pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding is this; and let the house observe, all these facts are empha\u00c2\u00ac\\ntically detailed in evidence, although my honourable and learned friend\\ncomplains of want of information. The landlord gives this wretched\\nbeing a freehold, which may not be worth forty pence, comprising,\\nperhaps, an acre of land and a miserable hovel, the rent of which he\\ncould never pay without the addition of his own labour; but if he\\ncan earn 405. a year on his land, he then swears he is a 405. free\u00c2\u00ac\\nholder but should he refuse, the landlord tells him, you must give\\nup your land; I\u00e2\u0080\u0099ll not keep an idle, lazy, lubberly fellow, who will\\nnot swear he is worth 405. a year.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Is the house, then, to be told\\nthat they are not to provide a remedy for this flagitious evil, because\\nthe clergy or the army, or even members of parliament, do not always\\nadhere to the truth ?\u00e2\u0080\u0094topics which form good subjects for amuse\u00c2\u00ac\\nment when my honourable and learned friend wishes to indulge his\\nfancy, but which are very feeble arguments against remedying this\\ncrying evil. I could not help thinking that my honourable and learned\\nfriend displayed somewhat of the alacrity of an advocate, in selecting\\nfrom the wide range of his own imagination all those popular topics\\nthat could be plied against the cause. The present system leads to\\nthe most painful consequences. At an election, the landlord says to\\nhis agent, Send those 500 men to the market.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Generally speak\u00c2\u00ac\\ning, they neither know nor care for whom they vote; but, should his\\nreligious feelings be aroused, should the priest be called into action,\\nthen arises a contest between the priest and the landlord, neither of\\nthem seeking to elevate the poor peasant, but to get possession of\\nhim. The consequence of which is, to insult the landlord and degrade\\nthe priest. But after the heat of the contest has subsided, the poor\\nwretch retires from the religious excitement, and has to settle with\\nhis landlord, he has to make up his rent, he is unable to do it, and is\\ndismissed; and the result is, that the poor man is ruined by yielding\\nto his religious feelings, and resisting the tyranny of his landlord.\\nThus the peasant is habituated to a perpetual contest with his land\u00c2\u00ac\\nlord, in which the landlord always succeeds.\\nAre these things disputed in the evidence Do we want witnesses\\nto prove that perjury has been committed Why, it was distinctly\\nproved before the committee of this house\u00e2\u0080\u0094a committee composed of\\npersons of all opinions, who were inclined to probe the subject to th/\\nbottom. I have no recollection of any measure in support of which\\nsuch satisfactory evidence was adduced before a committee. Do we,\\nby the measure we propose, affect the independence of elections\\nNo such thing. On the contrary, we secure the purity of election.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0370.jp2"}, "371": {"fulltext": "ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.\\n361\\nI hold in my hand an account of the number of persons registered\\nfor eight years in thirty-two counties, from which returns were made,\\nand what was the proportion In the year before the election, the\\nproportion was of the 40s. freeholders, 18 to 1 of the 20 1. and 501.\\nfreeholders. The consequence of all this was, that the independent\\nfreeholders were overlaid, and the principle of election was wholly\\ndestroyed. The honourable member for Corfe Castle (Mr. Bankes)\\nwas so fired with constitutional zeal, which the courtesy of the house\\ncompels me to admit is great, but one particle beyond which I am\\nnot prepared to go, has declared, that he would rather expire on the\\nfloor of this house, than sacrifice one portion of his fine Runnymede\\nfeelings. I do admire most exceedingly the fine spirit of the ancient\\nbarons, when it bursts out through the honourable member for Corfe\\nCastle. But I hope it will be some consolation to him to learn, that\\nthis measure is not intended to affect England. There may be modes\\nof managing votes in some of the towns in England but with Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nlish towns I profess myself wholly unacquainted. At present, I ad\u00c2\u00ac\\ndress myself to the honourable member for Corfe Castle, and 1 trust\\nhis feelings will be appeased by the circumstances to which I have\\nadverted. We propose no violent change the measure is to be slow\\nand gradual in its operation the result of it will be the raising up\\na class of sturdy, independent yeomanry in Ireland, who, in the ful\u00c2\u00ac\\nness of time, will be fitted for the same rights which are enjoyed, and\\nwisely exercised, by the people of this country. This is the principle\\nof the measure it disfranchises no man it will produce no violent\\neffect on the country and it is entitled to support, because it appears\\ncalculated, from the evidence which has been received, to give gene\u00c2\u00ac\\nral satisfaction.\\nSir, with respect to one part of the evidence, my honourable\\nand learned friend has been much mistaken, I mean the evidence\\nof Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell. I have read that evidence lately; and the\\nmeaning of it appears obviously to me to advise the committee not\\nto meddle with the subject; but this I understood to apply to the\\noperation of the measure by itself without any other\u00e2\u0080\u0094which no man\\nwould advise, I do not wish to attach to the character of Mr.\\nO\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell more value than I think properly belongs to it. I must\\ndo him the justice to say that he enjoys a large portion of the confi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence of the people of Ireland. I had very little intercourse with that\\ngentleman until after the recent discussions in this house; but, from\\nwhat I have seen of him, I cannot hesitate to declare, in the face of\\nparliament, that I do not believe there is any man less disposed than\\nMr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell to abuse the extensive confidence he enjoys amongst", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0371.jp2"}, "372": {"fulltext": "3G2\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhis countrymen, or more desirous to employ it for the benefit of his\\ncountry. I myself have been lately in Ireland, and have had much\\nintercourse with people of various opinions as to the policy of the\\nmeasure. They appeared to me to approve of it. It has also the\\nsupport of my right honourable friend (Sir J. Newport). There are\\nmany other Irish members sitting round my honourable and learned\\nfriend, who can inform him as to the operation of the measure; tor\\nalthough I cannot sympathise with him, or suppose him in any un\u00c2\u00ac\\npleasant predicament, arising from a want of acquaintance with the\\ngreat general principles of this or any other important question, yet,\\non the details of the measure, I must give him credit for the most ab\u00c2\u00ac\\nsolute ignorance. However, he is surrounded by those who can best\\ninform him; and they, I believe, with one or two exceptions, are\\npersuaded the measure will give general satisfaction. Let him con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsult them, and still more his own excellent judgment, flinging aside,\\nfor the present, the aid of his rhetoric, and he cannot fail to arrive\\nat a sound conclusion.\\nSir, I need not attempt to describe the solicitude I avow myself\\nto feel for the success of this bill. I hail its accomplishment,\\nnot alone as it advances the hopes of the Roman Catholic, but I sin\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerely hail it with reference to the satisfaction it is calculated to impart\\nto the Protestants of Ireland. I mean, that it is calculated not only\\nto conciliate that portion of the Protestants of Ireland who are friendly\\nto the repeal of Catholic disabilities, but even those who still continue\\nadverse to its accomplishment. And here it is impossible that I\\nshould not express the heartfelt gratification that I, in common with\\nall those who look forward to the completion of the great measure of\\nCatholic relief, have felt at the great advance that question has re\u00c2\u00ac\\nceived, by the accession of such support as has been afforded to us by the\\nvote of my honourable friend the member for the county of Armagh. If\\nany one thing could excuse a feeling of envy or jealousy in my mind it\\nwould be, I confess, towards him; enjoying, as he does, the proud\\nconsciousness arising from his generous, manly, and honest declara\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. Returning to this measure, my honourable and learned friend\\nhas asked, even though it should be coupled with the accomplishment\\nof Catholic relief, who is the bold man that would venture to say\\nthat this measure will afford relief to Ireland I meet the interroga\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory of my honourable and learned friend; and, though I do not pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfess myself as the votary of that extreme political courage, which I\\nhave often found to be more an indication of rashness than firmness,\\nyet, with my conviction of the propriety of the measure\u00e2\u0080\u0094with my\\nknowledge of the general impressions that exist in Ireland as to its", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0372.jp2"}, "373": {"fulltext": "elective franchise. 303\\nnecessity\u00e2\u0080\u0094I am that bold man. I do in my conscience believe, that,\\ncoupled with the substantial measure of relief, it will not only con\u00c2\u00ac\\nciliate the Catholics, but give increased security to the Protestants of\\nIreland. And here I have to complain of my honourable and learned\\nfriend, that in the whole of his excursive speech, he has altogether\\nthrown out of his view what that security demanded. But, though\\nhe disregarded it, it is a consideration that I confess has never been\\nout of my calculation. To obtain the great measure of relief to the\\nRoman Catholics of Ireland has been the object of my utmost anxiety.\\n1 have been always solicitous for that great accomplishment\u00e2\u0080\u0094now s\\nmore than ever. I feel that a day should not be lost^before the house\\ncarries this vote into effect. But, strongly as I feel its necessity, I\\nam still persuaded, that if it were carried into effect, leaving an ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nisting distrust in the minds of the Protestants of Ireland, it would be\\na curse instead of a blessing. Let it be recollected, that in the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ngress of this great cause, every foot of it has been reclaimed ground.\\nIt has made its way gradually\u00e2\u0080\u0094the triumph of enlightened views and\\nirresistible argument. And therefore it is that, since first it was in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntroduced to the consideration of the legislature, there never was a\\nmoment when the result of such continued exertions was more likely\\nto be frustrated\u00e2\u0080\u0094when the cup was more likely to be dashed from\\nthe lip on the brink of enjoyment\u00e2\u0080\u0094than at the moment I address\\nyou, by any indiscretion on the part of any honourable member. ^1\\nbeg my honourable and learned friend to believe, that I think him in\u00c2\u00ac\\ncapable of any such intention. I never can forget his super-eminent\\nservices to the great cause. No man who feels for the prosperity of\\nIreland and the security of the empire, can forget the important be\u00c2\u00ac\\nnefits which, in the exercise of his powerful talents, my honourable\\nand learned friend has given to those great objects. But, without\\npresuming to pronounce on the reasons, it was impossible not to see\\nwith regret, that even he is labouring this night under an effort which\\nwas eminently calculated, though not intended, to defeat the great\\nobject for which he had heretofore so powerfully struggled, and by\\nso doing to dash from Ireland the blessing, the very moment that it\\nanticipated its fulfilment. There are many other topics connected\\nwith this great question which press themselves on my consideration,\\nbut I feel that neither my own strength, nor my feelings of respect to\\nthe attention with which I have been honoured, will permit me to\\nintrude further on your patience. I leave, therefore, the question to\\nthe enlightened judgment of the house.\\nThe Bill was read a second time by a majority of 48, and proceeded pari passct\\nwith the other wings. Un the 2nd of May, the house resolved on the motion of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0373.jp2"}, "374": {"fulltext": "304\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nLord Francis Levison Gower, that it was expedient to pension the Irish Cathode\\nclergy. All English statesmen have had a conviction, since the Catholics first\\nbegan to grow into a political power, that the pension would be the real \u00e2\u0080\u009cgoldcu\\nlink\u00e2\u0080\u009d between the countries. We find even Peel in this debate almost advocat\u00c2\u00ac\\ning its adoption\u00e2\u0080\u0094urging only the necessity of obtaining some church patronage\\nto the crown. It was too hard if the King were to have no voice in the appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of a bishop with a salary of \u00c2\u00a31000 a year.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The scale of pension proposed\\nwas, \u00c2\u00a31500 to an archbishop \u00c2\u00a31000 to a bishop \u00c2\u00a3300 to a dean or vicar\\nfrom \u00c2\u00a3200 to \u00c2\u00a3120 to a parish priest; and \u00c2\u00a360 to a curate. Plunket warmly\\nsupported it with a few pithy sentences\u00e2\u0080\u0094ending the debate by declaring, that\\nsuch a measure would be a buttress to the Established church.\u00e2\u0080\u009d On the 11th\\nthe Belief Bill was read a third time and went to the Lords\u00e2\u0080\u0094where, as we have\\nalready stated, it was rejected on the second reading.\\nCATHOLIC RELIEF.\\nJune 10, 1828.\\nIn May, 1828, Sir F. Burdett, after three days\u00e2\u0080\u0099 debate, carried a motion fur\\nEmancipation in the House of Commons by a majority of 12. Immediately\\nafterwards a conference with the House of Lords was agreed to, and on the\\nmotion of the Duke of Wellington, lords were appointed to confer. On the 9th\\nof June, the Marquis of Lansdowne introduced a motion for legislation on the\\nbasis of the Commons\u00e2\u0080\u0099 resolutions, and Plunket, who had been called to the\\nupper house in the preceding year, made his first appearance in the House of\\nLords in support of the motion. He was preceded in the debate by Lord\\nManners, whom he had so often bewildered in the mazes of his marvellous logic\\nin the Irish Court of Chancery, and whose unflagging hatred to the Catholic\\nclaims was just beginning to relax under the weight of that tremendous popular\\npressure, which caused Wellington and Peel to give way. Lord Lansdowne\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nmotion was rejected, but in the next month, O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell was returned to parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment fur Clare, and the positions ceased to be tenable.\\n1 am anxious to take the first opportunity that fairly occurs, of re\u00c2\u00ac\\npeating my unalterable conviction upon this question. The noble and\\nlearned lord behind me (Manners), last night stated the result of his\\nobservations, after a residence of twenty years in Ireland, and I am\\nsatisfied that he uttered, with perfect truth and candour, the conclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion at which his mind had arrived. I hope that your lordships will\\npermit me, after forty years spent in that country in active life, pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic and private, official and unofficial, in parliament and out of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament, with the fullest opportunities of observing the deportment\\nof all classes, to state my unalterable conviction, that unless this", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0374.jp2"}, "375": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n365\\nagitating question be disposed of by some conciliatory adjustment,\\nthere is no hope of prosperity, tranquillity, or even safety for Ireland.\\nIf any person has arrived at this decision, that under no circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, at no time, and accompanied by no conditions, he can and\\nought to do anything for the Roman Catholics\u00e2\u0080\u0094that person is en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntitled to vote against the proposition to-night. Unless he has arrived\\nat that decision, I do not see how it is possible to refuse his support\\nto the motion of the noble marquis.\\nI have listened with the most profound attention to the able, tem\u00c2\u00ac\\nperate, and dignified statement of my noble and learned friend who\\nhas just taken his seat. Part of it I heard with the most gratified\\nfeelings because I did think, and I still hope I am not mistaken in\\nso thinking, I saw in the resistance he felt it necessary to make to\\nthe proposition, some distant gleam of comfort, some secret hope,\\nsome latent opinion in his mind, that there were circumstances and\\nsecurities, if time were given to look after them, and if the search\\nwere made at the proper season, which might render the adoption of\\nsome measure in favour of the Catholics admissible. On the other\\nhand, I felt extreme regret and disappointment at other parts of his\\nspeech, because, if I could agree with him in believing that we can\\ntake no step for the admission of Roman Catholics into parliament,\\nand into office, without the destruction of the Protestant establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment in Ireland, I, who have supported these claims almost from the\\nfirst moment I could think, would abandon my ancient and con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinued opinions, would change my side and become as determined an\\nopponent to concession, as 1 have been its most anxious advocate.\\nI look on the Protestant establishment of Ireland as a fundamental\\nprinciple of our imperial constitution. I take it to have been unal\u00c2\u00ac\\nterably settled at the Union, and that to talk of changing the Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant religion of Ireland without shaking the Protestant establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of the empire is idle. I speak no new language, now that for\\nthe first time I have had an opportunity of delivering my sentiments\\nthe presence of the right reverend bench I utter but the opinions\\ni have entertained and expressed in the other House of Parliament.\\nI think a religious establishment essential to our well-being, and that\\nwithout a dignified establishment in times like these, religion itself\\nwould be degraded. I am, therefore, persuaded, not only that the\\nestablishment is necessary, but that the rank, affluence, and dignity\\nthe hierarchy are important to our best interests. I think further,\\nUiat its power and influence are and ought to be so great, that unless\\nth.it hierarchy be connected with the state, it may be too powerful\\ntor the state and heuoe the necessity of maintaining that connec-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0375.jp2"}, "376": {"fulltext": "\u00e2\u0096\u00a0lunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\n3Q6\\ntion for the benefit of the state. On these grounds, and not for any\\nfanciful and theoretical reasons, assigned by some writers upon this\\nsubject, I never for a moment would consent to anything which\\nshould endanger the Protestant establishment.\\nI further feel that the Protestant establishment of Ireland is the\\nvery cement of the Union I find it interwoven with all the essential\\nrelations and institutions of the two kingdoms; and I have no hesita\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion in admitting that if it were destroyed, the very foundations of\\npublic security would be shaken, the connection between Eugland and\\nIreland dissolved, and the annihilation of private property must fol\u00c2\u00ac\\nlow the ruin of the property of the church.\\nI should be happy to suppose that I had misunderstood my noble\\nand learned friend, in the interpretation I put upon the latter partot\\nhis argument.; and I repeat that if I thought with him, that the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsequences of admitting the claim of the Roman Catholics would be\\nsuch as he anticipated, I would now and for ever resist them. I am\\nmost anxious to relieve my own mind, and to state the grounds on\\nwhich I can do so satisfactorily, from this terrible alternative; and I\\ntrust your lordships will excuse me, if I go a little back, aud briefly\\ncall your attention to that period of our history so much adverted\\nto by my noble and learned friend\u00e2\u0080\u0094I mean the period of the Revo\u00c2\u00ac\\nlution.\\nThe general circumstances under which that glorious event occurred\\nare so well known, that it is unnecessary for me to do more than\\nshortly advert to them. At that date, this Protestant country took\\nup arms in support of its civil and religious liberties, against the\\nbigotted and despotic monarch who had endangered both. She took\\nup arms, as she had a right to do, for that purpose, and she succeeded;\\nbut let me remind your lordships, that that success would probably\\nhave been more than problematical, if the energies and patriotism of\\nthe people of this country had not been sanctioned and stimulated by\\nthe strongest motives of religious duty. The union of patriotism aij.\\nreligion produced that success. What was then the situation of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, of Popish Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094of the unfortunate natives of that country\\nI do not advert to this point for the sake of reviving ungrateful\\nrecollections, but because it is necessary to my argument. When\\nwe come to sit in judgment upon the conduct of the natives of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, we should do it not with feelings of resentment against them,\\nbut of shame, remorse, and self-accusation against ourselves. These\\nare the assessors whom we ought to call in, to aid us in arriving at a\\ndecision, and in passing a just sentence of atonement.\\n_ Ireland was once in possession of an undefiled religion; free from", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0376.jp2"}, "377": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n367\\nPopery and Papal usurpation. You forced upon her pure Christianity\\nyour own corruptions and superstitions, and you taught her to con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsider herself yours, not merely by right of conquest, but by Papal right.\\nWithout reference to her habits or opinions, you compelled her to\\nreceive your corrupted religion. As knowledge advanced, we became\\nprepared for a change; and here the Reformation was effected with\\nthe full consent and approbation of the people. They understood and\\nappreciated the blessing of the reformed religion; but the other un\u00c2\u00ac\\nfortunate portion of the empire had been left in a state of ignorance\\nand barbarism, and in this condition they naturally turned and ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nhered to the corruptions and superstitions which, in the first instance,\\nyou had forced upon her. Then you forced the Reformation upon\\nher, without any regard to the habits and opinions of the people.\\nWhen, therefore, she some time afterwards found a Popish monarch\\non the throne of England, she refused to take up arms against him,\\nbecause he professed the same religion. Had the Irish possessed an\\nenlightened philosophy, they might, perhaps, have known that it was\\nbetter to sacrifice their religion to their patriotism, than their patriot\u00c2\u00ac\\nism to their religion; but, in such times, that was too much to ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npect from human nature, and accordingly, not only did they not take\\nup arms against a Popish king, but they took up arms in his behalf.\\nThey were subdued and what were the duties, at that period, de\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolving upon the English government? The great men of that day had\\na most difficult task to accomplish. It was impossible that they should\\ntreat the Roman Catholics of Ireland as good subjects; they had been,\\nnot as against the king, but as against the English government, in a\\nstate of armed resistance, and they could not safely be admitted into\\nparliament or into office. It therefore became requisite by an act,\\nstrictly speakiug, of injustice, but injustice compelled by rigid ne\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessity, to exclude them from parliament and from office. But let\\nme remind your lordships, and particularly the learned earl (Eldon),\\nwho is taking notes of what I say, of what was the state of the law,\\n.as it existed at that time. At the Revolution the Irish Catholics\\nwere in undoubted possession of the privileges of sitting in both houses\\nof parliament. I shall presently have occasion to observe upon the\\napplication of these two laws to the English but I am now speaking\\nonly of the Irish. The 5 th of Elizabeth, by which, for the first time,\\nthe path of supremacy was made necessary for admission into the\\nHouse of Commons, never existed in Ireland. From the Reformation\\ndown to the 2nd William andjMary, a period of 130 years, the Irish\\nenjoyed the undisputed privilege, not merely in point of law, but prac-\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0098ieally, of sittiqg in parliament,; they were also, though not, perhaps", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0377.jp2"}, "378": {"fulltext": "flunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\n368\\nto the same degree, admitted into office. The first of Elizabeth was\\nadopted by the 2nd Elizabeth in Ireland, and it required the oath of\\nsupremacy to be taken on accepting office; yet among the Roman\\nCatholics it was not for a long time considered a barrier to their ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmission. It has been truly stated by my noble and learned friend,\\nthat many Roman Catholics took the oath of supremacy, and I may\\nadd, they did so, both in this country and in Treland; for the first\\ntwelve years of the reign of Elizabeth, they took it without difficulty\\nin this country, and it was not until after the attempts of the Popish\\npriests, sent over from the Continent to deprive Elizabeth of her throne\\nand life, that any difficulty of the kind arose. The act of the 2nd of\\nWilliam and Mary was the result of stern necessity superseding the\\nordinary dictates of justice, and even the faith of treaties. But what\\nwas the course it became necessary then to pursue\\nThose enlightened persons, those lovers of freedom, then at the\\nhead of affairs, saw their difficulty and became satisfied of the truth\\nof this proposition, that it was utterly inconsistent to shut any class\\nof individuals out of parliament and office\u00e2\u0080\u0094to deprive them of fran\u00c2\u00ac\\nchise and of the privileges of the constitution, and yet to leave them\\nin possession of wealth and power. The two principles were utterly\\ninconsistent; if you separate wealth and knowledge from the state,\\nwealth and knowledge must overturn the state. Therefore those\\nprofound statesmen saw in all its bearings the proposition I am now\\nsubmitting to the house; and what was the course they pursued\\nI am not stating it for the purpose of casting any imputation upon\\nthem; they were in a situation of great embarrassment, and I have\\nnot met with any suggestion in any w riter as to the mode in which\\nthey ought to have proceeded. Treat them as good subjects they\\ncould not; admit them to parliament and offices in the state they\\ncould not; and then began that system which was pursued for seventy\\nyears\u00e2\u0080\u0094the system of keeping the Irish Roman Catholics in the lowest\\nextremity of poverty and ignorance. It was pursued to that limit,\\nwhere the art of grinding down a people must end; and then what\\ntook place The good sense and good feeling of this country recoiled\\nwith pain and disgust from the termination of their own system of\\ngovernment. They were shocked to see one of the fairest portions\\nf the empire reduced to so destitute a condition.\\nLet the house recollect, that the whole period from the Revolution\\nwas one continued scene of severe but necessary infliction and let\\nthe house recollect also the conduct of\u00c2\u00ab the Irish under it. While\\nScotland, and even England, had been subjected to more than one\\ninsurrection in favour of the exiled family, Ireland remained resigned", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0378.jp2"}, "379": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n369\\nand patient, and never raised an arm or a voice in its behalf. The\\npeople of England were softened and subdued by the resignation and\\nforbearance of the people of Ireland, and became satisfied that some\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing ought to be done for them. A new system then began; and\\nfor the last fifty years, you have been retracing the steps taken for\\nthe 70 or 80 years preceding, and endeavouring to replace the Irish\\nin the situation which they originally occupied. Support, encourage\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, privileges\u00e2\u0080\u0094constitutional privileges\u00e2\u0080\u0094to a great extent were\\ngiven to them, and accordingly we now no longer find them in the\\nabject and ignorant wretchedness to which we formerly reduced them.\\nYour own acts of justice and policy have raised them to the situation\\nof a great, powerful, and reflecting people. The English government\\nand the Irish parliament made some mistakes in endeavouring to alter\\ntheir course. Many of the provisions of the act of 1793 were most\\nwise and salutary but others were introduced of a decidedly objec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntionable tendency. By that act, all disabilities, all incapacities, either\\nwith respect to landed property, admission to office, or to other privi\u00c2\u00ac\\nleges of the state, were absolutely repealed, with certain exceptions,\\nextending to a considerable number of offices, and above all, to seats\\nin parliament\u00e2\u0080\u0094that highest privilege in civil life. You gave to Ro\u00c2\u00ac\\nman Catholics the right of returning members to sit in parliament,\\nbut you withheld from the Catholic aristocracy the right of filling\\nthose seats themselves; that is to say, you created a Roman Catholic\\nconstituency for Protestant representatives. It was impossible that\\nthis discordant state of things could arrive at any consistent termi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation, and by that error of the act of 1793 you laid the founda\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of further evils. Under this new system of government, it was\\nalmost miraculous how Ireland continued to revive and to recover\\nfrom her state of moral and physical degradation so much so, that\\nat length England became apprehensive of the growing power of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, and in 1800 the Union was proposed, and took place. It was\\neffected avowedly on this principle, that by uniting the two countries\\nunder one religion, security might be given to the two establishments;\\nand that by uniting them under one constitution, happiness and free\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom might be ensured to both.\\nBeware, my lords, how you paralyse that Union; consider how\\nimpossible it is effectually to preserve that Union by consolidating the\\ntwo establishments, and yet at the same time not to render it perfect\\nby giving equal rights to the people of both countries. That these\\nwere the opinions of the illustrious statesmen under whose auspices\\nthe Union was commenced and concluded, will not now be disputed,\\ni do not mean to assert, that the distinguished individual then at the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0379.jp2"}, "380": {"fulltext": "370\\nPLUNKET tJ SPEECHES.\\nhead of the government held out expectations to the Roman Catho*\\nlies, that they would be admitted to political power; but at that\\nperiod hopes were encouraged that the Union would be the means\\nof facilitating the acquisition of privileges which they could otherwise\\nnever have a chance of enjoying. When the act of Union was car\u00c2\u00ac\\nried I had a seat in the Irish parliament; I was then a young man,\\nand I felt it my duty to oppose it; I am now an old man, but un\u00c2\u00ac\\nder the same circumstances, were they again to occur, I should adopt\\nthe same course. As, however, the Union was carried, we ought to\\ndo our utmost to render it perfect and permanent. I thought in the\\nyear 1800, that it was a measure of party; that it would not be\\nacted upon fairly, and that the inferior country would be obliged to\\nsuffer without redress. I have been most happily disappointed. I\\nknow of no instance in which the interests of Ireland have been\\nbrought under the consideration of the Imperial Parliament, in which\\nthose interests have not been attended to with justice, with favour,,\\nand almost with partiality.\\nThen, I may naturally be asked, if both countries have been so\\nprosperous under the Union\u00e2\u0080\u0094if many privileges have been given to\\nIreland by it\u00e2\u0080\u0094if the markets of this country have been thus opened\\nto her produce, why is she not satisfied, and why, by making these\\nclaims, does she attempt to disturb the harmony of the empire I\\nanswer that the Irish Catholics, by making these claims are evincing\\ntheir gratitude for benefits conferred upon them, and that they are\\nthe necessary consequence of the situation in which they are placed*.\\nIf they aspire after the honours of the state, in order that they may\\n\u00c2\u00a3erve their common country with advantage, it is not only consistent\\nwith the policy but with the dictates of human nature. If, as you\\nsay, you have given the protection of the law to the Catholic\u00e2\u0080\u0094if you\\nhave admitted him into the possession of wealth and power, and yet\\nhave excluded him from office on account of his religion, which you\\nsay necessarily makes him a subject not worthy of confidence, not\\nworthy of a seat in parliament\u00e2\u0080\u0094is he to feel himself satisfied, or\\nrather, does he not show his gratitude by asking for more I should\\nthink him most base and unworthy to be free, if he were not to ask\\nTor more if he were sincere; but I should not believe in his sincerity,\\nand should think him a base and deceitful hypocrite, I should think\\nhim a disgrace to the country, if he were not to ask for all the pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nvileges erf the rest of his countrymen.\\nI have been told, and it has been more than once mentioned in\\nthe course of this debate, that there is a difference between civil\\nrights and political power. There is, in my opinion, no position", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0380.jp2"}, "381": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n371\\nmore at. variance with the fundamental principles of the constitution.\\nPolitical power is the guardian of civil rights. The civil rights of\\nsubjects are not founded on any written law, but arose out of the es\u00c2\u00ac\\nsence of the constitution. Where is the law on which the rights of\\nProtestants to seats in parliament are founded There may be, and\\nthere are, laws for regulating the right; but the right itself rests on\\nthe common principles of the constitution. That right, like others,\\nmay be modified according to circumstances but still, enjoyment is\\nthe general rule, exclusion is only the exception and those who de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfend the exclusion are bound to prove its justice by making out its\\nexpediency. Our constitution is anything but an establichment of\\ncastes. The whole of it rests and is supported on the free admission\\nof all the people to its benefits. The Throne, the Commons, and the\\nHouse of Lords, all rest on this fundamental principle of our consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntution, and by this it has been preserved from the fate of other\\ncountries. We have? heard of public councils in other countries,\\nwhich have been changed into oligarchies by trenching too much\\non the executive, or into courts of justice by permitting, the executive\\nto intrude too far upon their privilege; but the grand principle of\\nour constitution is, that the several orders fall back upon the people,\\nmid art, I may say renewed by them. What is the construction of\\nyour lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 house Is it not gradually renewed and strength\u00c2\u00ac\\nened by an infusion from the body of the people \u00e2\u0080\u0094of those who are\\nconspicuous for their merits, for having served the country, or the\\npower of serving it by their wealth The basis they rest upon is\\nthat of public opinion and their improvement is founded on popular\\nstamina. The lowest man in the state may, by his own merits and\\nthe exercise of his prerogative on the part of the sovereign, become\\na member of this house. What a proportion of your lordships have\\nbeen elevated to the rank of the peerage in the late reign 1 And\\ndoes it become those who have been thus taken from the people to\\ntalk of castes With what face could I think of using the privilege\\nwhich has been conferred upon me by putting my back to the d or\\nto shoulder out the Duke of Norfolk Shame on the ingenuity which\\ncould so construe the four corners of the great charter, as to turn it\\nto the exclusion of the descendants of those freemen by whose wis\u00c2\u00ac\\ndom and valour it was obtained! The position against which I con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntend, is that most erroneous one\u00e2\u0080\u0094that one set of men in a free state\\nshould have political power, whilst others should be excluded. This\\n\\\\s a state of things so intolerable, that it is not in human nature to\\nbear it. The subjects of the most absolute despot may, under a be\u00c2\u00ac\\nneficent ruler, be happy t but it is impossible that men living under", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0381.jp2"}, "382": {"fulltext": "372\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\na free government can feel themselves otherwise than in a state of\\ndegradation, when they find they are debarred the exercise of their\\nprivileges as freemen, because they are said to believe in a religion\\nwhich is superstitious and idolatrous. In such a state every comfort\\nand enjoyment they may have will be smothered with indignation at\\nthe privations to which they are exposed, and the grounds on which\\ntheir exclusion is defended. Can your lordships then be surprised\\nthat you are called upon, year after year, by the Homan Catholics,\\nfor the removal of the disabilities under which they labour I have\\nat all times endeavoured to moderate the zeal of my Roman Catholic\\ncountrymen, by recommending them to make their approaches with\\ntemperance to the hostile opinions, and even the unjust prejudices, of\\nthose who are opposed to them in this country; but I should greatly\\nabuse any influence which I may possess amongst them, if T were to\\nadvise them to cease their application altogether. The best advice I\\ncan give is, that they should never cease to pursue the assertion of\\ntheir claims, until they obtain a full recognition of their rights.\\nIf there is any effect of their exclusion which I should view\\nwith the greatest alarm, it would be, that their voices shall be no\\nlonger heard in support of their just claims. That, indeed, would\\nbe a danger worse, not only thau any which result from their exclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion, but than any which could well be imagined from their admission.\\nWhat, I would ask, is the state of Irish feeling now on this subject\\nIt is well known that in the pursuit of this one object of emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, an intensity of feeling pervades the whole of the Catholic popu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlation of Ireland, no matter what their rank, condition, or state in\\nsociety. They all join in this pursuit with a degree of unanimity\\nwhich has no parallel. Laity and clergy are alike associated in fol\u00c2\u00ac\\nlowing the same object. Over a body thus united, a few individuals\\nhave acquired an influence, by which they have the power to excite\\nthem to almost any object they may think proper. 1 would ask your\\nlordships whether that is a state of society which ought to continue in\\nIreland Are we to hold our laws, our liberties, our safety, at the\\ndiscretion of those individuals Is it a state in which so important\\na part of the empire should be allowed to remain? Your lordships\\nmay complain, that a few persons should possess this power over so\\nlarge a portion of the people. Why, it is not unreasonable to ask,\\nshould a few lawyers, who have only their zeal and their talents,\\n\u00e2\u0096\u00a0possess this extraordinary influence Your lordships will find, in\\nanswering this inquiry, that you yourselves are the cause. The peo\u00c2\u00ac\\nple are united, because they are aggrieved. They associate and send\\nforth their complaints, because they consider themselves injured; and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0382.jp2"}, "383": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n373\\nyour lordships may as well endeavour to avert the current of the blood\\nin the human body, as to prevent those complaints, as long as you\\nsuffer the grievances out of which they spring to exist. As long as\\nthere are wrongs to be redressed, there will be public assemblies of\\nthe people to seek that redress; and, in those public assemblies there\\nwill be leaders, vying with each other in the race for vulgar popula\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity. If one sees that he is outstripped by another, he will endeavour\\nto do something to render himself more agreeable to the passions,\\nwhich, for that purpose, he will be disposed to excite. Do your lord-\\nships object to this state of things Their demagogues are the spawn\\nof your own wrong. You yourselves have created it, and, instead of\\nlooking on persons thus engaged as objects of justice, you should ra\u00c2\u00ac\\nther consider them as victims to injuries of long standing.\\nThe question then, to be considered is, what are we to do in this\\ncase Are we to stand still, or go backwards, or go forwards To\\nstand still is impossible. We must then either go forward, or go back\u00c2\u00ac\\nward. Go backward,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said the noble lord, Go backward re\u00c2\u00ac\\nenact the penal laws, and outlaw a large portion of the people.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellent tyranny, if it were possible. Make war on your own resources,\\nand tarnish the honour of the country, by weakening it in such a\\ncause. War, my lords, and for what War, which, when you had\\ncarried to a certain extent, you would have to begin again. War,\\nwhich would leave you a guilty spectacle to scoffing and exulting\\nEurope. Do your lordships suppose that what is passing in Ireland,\\nis an object of indifference to the continent of Europe Do you sup\u00c2\u00ac\\npose that our excellent constitution, and the unexampled prosperity\\nof our career, has made us the love and not the envy of the world\\nThere may be some foreign statesman who, taking up his glass, and\\nviewing the dark spot in the western horizon pregnant with the ma\u00c2\u00ac\\nterials of the coming storm, thinks not that it will break on him but\\nfor him but I would answer for it with my life, if there should be\\nan invasion of Ireland, that the Irish people will be found true to the\\nking and the constitution. But, why so Is it by virtue of the oath\\nof supremacy, or the oath against transubstantiation They may in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvoke all the saints in the calendar without giving you much benefit\\nby it; but you will be entitled to their support, by reminding them\\nof the events of the last fifty years, during which, in measures of their\\nimprovement, you have endeavoured to counteract the blighting ef\u00c2\u00ac\\nfects of the penalties and persecutions of the preceding eighty. You\\nwill be entitled to it, by the hope of freedom which they see yet held\\nout, and the prospect that their difficulties will, at no distant day, be\\nwholly removed by your liberality.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0383.jp2"}, "384": {"fulltext": "374\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nI am most anxious not tc introduce any topic which has not a tenr\\ndency to conciliation, but I cannot help remarking on the inconsis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntency of the arguments of divided allegiance, and that which is ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted on all hands, namely, that the Roman Catholics are good sub\u00c2\u00ac\\njects. This admission is made without your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 house; but\\nthen it is notorious that out of this house a strong feeling is excited\\nagainst the assumed disposition of the same individuals, by the recital\\nof the persecutions and fires of Smithfield. I do not mean to state\\nthat any of your lordships would be disposed to avail yourselves ot\\nthe prejudices arising on this ground but it cannot be overlooked,\\nthat while many of you oppose the Catholics on one ground, the only\\ntie they have on the public voice in their support arises from another.\\nI cannot pass over in this place, the use which has been made of the\\nname of Mr. Pitt, and the manner in which the authority of his alleged\\nopinions have been dealt with. This statesman, whose acts are well\\nknown\u00e2\u0080\u0094whose speeches and opinions are recorded and matter of\\nhistory\u00e2\u0080\u0094is now held up by some of his admirers in support of a\\ncause which he never advocated. The principles of that right hon\u00c2\u00ac\\nourable gentleman on this question were, I should have imagined, well\\nknown, they caused his retirement from the councils of a sovereign\\nwho loved him, at a time, too, when the country was engaged in war,\\nin the issue of which his fame was committed. Yet, with all this,\\nhis name has been made the watchword of those by whom the very\\ncontrary opinions are held. I do not mean to impute to those noble\\nand honourable persons who have been made, perhaps, in many cases,\\nthe unwilling sharers in those orgies; but I must say, that they are\\ndeeply responsible by whom this unfounded cry has been set up.\\nLord Eldon \u00e2\u0080\u0094I claim my share of that imputation.\\nLord Plunket assured the noble and learned lord, that all he felt\\nit his duty to state on this subject, he said in good feeling towards\\nhim, and without meaning it in any way offensively to him, for no\\nman had a higher respect for the character of the noble and learned\\nlord, than he entertained. His argument was, that it was extremely\\nunfair to hold out Mr. Pitt as the enemy of Catholic emancipation,\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2md to associate the general principles of that statesman with opposi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion to the measure.\\nLord Eldon denied that he had so held out the opinion of Mr. Pitt.\\nLord Plunket \u00e2\u0080\u0094That is exactly what I wanted to hear. But\\nwhoever sent forth such an erroneous opinion to the country is deeply\\nanswerable for it. Another insinuation is, that Protestant ascendancy\\nis opposed to radicalism, and the inference sought to be obtained is", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0384.jp2"}, "385": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n375\\nthat those who support the one are opposed to the other. This also-\\nis extremely unfair; because it is well known, that many who are\\nsincerely opposed to radicalism are as sincere in support of emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. I will now call the attention of your lordships to a book which\\nhas been laid before the public, containing a number of letters which\\npassed between the late king and one of the members of his council,\\nrelating to the conscientious scruples entertained by the sovereign,\\nas to whether he would be justified in refusing his assent to certain\\nmeasures which might be proposed by the houses of parliament, and\\nwhether such assent would not be a violation of his coronation oath.\\nNow it appears to me, that in the lifetime either of the late king, or\\nof the member of the council to whom the letters were addressed,\\ntheir publication would not have been justifiable and I also think,\\nthat the representatives of the noble lord in question were not justi\u00c2\u00ac\\nfied in placing them before the public.\\nLord Kenyon\u00e2\u0080\u0094M ay I be permitted to say a few words (cries of order,\\norder.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099)\\nLord Plunket I meant distinctly to convey to the noble lord\\nmy opinion, that the publication of these letters was not proper; but\\nin doing so I never intended to convey anything that was personally\\noffensive. I must repeat, that the publication of letters tending to\\ninfluence a measure before parliament, by putting in opposition to it\\nthe opinion of the late king, was not a fair mode of dealing with the\\nsubject. When I say this, I mean no insinuation against the sincerity\\nof his late majesty. They are the conscientious opinions of an honest\\nman, and the mode in which they are put is calculated to endear his\\nmemory to the people, and prove him a worthy member of the house\\nof Brunswick. But it is miserable to think of the use that has been\\nmade of that opinion, and how the ear of royalty may be abused in\\nsome cases; for his majesty was made to believe, that he had no\\nright to assent to the measure to which the letters referred, and that\\nsuch assent would be a violation of his coronation oath. The opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnions of Lord Kenyon were those of a sound lawyer and an honest\\nman. What he said was, that it was not incumbent on his majesty\\nlo refuse his assent to the repeal of those acts, when the house of\\nparliament in proposing that repeal considered it for the benefit of\\nthe country. In the same view he mentioned that the repeal of the\\nTest Act might take place without any breach of the coronation oath\\nor the act of Union. His lordship added\u00e2\u0080\u0094it seems to me, that the\\njudgment of the person who takes the coronation oath must determine\\nwhether any particular statute proposed does destroy the government\\nof the Established church. It seems that the oath r couched in the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0385.jp2"}, "386": {"fulltext": "376\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\ngeneral terms in which it is found, does not preclude the parties sworn\\nfrom exercising a judgment whether that he is bound to maintain\\nwill be essentially, or in any great degree, affected by the proposed\\nmeasure. The noble lord thus left it as a case which might be de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncided by the exercise of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s judgment, acting by the advice\\nof his responsible ministers.\\nI now come to an act upon which much stress has been laid\u00e2\u0080\u0094I\\nmean the 30th of Charles II. That act has been made to bear an\\noverwhelming influence on this question for it is contended, that it\\nforms one of the fundamental principles of our constitution. If that\\nbe so, what a frightful step has been already taken for the House\\nof Commons has more than once passed a bill for the repeal of part\\nof that act, and therefore has agreed to a measure contrary to the\\nprinciples of the constitution. It will be necessary to relieve your\\nlordships from such a dangerous consequence as must follow, if the\\nprinciple to which I advert be true. Now I deny that the 30th of\\nCharles II. is such a measure as it has been described. It was not\\nan act passed with reference to Ireland for the exclusion of Roman\\nCatholics from seats in parliament in that country did not take place\\ntill some years after. But I will prove, from legislative records, and\\nfrom the history of those times, that the 30th of Charles II. was\\nnot then, nor afterwards, considered a fundamental principle of the\\nconstitution. It was passed at a period after the Restoration, when\\nthe sovereign was suspected, and not unjustly, of being imbued with\\nRoman Catholic principles. Your lordships know, that the first at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntempt made at that time, in consequence of the supposed opinions of\\nthe monarch, and those that were known of his probable successor,\\nwas the bill of exclusion, and that having failed, the 30th of Charles\\nII. was substituted. Now, what does that act say? It states that\\nmany of the mischiefs that had accrued to the country had arisen\\nfrom Popish recusants having access to the throne; and declares\\nthat as a reason why the oath of supremacy should be taken as a\\nqualification for seats in both houses of parliament. I do not deny\\nthat such an oath may have been necessary at the time but I will\\nask, whether that measure has ever been declared permanent and\\nunalterable The first legislative measure which referred to it after\u00c2\u00ac\\nwards was the 5th of Anne, when provision was made for the demise\\nof the crown; iii the absence of the successor, a regency was pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvided, and the regent was declared to be disabled from giving assent\\nto the repeal of certain acts. The first of these was the act of Uni\u00c2\u00ac\\nformity. Mention was made of the 30th of Charles II., but that was\\nrejected. Is not this a proof that the act was not considered perma-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0386.jp2"}, "387": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n377\\nncnt and unalterable The act that was considered permanent, the\\nregent was prevented from repealing; but with respect to the other,\\nit was left, like an ordinary act, to the discretion of the government\\nof the day. The next act to which I shall refer is that of the Union\\nof England and Scotland. It was by that act declared, that the\\nchurch of England and the church of Scotland were to be considered\\npermanent and unalterable in those countries. But no mention was\\nmade of the 30th of Charles II.; and when the commissioners pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed that the oath should be taken in Scotland, it was refused, and\\nthe words were added\u00e2\u0080\u0094until parliament shall otherwise provide.\\nI have thus, I conceive, redeemed my pledge of proving that that\\nact was never considered a fundamental principle of our constitution.\\nIt was, as I have observed, passed to prevent the danger of Popish\\nrecusants having access to his majesty. Now, the 31st of the late\\nking took away recusancy, and gave to Popish lords the privilege of\\naccess to the sovereign; and if that act had gone a little further, it\\nwould have repealed the whole of the 30th of Charles II., and left\\nyour lordships little trouble on the subject. This act of the 31st of\\nthe late king, was two years afterwards extended to Scotland. Here\\nthere was a repeal of the very ground on which the 30th of Charles II.\\nwas passed. The object of all these acts, and their only object, was,\\nto exclude the temporal power of the Pope: and in all the acts which\\nhave been passed relating to Ireland, there has been an express pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nvision that they shall continue until parliament shall otherwise provide.\\nI think I have now disposed of all that relates to the 30th of\\nCharles II., and redeemed the pledge which I set out by giving.\\nThe noble and learned lord who preceded me, seems to put upon the\\noath of supremacy an interpretation different from that which I put\\nupon it. I think it impossible to take it. My idea of the oath of\\nsupremacy is, I confess, that, in the strict and literal sense of the\\nwords, it is impossible to be taken by any person; for it not merely\\ndenies that any foreign power ought to have any authority, eccle\u00c2\u00ac\\nsiastical or spiritual, within this realm but it denies even that any\\nforeign power hath\u00e2\u0080\u009d any such authority. Now if we admit that\\nthere are Roman Catholics in this country, the Pope must have spi\u00c2\u00ac\\nritual authority here. In the nature of things he must exercise it.\\nWe may deny his right, but we cannot deny his power while there\\nare Roman Catholics in the country. The intent of the oath, no\\ndoubt, was, that it should be an absolute denial that any foreigu\\npower exercised any temporal or spiritual authority, as to the estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlished religion of this country. It is perfectly correct, with reference\\nto that church, to say, that no foreign potentate hath or ought to", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0387.jp2"}, "388": {"fulltext": "378\\nPLyNfcET\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SPEECHES.\\nhave any power or authority, temporal or spiritual, over it; bat, as\\nto the spiritual concerns of a sect, which was not at that time recog\u00c2\u00ac\\nnised by the law, we did not prevent them from submitting to foreign\\nauthority, nor could we do it. And, my lords, I will ask, does the\\nking of England exercise any authority in the spiritual concerns ot\\nthis sect, or could he do so without the sanction of parliament Cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly not, according to the words and nature of that oath; and, as\\nlong as it continues, the Pope must have that power. I only state that,\\naccording to the words of the oath, and to the nature of things, this\\nmust be; but do I mean to advance that this oath is uncontrollable\\nNo on the contrary, I think it most important that this power\\nshould be placed under the control of the state. I think it is a danger\\nfor which a remedy ought to be provided. I think it a formidable\\nthing that there should be an intercourse between the Roman Catholics\\nof Ireland and a foreign power\u00e2\u0080\u0094an intercourse which, at present, may\\nbe innocent, but for the mischievous effects of which hereafter nobody\\ncan pretend to answer. I say, that, when any specific measure comes\\nbefore your lordships for discussion, I shall join -most heartily in re\u00c2\u00ac\\nquiring that the appointment of the Catholic clergy should substan\u00c2\u00ac\\ntially, if not by direct form, rest with the present system of domestic\\nnomination, under the control of the state. I agree with noble lords\\nin believing that danger may result from the authority now exer\u00c2\u00ac\\ncised by the Pope in these appointments; but the noble lords feel\\nthat this furnishes them with a good argument against removing the\\nRoman Catholic disabilities, and they had rather have the danger\\nand the argument, than adopt a course of proceeding which would\\nhave the effect of doing away both. For myself, my lords, I cannot\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2conceive how anybody, anxious to guard the Protestant establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, can refuse entertaining this proposition, or joining hand in\\nhand with me in carrying it into effect. On the subject of additional\\nsecurities, I am strongly impressed with the conviction that some\\narrangement ought to be made with the see of Rome, by which, in\\nthe appointment of the Roman Catholic clergy, a substantial control\\nshould be given to the government they should be rendered respec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntable in the eyes of their flocks, and, for that purpose, a competent\\nprovision should be made for them by the state, not absolutely and\\nindependently, but, like the Regium Donum, granted to the Protestant\\nDissenters. To this last point some objection may be made on the\\nscore of our finances, but I can assure noble lords, that they will\\nincur much greater expenses by keeping up an army, which, in\\nquieter times, would be wholly unnecessary, than would be necessary\\nto support the whole of the Catholic clergy. If caution and jealousy", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0388.jp2"}, "389": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n379\\nbe thought to be unfounded on the part of the Protestant go\u00c2\u00ac\\nvernors of the country, still that is no reason that they should\\nnot at once be conceded.\\nI listened with deep attention the other evening to the observations\\nmade by a right reverend prelate (the Bishop of Durham) on the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject of divided allegiance but I have not been able to collect what\\nhas been the exact danger that he apprehends, or what he thinks\\nlikely to happen inimical to the constitution of this country, through\\nthe interference of the Pope. The only instance I have heard of, in\\nwhich the authority of the see of Borne is at variance with the law\\nof this country, relates to marriages. It is held by that power, that\\ncertain marriages which, according to the law of this country, are\\nperfectly valid, are wholly illegal according to the canonical as it is\\nthere professed. But this is merely an opinion which does not inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nfere in any degree with the civil rights of parties it does not affect\\nthe legitimacy of children, nor their right to inherit their parents\u00e2\u0080\u0099\\nproperty, but only expresses the censures of the church against parties\\nwho are living in what is thought to be a state of sin. This is the\\nsingle instance which has been adduced; but if there had been more,\\nthey would have added little weight of argument, if they had been of\\na similar character. They are altogether too insignificant, as well as\\ntoo few, to weigh in the minds of statesmen who have an object so\\nimportant to gain as the restoring peace and tranquillity to Ireland.\\nMy noble and learned friend on the woolsack has said that the\\nRoman Catholics decline to give any securities whatever, and that\\nthis circumstance decides him in voting against them. He says, that\\nit entitles him to take away from the ranks of the advocates of Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic emancipation, the great names of Pitt, Fox, and others. All\\nthat I can say to this is, that they did support the measure, and al\u00c2\u00ac\\nthough the event has not happened, to which the noble lord alluded,\\nin their lives, it does not follow that they would have refused to continue\\ntheir support, because it had happened subsequently. As to oue of\\nthem, my view of the matter is borne out. It was in 1813, that the\\nsecurities proposed were refused by the Catholics; but Mr. Canning\\ncontinued to support their cause, and this encourages me to hope,\\nthat, if they had lived, they would also have continued their support,\\neven if the Catholics had refused what was demanded of them. But\\nI do not think they did refuse. It is said to be the opinion of the\\ngreat body of the Catholics, that they ought not to give these secu\u00c2\u00ac\\nrities but the opinion of the Catholics as a body should not be taken\\nfrom what is said in public meetings, or from what falls from the\\ndemagogues and leaders at those meetings, into whose hands we have", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0389.jp2"}, "390": {"fulltext": "380\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthrown them. Neither ought it to be inferred from their silence when\\nthose opinions are expressed in which, they do not perhaps, concur,\\nalthough they dare not contradict them. I confess I think they ought\\nto do so. But it is really a matter of no importance, whether they do\\nor not agree to the securities. It is for your lordships to do what you\\nfeel to be right and just. If you think that the measure may be\\nsafely adopted if accompanied by securities, it is your duty to pass\\nit, without any regard to what the Catholics may think of those se\u00c2\u00ac\\ncurities. This, I contend, is one sound principle of legislation. Every\\ngreat body ought first to ascertain what is right and expedient to do,\\nand this being ascertained, to carry it into effect. I am as certain as\\nI am of my existence, that the great Catholic body would not hesitate\\nfor a moment to adopt the securities that may be proposed to them.\\nBut we are asked, how is it to tranquillize Ireland I answer, that\\nif any noble lord thinks the sole object of this measure is to tran\u00c2\u00ac\\nquillize Ireland, he is totally mistaken. The object of it is to do an\\nact of justice. The tranquillity that may ensue is accessory, and not\\nthe principal object. Ireland no doubt will then be tranquil, but\\nnobody can suppose that this proposition is by itself to be considered\\nas a panacea which is to produce immediate and everlasting peace.\\nIreland will still be liable to be disturbed by the angry passions; but\\nthere will not be that hectic fever which makes Ireland a dead weight\\nupon this country, instead of being, as it might be, an accession of\\nstrength and wealth. There are some other topics on which I wish.,\\nto touch; but I have occupied so much of your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 time, that\\nI will now conclude. I meant to have made some observations on\\nthe Catholic Association. I brought a bill into the other house of\\nparliament for putting down that association; but it must be remem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbered, that I did so in the belief that that measure would be accom-.\\npanied by others of a salutary nature. It has not been accompanied\\nby any such measures; and I am free to say, that if the bill for put-\\nting down the Catholic Association were now to be brought down\\nto the house, I should not feel myself bound under existing circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances to vote for it. I am convinced that any measure, other than\\nthat which is intended to be founded upon the resolution before the\\nhouse, will fail of accomplishing the tranquillization of Ireland. If\\nthe discontents and disturbances are stopped up in one place, they\\nwill break out in another. Nothing can repress them but expedients\\nso rigorous that they will be inconsistent with a free country. The\\nonly effectual method of calming and defeating discontents is by tak\u00c2\u00ac\\ning away from the discontented that pretext which their wrongs give\\nthem.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0390.jp2"}, "391": {"fulltext": "ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.\\n381\\nROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.\\nMarch 13, 1829.\\nAt last the hour of victory arrived. The king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech of 1829 recommended\\nparliament to review the laws imposing civil disabilities on the Catholics, with a\\nview to their removal. A second bill for suppressing the Catholic Association\\nhaving passed both houses unanimously, on the 5th of March Peel made that\\ngreat act of humility, his speech introducing the measure of Catholic emancipa-\\ntion. His motion for a committee was carried by a majority of 340 to 160 votes,\\nand in a few days the bill was introduced. Meantime the intolerants in the\\nupper house uneasily watched the proceedings of the Commons, and Lord Eldon\\ntried to pass the time by a motion for an account of the Roman Catholics in\\nEngland who have taken the oaths under the act of 1791, and in Ireland under\\nthe act of 1793. The Chancellor spoke on the other side, and was followed by\\nPlunket.\\nLord Plunket said, that after what had fallen from the noble\\nlord who had just sat down, and after the observations which had\\nbeen made by the noble and learned lord who had preceded him, he\\ncould not avoid trespassing upon their lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention for a few\\nmoments. He should feel it his duty, in the first instance, tQ, apply\\nhimself to some part of that very extensive range, into which the\\nnoble and learned lord who had introduced this motion, and the\\nnoble lord who had just sat down, had thought fit to go; and, with\\nregard to many of the observations which had fallen from those noble\\nlords, he must say, notwithstanding all his respect for those noble lords,\\nthat they wandered much from the subject immediately before the\\nhouse. Many of the observations of those noble lords applied to a mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure which had passed that house, and which was now beyond their\\nlordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 reach, and to another measure, which was not as yet before\\nthem, and respecting which any discussion for the present was, to say\\nthe least of it, out of place and irregular, and one into which he did not\\nimagine the noble and learned lord would have strayed. Hu had sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed, that the word constitution\u00e2\u0080\u009d would have been struck on*\\nthe observations of the noble and learned lord for that night; and\\nyet all the observations made by that noble and learned lord were\\nfounded on the assumption, that the measure which had been recom\u00c2\u00ac\\nmended from the throne to the consideration of parliament would be\\nsubversive of the constitution of Great Britain. If this were not\\nthe proper time (as the noble lord himself acknowledged) to discuss\\nthat measure\u00e2\u0080\u0094if the period for its regular consideration had not as\\nyet arrived\u00e2\u0080\u0094was it, he would ask, right or fitting, that observations\\nlike that should go forth amongst the lower orders in this country,\\nand that the poor, the ignorant, and the uneducated, should be taught\\nio believe that a measure which had been deliberately recommended\\n2 B", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0391.jp2"}, "392": {"fulltext": "382\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nfrom the throne would violate the coronation oath, and subvert the\\nProtestant constitution of this country He would confess that he\\nwas somewhat alarmed when he heard the noble and learned lord say y\\nthat upon his own knowledge he could say that his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent would never be given.\u00e2\u0080\u009d His apprehensions were greatly excited\\nwhen the noble and learned lord had proceeded thus far in the period;\\nbut the sentence ended in a way perfectly satisfactory to him, and he\\nwas sure to all noble lords in that house; namely, that his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nconsent would never be given\u00e2\u0080\u0094to any measure calculated to subvert\\nthe Protestant constitution of this country.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The noble and learned\\nlord might, if he pleased, exercise for the future his talent at pn\\nphecy, but he was not much inclined to attend to the noble and learned\\nlord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s lucubrations in that way; for he could not forget that last year\\nthe noble and learned lord had thought proper to give utterance to a\\nprophecy, when the bill for the relief of the Dissenters was before\\ntheir lordships, and the result only proved\u00e2\u0080\u0094how much the noble and\\nlearned lord had been mistaken. The other noble lord had contended,\\nthat the government of Ireland ought to have put down the Catholic\\nAssociation, and that they possessed the power to effect that object.\\nHe was sure it would be some consolation to the noble marquis who\\nhad lately held the reins of government in Ireland, and to his noble\\nfriend who sat behind him (the Marquis Wellesley), that they shared\\nthe censure pronounced by the noble lord, with all the governments\\nthat had existed in that country since the reign of Henry 11., and\\nthat the censure had been spread out by the noble lord on so large a\\nspace, that but a small division of its weight could be allotted as their\\nrespective portions. He should endeavour to rescue the government\\nof that country\u00e2\u0080\u0094the two noble personages that had been alluded to,\\nand the distinguished persons that had preceded them in the govern-\\nnent of Ireland, from the unfair aspersion which had been cast upon\\nhem. He never remembered a period, as long as he was connected\\n)r acquainted with the government of Ireland, avhen the laws were\\nnot fairly administered; and he would maintain that the vices which\\nprevented the full, and complete, and satisfactory administration ot\\nthe laws of that country, were to be found in the laws themselves;\\nand that it was absolutely impossible for any government to administer\\nsuch a system of laws, so as to give satisfaction to the country. And\\nhere he could not avoid remarking, that no observation had ever done\\nmore mischief amongst the people of Ireland, or had diffused so great\\na disrespect for the laws of that country, as an observation which had\\nMen from the noble lord who spoke last;\u00e2\u0080\u0094namely, that \u00e2\u0080\u009cin Ireland\\nthere was one law for the rich, and another law for the poor; and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0392.jp2"}, "393": {"fulltext": "ROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.\\n383\\nthat both were equally ill-administered.\u00e2\u0080\u009d That observation had passed\\ninto a proverb, and it was regularly brought forward in every case\\nof attack upon the constituted authorities of the country. Now, he\\nwould say, that no such principle had been acted upon in Ireland.\\nHe had had a better opportunity of observing the system of govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment pursued there, than the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s two years\u00e2\u0080\u0099 residence in that\\ncountry afforded him, and he would say, that no charge could be more\\nunfounded, and that the law in Ireland had been administered equally\\nand impartially. The noble lord had arraigned the Irish government\\nfornotputting down the Catholic Association. It was impossible for the\\ngovernment of that country to put down the association by force of the\\nexisting law, or by any law, through the ordinary medium of the legal\\ntribunals of the country. He was therefore of opinion, that the mode\\nof proceeding recently adopted for putting down the association was\\na wise one,..inasmuch as it armed the government with a summary\\npower to put down that body, and to repress any manifestation of\\nfeeling which its extinction might be calculated to excite. If here\u00c2\u00ac\\nafter there should be evinced a disposition in Ireland to rebel against\\nthat law, or to evade it, let not such disposition be imputed to the\\nframers of the law, but to those who told the people that they could\\ndrive not merely a donkey-cart but a coach and six through it.\\nThe noble and learned lord, instead of giving his assistance to render\\nthat law effectual, told the people of Ireland that it was a flimsy act,\\nwhich they could easily evade. Was it the duty of the noble and\\nlearned lord\u00e2\u0080\u0094of a person of great experience and legal research\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\ninstead of devoting his attention to this law, with a view to render\\nit calculated for the objects it was intended to accomplish, to come\\ndown, as he had done, to that house, after it had been passed, and\\nto state that it was so imperfect that it would be easily evaded The\\nnoble lord who spoke last had insinuated, that, under the principles\\nof the existing common law of the land, the association could have\\nbeen put down. Now, it would be satisfactory to him, and no doubt\\nto their lordships generally, to learn from that noble lord any pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding at common law, by which that body could have been put\\ndown. He would not say, that a great portion of the proceedings of\\nthe association was not contrary to the common law, but he would\\nmaintain that an indictment against the association would be utterly\\nuntenable as a principle of common law. It was the law that the\\npeople could only be represented in parliament. If, therefore, any\\nbody assumed a representative capacity, and performed the functions\\nof parliament it would, in so doing, violate the spirit of the common\\nlaw. But the assertion that where particular laws wero framed to", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0393.jp2"}, "394": {"fulltext": "384\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nexclude a people from being represented in parliament, any body that\\nrepresented them for the purpose of petitioning for redress of their\\ngrievances, came within the principles of the common law, he would\\nutterly deny. If the noble lord would point out to him a page in\\nthe common law\u00e2\u0080\u0094in that body of tradition and written law in which\\nit had been handed down\u00e2\u0080\u0094in which it was laid down as a principle,\\nthat any portion of the people of this country should be permanently\\nexcluded from parliament, he would engage to show the noble lord,\\nin the next page, a principle recognizing the perpetual existence ot\\na committee for sending forward complaints and presenting petitions.\\nIn looking at the petitions from the people of England, he was satis\u00c2\u00ac\\nfied that they were entitled to the utmost respect, and they were\\nmore entitled to respect, as they manifested the strong attachment ot\\nthe petitioners to the Protestant constitution of this country. So\\nfar the petitioners were entitled to respect and attention; but when\\nthey proceeded to express their fears, that a measure for Catholic\\nrelief would endanger the Protestant constitution of this country, he\\ndid not think that this house was at all called upon to defer to their\\njudgment on that subject. The privilege sought by the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics was admission to the constitution. They sought not to do\\naway with any means of security, or to take away any of the privileges\\npossessed by the people of this country. But if it were a portion ot\\nthe privileges of the people of this country, that any portion of the\\npeople should be shut out from the benefits of the constitution, and if,\\nto take away from the Catholics the privilege of sitting in parliament,\\nor of filling offices in the state, was to confer a privilege on the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntants, he would say, that it was downright robbery and injustice. If\\nyou should take a thing from A and give it to B, that was an act ot\\nunqualified injustice and so the principle which recognized the ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nclusion of the Catholics as a privilege belonging to the Protestants\\nwas one of robbery and injustice.\\nDid the noble lord mean to say that the people who had as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsembled at these meetings to prepare anti-Catholic petitions, who were\\ngathered at parish vestries and parish meetings, were persons compe\u00c2\u00ac\\ntent to instruct parliament as to the true law on these points Let\\nthe noble lord, when he came to argue this question at the proper\\ntime, go himself into all the points connected with the laws and tne\\nconstitution and let him then show, if he could, that the measure\\nfor the removal of Catholic disabilities was calculated to shake the\\nfoundations of the constitution of these realms; but to say that the\\nlower orders of the people could give information to the house on\\nthese mysterious, he would call them, and higher classes of public", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0394.jp2"}, "395": {"fulltext": "BOMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.\\nS85\\npolicy, was ludicrously absurd. Let noble lords but for a moment\\nreflect upon the nature of the union between Great Britain and Ire\u00c2\u00ab\\nland, and they must at once perceive, that it was a dangerous mistake,\\nto say that the opinion of the people of England should be committed\\nagainst the rights and privileges of the people of Ireland. He would\\nnot say, that at the period of the Union, there had been an express\\nunderstanding and agreement with the people of Ireland that it would\\nbe followed up by the measure of emancipation, but there was cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly a very general expectation that, as soon as the Union was\\npassed, a measure of that description would follow. Lord Cornwallis,\\nLord Castlereagh, and Mr. Pitt, who had been principally instrumen\u00c2\u00ac\\ntal in having the Union carried in Ireland, when they found that it\\nwas not to be followed by emancipation, retired from the councils of\\nhis majesty. Now, let their lordships suppose, that the Union had\\nnever been carried, and that the parliament of Ireland still existed;\\nand suppose a measure, restoring their rights and privileges to the\\ngreat body of the Irish people, had obtained the assent of the crown\\nand of the parliament of that country, would it be endured by the\\nIrish people, that they should not regulate their own concerns, because\\nthe opinion of the lower classes of the people of England was against\\nthe measure The persons who ascribed dangers to the constitution\\nfrom this measure would never think of doing so, if the Union had\\nnot existed; those persons adopted a line of proceeding calculated to\\nshake the foundations of that Union, and to raise up a principle of\\nnational hatred, which, combined with the principle of religious hatred,\\nwould operate doubly against the liberty, happiness, and peace of the\\ncountry. He would now take the liberty of making a few observa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions, in reference to the motion which had been introduced by the\\nnoble and learned lord. He must say, that that noble and learned\\nlord had not dealt with the question with his usual frankness. The\\nnoble and learned lord said, that his measure did not deal with Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland at all, while the greater portion of the noble and learned lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nservations were applied to the system which had been adopted in Ire*\\nland, to give the Catholics the opportunity of obtaining admission to\\neertain offices and privileges, on complying with certain conditions\\nimposed by the legislature. With regard to the argument which the\\nnoble and learned lord had raised on the point respecting the succes*\\nsion, it was sufficient to state the simple facts, to afford a full answer\\nto the noble and learned lord. In the year 1774 an act was passed\\nwhich required from the Roman Catholics a declaration to support\\nthe succession of the royal famiiy. After that act was so framed in\\nIreland, the act of 1778 was framed, and he would call their lord-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0395.jp2"}, "396": {"fulltext": "$86\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention to the form of oath which was employed in that act\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094the 18th George III., c. 6. By that act the exact phraseology of\\nthe Irish act of the 13th and 14th of the king was adopted; and he\\nwould beg their lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention to the mode in which that act of\\nthe 18th of the king was passed in this country. It was introduced\\ninto parliament, not by the advocates of the Roman Catholics\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was\\nbrought forward by two distinguished men at that time, who were re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmarkable for their devoted attachment to the Protestant establish*\\nments of this country; he alluded to Sir George Saville and Mr. Dun\u00c2\u00ac\\nning. That act was taken up by Lord Tlfirlow, who was then attor-\\nney-general; who said, he would give his best attention to it, and\\nwould follow it up through all its details. Under such circumstances,\\nthat act was passed in Great Britain, and, unfortunately, it was after\u00c2\u00ac\\nwards followed up by the Irish parliament, and its very phraseology\\nadopted. What object could there be for that conspiracy, the exis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntence of which the noble and learned lord would seem to suppose\\nThey pledged themselves to support the succession to the throne in\\nthe House of Hanover, but as the words being Protestants\u00e2\u0080\u009d were\\nomitted, it was at once to be assumed, that these Catholic conspira*\\ntors had provided for an-occasion when some member of that house\\nmight become a Papist, and when, the other members remaining Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestants, it would be open to the Catholics to join the professor of\\ntheir own creed, and support his claims to the crown. It was for\\nsuch an improbable, such a wild and ludicrous purpose, that they\\nmust believe the existence of such a conspiracy. After the act of\\n1778 had been adopted in England, then came the act which passed\\nin the Irish parliament in 1782 and he would beg to call their lord-\\nships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention to that act. The act of 1782, finding that the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nvious act of the 13th and 14th of the king had already provided a\\ndeclaration for the Catholics, and that the language of that act had\\nbeen adopted in the English act, proceeded upon the authority of the\\nact of the 13th and 14th of the king, strengthened by the act of\\n1778 inEngland, to enact in these words that, whereas, all such\\nof his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s subjects in this kingdom, and all persons whatsoever,\\nwho shall hereafter take and subscribe the oath and declaration pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nscribed by the 13th and 14th George III., ought to be considered\\ngood and loyal subjects of his majesty.\u00e2\u0080\u009d There was the conspiracy!\\nThese were the conspirators who, by taking this declaration, were en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntitled to be considered good and loyal subjects of his majesty\\nThe act then proceeded to enable those who subscribed and took that\\noath to fill those situations and obtain those privileges, which were\\nthen opened to them on such conditions. He next came to the Irish", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0396.jp2"}, "397": {"fulltext": "JROMAN CATHOLIC OATHS.\\n387\\nact of 1793. In the meantime, the English act of 1791 had been\\npassed, in which the words being Protestants\u00e2\u0080\u009d were introduced\\nafter the words the Princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe noble lord who spoke last had said, that he had known Catholics\\nobject to take that oath. He krfew not upon what authority the\\nnoble lord stated that circumstance but it was remarkable, that it\\nwas the first time that he had ever heard of the objection having been\\nmade. As for the act of parliament itself, it was strong enough.\\nThe noble lord contrasted it with the Irish act of 1793. Previous\\nto the passing of that act, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had pub\u00c2\u00ac\\nlished a declaration, disavowing, in the most unequivocal terms, the\\nodious and revolting doctrines which had been imputed to them. The\\nact of 1793 was not introduced by an advocate of the Roman Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics. It was an act brought forward on the authority of government,\\nand introduced into parliament by Mr. Secretary Hobart. A right\\nhonourable gentleman, now no more, at the time said, that it would\\nbe a good thing to embody in it the declaration made by the Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics disavowing the odious tenets imputed to them. The suggestion\\nwas adopted, and that was the only oath to be found in the act of\\n1793. The oath framed for Roman Catholics by that act, and re\u00c2\u00ac\\nquired to be taken by them, must be considered by them as a degra\u00c2\u00ac\\ndation in itself; for it contained the disavowal of the most abomi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnable and odious doctrines. But the act of 1793 did not first intro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduce the other oath which was at present taken. The act of 1793\\nsaid, that the persons who abjured those obnoxious tenets, and who\\ntook the oath prescribed by the former act\u00e2\u0080\u0094the 13th and 14th of\\nthe king\u00e2\u0080\u0094should be entitled to all the privileges which the laws then\\nconferred on Roman Catholics. From what he was now going to\\nstate, their lordships would see what credit was due to the assertions\\nof the noble lord. In the year 1813, a bill for Catholic emancipa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion was introduced by his lamented and eloquent friend, the late\\nMr. Grattan. The bill was criticised by the agitators in Ireland.\\nThey quarrelled with a great part of its enactments; and they\\ncavilled most against the details of the bill; yet, though the oath\\nproposed by Mr. Grattan was similar to that contained in the act of\\n1791, they never mentioned it among their objections to the bill. Wha^\\nhad taken place between 1792 and 1812 to cause such a change in\\nthe sentiments of the Catholics It remained, indeed, for the noble\\nlord, and those who had informed him that the Catholics objected\\nto the oath in the act of 1791, to state what had occurred between\\n1793 and 1813, that had effected such an extraordinary change in\\nthe opinions of the Roman Catholic body. In the Catholic bill which", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0397.jp2"}, "398": {"fulltext": "388\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhe (Lord Plunket) proposed in 1821, the oath of the act of 1791 was\\nnot introduced in terms; for the frame of that bill was different from\\nthat of the bill of 1813. In that bill of 1821 that oath was not in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntroduced, as he proposed a common oath to be taken both by Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlics and Protestants. The oath which he proposed in that bill was\\nintended, with slight alterations, to be taken respectively by Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntants and Catholics; and such an oath rendered that of 1791 unne\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessary. In the bill which he introduced in 1825, and which passed\\nthe House of Commons, the oath of the 13th and 14th of the kin^\\nwas again resorted to. In the year 1825 there was no such con\u00c2\u00ac\\nspiracy of Catholics as that represented by the noble lords to have\\nexisted in 1793. Indeed there was not the shadow of a conspiracy\\never suspected by any one, until those noble lords went so far back\\nas 1778, endeavoured to rake up the ashes of fifty years past, and\\nthought it fit and proper to cast imputations on the loyalty of the\\nRoman Catholics, who, he would take the liberty to say, were as\\nlittle open to such an imputation, and had evinced as strong and un\u00c2\u00ac\\nimpeached loyalty, as those noble lords themselves. They had\\nevinced their loyalty by deeds, by oaths, and by the continued pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nbity of their entire character. Surely the noble lord would not de\u00c2\u00ac\\nscend to the level of the vulgar and ignorant crowd, and join them in\\nasserting that the Catholics were not to be trusted on their oaths\\nIf the noble lord would join in such a vulgar and unfounded prejudice\\nagainst the Catholics, aud would then require them to swear to abide\\nby a Protestant sovereign, the noble lord would, in that case, be ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nliged to say, that they had sworn falsely and where then was the\\nutility of the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s precautions He had no objection to the\\nproduction of the returns moved for by the noble and learned lord;\\nbut if the noble and learned lord, from the scantiness of those returns,\\nshould attempt to draw an argument against the Roman Catholics, he\\nwould tell him that he was much mistaken. The argument would\\nbe the same against Protestants as against Roman Catholics. The\\noath prescribed would not, in any instance, be taken by a Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic, except for the purpose of obtaining some office, or getting rid\\nof some penalty under the act. With regard to the Roman Catnolic\\npriesthood, it would be found that, in every instance, they had taken\\nthe oath prescribed by the act of 1793. Their object in doing so\\nwas to remove the penalty of premunire, to which they otherwise\\nwould be liable. So when an office, situation, or livelihood, was to\\nbe obtaiued by a Roman Catholic layman, for which the taking of this\\noath was one of the qualifications, it would be found that, in every\\nsuch instance, it had been taken With respect to the Roman Ca-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0398.jp2"}, "399": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n389\\ntholic clergy in the College of Maynooth-^upon which college heavy\\nand unfounded slanders had been thrown out, which he would take\\nanother occasion to refute and expose\u00e2\u0080\u0094not one of them had been\\nthree months in that college without being obliged by the superior to\\ntake this oath. In order to show that oaths of this nature had been\\nonly taken where a necessity for taking them as a qualification arose s\\nhe would move, as an amendment on the motion of the noble lord,\\nfor a return of the number of Protestants of the Established church\\nof Great Britain and Protestant Dissenters who had taken the oaths\\nof allegiance, abjuration, and supremacy. It would then appear, that\\nProtestants as well as Catholics only took those oaths prescribed by\\nlaw when they found them necessary as a qualification for some office\\nor employment. Under the 1st of George I., c. 13, the Protestants\\nof Great Britain were obliged to take the oaths of supremacy and ab\u00c2\u00ac\\njuration; and this act was extended to Ireland by the 6 th of George\\nIII., c. 55 (confirmed by the 21st of the same reign), which rendered\\nit obligatory on the Protestants and Protestant Dissenters of that\\ncountry to take oaths of abjuration. Now, in order to show that\\nthose men, of undoubted loyalty to the House of Brunswick, the\\nProtestants and Protestant Dissenters, only took those oaths when,\\nlike the Catholics, with regard to the oaths of the acts of 1791 and\\n1793, they had a particular purpose for so doing, he would move,\\nthat, in addition to the returns called for by the noble and learned\\nlord, returns should also be made of the number of Protestauts and\\nProtestant Dissenters who had neglected to take oaths enjoined by\\nthe 1st of George I., and by the 6th and 21st of George III., in\\nGreat Britain and Ireland, since 1813, the period of the noble and\\nlearned lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s motion.\\nCATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\nApril 4, 1829.\\nThe Catholic Relief Bill came to the upper house on the 1st of April, and was\\ndebated for a second reading next day. The Duke of Wellington led the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncussion with a distinct intimation that the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government in Ireland had be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncome impossible without Catholic emancipation. The two Protestant primates,\\nCanterbury and Armagh, followed in opposition. The Bishop of Oxiord and\\nthe Bishop of Salisbury succeeded\u00e2\u0080\u0094the first offering his resolute support, the\\nother his cordial negative\u00e2\u0080\u009d to the bill. After a debate of not very remarkable\\nlength or ability, the house adjourned to the following day. The great autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrities of the Lords then, and on the third day, delivered their opinions. The\\nArchbishop of York and the Bishop of Durham commenced the discussion in ser\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons saturated with a thorough odium theologicam. The Duke of Sussex *np-\\nported the government with a very learned and a very amiable essay on l^gal", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0399.jp2"}, "400": {"fulltext": "390\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\npersecution. The lofty and statesmanlike argument of Earl Grey immediately\\npreceded Lord Eldon raging with baffled bigotry, and uttering weird predictions\\nof the endless evils which toleration of Popery would be sure to introduce.\\nPlunket appears to have been on the watch for the old Chancellor, and for a sig\u00c2\u00ac\\nnal opportunity of closing the great argument to which for so many years he had\\ndevoted his mind. This speech ends the debate, which decided the liberties of\\nthe Catholic people of the empire. After a few explanations, and a brief formal\\nreply from the Duke of Wellington, the house divided, and the bill was read a\\nsecond time by a majority of 105.\\nMr lords\u00e2\u0080\u0094I assure your lordships that I have not reserved myself\\nfor this late period of the debate, under the impression that I have\\nany claim to review the arguments which have been adduced in the\\ncourse of it by noble lords who resist the proposed measure. But,\\nmy lords, the noble and learned lord who has just sat down, having\\nrepeatedly declared in this house, at an early period of your discus\u00c2\u00ac\\nsions, and having through the medium of this house loudly and de\u00c2\u00ac\\ncidedly proclaimed to the people of this country, that the measure\\nannounced by his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government wa3 opposed to the Protest\u00c2\u00ac\\nant religion and the safety of its establishment, and subversive of\\nthose fundamental principles of the constitution which had been\\nestablished at the periods of the Reformation and Revolution, and\\nhaving undertaken to demonstrate the truth of these assertions when\u00c2\u00ac\\never the proper time should arrive for so doing, I did think myself\\njustified, if not bound, to wait for the fulfilment of that pledge.\\nMy lords, after the commanding arguments of my noble and\\nlearned friend on the woolsack, and of my noble friend behind me\\n(Earl Grey), I own I did listen with intense curiosity to the observa\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions of the noble and learned lord but I must say that that curiosity\\nhas been completely and agreeably disappointed. The noble and\\nlearned lord must excuse me for saying\u00e2\u0080\u0094and I say it with every\\nfeeling of personal respect for him\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the alarming denunciations\\nof danger and destruction to our religion and our constitution, with\\nwhich the noble and learned lord at the outset assailed this measure,\\nrest at this moment where they originally did, upon the high autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity of the noble and learned lord, but unsupported either by fact or\\nargument, or by parliamentary or historical documents. Before, how\u00c2\u00ac\\never, I apply myself particularly to this legal part of the subject, your\\nlordships will, I trust, excuse me, if I venture to make some general\\nobservations on the subject; I shall not do so at any great length\\nT but, my lords, after having anxiously watched the progress of this\\nmomentous question for more than thirty years, and seeing it now\\nApproaching, as I trust it is, rapidly and certainly to its final consum\u00c2\u00ac\\nmation, I think I owe it to the house, to the subject, and to myself\\nto state some of the grounds on which I rest my support of it.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0400.jp2"}, "401": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n391\\nMy lords, wish to proceed at once to the consideration of the\\nactual state in which the country is now placed, and to justify tht\\nproposed measure on the ground of its adoption being necessary foi\\nthe safety, if not for the actual existence, of Ireland in connexion\\nwith Great Britain. But a right reverend prelate has stated, that\\nexpediency is not a principle on which a statesman is justified in\\nacting; but I think the right reverend prelate was under the neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsity of finally admitting the exactness of the proposition stated by\\none of his right reverend brethren, the Regius Professor of Oxford,\\nthat where no principle of justice is violated, expediency is a sound\\nprinciple of political action. If this be so,! ask what principle of\\njustice is violated by the present measure? Is it a violation of jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice to admit millions of the inhabitants of these countries to the\\nprivileges of citizens. I have always understood the principle of our\\nconstitution, and of every sound and free constitution, to be that laid\\ndown by my noble friend (Earl Grey) and, as I now collect, not dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nsented from by the noble and learned lord namely, that admission\\nto parliament, to office, and to franchise, is the principle, and that\\nexclusion from any of them is the exception, and that such exception\\ncan be justified only upon grounds of necessity or of political expe\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiency of the highest degree. The people in this case claim a right\\nto share in the making and administering those laws by which they\\nare to be governed, and this right can be resisted on no other ground\\nthan that of a clearly demonstrated expediency. They are excluded\\nit is admitted by acts of the legislature, excused or justified only on\\nthe supposition that they were expedient at the time of their enact\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. But if it can be shown that the expediency on which the\\nexclusion was founded has passed away, or that there are motives of\\nexpediency for the repeal of those laws, infinitely transcending those\\nwhich led to their enactment, what pretenee can be found for pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ncluding us from acting on the principles of right, of justice, of expe\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiency, and of necessity, in the adoption of such measures as are\\napplicable to the actual circumstances of the country\\nWhat then, my lords, is the state of Ireland My lords, it is a\\ngreat mistake to suppose, that for the last fifty years Ireland has,\\nwith respect to her civil concerns, been badly governed. Ou the\\ncontrary, it is but justice to the British government to say, that dur\u00c2\u00ab\\ning that period a wise and liberal system of policy has, in that\\nrespect, been adopted. You have opened to her, without distinction\\nof Protestant from Catholic, all those channels of wealth which flow\\nfrom unrestricted freedom of trade\u00e2\u0080\u0094you have given to all classes of\\nher people an equality of civil rights\u00e2\u0080\u0094ydh have enabled her to ao\u00c2\u00ab", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0401.jp2"}, "402": {"fulltext": "392\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ncumulate all the great materials of national strength\u00e2\u0080\u0094yon have\\nraised her from the state of wretchedness and poverty, and ignorance\\nand abjectness, in which the penal code had sunk her\u00e2\u0080\u0094yon have\\nassociated her with yoursolves in the concerns of this great empire,\\nand have kindled in the minds of her people all those proud and in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndependent feelings which belong to a powerful nation, associated with\\nyourselves in those high duties which so materially affect the destinies\\nof the civilised world.\\nSee then, my lords, what has been the consequence. It is this\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094that having advanced in this full tide of civil prosperity, with a\\nrapidity surpassing your most sanguine calculations, she is at this mo\u00c2\u00ac\\nment in a state of political danger and disorganization without a parallel\\nin the history of any other country in Europe. What is the cause\\nof this strange result My lords, the statement of the evil unfolds\\nthe cause and demonstrates the remedy. The state of things is un\u00c2\u00ac\\nexampled civil prosperity, and unexampled political danger.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Where\\nis the cause of this disproportion between the advance of national\\nprosperity and the attainment of happiness and safety I answer,\\nin the lawsin this, my lords, that the uniform course of the laws\\nw r hich regulate the civil rights of the subject, has been, for more than\\nhalf a century, not only in advance beyond those which regulate their\\npolitical rights, but in irreconcilable contradiction to their principles.\\nWhy, then, if you see the mischief and the cause, there can be but\\none course as to the remedy, put down the mischief, and correct\\nthe laws which produce it.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The noble duke at the head of the\\ngovernment has, therefore, most wisely proposed, and you have most\\nwisely passed, a law for putting down the Roman Catholic Associ\u00c2\u00ac\\nation but I say wisely,\u00e2\u0080\u009d only because you follow your process of\\ncoercion with the great measure of relief, which alone can render it\\neffectual. That, or any other expedient which human policy could\\ndevise, must be impotent for any purpose of lasting good, so long as\\nyou leave the great body of the people compressed into union, by\\ngrievances galling and insulting, and which it is not in the nature of\\nfreeborn men to endure without complaint.\\nMy lords, the truth and extent of these mischiefs and miseries\\ncannot be duly appreciated by noble lords who have never personallv\\nwitnessed them. It is not that parties are opposed to parties, or sects\\nto sects, or one part of the kingdom to another; it is not like anything\\nthat I can trace in history; it mixes itself in every transaction in\\npublic or in private life, obstructs every duty, embarrasses every\\ndealing, poisons every enjoyment, haunting every movement of busi\u00c2\u00ac\\nness, of obligation, or of social intercourse.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0402.jp2"}, "403": {"fulltext": "CATnOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n393\\nMy lords, the violent reclamation against the projected measure\\nwhich has been made on the part of many of the Protestants in Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland, does not grow from a religious panic, or any apprehension for\\nthe safety of the Protestant establishment, as in this country; nor\\nagain, from a sordid desire of monopoly, which I do not believe ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nists to any considerable extent in either country. No, my lords, the\\nfeeling which, I frankly own, bursts spontaneously from the hearts\\nof the great body of the lower classes of Protestants and Protestant\\nDissenters, especially in the north of Ireland, is that of resentment\\nat being deprived of the enjoyment of a sense of superiority, which\\nhas been bred by the law, and in which they have indulged for more\\nthan a century; the right of putting out their hand and pushing back\\ntheir equals in their progress to an honourable station in society\u00e2\u0080\u0094a\\norivilege from which they derive no substantial benefit, no advantage\\nother than the luxury of insulting and degrading their fellow-citizens.\\nMy lords, it is this perpetual consciousness of legal superiority which\\nelevates the brow of the Protestant, and corrodes the heart, and\\nbreaks down till it rouses to fury the elastic spirit of his Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholic neighbour.\\nMy lords, in the higher classes of society, this feeling is corrected\\nby courtesy and by those habits which belong to rank and to education.\\nIn this house (although I think I have heard the topic of idolatry\\npushed rather beyond its due limit,) the exclusion is justified on prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples of state policy. It is said, You are very worthy and honour\u00c2\u00ac\\nable people, we respect you very much, but we are sorry that there are\\npolitical reasons which require the continuance of your exclusion from\\nthe state.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But in Ireland, my lords, and amongst the classes which\\ncompose the great body of the persons who exult in their legal supe\u00c2\u00ac\\nriority, the language is more offensive than even the exclusion. You\\nare an idolater\u00e2\u0080\u0094you are not to be believed on your oath\u00e2\u0080\u0094your reli\u00c2\u00ac\\ngion is odious, and corrupt, and unchristian. What claim can you\\nhave to be associated with us in the exercise of the privileges of free\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen What!\u00e2\u0080\u009d says the Protestant shopkeeper, shall I think\\nmyself safe, or fairly dealt with, if a Roman Catholic judge has any\\nshare in the administration of the laws by which I am to be governed?\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nWhat must the Roman Catholic gentleman feel, on the other hand\\nAm I fairly dealt with, and am I to feel thankful when the law by\\nwhich I am to be governed is administered exclusively by Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntants It is not that they are not well and fairly administered, but\\nthe claim and the principle are founded in folly and insolence, and it\\nis not in human nature that this daily and hourly claim of unmeaning\\nsuperiority can be patientlv endured, and the very circumstance that\\nf", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0403.jp2"}, "404": {"fulltext": "394\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthe refusal of the participator is so worthless to the Protestant, and\\nthat he forfeits no advantage by the participation, aggravates the re\u00c2\u00ac\\nsentment of the Roman Catholic, by marking, more distinctly that the\\nexclusion rests upon a principle of useless and gratuitous insult. Why,\\nthen, my lordsj every individual whose resentment is kindled by these\\norivations is sensible that the brand which stigmatises him as an in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndividual, is a religious brand which dishonours his entire sect; why\\nthen there needs no plan of organization to combine all these indivi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndual discontents. The combination, and hostile combination, of the\\nentire Roman Catholic population is formed by the laws; the insult\\nis given by the laws. And then when you see all these individual\\nresentments embodied in one great national confederation, you wonder\\nat this monster of your own creation, and cry out against those who\\ndo not put down the existence of this force, which is beyond the reach\\nof the ordinary power of the state. My lords, persons who, I doubt\\nnot, meant well, but who were utterly mistaken as to the real state\\nof Ireland, told you, never mind, the people don\u00e2\u0080\u0099t care about the\\nthing.\u00e2\u0080\u009d A noble earl now no more, of whom I must ever speak with\\nthe highest respect, was misled by those assertions, and the answer to\\nthe question on the secret committee in Ireland was relied on, Do\\nthe Roman Catholics attach the value of this drop of ink, or of this\\npen to the obtaining of Roman Catholic emancipation\\nThe noble and learned lord who spoke last, has even now stated,\\nthat Catholic emancipation was a pretence used by Jacobins and\\nRadicals to cover their real designs against the constitution.\\n[Here Lord Eldon said that he had alluded only to the period of 1798.]\\nMy lords, if the period of 1798 has no bearing on the present times,\\nor on the present question, why did the noble and learned lord call it\\nto his aid In whatever degree he applied it, I think I am justified\\nin meeting it, and I cannot but observe that it seems whimsical to\\nsuppose that, if Roman Catholic emancipation was a subject devoid\\nof interest, it should be resorted to as a colour for the purpose of ex*\\nciting interest.\\n[Lord Eldon made some further observations in the nature of a disclaimer\\nthe topic.]\\nMy lords, I do not press the subject further on the noble and\\nlearned lord; nothing can, in my opinion, be more unjust than to seek\\nto fasten, either on individuals or on classes of individuals, opinions\\nwhich they disclaim. But, my lords, the fact is now beyond contro\u00c2\u00ac\\nversy, that these absurd and useless exclusions have united the whole\\nbody of the Roman Catholic people, from the highest to the lowest;", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0404.jp2"}, "405": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n395\\nand you have formed into a confederation against you, a powerful peo\u00c2\u00ac\\nple, agitated by the two most active stimulants that can affect the\\nmind of man\u00e2\u0080\u0094resentment for insult to their persons, and for insult to\\ntheir religion. How then do they, and must they act By continual\\nclaim against continual grievance\u00e2\u0080\u0094continual meetings must be had to\\ngive expression and effect to those claims\u00e2\u0080\u0094leaders distinguished by\\ntheir enthusiasm and talents must acquire an ascendancy to main\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain that ascendancy they must invite or yield to everything that is\\nextravagant and seditious and thus you have the Roman Catholic\\nAssociation, with all its dangers- and all its licentiousness, necessarily\\nformed and perpetuated by your own laws.\\nMy lords, you can no longer affect not to see this terrifying state of\\nthings. There exists at this moment, or did exist when this measure of\\ngrace and justice was announced\u00e2\u0080\u0094for it fled, like a troubled spirit, at the\\nvery dawn of conciliation\u00e2\u0080\u0094but there exists, sleeping or waking, a\\npower beyond the state; not a transient tumultuary movement, not\\na casual rising against the peace, but a permanent confederation,\\nresting on the sympathies of the great body of the people, indissolu\u00c2\u00ac\\nbly combined for the attainment of just objects which they never can\\nabandon growing out of the essence of your legalizing\u00e2\u0080\u0094involving\\nin their constitution every principle of misrule, sucking into their\\nvortex everything which is involved in the common grievance, or\\nwhich chooses to attach to it its own interests and passion, bidding\\nfor all the rank and property and talents and enthusiasm and virtue,,\\nand for all the folly and sedition and madness which are scattered\\nthrough the great mass of society; which shall predominate, depend\u00c2\u00ac\\ning on the accidental character of their leaders; holding all the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nponent parts of society in a state of solution, uncertain what may be\\nraised to the top or what may sink to the bottom exciting the oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncupiers of the soil, putting aside the proprietor, arming itself with all\\nthe powerful energies of religion, or defying all its wholesome influ\u00c2\u00ac\\nences as best may suit the purpose of the hour. These, my lords,\\nare the terrible ingredients of that unnatural power which the vices\\nof your exclusive system have engendered. That these desperate ele\u00c2\u00ac\\nments of mischief have not burst upon us, we owe to the vigilance of our\\ngovernment, to the wholesome effects of the liberal policy by which\\nyou have ameliorated the condition of the people, to the confidence\\nthey have felt in the growing liberality of parliament, to the unwil\u00c2\u00ac\\nlingness of the leaders to involve themselves in any act of violation\\nof the public peace, by which they themselves and the country might\\nbe desperately committed; but above all, under God\u00e2\u0080\u0099s providence,\\nto the continuance of peace, and the absence of any foreign enemy.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0405.jp2"}, "406": {"fulltext": "396\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nBut, my lords, this is a precarious tenure by which to hold the peace\\nand safety of these countries. This state of things cannot endure.\\nThe scenes which have passed in Ireland within the last two years\\nmust not be reacted.\\nNoble lords say, Trust to time, and to wise institutions for im-\\nproving the condition of the people.\u00e2\u0080\u009d My lords, there are evils for\\nwhich time or wise institutions can bring no cure; on the contrary,\\nthey must be more deeply aggravated every day and every hour\\nMy lords, in a wholesome and natural state of society every acces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of wealth is a new pledge of public safety; but, in the unfortu\u00c2\u00ac\\nnate perversion of principles which constitutes the character of the\\nexisting laws, the dangers and the mischiefs grow in exact propor\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion to the increase of all the ordinary ingredients of public prosperity.\\nIf I am asked, who are the most discontented and dangerous mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers of society in Ireland I must answer, and no person acquainted\\nwith that country will contradict me\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c Those who have most recently\\nand rapidly been raised to comfort and opulence.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Increase the pros\u00c2\u00ac\\nperity of Ireland threefold, and she will be three times as dangerous.\\nThe vice of your laws changes wholesome nutriment into poison. You\\nmust abandon the chimerical attempt to separate political power\\nfrom those civil rights which are the foundation and substance of all\\npower. You have undertaken the impossible problem of governing\\nrational beings, surrounded by free institutions, upon the principle of\\ntheir not being worthy to share in them; to govern a free people on\\nthe principle of their being bad subjects, or to shut out the people\\nwho are admitted to be good subjects from all share in the political\\nconstitution of our representative government; to rest the frame of\\ngovernment neither upon substantial power nor upon public opinion;\\nthese are solecisms gross, and exploded by the universal consent\\nof mankind; false in theory, and condemned by the acknowledged\\npolicy of every free government in the world except our own.\\nMy lords, I cannot say that I have ever met with any person\\nwho directly asserts that the present state of things can continue.\\nThe noble and learned lord, indeed, has intimated that these evils\\nmay be cured by the force of the common law. My lords, I have\\nagain and again applied my mind to what nas been asserted, or\\nhinted by the noble and learned lord; I have endeavoured to ascer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain his meaning, and to find some practical application of it; and\\nith every degree of respect for him, I am obliged to declare,\\nsolemnly and unaffectedly, that I am not able to arrive at the most\\ndistant guess at what he proposes, even as a means of punishment;\\nbut with respect to the quieting or governing ray unfortunate coua-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0406.jp2"}, "407": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n397\\ntry, it is a perfect mockery. My lords, I defy the ingenuity of any\\nman to find a principle to arrest the vital current of a people\u00e2\u0080\u0099s justi\u00c2\u00ac\\nfied feelings, or to prevent the demonstration of them. It has all the\\neffect of cruel trifling (though I am sure not so intended) with the feel\u00c2\u00ac\\nings of those whose lot is cast in the midst of the terrible crisis, to talk of\\napplying the latent principles of the common law to the throbbing\\ntemples and to the dry and burning frame which is consuming under\\nthis unremitting hectic. Let us not disguise the bitter alternative\\nthis terrible state cannot continue, and it must be put down, either\\nby force of arms or by the repeal of the laws which inflict the griev\u00c2\u00ac\\nances.\\nMy lords, of this alternative his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers have chosen\\nthe latter part; and in obedience to his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s gracious communi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncation, in which he has called on us to find a remedy for those evils,\\nconsistently with the safety of our establishments in church and state,\\nthe noble duke has proposed a measure which, in my judgment, is\\nappropriate and adequate; finding the evil in the unsuitableness of\\nthe law to the existing state of the country, he proposes to correct\\nthe law, and to do that which is the basis of the whole science of\\nlegislation\u00e2\u0080\u0094to accommodate the law to the circumstances of those on\\nwhom it is to operate and instead of leaving us exposed to the risk\\nof some fearful hour of public difficulty, in which those thunder\u00c2\u00ac\\nclouds that hang over us might rush into collision, he has availed\\nhimself of this auspicious moment, while we are in profound peace\\nabroad, and while yet the hostile parties into which Ireland is divided\\nare unstained with the guilt and horrors of civil war, to submit to\\nthe consideration of your lordships the measure which is now before\\nyou. Whether it is fitted to produce those glorious results, it is for\\nyou, my lords, to judge; but in this respect at least, it appears to\\nme strictly to preserve the condition pointed out in the royal speech,\\nthat it cautiously abstains from touching any part of our religious\\nestablishments, or from making any the slightest innovation w upon\\nany part of our Protestant institutions.\\nIt has, indeed, been very confidently asserted, that the Protestant\\nchurch is endangered, and the Protestant religion attacked, by the\\npresent measure. I shall beg leave very briefly to address myself\\nto the right reverend bench on this subject; and I do assure them\\nwith no unfriendly voice. I am sure they will do me the justice to\\nacknowledge that my uniform conduct in respect to them entitles me\\nto say so; and I should be willing, my lords, to lay this bill alongside\\nthe coronation oath, and I would ask to have any one iota pointed\\nout in which the one interferes with the other. Poes it propose to", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0407.jp2"}, "408": {"fulltext": "398\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ntake away from the bishops or clergy of this realm, or from the\\nchurches committed to their charge, any property or privilege which\\nby law appertain to them Does it propose to meddle with any\\narticle of their faith Does it introduce into their religious estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishment, or to any of its offices or emoluments, any person who does\\nnot acknowledge their creed or subscribe to their articles Does the\\nadmission of freeborn men and loyal subjects to constitutional rights\\nviolate the laws of God or the true profession of the gospel But,\\nmy lords, the argument grounded on the coronation oath has been, I\\nthink, in the course of the present discussions nearly if not altogether\\nabandoned, and I shall not at this hour consume your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 time\\nby any further observations upon it.\\nBut it is urged, that though the present measure does not directly\\nattack the church, yet, by the admission of Roman Catholics into\\nparliament, it may lead to such consequences. My lords, the right\\nreverend personages who state their apprehensions need not be re-\\nminded of the caution which is necessary in the application of an ar\u00c2\u00ac\\ngument which refuses a present good, or submits to a present evil,\\nsolely from the apprehension of a remote and future danger; what is\\npresent we know; what is future we can only conjecture; and every\\nright reverend person will, I am sure, candidly admit to me that he\\nshould be well satisfied of the grounds of probability on which his\\nanticipations rest, and of the reality of the dangers or mischiefs which\\nhe forbodes, before he refuses to act on the demands of present duty\\nand expediency. What, then, are the grounds on which these appre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhensions rest First, on the supposition that the Roman Catholics,\\nif admitted to power, would aim at the subversion of our establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment and second, that they might be able to effect that object. 1\\nwill briefly advert to each branch of the supposition. On what prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple is it assumed that the Roman Catholics are enemies to our es\u00c2\u00ac\\ntablishment A most reverend prelate (the Archbishop of York)\\nhas candidly borne testimony to the virtues of those Roman Catholic\\nwith whom he has happened to be acquainted; indeed, the righ\\nreverend bench in general have, in a manner which reflects credi\\nupon them as gentlemen and as Christians, acknowledged the honour\\nand probity of the great body of the Roman Catholics Why, then, m\\nlords, they are willing to swear, and by this bill they are reauired to\\nswear, that they will not use their privileges to disturb or weaken the\\nProtestant establishment. Now, I really cannot understand what is\\nmeant by saying that a man i3 amiable, exemplaryin the discharge of all\\nthe duties of life, and that he is a most worthy moral character, and\\nyet that you will not believe him on hi 3 oath. Why then, if you will", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0408.jp2"}, "409": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n399\\nnot believe his oath or his assertions, look to his acts. Have the body\\nof the Roman Catholics done any act of hostility to the church estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishment It is true, as has been stated by the noble and learned\\nlord, that in -the eager prosecution of their political claims, very fool\u00c2\u00ac\\nish and angry speeches have been made at public meetings, both by\\npriests and laymen, with reference to the Protestant church; and\\nwith great deference to the noble and learned lord, I have seldom\\nknown a public political meeting in which very idle and foolish speeches\\nhave not been made; and it is not perhaps much to be wondered at,\\nif upon such occasions the Roman Catholics have retorted with vio\u00c2\u00ac\\nlence and indiscretion, the acrimony with which they had been as\u00c2\u00ac\\nsailed. But it is too much to say, that because two or three angry\\npriests or demagogues have expressed themselves intemperately or\\nindecently at public meetings, the feelings so expressed by them are\\nin accordance with those of the whole Roman Catholic body. My\\nlords, no body of people of any persuasion could stand such a test.\\nThe Roman Catholics, rely on it, whatever may have been said by\\nany individuals of their body, have never attempted to offer any in\u00c2\u00ac\\njury to the Established church, and they are ready to swear that they\\nwill not. \u00e2\u0080\u009cNo,\u00e2\u0080\u009d the opponents say, \u00e2\u0080\u009cthis will not do;\u00e2\u0080\u009d for they\\nknow the sentiments of the Roman Catholics better than the Roman\\nCatholics themselves, and that they are bound in conscience and duty\\nto subvert our establishment. My lords, this assertion is purely\\ngratuitous; it is not only unproved, but it cannot be proved. To\\nshow this it would be necessary, first, to show that the establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of any religion is a matter of conscience or of duty. It is no\\nsuch thing; it is admitted by every one to be a matter of policy and\\nof state regulation; some will say of unwise policy, others, and I\\nentirely agree with them, of most wise policy. But, wise or unwise,\\nit cannot be a matter of conscience or duty, in the members of any\\none religion to make it an established one; still less can it be a mat\u00c2\u00ac\\nter of conscience or duty in the members of any one religion to over\u00c2\u00ac\\nthrow the existing establishment of any other religion.\\nBut, my lords, the question is not truly put. I will not take upon\\nme to say, whether, if the question were put abstractedly to a Roman\\nCatholic, does he prefer a Protestant or a Roman Catholic establish-\\njinent, he would not answer that he would prefer the latter. The\\nRoman Catholic can have no particular fondness for the Protestant\\nestablishment as such, or so as to give it a preference to all others;\\nbut the question which an honest and rational Roman Catholic has\\nto ask himself is totally different; he says, here I see the Protestant\\nestablishment subsisting in these countries for three hundred years.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0409.jp2"}, "410": {"fulltext": "400\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nI see it embedded in the state, and all its institutions, that it could\\nnot be overturned without the subversion of the state itself, and along\\nwith it, of all the privileges, and rights, and liberties which I enjoy,\\nand expect to transmit to my posterity under it; and therefore I\\nhave no hesitation in preferring a Protestant establishment accompanied\\nby all these enjoyments and blessings, to the wild projects of seeking\\nfor a Roman Catholic establishment, at the risk of forfeiting them all\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094at the risk, do I say no, but with the certainty.\\nMy lords, every Roman Catholic well knows that the Protestant\\nestablishment of Ireland is indissolubly wound up with the establish\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of England, and that neither the church of England nor the\\ngovernment of England will ever permit the Protestant church of Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland to be subverted. My lords, I take upon myself to say, that\\nsuch extravagant notions, which could not be accomplished without\\nheaving the British empire from its centre, do not enter into the con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntemplation either of priests or laymen of that persuasion.\\nSo much, my lords, for the supposed principle of hostility. Let\\nme now offer a few words as to the means of effectually acting upon\\nit. The apprehension rests upon the supposition that such members\\nof the Roman Catholics as will be admitted, that they will be enabled\\nto sway the majority of both houses of parliament, for the purpose\\nof overturning or essentially injuring the Protestant establishment;\\nthat a constituency, of which the great majority is Protestant, will\\nelect a number of Roman Catholic representatives, sufficient to effect\\nthis purpose, in the House of Commons; that a Protestant king will\\nraise to the peerage a number of Roman Catholics, sufficient to effect\\nthe same purpose in this house; that a Protestant king, bound by\\nhis solemn duty and interest to protect his own religion, and that of\\nthe state and its establishment, will join in this conspiracy. If this\\napprehension refers to the representation from England, do they\\nreally fear that the Protestants of England will become parties to\\nthis league against their religion If to Ireland, is it to be sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed that any Roman Catholics returned after the passing of this\\nbill, would be more devoted to the interests of the Roman Catholics\\nthan the Protestant members now returned by a Roman Catholic\\nconstituency. I cannot bring myself to believe that such apprehen\u00c2\u00ac\\nsions are seriously entertained. Do they forget the bill of rights,\\nthe corner-stone of our constitution, which has made one branch ot\\nthe legislature essentially, and unalterably, and exclusively Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntant giving thereby a perfect and absolute security against even the\\npossibility of any legislative measure subversive of the Protestant\\nreligion and establishments Do they forget that the fountain oi", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0410.jp2"}, "411": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n401\\nall executive power in these countries is essentially, unalterably, and\\nexclusively Protestant, affording thereby a perfect security, that no\\nperson shall be appointed to any office under the crown, of whose\\nloyalty and determination to support the Protestant institutions that\\nexclusively Protestant king shall not be entirely and conscientiously\\nsatisfied But above all, my lords, let it be recollected, that all these\\nexclusive powers of protection are exercised in the face of open day\\nunder the control of enlightened public opinion, and subject to the\\njealous criticism of the Protestant people of thjs country, possessing\\nthe fullest information of everything which passes within these walls,\\naud of all the acts of all our public functionaries.\\nI would then, my lords, request them to look at the petitions which\\nhave been laid on your table petitions, I admit, of little value, when\\nyou consider them as arguments, but of incalculable value as convey\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the clear expression of the devoted attachment of the people of\\nEngland to the Protestant religion and to the Protestant church. My\\nlords, in that sentiment I find the true and unconquerable security\\nof the Protestant religion. If, my lords, the wild and extravagant\\ndream of such a nefarious confederation of King, Lords, and Com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons were to be realized, and were even the right reverend bench to\\nbecome parties to such an act of suicide, must they not be controlled\\nand overwhelmed by the indignation of the Protestant people of this\\ncountry These, my lords, are fancies on which no rational man would\\nplace the difference of a day\u00e2\u0080\u0099s purchase in dealing for his estate\\nthey are suppositions transcending the limits of moral possibility, and\\non which no sober mind can rest, as a motive for action in this great\\nconcern. My lords, I own it does affect me with astonishment unspeak\u00c2\u00ac\\nable, that acute and reasoning minds can be so sensitive to these possibi\u00c2\u00ac\\nlities of theoretical and distant, and consequential dangers, and that they\\ncan rest at ease under, and pray for a continuance of, the immediate and\\ndirect, and practical dangers in which they are at this moment placed.\\nIn what does the real danger consist In this, my lords, that the\\nProtestant hierarchy in Ireland rests on a very narrow basis, on a\\nvery small proportion indeed of the population of the country. Where\\nis our safety to be found In the interest which the great body of\\nthe population feel in the state, and in its laws. Millions of people\\ndesire admission to the privileges of citizens, from which the argu\u00c2\u00ac\\nment I have now to deal with admits they ought not to be excluded\\non mere political grounds. They do not seek to meddle with any of\\nthe rights or possessions of the church, and they offer to bind them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves by solemn oaths, not to use their privileges for the purpose of\\ndoing so directly or indirectly. No the heads of the church say,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0411.jp2"}, "412": {"fulltext": "402\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthese privileges which you seek, are incompatible with the existence\\nof the church. You have not done anything hostile to us; you do\\nnot purpose to do anything hostile to us; you offer to swear that\\nyou will not do anything hostile to us we know you to be very wor\u00c2\u00ac\\nthy and honest people, but on certain maxims which we have laid\\ndown, we will not believe either your oaths or your actions; and we\\nfrankly tell you, that as long as our establishment continues, you\\nnever shall obtain your political privileges. Are these, my lords,\\nsafeguards for the church Where millions of our fellow-subjects\\nare indissolubly united in pursuit of rights, as sacred as any institu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions in the state, when the throne and the great body of the wealth\\nand intelligence of the Protestants of Ireland are not opposed to\\nthem, is it for the clergy of the Established church to say, we put\\nourselves in the breach, the only obstruction to your march, and you\\nnever shall obtain your object until you put down our establishment.\\nMy lords, this is a fearful alternative to hold out to the Roman Ca\u00c2\u00ac\\ntholics but it is very wise on the part of the church, to tell the\\nProtestant proprietors there can be no tranquillity for your country,\\nyou shall not be relieved from the apprehension of civil war; British\\ncapital shall not flow into your country, to raise the value of your\\nestates, and to give employment to your people, so long as the Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant establishment exists.\\nMy lords, I do address myself most earnestly to the right reverend\\nbench, most particularly, my lords, to the right reverend prelate who\\nis at the head of the Church of Ireland, whose opinions I know and\\nlamentare so different from mine on this great question,but whom I can\u00c2\u00ac\\nnot address without the expressions of respect and esteem to which his\\nunpretending good sense, and mild and dignified and conciliatory dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncharge of the duties of his high station so justly entitle him. My\\nlords, it has been said, that the Roman Catholic religion remains un\u00c2\u00ac\\nchanged, and that they hold opinions of exclusive salvation, which\\ndisable them from living in charity with others. My lords, harsh and\\nexclusive doctrines may be found in almost all creeds, and amongst\\nangry theologians, but such, my lords, are not the doctrines of our\\nRoman Catholic fellow-subjects; nor can anything be more unlike\\nto another, than the Roman Catholics of the present day to the Pa\u00c2\u00ac\\npist of the days of Queen Mary. My lords, no person of any church\\ncan be so wicked or senseless as to hold or to act upon the opinion,\\nthat his fellow-creature is doomed to eternal punishment by a mer\u00c2\u00ac\\nciful God, because he differs from himself in speculative opinions!\\nThe materials of truth and nature extinguish such monstrous folly\\nand impiety.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0412.jp2"}, "413": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n403\\nMy lords, I will not at this hour dwell on the most extraordinary\\narguments that have been founded on the most extravagant suppo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsitions\u00e2\u0080\u0094that the whole parliament may be Papists\u00e2\u0080\u0094that all the\\nking\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers may be Papists\u00e2\u0080\u0094and then what is to become of the\\nProtestant religion and constitution. I cannot well imagine how\\nthese things can happen, unless all the people should become Papists,\\nand then, indeed, it must be owned, the Protestant establishment\\nwould be in some danger, and from which it would not find effectual\\nprotection in any act of parliament. So it is said, what if we have\\nan hypocritical king, an hypocritical minister, or cabinet of ministers\\nMy lords, it is impossible to deal with such fancies. I know of no\\nlaw which can control hypocrisy\u00e2\u0080\u0094our present laws do not profess to\\ndo so, nor can the measure now proposed expose us to any additional\\ndanger in that respect.\\nMy lords, I have to congratulate your lordships on the altered\\ntone which is now assumed with respect to the fundamental princi\u00c2\u00ac\\nples of the Reformation and the Revolution, which it was so confi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndently asserted the present measure would subvert. I think I may\\nsafely appeal to your lordships, whether the professions so repeatedly\\nmade by the noble and learned lord, that he would, at the proper\\ntime, demonstrate for the satisfaction of the people of England, that\\nthe sacred principles established by the Reformation and the glorious\\nRevolution of 1688, would be overturned by the admission of Roman\\nCatholics to parliament and to office. These assertions have been in\\nevery part disproved by the powerful and unanswerable arguments\\nof my noble and learned friend on the woolsack, and of my noble\\nfriend behind me (Earl Grey). These assertions rest now, as they\\ndid at the time when they were first made, solely upon the authority\\nof the noble and learned lord, and he must excuse me if I say they\\nhave not been supported by any proof. The noble and learned lord\\nhas, indeed, vehemently asserted his entire belief in those opinions,\\nand his determination to live and die in them. I most sincerely\\nhope that it may be very long before he affords this last proof of his\\nsincerity; but in the meantime, I think the public who had been so\\nloudly appealed to, were entitled to, and did expect some arguments\\ndrawn from our history and our laws, to show that they had not\\nbeen alarmed without grave and sufficient cause. My lords, the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nvincing and irresistible reasoning of the two noble lords to whom I\\nhave just alluded, makes it unnecessary for me to go into any minute\\nor lengthened consideration of those great constitutional points to\\nwhich they have applied themselves a few observations, however, I\\ntrust, your lordships will permit me to offer. It has been asserted,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0413.jp2"}, "414": {"fulltext": "404\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthat the Roman Catholics were excluded from the House of Com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmons at the period of the Reformation, and that the oath of supre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmacy was intended to produce that effect. No assertion cpn be more\\nunfounded. They were not intended to be so excluded they were\\nnot, in fact, so excluded; and the oath of supremacy had no such\\nobject. The oath of supremacy was intended as a test of loyalty,\\nnot of religion; the statute of 5 Eliz., which imposes the oath as a\\npreliminary to sitting in the House of Commons, demonstrates that\\nit was merely a test of loyalty; it does not impose it as a condition\\nfor sitting in this house, because it says, the queen was otherwise\\nassured of the loyalty of the peers. They accordingly sat without\\ninterruption until the 30th Charles II. But it was not any part of\\nthe policy of Queen Elizabeth to exclude Roman Catholics either\\nfrom the House of Commons or from office. She was a sound Pro\u00c2\u00ac\\ntestant, as sound as the noble and learned lord, or as any right reve\u00c2\u00ac\\nrend person in this house; she had proved her sincerity by adhering\\nto her religion at the peril of her life and of her throne. Her policy\\nwas not to exclude, but to woo and win her Roman Catholic subjects.\\nShe framed the oath of supremacy, with a view of its being taken by\\nthem. She altered the liturgy from the form of Edward VI., by\\nexcluding those passages relative to the real presence, which would\\nhave made it impossible for the Roman Catholics to join in commu\u00c2\u00ac\\nnion with the church of England. She restrained the intemperate\\nzeal of her ecclesiastics, and forbid the use of offensive expressions\\nsuch as Papist\u00e2\u0080\u009d or schismatic,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and accordingly this wise policy\\nwas completely successful; for the first thirteen years of her reign,\\nthe Roman Catholics did take the oath of supremacy, and did join\\nin communion with the church of England, and did serve in her fleets\\nand in her armies, and were confidentially employed in the highest\\noffices in the state. The noble and learned lord will not, cannot con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntradict me he knows those facts to be true; they rest not in asser\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, but on the evidence of the statute book, of the public records,\\nof the letters of the queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers, and on the uncontradicted tes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntimony of lawyers and historians. I will not mar, by recurring to it,\\nthe eloquent and magnificent statement of the noble earl, of the loyal\\ngallantry of Lord Howard of Effingham, leading the fleets of his ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncommunicated Protestant sovereign, against the consecrated banner\\nof the Pope. James the First, as Mr. Hume informs us, appointed in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndifferently Roman Catholics and Protestants to office. It is undoubt\u00c2\u00ac\\nedly true, my lords, that the policy of Queen Elizabeth was inter\u00c2\u00ac\\nrupted and disappointed by political intrigues, set on foot by foreign\\nemissaries, and fomented by seminary priests and Jesuits but it is", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0414.jp2"}, "415": {"fulltext": "CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.\\n405\\nequally true, that this disappointment arose, not from religious, but\\nfrom political motives. My lords, it is well known, that in the latter\\npart of the reign of Charles I., and after the restoration, the Roman\\nCatholics became suspected, when the throne became suspected cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly not suspected of disloyalty, but deservedly suspected of adher\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to the crown in its designs, first, against the liberties, and latterly,\\nagainst the religion of the people\u00e2\u0080\u0094still they were legally admissible\\nto the House of Commons, although the spirit of the times was such,\\nthat in point of fact, very few were admitted. Still those who got\\nadmission on taking the oath of supremacy, could not be directly ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncluded, and the Protestant leaders were under the necessity of recur\u00c2\u00ac\\nring to this device; the laws against recusancy were in force, and\\none of the penalties attaching on conviction, was a disability to come\\nwithin ten miles of London or Westminster. A person under such a\\ndisability could not perform his duties as a member of the House of\\nCommons, and they accordingly proceeded against him for recusancy,\\nand then, on producing the record of the conviction, a new writ was\\nmoved for\u00e2\u0080\u0094all this appears on the journals of the Commons.\\nSuch, my lords, clearly, was the state of the law as to parliament,\\nfrom the Reformation to the 30th Charles II., and so much for the\\nassertion, that Roman Catholics were excluded by the principles of\\nthe Reformation. Now as to the statute of 30 Charles II., it recites\\nthe dangers which had arisen from Popish recusants having free ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncess to the king, and it contains two enactments; first, that no per\u00c2\u00ac\\nson shall sit in either house of parliament without taking the oath of\\nsupremacy and subscribing the declaration; and second, that persons\\nrefusing to do so shall not have access to the king: and it subjects\\nthe parties offending to the same penalties (amongst others) which\\nattach upon persons convicted as Popish recusants. Such was the\\nlaw. What has become of it First, all the laws against recusancy\\nhave been repealed, there is one member of this immortal law lopped\\noff and second, the clause which forbid the access of such persons\\nto the king, is also repealed; so there is a second member of this im\u00c2\u00ac\\nmortal law also hacked off, and sent to follow its companion. And\\nit is this mutilated part of Titus Oates which we are now called on to\\nvenerate as the statute of the great King William, and which forms\\nthe foundation of all our rights, as settled at the glorious period of the\\nRevolution.\\nMy lords, I do not mean to say that this act of Charles II., how\u00c2\u00ac\\never disgraceful the circumstances which accompanied it, was not ne\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessary, or that the Roman Catholics were not at that time a body\\ndangerous to the state, or that there was any intention of repealing", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0415.jp2"}, "416": {"fulltext": "406\\nplunset\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nit at the period of the Revolution; on the contrary, many additional\\nand severely penal laws were enacted against the Roman Catholics\\nimmediately before and after the period of the bill of rights; but I\\ncall for the proof of any intention expressed in the bill of rights, or to\\nbe inferred from it, that any of those penal laws were to have per\u00c2\u00ac\\npetual continuance, or were to be considered as incorporated into, or\\nforming part of, that glorious transaction. Does the bill of rights\\nconcern itself with the doctrine of transubstantiation, or the sacrifice\\nof the mass, or the invocation of saints No, my lords, the wise\\nmen who were actors in that great event, had no lumber room in\\ntheir heads for such trumpery. They state the various points in\\nwhich the rights of the subject had been invaded\u00e2\u0080\u0094they do not pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfess to be systemmongers, or grinders of theories\u00e2\u0080\u0094they give no ab\u00c2\u00ac\\nstract dogmas on the constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094even in the statement of the in\u00c2\u00ac\\nvasion of the right of petitioning they do not state generally the right\\nof petitioning, but merely that of petitioning the throne, because that\\nwas the right which had been invaded in the case of the seven\\nbishops and then, having distinctly stated the rights which had been\\nactually attacked, and insisted on them as their birthright, they pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceed to remedy the great grievance which had been derived from the\\nreligion of the king being different from that of the state, and for this\\nthey provide a remedy which they declare to be intended to endure\\nfor ever, and they declare the crown unalterably Protestant. But\\nhow, my lords, do they effect this great object not by laying down\\nany pedantic maxim or abstract dogma, but recurring to those lights\\nby which common sense and true philosophy apply the experience\\nof the past to the circumstances of the present; they say whereas\\nit has been found by experience, that it is inconsistent with the\\nsafety of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a Popish prince,\\nor by any king or queen marrying a Papist, therefore they enact, c.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThey call it, it is true, this Protestant kingdomand I hear it\\nrepeatedly asked, \u00e2\u0080\u009cis not this a Protestant kingdom, and a Protestant\\nparliament, and a Protestant government ?\u00e2\u0080\u009d\u00e2\u0080\u0094I say yes, and that ours\\nis a Protestant parliament and government, exactly in the same sense\\nin which it is a Protestant kingdom, that is not exclusively Protest\u00c2\u00ac\\nant, but with the great majority of the population, and of the wealth,\\nand of the knowledge of the empire Protestant, possessing that cha\u00c2\u00ac\\nracter of ascendant but not exclusive Protestantism which must\\nalways belong to it. The position then that there is anything in the\\nbill of rights, or in the settlement at the Revolution, directly, or by\\nimplication, establishing the principle of exclusion, cannot be main\u00c2\u00ac\\ntained. Does the assertion then mean, that the restrictive laws", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0416.jp2"}, "417": {"fulltext": "CATHOLio RELIEF BILL.\\n407\\nwhich were in force at the time, or which were enacted shortly after\\nit, are to be considered as partaking of the same fundamental cha\u00c2\u00ac\\nracter Never was a more untenable proposition uttered.\\nI do not mean to take up your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 time by again going over\\nthe ground which has been so fully occupied by my noble friends,\\nbut I would beg to call your attention to one or two particular\\nstatutes. An act was passed in the 1st year of William III., for\u00c2\u00ac\\nbidding Papists to carry arms; and that being the state of the law\\nwhen the bill of rights was enacted, the grievance stated in the bill\\nof rights is, that Protestants have been deprived of arms whilst\\nPapists have been allowed to carry them. Now it is worthy of ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nservation, that this only point in which it might, with any degree of\\nplausibility, be contended that the bill of rights contained any prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple of exclusion against Roman Catholics has been absolutely\\nrepealed. My lords, the act of 1817, sanctioned by the noble and\\nlearned lord, by which the necessity of taking the oath and declara\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion previous to the obtaining commissions in the army has been\\ndone away, has been fully stated by the noble duke, and by my\\nnoble and learned friend on the woolsack. I shall therefore only\\nmake an observation upon it. By the law of 25th Charles II. it was\\nnot necessary that the oath or declaration should be taken or made\\nprevious to the obtaining the commission this was not thought a\\nsufficient security, and therefore expressly for the purpose of curing\\nthis mischief, the act of 1st William, cap. 8, was passed, making it\\nnecessary to do those acts previously to obtaining the commission.\\nThe act, therefore, of the noble and learned lord is a precise repeal\\nof the statute of William, and a restoration of the act of 25 th\\nCharles II., which the act of William was expressly introduced to\\nrepeal; and observe, no statement in the act of 1817, that any law\\nof King William was in existence or intended to be touched.\\nMy lords, it would be unpardonable in me to go into any discus\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion on the acts of union with Scotland and with Ireland they have\\nbeen so fully observed upon, and the demonstration of my noble\\nfriends having been so complete, that the acts of Charles II. were\\nnot intended to be perpetuated by them; to one document only on\\nthat subject, I shall beg to call the attention of your lordships. In\\nthe journals of this house of the 3rd July, 1706, on the bill for se\u00c2\u00ac\\ncuring the church of England, which was afterwards inserted as one\\nof the fundamental articles of the Union, there is this entry\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nQuestion put, that it be an instruction to the committee of the.\\nwhole house, to whom the bill for securing the church of England is\\nreferred, that there be inserted in the said bill, as a fundamental", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0417.jp2"}, "418": {"fulltext": "408\\n?lunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ncondition of the intended Union, particular express words, declaring\\nperpetual and unalterable an act of parliament made in the 25th of\\nCharles II., entitled an Act for preventing Dangers which may hap\u00c2\u00ac\\npen from Popish Recusants.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It was resolved in the negative. I\\nhave other entries of a similar character, but I shall not now detain\\nyour lordships by referring to them. I will merely state, with refer\u00c2\u00ac\\nence to observations that have been made on the act for regulating\\nthe election of the sixteen peers and forty-five members for Scotland,\\nand which is declared as valid as if it had been part of the act ot\\nUnion, that that act is not, like the two acts for securing the churches\\nof England and Scotland, made a fundamental part of the Union, but,\\non the contrary, the article of the Union which directs that all future\\nelections shall be according to the provisions of that act, is qualified\\nby the words, u until the parliament of Great Britain shall otherwise\\ndirect.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nMy lords, there is only one other topic to which I think it neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary to advert. Many noble lords have said they would be disposed\\nto waive their objection to the proposed measure, if they could be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlieve it would afford a reasonable hope of giving tranquillity to Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland. A noble earl, who always speaks with distinguished ability\\n(Lord Mansfield) has applied himself particularly to this considera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion. He will excuse me if I say, that he does not appear to me to have\\ntaken that high view of the subject to which his eminent abilities\\nmight have led him. He has, I think, overlooked the question\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nOught it to satisfy the Irish people My lords, I do in my con\u00c2\u00ac\\nscience believe that it will satisfy the Irish Roman Catholics, because\\nI am sure it ought to satisfy them, and this, my lords, is the true\\nquestion for a statesman. If he is satisfied that he is rendering jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice, he may confidently expect tranquillity. Hitherto the Roman\\nCatholics have been engaged in the honourable pursuit of legitimate\\nobjects; they have been unanimous in that pursuit\u00e2\u0080\u0094the great body\\nof the intelligent Protestants in Ireland have gone along with them.\\nBut if unfortunately they should not be satisfied with obtaining what\\nis just and reasonable, or if factious and designing agitators should\\nendeavour to rouse them to acts of disturbance of the public tranquil\u00c2\u00ac\\nlity, our position will be totally altered\u00e2\u0080\u0094the rational portion of their\\nown body will not join with them the Protestants to a man will be\\nunited against them; you will no longer have an entire people to\\ncontend against\u00e2\u0080\u0094turbulent individuals you can punish by the law,\\nand if unfortunately the ordinary power of the law should be found\\ninsufficient, my noble friend may confidently come to parliament and\\ncall for its co-operation, in arming.* the executive with extraordinary\\npowers\u00e2\u0080\u0094by being honest he is enabled to be strong.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0418.jp2"}, "419": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n409\\nBut, my lords, I will hope for better things; the Roman Catholics\\nappear already to be tranquillized even by the announcement of this\\nmeasure. I trust also that now that the association and all its irrita\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions are at an end, the Brunswick Clubs will disappear.\\nMy lords, much allowance is to be made for them. They have\\nbeen goaded and irritated; they have been alarmed for their own\\nsafety. On the part of many of them their association has been\\nmerely in self-defence\u00e2\u0080\u0094like their adversaries associating for a lawful\\npurpose, they have been led into excesses which cannot be justified;\\nbut I am full of hope they will speedily subside into tranquillity.\\nThere does not exist in any part of the world a finer race of people\\nthan the Protestants of the north of Ireland\u00e2\u0080\u0094I speak from personal\\nknowledge of many of them\u00e2\u0080\u0094and of large bodies of them\u00e2\u0080\u0094religious,\\nsober, industrious, intelligent men. When they come to understand\\nthe real nature and operation of this measure, I am persuaded, that\\ninstead of considering themselves as sufferers, they will feel relieved\\nfrom the infliction of the nominal and useless superiority over their\\nfellow-subjects, which the impolicy of our laws had imposed on them;\\nand I well know, that those amongst your lordships, and in the other\\nhouse of parliament, who have most strenuously opposed this bill, will\\nbe among the foremost to exert themselves to ensure its beneficial\\noperation.\\nPARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\nMarch 28, 1831.\\nThe great seven days debate in the commons commenced on the 1st of March,\\nand on the 7th, the English Reform Bill was read for the first time, without a\\ndivision. The second reading was taken on the 21st and carried on the 22nd\\nby a majority of 1. The commons then proceeded to discuss the Irish and Scotch\\nbills. The lords intensely agitated, on the motion of Lord Wharncliffe, began to\\ndebate the question without waiting for the decision of the lower house. A dis\u00c2\u00ac\\norderly controversy between Lords Sidmouth, Eldon, and Wharncliffe, occupied the\\nearly nart of the sitting, after which Lord Durham delivered the ministerial de\u00c2\u00ac\\nclarations. He was followed by the Duke of Richmond and the Marquis of\\n.Londonderry, after whom\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nLord Plunket said, that the question had been argued by so\\nmany noble lords upon the side of the house upon which he had the\\nhonour to sit, and they had spoken so stroDgly and so effectually upon", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0419.jp2"}, "420": {"fulltext": "410\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthe subject, that it might appear that he rose to add to the triumph\\nthey had obtained, if he addressed the house at any length at such\\nan inconvenient period of the discussion. Under such circumstances\\nhe should not detain their lordships long, nor should he have taken\\nthe liberty of offering himself to the notice of the house, if he had not\\nfelt apprehensive that he might not have the opportunity of expres\u00c2\u00ac\\nsing his sentiments when the question came regularly before their\\nlordships, and he might therefore labour under the imputation of\\nshrinking from the duty of declaring his opinions, and of supporting\\nthe measure. He certainly could not say that he had approached the\\nconsideration of this momentous question without a very considerable\\ndegree of alarm, but he must avow that he now felt a very great re\u00c2\u00ac\\nlief from that alarm, for he found that what was originally stated to\\nbe an inroad upon the constitution, and a principle pregnant with\\nevery danger\u00e2\u0080\u0094what was declared to be a measure which ought to be\\nmet resolutely in the very first outset, as calculated to introduce a\\nnew system subversive of all constitutional practices\u00e2\u0080\u0094was now no\\nlonger so formidably denounced, and all such grounds of opposition\\nwere entirely abandoned. It was at first stated that the measure\\nwas calculated to introduce a new system; but, after a short time,\\nthat enunciation was given up. At first it was stated that there was\\nno necessity for any reform, and it was now four months since that\\nopinion was announced. It had been persevered in to nearly the end\\nof a seven days\u00e2\u0080\u0099 discussion, and had never been formally relinquished.\\nAt the close of that period, with a tardy candour, or he might call it\\na reasonable prudence, it was admitted that all reform was not revo\u00c2\u00ac\\nlutionary. The principle, then, of reform was no longer knocking at\\nthe outer door and refused admittance; it had been admitted within\\ndoors, and its demands, it was allowed, were not altogether unrea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsonable. Those who did not agree in those demands did not deny\\nthem altogether\u00e2\u0080\u0094they only wished to avoid prompt payment, and\\nasked to pay by instalments. He was at a loss to understand how\\nnoble lords and honourable and right honourable gentlemen meant to\\nmeet the question under these circumstances. He had not heard of\\none person who did not agree that reform was just and proper, only\\nthey quarrelled with the degree and extent of the reform proposed.\\nIhey abstained, nevertheless, from stating how far they were willing\\nto go. The noble lord who had introduced the question to their lord-\\nships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 notice with great ability, and, he would add, with great fair\u00c2\u00ac\\nness, had employed a tone in discussing the subject, and made ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmissions which were not calculated to obtain for him the support of\\nthose noble lords w r ho sat around him, and he had not found a se-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0420.jp2"}, "421": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n411\\nccnder. That noble lord had stated that the claims of the people were\\nirresistible, and that some degree of reform was absolutely necessary.\\nThe noble lord had referred to the opinion of Mr. Canning, but he\\ndid not think the supposition of what the opinions of dead men might\\nbe, were they now alive, ought to guide the opinions of living men.\\nHow could he or any man say, that if Mr. Canning were now alive,\\nbis opinion would not be changed like the opinion of the noble lord\\nand how could he say that Mr. Canning would not now think some\\nreform necessary? The noble lord, who was warmly attached to Mr.\\nCanning, was as much opposed to reform at one time as Mr. Can\u00c2\u00ac\\nning. They ought, therefore, to consider the nature of the question\\nbefore them, aud not endeavour to guess at the opinions of those who\\nwere not alive to speak for themselves. What then did he find\\nWhy, inat the persons who were lately at the head of the govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of this country, of whom he wished to speak with great respect,\\nparticularly of the noble duke who was then at the head of that\\ngovernment\u00e2\u0080\u0094he found that these gentlemen\u00e2\u0080\u0094and he did not say it\\nas exciting feelings of degradation\u00e2\u0080\u0094he found these gentlemen obliged\\nto resign the government, and obliged to resign it because they could\\nnot resist the pressure of reform. To that pressure the present\\ngovernment had acceded; and now their opponents pressed on\\nthem because they had taken up the principle of reform. Under\\nthese circumstances, what was to become of the country Did the\\npersons who, under such circumstances, resisted the plan of reform,\\nlook at the consequences What medium party was to succeed\\nDid those who resisted reform\u00e2\u0080\u0094the reform proposed by his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nministers, and who acknowledged the necessity of some reform\u00e2\u0080\u0094come\\nforward with any plan or principle of their own Why did they\\nnot introduce a bill into the other house, or even into that house, if it\\ncould be done consistently with the principles of the constitution and the\\nlaws and usages of parliament Those who were of opinion that the\\npresent plan went too far, should bring in a bill of their own, aud\\nshould let the two lie side by side, aud thus the public would be able\\nto form some judgment of the comparative merit of the two measures.\\nWas this fair and honourable course adopted? Was it expected that\\nliis noble friends, and the distinguished persons who originated this plan\\nof reform, could stoop and degrade themselves so low as to belie their\\nprinciples, and abandon the measure His noble friendshad been accused\\nof endeavouring to excite in the people of the country discontent with\\nthe government, and at all our institutions. But he would ask all those\\nwho had made use of such language, were the grievances of the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry any secret, or were the sources of those, grievances so concealed", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0421.jp2"}, "422": {"fulltext": "412\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nthat a veil could be drawn oyer them to hide them from the public\\nodium He would maintain that his noble friends had not excited\\nthe people of England; but, on the contrary, by bringing forward\\nthis great and satisfactory measure, they had done much to quiet the\\npeople, by meeting the general sentiments, and by removing the per\u00c2\u00ac\\nmanent and just sources of discontent. If his noble friends should\\nabandon their plan, they would cover themselves with irretrievable\\ndisgrace, and they would bequeath a most bitter legacy to those who\\ncame after them, by teaching the people that no confidence whatever\\nwas to be placed in any set of public men. There would then be no\\nmeans left of governing the country, and it would be plunged in all\\nthe horrors of anarchy. He therefore felt himself much relieved from\\nthe embarrassment of making a choice. He was compelled to em\u00c2\u00ac\\nbrace the plan of reform. His noble friends had come into power on\\naccount of the evils which oppressed the country, and the danger\\narising from the conviction of those evils upon the public mind. They\\nhad found the people excited. The storm was growing, the surges\\nwere lashing, the vessel was heavy laden and labouring in the troubled\\nwaters, and the helm had been abandoned by those who had been\\nplaced at it, and whose duty it was to have steered with skill and\\nscience. His friend it was, who had seized upon the helm, and who\\nwith mature experience had said, I will undertake what they won\u00e2\u0080\u0099t\\nundertake; I will meet the danger, and with a firm hand I will point\\nout to you the haven to which your course ought to be steered.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Every\\nhonest man in the country was bound to assist in this great effort,\\nupon the success of which depended the safety of the state. His no\u00c2\u00ac\\nble friend was calling upon them not to proceed through unexplored\\nlatitudes, and upon devious courses, but to steer cautiously, but boldly,\\nto the only port that was capable of affording protection and safety.\\nHe (Lord Plunket) was not inclined to trouble their lordships at any\\ngreat length at that hour of the night, and under the circumstances\\nof the question, but he must address a few more observations to their\\nlordships before he sat down. The reform bill had been termed a\\nrevolutionary measure. The term revolutionary was the most ridicu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlous, the most dishonourable, and the most offensive that it had ever\\nbeen his unfortunate lot to hear in any public assembly. It was true\\nthat this charge had been abandoned in all the mortification of de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfeated artifice, and in all the shame of detected folly; but still it was\\nsaid, that if the measure was not actually revolutionary, it was what\\nwas almost as dangerous\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was a great and an extensive change.\\nDid any noble lord who heard him, and who was in the least ac\u00c2\u00ac\\nquainted with the history of his country, believe that great political", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0422.jp2"}, "423": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n413\\nchanges were either unusual, unconstitutional, or bad Did they not\\newe, and was not every stage of society indebted for, all they pos\u00c2\u00ac\\nsessed to some great change from what had been precedent He\\nhad not been an inattentive observer of the progress of society, and\\nthe nature of his studies had pretty well acquainted him with the his\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory of this country and the page of history showed nothing more\\nclearly than that from the beginning of its political existence there\\nhad been a continued course of changes, when the circumstances of\\nthe country required changes to be adopted. He found the people\\nof England at all times clinging to one great principle; the polar star\\nwhich guided them at all times\u00e2\u0080\u0094at least through a period of 1000\\nyears, during which the constitution had been preserved\u00e2\u0080\u0094-was the\\nprinciple, that it was the people\u00e2\u0080\u0099s birthright that the freedom of their\\npersons and the enjoyment of their property was not to be injured or\\naffected but by their own consent. They had at all times given effect\\nto that great principle. That was the basis of their free govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, and that principle all the rules and regulations, which were the\\noffspring of times and circumstances, were intended to carry into\\neffect. They never had the folly to say that this great principle\\nshould bend to rules and regulations, but they always adapted their\\nrules and regulations to this principle. Nothing could be more re\u00c2\u00ac\\nvolutionary in relation to this great principle than to adopt some\\nstickfast resolution, which would prevent this principle from being at\\nall times acted on. Looking at facts, did not our history abound\\nwith great changes Was not the Reformation, which altered all\\nthe property of the church, a great change\u00e2\u0080\u0094a salutary change in\u00c2\u00ac\\ndeed, but a great change Was not the act of Henry VI, by which\\nthe great body of the freeholders was excluded from the privilege of\\nvoting, and the franchise conferred on those who held a freehold of\\n40s., a great change What did their lordships say to the Union\\nwith Scotland, which altered the whole parliamentary constitution of\\nthe country? or what did they say to the Union with Ireland?\\nWere not these great and extensive changes He could enumerate\\nmany more changes, but he would content himself with adverting to\\nthat last and great change which admitted the Catholics into the\\nbosom of the state. These were all great and rapid changes. What\\nwould their lordships say to the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s power and prerogative to issue\\nwrits for new places That was a permanent machinery for perpe*\\ntual change. That power had been, perhaps, unduly exercised, and\\nthere had resulted a great abuse; and were they not to exercise the\\nprerogative of parliament, and get rid of that abuse Persons vrht\\ndid not see these things mu3\u00c2\u00a3 explore history, not with the eyes of\\n2 D", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0423.jp2"}, "424": {"fulltext": "414\\npliinket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nstatesmen or of philosophers, but merely with the curiosity of anti\u00c2\u00ac\\nquaries. They did not look at the great lesson which history afforded,\\nbut they stereotyped it, or, like antiquaries with coins, they did not\\ncare for the legend inscribed on them\u00e2\u0080\u0094they valued them for the rust.\\nGreat and most important changes had taken place in England\\nsince the Revolution of 1688. The rapid and astonishing influx of\\nwealth had absolutely changed the whole state of the middle classes\\nof society. Those middle classes now consisted of persons well ac\u00c2\u00ac\\nquainted with every useful branch of art and science; they were fully\\ncapable of forming enlightened views and sound principles upon all\\npolitical and moral questions, and upon all points connected with the\\nstate. This class of persons had been raised in England into aston\u00c2\u00ac\\nishing power, and they now came forward and demanded a reform\\nwith an irresistible pressure. Parliament had to choose between two\\nalternatives. Would they oppose their present institutions, enfeebled\\nas they were by abuses and tottering with corruption, so often and\\nso ably pointed out and exposed, to stand the shock of these great\\nrushes of public opinion, or would they receive these people, the\\nmiddle classes, into the pale of the constitution, and by giving them\\ntheir due share in the representation, claim them as friends and allies,\\ninstead of opposing them as aliens and enemies The spread of in\u00c2\u00ac\\ntelligence among the lower orders, and even amongst the middling\\nclasses, was considered by many to be dangerous to the state.\\nWidely different were his opinions upon the subject: but he would\\nonly say, that whether it were or were not dangerous, certain it was\\nthat there were no means of stopping it. He did not consider the\\ndiffusion of knowledge to be dangerous to society, but the most fatal\\nproofs existed of the inconvenience and dangers arising from a popu\u00c2\u00ac\\nlation in a state of ignorance. The spread of imperfect light might\\nbe attended with danger; but it was a danger to be removed only\\nby a diffusion of more perfect information. Purify the institutions\\nof the country, and no safety-lamps would be required. It had been\\neaid, in terms of exultation, that the constitution of England was an\\nadmirable constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094that it worked well\u00e2\u0080\u0094that it produced the\\nmost perfect moral and intellectual state of a population, and it was\\nthe glory and happiness of the country, and the envy of all foreign\\nnations. He would avow, with the greatest satisfaction, that he did\\nnot believe, with all its defects, that there could be found, in the\\npage of either ancient or modern history, a single constitution that\\nhad worked so well even for the good of the people. He would ac\u00c2\u00ac\\nknowledge with pride and satisfaction, that the constitution of Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland was the envy of all less favoured nations. All this was perfectly", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0424.jp2"}, "425": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n415\\ntrue. He believed that every civilized nation admired in the English\\nconstitution the bill of rights, the institution of the jury, the Habea\\nCorpus act, the independence of the judges, and the impartial admi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnistration of the laws by judges who were independent of the influence\\nof the crown, and lastly, the theory of our representative legisla\u00c2\u00ac\\nture. Having acknowledged all this, he would now only beg leave\\nto ask, who among these foreign admirers of the British constitution\\never fell in love with the corporation of Old Sarum, or was enamoured\\nof the free representation of Gatton Who would say that the British\\nconstitution had ever been admired, out of England at least, because\\nthere existed the practice of trafficking in boroughs, and the privilege\\nof buying and selling the rights of the people These were not the\\nsubjects of admiration with anybody\u00e2\u0080\u0094they were plague-spots to be\\npurified, or vices to be held in execration. If the constitution worked\\nwell, it was not from the variety of its abuses, or the number of its\\ndeformities, but in spite of them. Remove these, and they would re\u00c2\u00ac\\nstore it to its proper form and vigour. How did the constitution work\\nwell Although the system of borough corruption was acknowledged\\nto be a gross abuse, a hideous deformity and vice, still was it repeated\\nthat many distinguished persons who possessed boroughs were people\\nof virtue, and who disdained to use their privileges, or to prostitute\\ntheir possessions to bad purposes. Many persons in whom these bo\u00c2\u00ac\\nrough properties were vested did not act upon the same views, and\\ntherefore some sat upon one side of the house, and some upon the\\nother. These things happened very frequently, but was the British\\nconstitution to be for ever dependent upon such accidents Let them,\\nas soon as they could, take away accidents and introduce a system of\\nsecurities. The physical system of the human body presented a beau\u00c2\u00ac\\ntiful economy of nature, and worked well; and if any accident occurred,\\nsuch as an injury to a blood-vessel, nature accommodated herself to the\\nchange, and some substitute of organ or of function was produced.\\nBut when nature resumed her power, she dispelled all substitutes.\\nThe well-working of the political constitution of England was the\\ngrowth of happy accidents and lucky chances; but these would be\\ndispelled when sound and enlarged principles were resumed. His\\nonly object in getting up in his seat that night was, to explain him\u00c2\u00ac\\nself upon this great measure of reform, and he apologized for having\\ndetained their lordships so long.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0425.jp2"}, "426": {"fulltext": "416\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nPARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\nOctober 6, 1831.\\nAccording to Mr. Roebuck, the Reform Bill was carried by ft coup d etat\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nstruck by Lord Brougham and Earl Grey. History will, however, probably as\u00c2\u00ac\\ncribe the violent, almost unconstitutional momentum, given to that measure in\\nits passage through parliament, rather to the democratic energy and dashing\\ncourage of the chancellor, than to the serene and stately patriotism of the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nmier. On the 18 th of April\u00e2\u0080\u0094in a parliament six months old\u00e2\u0080\u0094ministers were\\ndefeated by a majority of eight in committee on the bill for England. After\\nfour days deliberation, they determined to dissolve; and on the instant Brougham\\nordered the crown and robes, the great officers of state, and the guards to ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncompany the king to the house. Then, and not until then, the premier and\\nchancellor waited upon his majesty, and called upon him to carry out the reso\u00c2\u00ac\\nlution of his ministers\u00e2\u0080\u0094Brougham managing the whole proceeding. The king\\nat first declined\u00e2\u0080\u0094asked how could he dissolve a parliament which had just given\\nhimself so good a civil list, and settled so handsome an annuity on his wife.\\nThe chancellor admitted it was very hard to annoy so good-natured a House of\\nCommons, but the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government could not be carried on with them, and\\nwithout ceremony they must go to the country that very day. The king tried\\nto temporize. How could parliament be dissolved without the regular parapher\u00c2\u00ac\\nnalia, robes, heralds, and army. When he was told that all had been ordered\\nwithout consulting him, he flamed and charged the chancellor with having com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted high treason. Brougham answered with exquisite intrepidity, that he\\nwas perfectly well aware he had, and was ready to take the consequences; but\\nfirst of all, the safety of the State demanded that parliament should be dissolved.\\nTo the sang froid of this declaration, the bluff sailor-king could find no angry\\nanswer. He agreed to dissolve, and a general election took place under the aus\u00c2\u00ac\\npices of the Times Newspaper. \u00e2\u0080\u009cPlaster the enemies of the people with mud\\nand duck them in horseponds,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said that absolute organ of the Vox Populi Brit\\ntanicci. A Radical parliament, elected amid revolutionary riots, carried the whole\\nBill to the upper house by majorities wonderful in an era of close boroughs. In\\nthe debate on the second reading, Plunket spoke the following ill-reported speech,\\nof which Brougham has recorded his intense admiration. The debate was one\\nof wonderful brilliancy, and Plunket rose in reply to an exceedingly able attack\\nby Lord Carnarvon upon the whole conduct of the measure by ministers.\\nLord Plunket said, that he was induced to obtrude himself on\\nthe attention of the house, with the view of attempting a reply to the\\nvery able and powerful speech of the noble earl who had just addressed\\nthe house. He should in some respects differ from the course taken by\\nthe noble earl, for he would attempt to argue the principle of the bill.\\nWith every respect to the noble earl, and paying the full tribute of\\nadmiration to the talents which he had displayed, he must assert, and\\nbefore he sat down the house would be able to judge whether he was\\njustified in making the assertion, that he had left the principle of the\\nbill untouched. The noble earl said, that he had reluctantly entered\\ninto a discussion in which he was opposed to those for whom he pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfessed strong esteem and regard. The noble earl had also stated,\\nthat he had listened to the arguments in favour of the bill, with a", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0426.jp2"}, "427": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n417\\nstrong desire to be convinced by them. Had it not been for these\\ndirect assertions of the noble earl, which he was bound to believe, an k\\ndid believe, he should have supposed, from the tone of severity and\\nthe strain of sarcasm which pervaded his speech from the beginning\\nto the end, that the noble earl\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reluctance was not so very strong as\\nhe had led the house to imagine that it was, and that something more\\nthan a logical difference on the subject had dictated the noble earl\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nobservations. He really could not recollect one objection which the\\nnoble earl had made to the principle of the bill. The noble earl had\\nsaid, that ministers were building a new constitution. He had also\\nsaid, that the bill, if carried, was one which would render it impossi\u00c2\u00ac\\nble for his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government to be carried on. These were posi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions which the noble earl had adopted and not laid down himself for\\nthe first time. They had been reiterated from the commencement of\\nthe discussion up to that moment; and now that the noble earl had\\nceased to speak, they remained as they did before he began to speak,\\nresting only on mere assertion. It had been stated of this measure,\\nwhich had been brought forward by ministers, and sent up to their\\nlordships backed by the authority of the other house of parliament,\\nthat it was founded on fanciful theories, that the grievances which\\nwere complained of were ideal, and that the bill would destroy a system\\nwhich was working well for all purposes of public utility, and endanger\\nthe constitution of the country. To every one of those assertions he\\nwould take upon himself to give a positive denial. He would not rest\\non his mere denial, but would state further, that the theory which was\\nopposed to the bill was improper, and at direct variance with the an\u00c2\u00ac\\ncient established and acknowledged principles of the constitution.\\nThe persons who complained of injustice being done to them, were\\nthemselves the usurpers of the power of the realm. He believed that\\nthe rejection of this remedial constitutional measure, which had been\\nsent up to their lordships from the Commons of England, would be\\nattended with dangers not imaginary, remote or trivial, but imme\u00c2\u00ac\\ndiate, vital, and overwhelming. All considerations personal to him\u00c2\u00ac\\nself were lost in the deep and anxious alarm which he felt upon this sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject. There had been a degree of personal rancour accompanying tha\\nattacks which had been made upon the bill and its authors, which\\nproved that something more than apprehension for the constitution\\ninfluenced the opposition to the measure. Assertions and attacks,\\nsuch as he alluded to, must not rest upon the authority of those\\nwho made them, or on the pertinacity and perseverance with which\\nthey were reiterated. They must be tried by the test of reason\\nand argument. There was one circumstance to which he could", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0427.jp2"}, "428": {"fulltext": "418\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nadvert with some degree of pleasure\u00e2\u0080\u0094namely, that the tone ori\u00c2\u00ac\\nginally assumed by the opponents of the bill had been abandoned.\\nHe could not avoid observing, that the opposition to this measure\\nhad descended from that high tone which it had assumed at the\\ncommencement; and he found that this measure of parliamentary\\nreform, which had been at first encountered as an audacious mea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure of corporation robbery, and as directly tending to overturn the\\nstate, was now met by an admission from every person who had\\nspoken from the other side of the house, with one single exception,\\nthat reform, and in some considerable degree, too, was necessary\\n[\u00e2\u0080\u009cwo, wo\u00e2\u0080\u009d]. He certainly thought, that the only person who had\\ndenied that reform was necessary was a noble earl opposite (the\\nEarl of Mansfield) wo, wo\u00e2\u0080\u009d]. The noble earl was the only person,\\nof all who had spoken on the subject, that entertained such an opi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnion [\u00e2\u0080\u009cwo, wo\u00e2\u0080\u009d]. It was, of course, impossible for him to conjecture\\nwhat was passing in the minds of noble lords opposite, but among\\nthe persons who had taken part in the present debate, or spoken on\\nthe presentation of petitions, the noble earl was the only person who\\nhad avowed himself the uncompromising foe to any kind of reform\\nwhatever. The noble earl to whom he alluded, and of whom he\\nwished to speak with the greatest respect for his talents, had cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntainly taken a very whimsical course in establishing his position\\nagainst all reform, and against this specific measure in particular;\\nfor, after joining in the general cry of its tendency to overturn the\\nmonarchy, and all the institutions of the state, he proceeded further,\\nand said, that the present measure would have the effect of estab\u00c2\u00ac\\nlishing the ministers in their places, and that by reform of parliament\\nthey would be enabled to carry on all their injurious measures against\\nthe interests of the country. The first use, said the noble earl, which\\nministers would make of their new power, would be to go to war\\nwith Portugal; and the next step to be taken by ministers was to\\ncommit the equal outrage\u00e2\u0080\u0094as he believed it would appear in the\\nestimation of some noble lords\u00e2\u0080\u0094of not going to war with France.\\nThen the ministers would proceed to put an end to all the rights of\\nprimogeniture, of hereditary property, and, in short, to adopt ever)\\none of those measures which were perpetrated in the wildest days ol\\ndisturbance and folly that ever afflicted the French nation. This\\nreally appeared to him to be a sweeping course of objection, and\\nne which he was not quite prepared to follow. He was only pre\u00c2\u00ac\\npared to argue this measure of reform on its own grounds and prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciples. With the exception of the noble earl, all the noble lords who\\nhad spoken on the other side of the house, had declared themselves", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0428.jp2"}, "429": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n419\\nfriendly in some degree to parliamentary reform no, no,\u00e2\u0080\u009d from Lord\\nFalmouth]- He really thought that the noble lord had, in part of the\\nspeech which he had delivered that night, expressed himself in favout\\nof some kind of reform; but he found that he was mistaken, and he\\ncertainly had no wish to fix on the noble lord so odious an imputation.\\nAn explanatory interruption here took place on the part of Lord Falmouth,\\nand almost immediately a discussion followed, as to the reasons for the resigna\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the late ministry, in the course of which the Duke of Wellington twice\\nrose to explain Plunket continuing to comment upon a descrepancy which he\\nhad detected between the statement of the Duke on the subject and that of Sir\\nRobert Peel.\\nIt appeared to him that a studied mode of expression was adopted\\nby the right honourable baronet (Sir R. Peel); for he said, that\\nthe late cabinet were not then prepared with a measure of parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nmentary reform, the ministers, under those circumstances, having\\nbeen defeated on the question of the civil list, and apprehending what\\nmight be the result of meeting the House of Commons on the ques\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of reform, did not choose to encounter the event. Their lord-\\nships would observe, that the right honourable baronet said, that the\\ncabinet were not prepared with a measure of reformwhile the noble\\nduke said, \u00e2\u0080\u009cthey were not only not prepared with a measure, but\\nthat as long as he formed part of his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s cabinet, he should feel\\nit his duty to oppose any proposition for reform.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The result of this\\nAvas, that the late administration was broken up under the impression\\nthat in the circumstances in which they were placed, they were not\\nable to meet- the question of parliamentary reform in the House of\\nCommons. This was the inference which he drew from the declara\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions made by the late ministers, and he thought it a very important\\none. Upon the dissolution of the late government, the present ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nministration came into office, avowedly on the principle that some\\nmeasure of parliamentary reform was absolutely necessary; and that\\nthe government of the country could not go on without it. This was\\nall he wanted to establish. The noble duke and his colleagues unani\u00c2\u00ac\\nmously resigned office, because they could not meet parliament, in the\\nthen state of feeling on the subject of parliamentary reform. The\\nhead of the government Avas determined to oppose all reform as long\\nas he continued in the cabinet, but his right honourable colleague only\\nsaid, that he was not prepared with a measure of reform. They both,\\nhowever, resigned, and it did not appear that any measure of re\u00c2\u00ac\\nform, of however modified a nature, had been suggested to their sove\u00c2\u00ac\\nreign, in the possession of whose confidence they at that time stood.\\nTherefore, he had a right to say, that their retirement from office,\\nand the coming in of their successors, were connected with the ques", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0429.jp2"}, "430": {"fulltext": "42C\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\ntion of parliamentary reform. Was it any ground of attack on his\\nnoble friend at the head of the government, that when called upon\\nby his sovereign\u00e2\u0080\u0094whom his former servants, he would not say had\\nabandoned, but had declared their inability to serve any longer, to\\nform a government\u00e2\u0080\u0094he did not refuse to obey that call, and did un\u00c2\u00ac\\ndertake to carry on in that difficult crisis the public business of the\\nstate, on the known and avowed principles on which he had been in\\nthe habit of acting His noble friend had, in the first instance,\\nexplained the principles on which he accepted office, and amongst\\nthem were, the principles of economy, of non-interference, and, pri\u00c2\u00ac\\nmarily and particularly, of parliamentary reform. In consequence ot\\nthe declarations made by the noble earl, a measure of reform was\\nintroduced to the consideration of the late parliament. The noble\\nlord who had just sat down had said, with respect to parliamentary\\nreform, that the breeze had been fanned into a hurricane by the\\nnoble earl,\u00e2\u0080\u009d from whom he was so unwilling to differ. Did the\\nnoble lord conceive that the noble duke opposite was likely to be\\nmoved by such a breeze He rather inferred from the change of\\ngovernment, that the breeze had previously assumed the character\\nof a hurricane, and if his noble friend, now at the head of affairs, in\\nendeavouring to allay the hurricane, rode on the whirlwind, he could\\nnot be said to be directed by the storm. A measure of reform, the\\nsame in substance and for efficiency of purpose as the one now before\\ntheir lordships, was introduced into the late House of Commons. It\\nwas there canvassed in all its parts by friends and enemies it un\u00c2\u00ac\\nderwent a most severe scrutiny, and the principle was adopted by\\nwhat he could not call a very large majority, for it was carried by a\\nmajority of one only. His majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ministers afterwards, finding\\nthat they were about to be baffled, took his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s pleasure upon\\nthe subject, whether, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of the\\npeople, not with respect to that particular measure (but still it so\\nhappened that that measure was in the singular position which he had\\nstated), the parliament should not be dissolved. The people, thus\\nappealed to, expressed their opinions with a degree of assent amount\u00c2\u00ac\\ning almost to unanimity, and though the entire subject of parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nmentary reform had been opened, their opinions applied to that par\u00c2\u00ac\\nticular measure which had been so rigidly canvassed in parliament,\\nand they exercised their suffrages so directly in reference to that\\nmeasure, that their representatives had been termed delegates. He\\nappealed to those noble lords wiio recollected what had passed in the\\ncountry, whether they ever recollected elections to have been con\u00c2\u00ac\\nducted with a greater degree of order and regularity With respect", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0430.jp2"}, "431": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n421\\nto Ireland, he was sorry to say, it was difficult to mention at random\\nany period of the history of that country, during which a state of\\nperfect tranquillity might be found; but still there had been no dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nturbance there since the dissolution, connected with the elections\\nThe same thing might be said with respect to England. He men\\ntioned this circumstance, because attacks had been made in connec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion with this measure of reform, not merely on the government, but\\nalso on the people of the country, who had been accused of unfitness\\nto form the basis of free representation. The elections having been\\nconducted with such tranquillity and propriety, the discussions in the\\nHouse of Commons having been conducted, on the part of those who\\nintroduced this bill, with as much deliberation as any debate in the\\nhistory of parliament, and the bill having passed, after some amend\u00c2\u00ac\\nments, by an overwhelming majority, it certainly did surprise him to\\nhear a noble baron (Lord Wharncliffe) take upon himself to say, that\\nafter this specific measure had been submitted to parliament, and the\\nopinion of the people taken on it, when petitions were presented de\u00c2\u00ac\\nclaring their approbation of this measure, those petitions only meant\\nto convey approval of reform generally. On what authority the\\nnoble baron made such a statement he did not know; but he was\\nsure that if the petitions referred to any measure, it could be no\\nother than the one before the house. This measure having been\\nbrought forward under the sanction of government, and under the\\nsanction of his majesty, as implied in his authorising the government\\nto propose it, and having passed through the House of Commons,\\ncertainly was entitled to be treated with a great degree of courtesy\\nby their lordships. He did admit that their lordships were fully\\nentitled to canvass the measure in all its parts, freely and fearlessly,\\nin the exercise of their duty. But although their lordships were in\\nthe exercise of their undoubted privilege in the present circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, they were to recollect that they were sitting in judgment on\\nthe people of England, and on a subject peculiarly\u00e2\u0080\u0094and so far as\\nany subject that could come before their lordships couldj be, exclu\u00c2\u00ac\\nsively\u00e2\u0080\u0094relating to the privileges of the other house of parliament.\\nHe, therefore, could not too anxiously implore their lordships to con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsider well, before they adopted the desperate experiment of rejecting\\nthis measure, what were the consequences which might result from\\nthat rejection. He was satified their lordships would think, that\\nwhatever might be the ultimate fate of the measure, it was entitled\\nto receive the most respectful attention of the house. A good deal\\nof sarcasm had been thrown out in that place against the people\\no f England. He again said, that there had been some smart", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0431.jp2"}, "432": {"fulltext": "422\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nsarcasms and polished epigrams thrown out against the people of\\nEngland; the noble lord opposite had got up a great deal of\\npointed irony and polished epigram, though he had omitted to touch\\nany real part of the subject, at the expense of the people of England.\\nBut he (Lord Plunket) would say, that that people, whose petitions\\nhad been sent up in such numbers to their lordships, and whose rights\\nwere involved in this question, were no light, giddy, and fantastic\\nmultitude\u00e2\u0080\u0094no rabble labouring under a temporary delusion, but a\\ngreat nation, intelligent, moral, instructed, wealthy\u00e2\u0080\u0094a nation as much\\nentitled to respect, and with as many claims to favourable considera\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, as any nation in ancient or modern times. Therefore when\\nnoble lords attacked this measure, and said that if it was carried, it\\nwould give the people of England the means of overthrowing the\\nthrone and the church, and abolishing all our venerable institutions,\\nhe would ask those noble lords, if such were the effects to be appre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhended from the measure if it were carried, what would be the effects\\nif it were not canned But he affirmed that the charge was totally\\nuntrue. The people of England had no such objects. They were\\ntoo sensible to indulge any such rash schemes. But if our institu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntions were such that they could not be sustained without repressing\\nthe just complaints of the people, why, he w r ould say, they were not\\nworth the tax we paid for them. But he again said, that the charge\\nwas a libel upon the people of England; it was an attack upon the\\ncharacter of the country, which was as dangerous as it was untrue.\\nThen the matter for their lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 consideration w T as, whether they had\\nreason to think that this was a mere popular burst, which would soon\\ndie away, and that all would become calm again in (as a noble lord\\nsaid the other night) about two years that they were consulting the\\ninterest, and the tranquillity, and the safety of the country by reject\u00c2\u00ac\\ning this measure; that the Commons house of parliament, which had\\npassed this bill by a large majority, Tvas ready to recede from the\\nmeasure, and that the people of England were disposed to abandon\\nit. -If their lordships rejected the measure, and they got locked in\\nthe wheels of the other house of parliament, so that they could not\\ngo on, what would be the consequence The noble lord had said\\nthat the only consideration for their lordships was, whether this was\\nor was not a right measure, and that they were not to look at conse\u00c2\u00ac\\nquences. This was a doctrine almost too monstrous, he should have\\nthought, for a sane man. If the wheels of the government w^ere to\\nbe stopped in the way he had mentioned, how could the government\\ngo ou The noble baron did not argue the principle of the measure,\\nhe went into the details, and contended that the inconveniences", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0432.jp2"}, "433": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n423\\nof the measure being certain, their lordships were bound to shut their\\neves against the consequences of rejecting it, and to stand secure\\namidst the wreck of elements\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nShould nature\u00e2\u0080\u0099s frame in ruins fall,\\nAnd Chaos o\u00e2\u0080\u0099er the sinking ball\\nResume primeval sway,\\nHis courage chance and fate defies,\\nNor feels the wreck of earth and skies\\nObstruct his destined way.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThose lines of the poet exactly described the feelings and conduct of\\nthe noble lord. But he (Lord Plunket) would affirm, that they\\nwere bound to consider consequences and he would call the attention\\nof their lordships to what the consequences would be if they rejected\\nthis bill, under circumstances which would prevent the introduction\\nof a measure of equal efficacy. Where, he would ask their lordships,\\nwere they to look for strength, on the dissolution of the present govern^\\nment The noble duke opposite was one of the first persons to\\nwhom the eyes of the public would be directed in such a case. It\\nwas with reference to this that he had been so particular in endea\u00c2\u00ac\\nvouring to ascertain the exact words used by the noble duke on a\\ncertain occasion. But if the noble duke was then unable to go on\\nwith the government of the country, because at that period he had\\nlost the confidence of the House of Commons, and was apprehensive\\nof what might be the result of that loss of confidence, did the noble\\nduke conceive that he was now restored to the confidence of the\\nHouse of Commons, and that he had a better chance now than before\\nof parrying the question of reform He (Lord Plunket) did not\\nthink so; and great as might be the misfortune to the country, that\\nthe noble duke should be prevented from carrying on the business of\\nthe country, he did not conceive how the noble duke could join other\\nmembers of his own party who had declared for partial reform. As\\nto the noble earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), the noble duke could not\\ncalculate on him, because he had not got into the kitchen. He\\nwould ask their lordships whether they seriously thought there was\\nany chance of safety to the country if this measure were rejected\\nWhen noble lords made violent appeals, and called upon the reve\u00c2\u00ac\\nrend bench to attest their solemn appeal to Providence, he hoped\\nthey would ask their own conscience, at that retired hour, when the\\nstill small voice of nature was heard, and then consider whether they\\nwere satisfied with their own conduct, and were convinced they were pur\u00c2\u00ac\\nsuing a course which was likely to be productive of safety and benefit\\nto their country. Let him (Lord Plunket) not be accused of offering", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0433.jp2"}, "434": {"fulltext": "424\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\na threat; it would be presumptuous in him to hold such language.\\nNo threats were likely to influence their lordships; no threats of\\npopular violence or insurrection should have, or ought to have any\\neffect upon the noble lords in that house. He trusted that any one\\nthere would be ready to join heart and hand in giving assistance to\\nthe government of the country, in resisting everything tending to\\ninsurrection. But the danger was, that things might come to such\\na pass that the government could not go on\u00e2\u0080\u0094that we should be re\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced to a state of utter anarchy. These were questions which noble\\nlords, who made those appeals to the reverend bench, should put to\\ntheir own minds; for though they might withstand a sudden explo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsion of popular fury, there was a deeply-seated sense of wrong ready\\nto burst forth in the hour of danger, which impressed minds of most\\nfortitude with a sense of terror. Many of their lordships, he thought,\\nmight be reconciled to the measure, if he could find arguments to\\nshow that it was necessary to the security of the institutions of the\\ncountry. He should, therefore, in pursuance of the promise he had\\nmade, now proceed to call the attention of their lordships to the\\nnature of the case before them. What was their lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 place in\\nthe constitution They were invested with noble and high privi\u00c2\u00ac\\nleges as a branch of the legislature they v\\\\ ere the hereditary coun\u00c2\u00ac\\nsellors of the crown they were the highest judicial court of appeal\\nin civil and criminal cases, and, from their character, growing out of\\ntheir station, rank, and place in the country, they were entitled to\\nthe respect and reverence of the country. Their lordships must not\\nbelieve that he flattered them, when he assured them, that they stood\\nas high in the opinion of the country as any branch of the legislature.\\nThen, were any of these high privileges assailed No; but wfiat\\nthey claimed was a share in the representation of the country. There\\nmight be cases in which, for the sake of avoiding mischief, and in\\ndischarge of their duty to themselves and to the crown, they ought\\nto resist the demands of the people. But was this one of those\\ncases If a struggle took place, could their lordships resist the right\\nof the people to a full and fair representation in parliament Do\\nas you would be done by,\u00e2\u0080\u009d was a simple and sublime maxim whicli\\nvindicated its divine origin; Do as you would be done by,\u00e2\u0080\u009d and\\nhe would ask their lordships if the people claimed any of the privi\u00c2\u00ac\\nleges of the crown or of the House of Lords, if they interfered with\\ntheir lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 hereditary titles, would their lordships be disposed to\\nsubmit quietly to the invasion Suppose, they had got possessiou\\nof those privileges, and an act of parliament was introduced for\\nrestoring them to their rightful owners, would their lordships think", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0434.jp2"}, "435": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n425\\nthemselves fairly treated if the House of Commons, standing on no\\nother plea than their power to do so, threw out the bill Their\\nlordships in such a case must submit; but would it be a sincere, a\\ncheerful submission t They would submit, but it would be only be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause they could not help submitting. Then the two cases ran\\nexactly parallel; the people of England were as much entitled by\\nlaw to a full and fair representation in the House of Commons as\\ntheir lordships to their seats in that house. The principle contended\\nfor by noble lords was an unintelligible principle; it was a claim on\\nthe part of an oligarchy\u00e2\u0080\u0094to what to a right to return a part of\\nthe democracy. The principle was wholly unintelligible; and he\\ndefied any phrenologist to point out an organ which could compre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhend such an anamoly. He did not think that the accidental circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance of some members of that house having got possession of a few\\nplaces in the other house of parliament, was any reason why their\\nlordships should consider it unjust to restore them. He had thus\\ngot rid of the objection as to any operation of this measure against\\nthe privileges of that house. He then came to the rights of the\\nthrone. All knew what the rights of the throne were. This measure\\ndid not interfere with any of the rights of the throne. He was not\\naware that any language had been used to deny the rights of the\\nthrone, the prerogative of dissolving parliament, or calling up to that\\nhouse those in whose favour it might think fit to exercise that pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nrogative. There was no doubt that the king had the right and preroga\u00c2\u00ac\\ntive of making himself known to his people and erecting a throne in\\ntheir hearts. He thought that what bad been said upon this subject\\nwas unconstitutional trash. The king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s name was not to be used to\\nimpute personal blame and responsibility. The king could do no\\nwrong but, to say that the King of England, the representative of\\nthe house of Brunswick, which had been invited to this country to\\nprotect its rights and liberties, had not a right to make himself known\\nto his subjects as their father and protector, was trash. The King\\nof England was not like an eastern monarch; we were not to look at\\na king as an abstract idea he was entitled to make himself known,\\nand to show that a King of Eugland could be the father of his peo\u00c2\u00ac\\nple. He had said more than was necessary on this point, because so\\nmuch had been said respecting the dangers which threatened the\\nrights of the crown, and history had been resorted to for no other\\npurpose than to pervert facts. Our kings in former times had issued\\ntheir writs, calling on certain inhabitants of counties to return mem\u00c2\u00ac\\nbers to parliament, in order to advise the king as to what taxes\\nshould be laid on. A right had been given to places to return menit", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0435.jp2"}, "436": {"fulltext": "426\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nbers, and other places had ceased to have representatives. An in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance of the latter had not occurred since Richard II., but the former\\npractice continued till a much later period. All this, however, had\\nno concern with the subject, and It was throwing away time to dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ncuss it. But, although the prerogative of the king was not affected\\nby the abolition of nomination boroughs, yet it was said, if the govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment could not be carried on without them, what was to be done\\nHe should like to know, how the power of buying and selling seats,\\nand the sellers putting the money in their pockets, could have any\\nbearing on the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government. Was it quite certain, that though\\none set of buyers of boroughs might be well disposed to the crown,\\nand might combine together for the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s service and the public\\ngood, there might not be other combinations not quite so pure If the\\nking\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government could only be carried on in that manner, he\\nthought it would be quite as well that the king should carry on his\\nown government. But it was not necessary for the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. But it was said that these boroughs were not only a neces\u00c2\u00ac\\nsary protection against the king, but against the people for, that if\\nthe people were fairly and properly represented, the government\\ncould not go on, and the House of Commons would swallow up all\\npower. This was a most extraordinary doctrine. It came to no\\nmore nor less than this\u00e2\u0080\u0094that this was not a representative govern\u00c2\u00ac\\nment and he would ask, if that was a thing to be received by the\\npeople of England with acquiescence and satisfaction Ours was\\nessentially a representative government. In such a government the\\npeople had no right to intervene in the duties of the executive go\u00c2\u00ac\\nvernment if they did, that would be a democracy; but they had a\\nright to be fully and fairly represented. If the people were alto\u00c2\u00ac\\ngether excluded, the government would be an aristocracy; if they\\nregulated the whole government, and interfered with the executive,\\nthat would be a democracy. A full aud fair representation of the\\npeople, united with an aristocracy and an executive with which the\\npeople did not interfere, was the true nature of our government; and\\none element of that government, without trenching on the others,\\nthis bill restored. It gave a full and fair representation to the people\\nadapted to the present circumstances of the country. It had been\\nsaid by noble lords opposite, that this was a new constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094that\\nministers were unmaking the constitution\u00e2\u0080\u0094and they were indeed\\ndoiug so, if the doctrine he had referred to was not correct It\\nwas said, that if the people were fairly represented, the king would\\nnot be safe on his throne; but the doctrine was too monstrous to be\\nmaintained. It was not at that period of enlarged knowledge and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0436.jp2"}, "437": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n427\\nreflection, that such a doctrine could be promulgated, without the\\ndanger of arousing in the country, from one end to the other, the deep\u00c2\u00ac\\nest excitement. So far from innovation, they were reverting to the\\nold and established, and acknowledged theory of the constitution, and\\nthose who opposed the change were hostile to that established theory.\\nWhen the noble earl (Falmouth) called on the reverend bench to de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfend the present system, he called upon Christian prelates to defend\\na system of hypocrisy but he (Lord Plunket) called on that bench,\\nby the same strong and sacred obligations, to join him in supporting\\nthat which was the real constitution. If their theory was the true\\none, where was it proved to be so For it was not one of those\\ntruths which lie upon the surface. None of our own writers; some\\nforeigner had discovered it. How the noble lord had come by it, it\\nwas not possible to imagine. Here were gentlemen buying and sell\u00c2\u00ac\\ning places in parliament for 5000L or 12,000\u00c2\u00a3., which enabled them\\nto come in there, and move on the axis of their own particular in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterests. They revolved in cycles and epicycles, with more satellites\\nabout them than any planet discovered by Olbers or Herschell or any\\none else; and when it was intended to deprive the favoured inhabi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntants of A and B of the light of those luminaries, it was supposed\\nthat the laws of nature were about to be repealed. These were the\\nmen who, in defiance of the king and the country, would uphold this\\nsystem for the exclusive benefit of themselves, and oppose a measure\\nwhich had received the sanction of the House of Commons and of the\\ncountry. And now one word with respect to the allegations\u00e2\u0080\u0094for to\\ncall them arguments would be bitter irony\u00e2\u0080\u0094of noble lords, founded\\non the great changes which the bill, according to them, would intro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduce into the established institutions of the country. These insti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntutions,\u00e2\u0080\u009d say they, \u00e2\u0080\u009chave been framed by our wise and venerated\\nancestors to last for ever\u00e2\u0080\u0094the country has flourished under their influ\u00c2\u00ac\\nence, and oh 1 beware, you puny moderns, and do not touch with your\\nrash hands what has received the sanction of time, and been formed in\\nthe spirit of the wisdom of antiquity.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now, let him ask these sapient\\nexpounders of the wisdom of our ancestors, whether the world had\\ngrown older or younger since our ancestors followed tneir ancestors to\\nthe tomb To believe these noble lords, the world was every day\\ngrowing younger, and the old age of the world was its mfancy. With\\nthem, groping in the dark, was light and wisdom; and experience\\nbut another name for youthful ignorance. Indeed, he was sure that\\nif he divided the house on the question, whether the world was not\\nactually younger and less experienced in the year 1 than in 1831, he\\nwas sure that many noble lords opposite must vote in the affirmative.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0437.jp2"}, "438": {"fulltext": "428\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s SPEECHES.\\nWhat, if our ancestors were as blind worshippers of their ancestors\\nas noble lords, wise in their generation, would fain just now persuade\\nus to be of theirs, was no advantage to be taken of increased knowledge\\n*\u00e2\u0080\u0094of increased experience\u00e2\u0080\u0094of the relations of society being better\\nUnderstood because contemplated under a greater variety of aspects\\nWere circumstances, the growth of time, and change, the growth of\\nboth, in the habits of thought and action in the people\u00e2\u0080\u0094and the in\u00c2\u00ac\\ncreased and increasing diffusion of knowledge\u00e2\u0080\u0094and, above all, was\\ntime, the great innovator, of no influence? And what was the\\nchange? Why, that change should be effected in the machinery of\\na branch of the constitution. Pray what was the history of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution? Were noble lords who objected to all change, at all read\\nin that history It should seem not, for otherwise they must know\\nthat the history of the constitution was nothing but the history of its\\nchanges, and the English constitution might be shortly denominated\\na succession of legislative changes. Such it would be found by any\\nman who went about writing its history. But of all these changes,\\nthe most numerous and most extensive\u00e2\u0080\u0094that is, the chapter of the\\nhistory of change, which would be found to be most various and di\u00c2\u00ac\\nversified\u00e2\u0080\u0094would be that of the change of the constitution of parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. Why, the very peerage, as at present constituted, was a change\\nfrom its original character under our infallible ancestors. Were noble\\nlords aware that their original right to sit in that house was derived\\nfrom a species of tenure, of which the whole peerage now contains\\nbut one instance\u00e2\u0080\u0094a tenure derived from the possession of certain\\niands or tenements If so, must they not admit that their right\\nto sit there, being different from the original one, their actual con\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitution was a great departure from the wisdom of our ancestors\\nWas not, he repeated, the whole history of parliament a history\\nof change Was not the sweeping away some thirty mitred abbots\\nfrom that house by Henry VIII., a great change? Then, was\\nnot the addition of sixteen representative Scotch peers by the union\\nwith Scotland, and of twenty-eight representative Irish peers by\\nthe union with Ireland, great changes ?\u00e2\u0080\u0094the rather as the nature\\nof their tenures of seats in that hQuse were wholly different, not only\\nfrom that by which the English peers exercised their functions, but also\\nfrom each other. The English peers were hereditary, that is, tliQy sat\\nthere by descent and possession the Scotch peers sat there by neither\\ndescent nor possession, nor for life, but for a single parliament; while\\nthe Irish peers were elected to sit for life, but, as with their Scotch bre\u00c2\u00ac\\nthren, not from descent or possession. Look then again at the rotation\\nsystem of the Irish bishops, so different from that which regukted the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0438.jp2"}, "439": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n429\\nEnglish bishops, with respect to the right to take a part in the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceedings in that house\u00e2\u0080\u0094in itself a great change from the original\\nconstitution of our ancestors. Again, let them consider the number\u00c2\u00ac\\nless changes which had been made in the oaths taken by members of\\nparliament since its first constitution, all showing, that the history\\nof the English constitution was the history of a succession of legis\u00c2\u00ac\\nlative changes. But, say noble lords, This is all very true; but\\nthese changes in the constitution were gradual and imperceptible,\\nwhile that now proposed by the noble earl was of unparalleled rapi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndity The answer was simple: rapid was a term of degree that\\nwas relative to circumstances, and change was a term different in its\\nmeaning from restoration. The bill proposed no change not rendered\\nimperative by circumstances, and only effected the removal of abuses\\nwhich had been the growth of two centuries. The circumstances\\nwhich at present justify the change explain the rapidny. But then,\\nagain, say noble lords, admitting the necessity of some change,\\nand that it should even be a rapid one, why should it be so exten\u00c2\u00ac\\nsive Was not such extent fraught with danger to all existing in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstitutions His answer was, that the safety was to be found only\\nin the extent of the measure. For mark the reasoning of these noble\\nobjectors to an extensive measure of reform We all,\u00e2\u0080\u009d say they,\\nadmit the necessity of some measure of reform not, be it under\u00c2\u00ac\\nstood, because we conceive that justice or sound policy recommend\\nit, but because the public demand is so pressing, that, judging by\\nthe signs of the times, we cannot help making some concession.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nNow was it possible for the veriest enemy of the institutions of the\\ncountry to teach a more dangerous lesson than was contained in this\\nadmission Does it not teach the people, that though nothing;\\nwould be granted on the score of justice, much would be yielded to\\nimportunity And was this the language befitting a British states\u00c2\u00ac\\nman The duty of a statesman worthy of the name was of a far\\nother character. He was not to be merely watching and veering\\nabout with every breeze of the popular will, to borrow a metaphorical\\nillustration from the noble earl, and to merely shape his measures as\\nthe popular vane indicated. No, a statesman should take his stand\\nupon an eminence, from which great general principles and lofty\\nviews revealed themselves at every step, from which he could, unin\u00c2\u00ac\\nfluenced by mere temporary exigencies, clearly see the people\u00e2\u0080\u0099s rights\\nand his own duties, and, while seeing them, perform the one by grant\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the other. From this position he should only descend to counsel\\nAnd to decide, to see that the people should enjoy their right, and if\\nhe found himself capable of effecting this good, he was bound not to\\n2 E", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0439.jp2"}, "440": {"fulltext": "480\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nawait the bidding of the public voice, but to raise the standard of\\npolitical improvement in the advance of the people. His duty it\\nwas, to devise for the wants of the people, to advise them, to mode\u00c2\u00ac\\nrate them, to be their leader and conductor to freedom and happiness.\\nThis was the duty of a statesman, and he who was incapable of it,\\nor who neglected it, however he might win favour with noble lords so\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094if we took their own word for it\u00e2\u0080\u0094infallible, disinterested in their\\njudgment, would be held in just contempt by an enlightened poste\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity. The statesman who had discharged his duties in the manner\\nwhich he had just glanced at, alone could turn round to the people\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nin the case supposed by the noble earl (Harrowby) opposite\u00e2\u0080\u0094and\\nsay to them, should they unfortunately be induced by mischievous\\nadvisers to exceed the limits of discretion, I have been no ill-natured\\nspy upon your actions I have honestly endeavoured to execute the\\ntrust confided to me for your benefit. I stand here as your friendly\\nadviser, and tell you for your own sakes, to arrest yourselves in your\\nprogress, and thereby enjoy the blessings which Providence has be\u00c2\u00ac\\nstowed upon you.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Such an appeal would be irresistible. He felt\\nconfident in the good sense of the people of England, and was con\u00c2\u00ac\\nvinced that such seditious papers as those circulated at a Westminster\\nmeeting some years ago would, so far from influencing the people to\\nmischievous ends, recoil upon their promulgators. And now he\\nbegged to touch upon one other topic before he sat down. It was\\nan old argument with the opponents of reform, that the constitution\\nworked well, and could not be bettered. This was partially true, so\\nfar as it applied to many of the institutions of the country\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was\\nfalse as it applied to the subject matter the present bill. It was\\ntrue, that the constitution worked well, if by the term was under\u00c2\u00ac\\nstood the several institutions of the country it was equally true that\\nit worked ill so far as the representation of the people was concerned.\\nHe entirely subscribed to the several panegyrics which had been\\nmade upon the practical working of most of our institutions. The\\nlaws were sound, and ably administered; the judges were learned\\nand honest; juries impartial; magistrates upright; the clergy pious\\nand well informed; the finances judiciously managed and the seve\u00c2\u00ac\\nral offices of state ably filled; but, with all that, the people were-not\\nsatisfied; the great good was wanting of contented subjects, and\\nthey could probably only be made so by receiving that share in the\\nconstitution which was by law assigned them. All these eulogiums,\\nthen, had nothing to do with the question before them, which was,\\nwhether the people were or were not duly represented No man\\npretended to deny that our representative system required some", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0440.jp2"}, "441": {"fulltext": "PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.\\n431\\namendment, so that it could not be said that the \u00e2\u0080\u009cwork-well\u00e2\u0080\u009d eulogy\\ncould be predicated of it. It was true, that a noble earl (Carnarvon)\\nopposite maintained that it could, that the representative branch of\\nthe legislature did work well in practice; and he quoted passages\\nfrom speeches of Mr. Fox and his noble friend (Earl Grey), delivered\\nmany years ago, in order to show that they also had been of the\\nsame opinion. But the noble earl strangely overlooked the very im\u00c2\u00ac\\nportant fact, that the speeches to which he referred as containing\\neulogies on the British constitution were actually made for reform iu\\nparliament, and that these eulogies were a part of the argument for\\nthat reform. It was plain, then, that some of the institutions of the\\ncountry might be, or they actually were, very good in principle and\\nefficient in practice, while others, the representative one, might be\\nneither one nor the other. It had been asked, but what, after all,\\nwould be gained by this bill He answered that the people would\\nbe satisfied, and that hardly a greater benefit could be conferred upon\\na nation than to remove all sources of dissatisfaction. Need he add,\\nthat no dissatisfaction could be more dangerous than that of an en\u00c2\u00ac\\nlightened and wealthy people with those who would deny them the\\nmeans of a pure system of representation. The truth was, that no\\nargument could be more fallacious than the work-well one, for it\\nwould be found that beneficial results had grown up under circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances of a most baleful nature, to which it would be absurd to\\nattribute them. For example, the Irish parliament, for thirty or\\nforty years before its gross and scandalous profligacy led to the act\\nof Union, was a mockery of the very name of representation, contain\u00c2\u00ac\\ning as it did 200 members, over whose election the people of Ireland\\nhad as much control as the people of Siberia, and who had no prin\u00c2\u00ac\\nciple but venality, and no occupation but sordid self-aggrandizement;\\nand yet that parliament, perhaps he should say in spite of it, owing\\nchiefly to the exertions of a band of patriots and orators, of whom\\nLord Charlemont and Mr. Grattan were the leaders, was instru\u00c2\u00ac\\nmental in raising Ireland from barbarism to comparative civilisation\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094from poverty to comparative wealth, and in enabling Ireland to\\nmake the most rapid strides towards commercial importance. That\\nprofligate parliament passed wholesome measures with respect to\\nt ra( j e \u00e2\u0080\u0094repealed bigotted laws\u00e2\u0080\u0094removed several of the penal disabili\u00c2\u00ac\\nties against the Catholics\u00e2\u0080\u0094and yet, surely, not even the noble mar\u00c2\u00ac\\nquis (Londonderry), who was so eccentric in his political idiosyncra\u00c2\u00ac\\nsies, would venture to say, that the Irish parliament was a faithful\\nrepresentation of the people. The Union put an end to that mon\u00c2\u00ac\\nstrous system of profligacy, and, as completed by the admirable mea-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0441.jp2"}, "442": {"fulltext": "432\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nsure of Catholic emancipation, for which the friends of Ireland never\\ncould be too grateful to the noble duke opposite, had effected much\\ntowards improving the representation of the Irish people. But much\\nremained to be done which only a measnre like the present could\\naccomplish. The noble and learned lord proceeded to observe, that\\nthough he had, when early in his political career, raised his voice\\nwith vehemence against the measure of the Union, and though he\\nwas far from regretting his conduct on that occasion, he, now that\\nthe measure had been completed, would resist its repeal to the last\\nmoment of his existence. Notwithstanding its monstrous abuses, the\\nIrish parliament effected some good as, notwithstanding the mon\u00c2\u00ac\\nstrous absurdity of the present representation of Scotland the people\\nof that country had advanced in wealth, intelligence, and national\\nprosperity. But would any man deny that the people of Scotland\\nwere dissatisfied with their representative mockery of a system?\\nCould he deny that they would be thrown into a state of frenzy and\\nfury by having their hopes of reform disappointed It required no\\nvery minute acquaintance with that country to be able to answer the\\nquestion with confidence; all that was wanting was, a knowledge of\\nthe ordinary workings of human nature. That knowledge showed,\\nthat the natnral result of increased wealth and intelligence was an\\nincreased anxiety for the possession of that right without which these\\nadvantages lose half their value, namely, political freedom. There\\nwere other topics which he was anxious to touch upon, but felt un\u00c2\u00ac\\nwilling to trespass longer on their lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention.\\nThe debate for the day closed with this speech. It was resumed on the fol\u00c2\u00ac\\nlowing day, Lord Eldon once again reappearing in the house, and warning his\\npeers that if this bill were carried, the British constitution would indeed be annihi\u00c2\u00ac\\nlated. There is something intensely pitiable in the frantic agony with which the\\nold Wezeer of George the Third resists Reform\u00e2\u0080\u0094something half-ludicrous, half-\\nterrible, in the contrast between the old chancellor and the new. Eldon tells them\\nhe comes from the verge of the grave, to warn and entreat them to reject the Bill.\\nOn the same day, Brougham delivers from the woolsack the grand oration in\\nwhich he ends by imploring the Lords, on bended knees, as they value their\\nhonours, privileges, and estates, not to reject the Bill. Nevertheless, not having\\nthe fear of God and the people as yet sufficiently before their minds, they did re\u00c2\u00ac\\nject it, by a majority of 41 proxies.\\nIn the month of May next year they succumbed to terror, the influence of the\\nDuke of Wellington, the entreaties of the king, and the determination of ministers\\nto create peers untii the hostile majority was swamped.\\nThis desperate determination was mainly due to Brougham, who literally com\u00c2\u00ac\\npelled the king to give himself and Lord Grey absolute written control of his pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nrogative for the purpose. I wonder,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said the premier as they left the presence,\\nhow you could have the heart to press him for a written permission when you\\nsaw the state he was in.\u00e2\u0080\u009d But through these transactions, Brougham seemed to\\nbo possessed by the soul of Oliver Cromwell.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0442.jp2"}, "443": {"fulltext": "433\\nTITHES.\\nFebruary 27, 1832.\\nIt occurrs to me that this speech, of no remarkable oratorical merit, may be\\ninteresting to the reader for an evidence of Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s opinion of the great Catho\u00c2\u00ac\\nlic and the great Orange agitator of his day. He speaks in answer to Lord\\nRoden.\\nLord Plunket said, that, as he was connected with the Irish\\ngovernment, and as an attack had been made on that government, he\\nthought the house would excuse him for wishing to say a few words\\non this subject, and in defence of the conduct of the government of\\nwhich he formed a part. He wished that the noble earl who had just\\nsat down had presented the petition to which he had alluded, for the\\npoints it contained were involved in this irregular discussion, the only\\nobject of which was, to hold out to the people of this country, that the\\ngovernment was opposed to the maintenance of the Established church\\nin Ireland, and was the enemy of the Protestant interest in that coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry. He was certain, however, that whatever was done with re\u00c2\u00ac\\nspect to tithes, there was no such effectual encouragement given to\\nagitators, the value of whose promises the people well appreciated, as\\nsuch opinions as those he had just alluded to, put forth by persons of\\ncharacter and property. Those opinions came with great gravity and\\nweight, and were calculated on that account, to be most mischievous.\\nWith respect to what had been said of Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell, he would re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmind their lordships that that gentleman could not be considered as\\nhaving been legally convicted of any offence he had not been found\\nguilty by the verdict of a jury. The state of his position with regard\\nto the law was this: he had been indicted under a certain act of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament\u00e2\u0080\u0094he had suffered judgment by default, and the act on which\\nhe had been indicted expired shortly afterwards. Now, if the noble\\nand learned lord opposite would produce any authorities to show that,\\nunder such circumstances, a conviction could legally be carried into\\nexecution, he should be ready to meet the noble and learned earl on\\nthat question. He was himself ready to maintain the negative, both\\non principle and on authority. If he was right in that opinion\u00e2\u0080\u0094that\\nthe judgment suffered by default, under such circumstances, left Mr.\\nO\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell at liberty to move in arrest of that judgment, surely they\\nwould not say that punishment, which could not be visited on him in\\npoint of law, should be visited on him in his professional character.\\nHe was responsible for having affixed the great seal to the patent of\\nprecedence to Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell. He did not stand up there as his ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nvocate, nor for the agitators of either side, from both of whom he", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0443.jp2"}, "444": {"fulltext": "434\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nhad received nothing but obloquy, which he valued for this reason,\\nthat, next to the approbation of good men, he most esteemed the ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nloquy of bad men. He, therefore, rested his defence on the same\\ngrounds as those who sat beside him. But he might also observe,\\nthat that proceeding was totally unconnected with any question of\\npolitics, and the patent of precedence was given to Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell\\nonly on account of his professional eminence. The ordinary way\\nof granting a patent of precedence in Ireland was, to enable the man\\nto whom it was granted to rank next after the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney and\\nsolicitor general. That, however, had not been done for Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnell. He had only been named to take rank above those gentlemen\\nmuch his juniors, whom he had seen promoted over his head.\\nWhatever he might think of Mr. O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell in a political point of view,\\nit was impossible to deny that, in his profession, no individual exhi\u00c2\u00ac\\nbited higher attainments, nor was any man more worthy of the dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinction he had received. That being the case, the government was\\nbound to accord him the distinction. It was the object of a rational\\ngovernment not to be vindictive, but just, and the gift of the patent\\nof precedence was required by justice. He should have been happy\\nif, by that mark of kindness, not incompatible with their duty, Mr.\\nO\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell had been induced to betake himself to his profession, in\\nwhich he was entitled to expect the highest honours, but he could\\nnot regret what had been done. The noble earl opposite had ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressed his disgust at the conduct of agitators. They were to be\\ncondemned, undoubtedly but if he was asked, who was the greatest\\nagitator, he should say, that it was the person who collected together\\nlarge mobs of ignorant persons\u00e2\u0080\u0094who addressed them in a manner\\ncalculated to raise their jealousies, and revive their prejudices\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nwho addressed English people, and called on them to form Protestant\\nAssociations\u00e2\u0080\u0094telling them that he loved the Catholics as men, but\\nthat they were a set of people who wished to put down the Protes\u00c2\u00ac\\ntants and their religion. Such a person was the true agitator. Such\\na person, who thus collected these ignorant assemblages together, and\\nscattered among them ambiguous\u00e2\u0080\u0094no, not ambiguous, but unfounded\\nassertions; such a person risked the making of Irish agitation not\\nonly formidable but desperate! To accomplish that fearful object in\\nIreland, all that was wanted was\u00e2\u0080\u0094not a war against the state\u00e2\u0080\u0094not\\na war against the tithes\u00e2\u0080\u0094but a war between the Protestants and\\nCatholics.\\nThe noble and learned earl opposite had again indulged in prophe\u00c2\u00ac\\ncies. The noble and learned earl had followed this course for forty\\nyears, according to his own showing. He sincerely hoped that the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0444.jp2"}, "445": {"fulltext": "THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.\\n4J5\\nnoble and learned lord might live for forty years more to prophesy; and\\nhe sincerely hoped, too, that the noble and learned earl\u00e2\u0080\u0099s prophecies\\nmight be, at the end of that time, as visionary as they had been up\\nto this moment. But, passing from that, he begged to make a few\\nobservations on the statement which the noble and learned lord had\\nmade, that the law was not vindicated in Ireland, the noble and\\nlearned lord had said, that the law was the same in both couu\\ntries. He believed that it was in the abstract\u00e2\u0080\u0094that, as far as the\\nletter of the law went, the guilt of entering into a conspiracy to re\u00c2\u00ac\\nfuse payment of tithes was in both countries the same but it was a\\nvery different thing for the chancellor to furnish the attorney-general\\nwith the abstract principle of the law, and to tell him that such was\\nthe law, and for the attorney-general to carry on a prosecution under\\nit. In these prosecutions there were such things as witnesses, and\\njurors, and the public, all of whom were to be considered; but he\\nwould venture to say, that, in every instance in which an outrage had\\nbeen committed, a prosecution had been instituted, had been success\u00c2\u00ac\\nful, and the authority of the law had been vindicated by the punisn-\\nment of the offender. Although he was not the public prosecutor, he\\nwas not insensible to the duties of the office. He had communicated\\nwith the law officers of the crown in Ireland, and with the distin\u00c2\u00ac\\nguished and very learned person who filled the office of attorney-\\ngeneral and he would venture to assert, that, in no instance in which\\na prosecution could be successfully instituted had that prosecution\\nbeen neglected. If the noble and learned earl opposite would ask for\\nthe papers connected with this subject, he would undertake to show,\\nfrom those papers, that what he had stated was really the case. He\\nassured the noble and learned lord, that if he would communicate\\nwith him upon any case in which he thought a prosecution advisable,\\nhe would undertake either that a prosecution should be instituted, or\\nthat he should satisfy the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s miud that it could not be effec\u00c2\u00ac\\ntually done, and that he would point out to the noble lord the diffi\u00c2\u00ac\\nculty which would prevent such a prosecution. This he would readily\\ndo if the noble lord would do him the honour of making to him such\\na communication.\\nTHE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.\\nMarch 2, 1831.\\nPlunket contrived to provide for six sons and several nephews at the expense of\\nChinch and State. It was Cobbett\u00e2\u0080\u0099s delight, after he had begun to hate him", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0445.jp2"}, "446": {"fulltext": "436\\nPLUNKETTS SPEECHES.\\nheartily, to parade the long pedigree of places and pensions, and to taunt the ol$\\nanti-Union orator with the passage in which he declares that if that infamoue\\nmeasure should be carried, he would pledge his children, like young Hannibal,\\nupon the altar of their country, to eternal hostility against the enemies of its\\nfreedom. Through the latter years of his life, when having once taken place, he\\ntook to it in earnest, and with all the eagerness and energy of his character,\\nafter the long self-denying ordinance which he had imposed upon himself,\\nfrom the fall of Lord Grenville to the viceroyalty of Lord Wellesley, the \u00e2\u0080\u009cyoung\\nHannibals\u00e2\u0080\u009d furnished an easy hit for newspaper scribes and platform Phari\u00c2\u00ac\\nsees. Plunket felt, or affected a vast disdain for such folk, and if annoyed, never\\ncondescended to reply or retaliate. However, in the furore of the Reform ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncitement, Lord Londonderry was tempted to utter the same imputations in his\\nplace in the house, and further to declare that he agreed with one of O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Connell\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nopinions, uttered apparently at random in a passion, that there was not a more\\npernicious legislator for Ireland, or a more venal politician than Lord Plunket.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAfter speaking for some time, the marquis took his seat, offering no resolution or\\npetition, and Plunket rose to propose vote of censure upon him.\\nMr lords, I rise, with your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 permission, to address\\nmyself to the question before the house, and for the purpose of re\u00c2\u00ac\\nplying to one of the most unjust and most unwarrantable attacks that\\nhas ever been made on any individual within these walls. The\\nnoble marquis began his observations with a declaration\u00e2\u0080\u0094which I\\ngive credit to, as I am bound to believe any statement made by a\\nnoble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0094that he had no personal hostility to me; but I leave it\\nto you, my lords, to say, whether his conduct is consistent with that\\ndisclaimer of personal hostility. The noble marquis, under the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntence of asking me a question, has not thought it unbecoming in him\\nto go into a recital of all the falsehoods which newspapers have col\u00c2\u00ac\\nlected with regard to me or to my family. He has made himself the\\norgan of all the calumnies which have been uttered against me, and,\\nwithout the slightest pretence whatever, has made an attack as bit\u00c2\u00ac\\nter, as severe, and as unwarranted, as the slender abilities of the noble\\nlord will allow him to do. Fortunately for me, the ability of the\\nnoble lord to strike lags behind his inclination, as, in natural history,\\nwe see that the most venomous are among the least powerful of the\\nanimal creation. The noble lord complains that I cried hear\u00e2\u0080\u009d to\\nsome observation of his. I certainly did so but still am uncon\u00c2\u00ac\\nscious of having committed very great offence, the rather as I am not\\napt to complain myself when the noble lord deigns, in his own pecu\u00c2\u00ac\\nliar tone, to cry hear\u00e2\u0080\u009d to any remark of mine. My hear\u00e2\u0080\u009d I beg\\nleave to remark, was at least not a scream\u00e2\u0080\u0094not a sound pushed be\u00c2\u00ac\\nyond the usual limits of human exclamation\u00e2\u0080\u0094in fact, was not much\\ncalculated to alarm the ears or the feelings of my auditors. In this*\\nI confess, there is a marked difference between us; but surely my", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0446.jp2"}, "447": {"fulltext": "THE LORD CHANCELLOR OF IRELAND.\\n437\\nvocal inability to cope with the noble lord ought not to be charged\\nupon me as an offence. A noble baron opposite (Ellenborough) has\\ndefended the noble marquis\u00e2\u0080\u0099s proceedings as not inconsistent with the.\\nusages of the house. My noble friend,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said he, having thought\\nbetter of it, was by no means irregular in withdrawing the petition\\nhe rose to present.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In this, the noble marquis, then, is only ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npearing in a new character, exhibiting his dramatic versatility. Allow\\nme to congratulate him in eclipsing even himself as an orator and a\\nlogician. It is conceived to be a notable result of most specimens of\\nhuman eloquence to convince others against their preconceptions, and\\npersuade them to act according to the wishes of the speaker. For\\nthe first time, however, in the history of logic and oratory, we now\\nhave a learned Daniel\u00e2\u0080\u009d who, in the course of his oration, actually\\npersuades, not others, but himself, to act contrary to his own pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ndetermination. The noble lord has frequently before persuaded others,\\nwho might otherwise have voted on his side, that to do so would be\\nacting in the teeth of common sense for it is one of the shining at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntributes of the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s genius, that his support is injurious only\\nto those who have the misfortune to count him as an ally; but this I\\n\u00e2\u0080\u00a2believe is the first time that his per contra persuasive powers have\\nbeen successfully directed against himself. Long, I trust, will they\\nbe so harmlessly directed, and long may they be as successful in per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsuading others to the reverse of his intentions as they have in the\\npresent instance, with himself. Before the noble lord had ventured\\nto attack me as he did, and complain of the remuneration which I\\nhave derived from the public for my services, he ought to have made\\nhimself somewhat better acquainted with simple facts. Had he been\\npresent the other evening when I moved for returns of the appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\nment of secretary to the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, he would have\\nheard me state the object of my motion, and thereby have avoided\\nwasting his time and eloquence this evening. I now tell the noble\\nlord\u00e2\u0080\u0094not for his personal satisfaction, for with him I will hold no\\nterms, and will offer no explanation whatever with a view to remov\u00c2\u00ac\\ning his dissatisfaction, but for the satisfaction of the house\u00e2\u0080\u0094the ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nject I had in view in moving for these returns. Aspersions, the most\\nunwarranted and injurious, were thrown out in another place against\\nme with reference to the appointment of my secretary, and a notice\\nof motion was given in the House of Commons for documents con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnected with that appointment. I, accordingly, for the purpose of\\nmeeting any calumniator who would dare to repeat these aspersions\\nto my face in this house, came down and moved for similar returns\\nto be laid before your lordshios, so as to afford any noble lord whe*", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0447.jp2"}, "448": {"fulltext": "438\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nmight be disposed to repeat the calumny an opportunity of doing so,\\nand myself an opportunity, which, with God\u00e2\u0080\u0099s blessing, I will never\\nshrink from, of meeting, and exposing, andchastising my calumniator.\\nIn moving for the returns, I also moved for returns of the similar ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointments made by my two predecessors in office, in order that your\\nlordships and the public might clearly see, that the aspersions and\\ncalumny applied as much to Lords Chancellor Manners and Hart,\\nas to Lord Chancellor Plunket.\\nThe noble lord has thought proper, on the authority of a newspa\u00c2\u00ac\\nper statement, which, I assure your lordships, I have never read, and\\nto which I am wholly indifferent, to state, that my family derive\\n\u00c2\u00a336,000 a year from the public, and concerning which he calls upon\\nme for an explanation. I will not stoop to refute so extravagant a\\nfalsehood. I envy not the structure of understanding which could\\nbestow upon it a moment\u00e2\u0080\u0099s credence. What! are noble lords to be\\ncalled upon to defend themselves in parliament against every stupid\\ncalumny which mortified but most impotent vanity, or the virulence\\nof faction, may insert iii a newspaper. I am surprised that even the\\nnoble lord could entertain such a monstrous proposition. He asks me,\\nhave I made any inquiry as to the source or authenticity of the state\u00c2\u00ac\\nment I answer him, no. I would not lower myself in my own estimation\\nby treating it otherwise than with silent contempt. I ask the noble\\nlord, have any statements ever appeared in newspapers touching his\\nown personal affairs And, if so, has he been called upon, as he calls\\nupon me, in his place in parliament, to explain them away Was\\nit ever, for example, stated\u00e2\u0080\u0094no doubt without any foundation\u00e2\u0080\u0094that\\nthe noble marquis applied to a certain prime minister for some re\u00c2\u00ac\\nmuneration or pension, which the said prime minister was cruelly un\u00c2\u00ac\\njust enough to refuse? Was the noble lord, in a word,.ever called upon\\nexplain to the public the amount and distribution of the large sums of\\npublic money which found their way to the pockets of the Stuart family\\nCertainly not; it was reserved for himself to set the precedent of\\nmaking a most senseless newspaper calumny the occasion of as sense\u00c2\u00ac\\nless an attack on the individual calumniated. I state, then, that the\\nnewspaper allegation, on which the noble lord has grounded his attack^\\nis totally and absolutely a falsehood. Whether it is quite fair and\\nconsistent with the usage of parliament and good society to make the\\nallegations of a newspaper the pretext of calling upon any noble lord\\nto enter into a statement of his family affairs, I leave it, after this em\u00c2\u00ac\\nphatic denial, to the good taste and gentlemanly feeling of your lord-\\nships. I take leave of the calumny, with this assurance to the noble\\nlord, that I am one who have never been a hunter after favours from", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0448.jp2"}, "449": {"fulltext": "THE LORD CHANCELLOR OP IRELAND.\\n43\u00e2\u0080\u00999\\nany minister or government whatever. I am not one who has given\\nhis support or his opposition in parliament according to the mere dic\u00c2\u00ac\\ntates of vanity or personal interest, and I am one who never made a\\ndemand for public money which the individual from whom it was de\u00c2\u00ac\\nmanded was forced to stigmatize as too bad.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The noble lord pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfesses to entertain no feelings of personal hostility against me. I\\nprofess to entertain no such feeling against him; but this I tell him,\\nby way of wholesome warning, that if he, on any future occasion, ven\u00c2\u00ac\\nture to indulge in rash attacks on my character, though I will not de\u00c2\u00ac\\ngrade myself by following the example of personal invective, he may\\nperhaps have little reason, so far as the vanguards are concerned, to\\ncongratulate himself with a large balance on the credit side of the\\naccount between us. The noble lord has thought fit to catechise me\\nas to the advice which I may have felt it to be my duty to give my\\nsovereign in matters connected with the office I hold under him.\\nWhat right has the noble lord, or any noble lord, to ask me such a\\nquestion Or, on what ground should he venture to charge me with\\nhaving deprived him of the confidence of his majesty, and to have\\ngiven his majesty counsel displeasing to a party who arrogate to them\u00c2\u00ac\\nselves exclusive loyalty, while they are thwarting, by every means in\\ntheir power, the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s government Such questions and such charges\\nare the mere ravings of distempered vanity, and are not to be reasoned\\nwith by those who are capable of sound ratiocination. I can assure\\nthe noble lord that, so far from occupying the time of my sovereign\\nwith discussions of the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s transcendent merits as a states\u00c2\u00ac\\nman, an orator, or a logician, I never have wasted a moment of even\\nmy own time on either, and that the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s affairs are to me a\\nmatter of as utter indifference, as I am sure they must be to the ra\u00c2\u00ac\\ntional portion of the public. This declaration may not be flattering\\nincense to the noble lord\u00e2\u0080\u0099s estimate of his own public merits, but it is\\na simple fact, which I trust will spare him much future fretfulness.\\nI do not recollect whether there is any other point on which the noble\\nlord is anxious to obtain some explanation.\u00e2\u0080\u009d If there be, and that\\nhe will have the goodness to remind me of it, I shall be very happy\\nto afford him all in my power. Perhaps the little I have afforded\\nwill suffice him for the present; if not, let him hoist the flag, and I\\nam ready for the combat. With respect to the members of my family,\\nI have nothing to conceal in regard to any of them. If they hold\\npublic situations, they fulfil the duties attached to them, and are not\\ntherefore, an improper burthen on the public. I have six sons, and\\nI have certainly endeavoured to provide for them, as it is my duty to\\ndo. Two of my sons are in the church, two at the bar. I defy even", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0449.jp2"}, "450": {"fulltext": "440\\nPLUNKET S SPEECHES.\\ncalumny to impeach their conduct at either. My eldest son derives\\nno emolument from the public, and all my family occupy but that\\nstation in society to which I am persuaded they are fully entitled.\\nAfter Plunket sat down, Lord Londonderry rose again to explain. A short\\nangry scene followed. Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s temper had been fiercely stirred, and the marquis\\nwas at the best of times rather disorderly. The debate that followed was a series\\nof interruptions of the most laconic character. The noble lord,\u00e2\u0080\u009d complains\\nLord Londonderry, calculates what I have received during ten years diplomatic\\nservice, compares it with his own, and draws a large balance against me.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nLord Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0094I did no such thing.\\nThe Marquis of Londonderry\u00e2\u0080\u0094I ask you, my lords, is that a fair way of\\nmeeting the charges\\nLord Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0094I repeat I did no such thing.\\nAgain the marquis returns to the list of places.\u00e2\u0080\u0094\u00e2\u0080\u009c As the noble lord has\\nprovoked me to it, I will read what is stated of him by which it will be seen\\nwhether the economical and retrenching administration with which he is con\u00c2\u00ac\\nnected take care to feather their own nests. The first item is, the Lord Chan\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellor of Ireland .\u00c2\u00a310,000.\u00e2\u0080\u009d That,\u00e2\u0080\u009d said Plunket, is the first falsehood.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 After\\na little, Lord Grey and Lord Ellenborough interfered; Lord Londonderry apolo\u00c2\u00ac\\ngized for the breach of order he had been guilty of, and the motion was with\u00c2\u00ac\\ndrawn.\\nFAREWELL TO THE BAR.\\nJune 21, 1841.\\nUpon the last day of Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s appearance in court every portion of its space\\nwas densely thronged. He decided some few cases, and in one of them referred\\n\u00e2\u0080\u009cto the person who was to succeed him in the office he then filled At the\\nconclusion of the business of the day, Sergeant Greene, as the senior of the Bar\\npresent, addressed him thus:\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nI presume, my lord, it is not your lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s intention to sit again in this\\ncourt; I therefore rise, as the senior in rank of the members of the Bar now pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent, and with the full concurrence of the brethren of my profession (here all the\\nmembers of the Bar rose simultaneously), to address your lordship a few words\\nbefore your retirement from that bench over which your lordship has for many\\nyears presided.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nLord Plunket rose from his seat, and advanced to the front of the bench.\\nMy lord, we are anxious to express to your lordship the sense we entertain,\\nnot only of the ability, the learning, the patience, and the assiduity which have\\nmarked your lordship s administration of the high and important functions com-\\n\\\\iitted to your lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s charge, but also, my lord, of the courtesy, kindness,\\nand attention which we have all personally experienced at your lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s hands\\nin the discharge of our professional duties in this court. We gratefully acknow\u00c2\u00ac\\nledge, my lord, the disposition you have ever shown to accommodate us aH\u00e2\u0080\u0094a", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0450.jp2"}, "451": {"fulltext": "FAREWELL TO THE BAR.\\n441\\ndisposition by which we all admit your lordship was ever actuated, without re\u00c2\u00ac\\ngard to personal circumstances or to our political feelings or predilections. We\\ntrust, my lord, it will be said that this feeling on our part will be as general and\\nas uneversal, as the kindness on your part has been uniform and uninterrupted.\\nM JorJ, it is needless for us to dwell here, for the purpose of commenting upon\\nthe talents and endowments which have raised your lordship to the high posi-\\ntion from which you are about to retire. They are, my lord, recorded in our\\nhistory, and they will long live among the proudest recollections of our country\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen. From a sense of these, we offer to you our present tribute of the pro-\\nfoundest admiration and respect; and, my lord, it is gratifying for us to add,\\nthat at no period of your lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s career have they ever shown in greater lustre\\nthan at this moment. My lord, with warmest wishes for your lordship\u00e2\u0080\u0099s hap\u00c2\u00ac\\npiness in that retirement, which none is more fitted than, your lordship to adorn,\\nwe respectfully bid your lordship farewell.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nWhen the Bar had concluded their address, the Attorneys presented theirs, at\\nthe close of which Plunket said\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nIt would be great affectation on my part if I were to say that I\\ndo not feel to a considerable degree at the prospect of retiring from a\\nprofession, at which I have for a period of more than fifty years of\\nmy life been actively engaged\u00e2\u0080\u0094a period daring which I have been\\nsurrounded by friends, many of them warm ones\\nHis lordship then paused evidently much affected,\\nwithout exception: many of them are now no more some of them,\\nnay many of them I see at this moment around me. This retirement\\nfrom the active scenes in which I have been so long engaged, and\\nwhich have become as it were incorporated with my life, I cannot\\nhelp feeling, and/eeling deeply. It has, however, in some degree been\\nalleviated by the prospect of the repose which is probably better suited\\nto this period of my life, and which perhaps would have earlier in\u00c2\u00ac\\nduced me to retire but for events of a particular description which\\nhave latterly occurred; but independent of this I must say, that any\\npain I would have felt has been more than alleviated by the kind and\\naffectionate address which has been offered to me by my friend Ser\u00c2\u00ac\\ngeant Greene,, and which has been so cordially assented to by the\\nmembers of both professions.\\nI am not unconscious that in the discharge of those duties, my ability\\nfor which has been so over-rated; by my friend Sergeant Greene, I hav e\\nbeen led into expressions of impatience which had been much better\\navoided. For any pain that I have given in doing so, or any feelings\\nthat I have hurt, I sincerely apologize, and I am grateful to the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nfession for not having attributed to inclination any such observations;\\nand I must say, that whatever any such expressions may have been,\\nthey never have influenced me. It is a sentiment that I trust never", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0451.jp2"}, "452": {"fulltext": "442\\nplunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speeches.\\nwill influence me and I am now able to say, that in retiring from\\nmy profession, I do not carry with me any other sentiment than that\\nof affectionate consideration for all and every member of the profession.\\nNow with respect to the particular circumstances which have oc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncurred, and the particular succession which is about to take place in\\nthis court, it will become me to say very little. For the individual\\nwho is to occupy the situation I now fill, I entertain the highest po\u00c2\u00ac\\nlitical and personal respect\u00e2\u0080\u0094no one can feel it more so\u00e2\u0080\u0094but I owe\\nit as a duty to myself and the members of the bar to state, that for\\nthe changes which are to take place I am not in the slightest degree\\nanswerable I have no share in them, and have not directly or indi\u00c2\u00ac\\nrectly given them my sanction. In yielding my assent to the propo\u00c2\u00ac\\nsition which has been made for my retiring, I have been governed\\nsolely by its having been requested as a personal favour by a person\\nto whom I owe so much, that a feeling of gratitude would have ren\u00c2\u00ac\\ndered it morally impossible that I could have done otherwise than to\\nresign.\\nWhen I look at the Bar before me, and especially the number of\\nthose who might have sat efficiently in this judicial place, I am bound\\nto say, that for all those great ingredients which are calculated to en\u00c2\u00ac\\nable them to shine as practitioners, and as members of the Bar, or as\\ngentlemen, for candour, for courtesy, knowledge, and ability\u00e2\u0080\u0094I chal\u00c2\u00ac\\nlenge competition\u00e2\u0080\u0094I challenge the very distinguished Bars of either\\nEngland or Scotland, and I do not fear that those I have the honour\\nof addressing would suffer in the comparison. To them, for their re\u00c2\u00ac\\npeated kindnesses I am deeply indebted. I do assure them that when\\nI retire into quiet life, I will cherish in my heart the affectionate kind\u00c2\u00ac\\nness and attention which I experienced at their hands.\\nPI unite t was deeply affected during the delivery of this parting address. At\\nits conclusion he bowed to the Bar, and left the court, leaning upon the arm of\\nhis friend Sir Michael O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Loghlen, Master of the Rolls.\\nThe profession which he had so long adorned, added to its parting honours a\\nlevee. Nearly all the practising -members of the profession waited upon him at\\nhis mansion in Stephen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s green. So numerous a bar levee had never before\\nbeen witnessed in Ireland;\u00e2\u0080\u009d writes the author of Ireland and its Rulers. It was\\nthronged by Tories, Conservatives, High Whigs, Low Whigs, Radicals, Com Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nchangers, and Repealers. Several of the judges were present; the Master of the\\nRolls, who hated all kind of pomp, put on his state-robes for the occasion, and\\nsince the days when Charlemont House was in its glory, so many influential per\\neons had never gathered under the roof of a private individual in Ireland.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The\\nold man, it is said, was full of animation and energy, and in perfect possession,\\nof all his fine faculties, on this day, the occasion of his last appearance in public\\nJif\u00c2\u00ae.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0452.jp2"}, "453": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n443\\nTHE KING AGAINST WALLER O\u00e2\u0080\u0099GRADY.\\nI hats printed the following celebrated speech as the most perfect specimen upon record)\\nof Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s consummate power of pleading. I have not willingly consigned so much space\\nto a dry legal argument, but I could not help feeling that it was due to his high profes-\\nBional fame.\\nOld Chief Baron O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Grady, in the year 1817, appointed his son Waller to the situation of\\nClerk of the Pleas in the Court of Exchequer. Saurin, instigated it was believed by a per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsonal animosity, which was sometimes supposed to stimulate his official conduct, astonished\\nthe Four Courts, by instituting proceedings on the part of the crown, against the new offi\u00c2\u00ac\\ncer\u00e2\u0080\u0094on the ground that the king, not the court, had the right of appointment. The Chief\\nBaron resisted with the first abilities and energy to be had at the Irish Bar, and the case\\nbecame a regular legal tournament\u00e2\u0080\u0094in which Saurin and Bushe, on the part of the crown,\\nand Plunket and Burton on that of the court, debated every point of law, vestige of tradi\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion, and atom of precedent, that could by possibility be brought to bear upon the case.\\nThe following is Plunket\u00e2\u0080\u0099s speech to the jury.\\nIt is now my duty to lay before you the case of the clerk of the Pleas\\nof the Court of Exchequer: and my lords and gentlemen, I am appre\u00c2\u00ac\\nhensive, that in so doing I shall be obliged to claim a larger share of\\nthe time, of the attention, and of the indulgence of the court and jury,\\nthan I should be disposed to do. But this case is one of very great im\u00c2\u00ac\\nportance to the parties, and to the public and I should not satisfactorily\\ndischarge my duty to my client, to the learned judge who has appointed\\nhim, or to the Court of Exchequer who have justified that appointment,\\nand who are now brought before the bar of this court upon a criminal\\ninformation to answer the charge of having usurped upon the rights of\\nthe crown, which they are by their oaths bound to maintain, were I not\\nto enter with some minuteness into every part of this extraordinary case.\\nYou already know, my lords, from the statement of the counsel for\\nthe crown, that this is a claim of right by Mr. Waller O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Grady as the\\nclerk of the Pleas of the Court of Exchequer; a claim put upon an ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointment by the chief baron of that court, which has been ratified and\\nacted on, and admitted as an authority, by the whole Court of Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer. It is a claim on his part, I allow, against a long usage by the\\ncrown, and I do not scruple to admit it to be right and proper that that\\nclaim should be carefully examined. It is certainly the right and the\\nduty of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s law officers to take care that his rights shall not be\\nusurped, or his just prerogative diminished but it must be equally ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nmitted, that if the claim of the chief baron be a well-founded one, it is\\nfair upon his part to urge it: nay more, that it would be a most gross\\ndereliction of his duty to suffer any of the rights intrusted to him by the\\nlaw to be diminished or impaired.\\nI agree with the proposition laid down by the attorney-general, that\\naccording to the constitution of these countries, the king is the fountain\\nof all office and I agree further, that it is the duty of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attor*\\nney-general to provide that this right of the crown, so far as it remains,\\nshall be guarded from encroachment. But if by this position it is meant\\nto be insisted, that all offices in this country are derived immediately\\nfrom the crown, I beg leave totally to deprecate such a doctrine. All\\noffices are certainly derived from the crown mediately or immediately;\\nbut it is equally, true, that there are many offices vested by the consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntution and by the common law in other persons, as incident to office?\\nderived by them from the crown, and over which the king can have no", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0453.jp2"}, "454": {"fulltext": "444\\nAPPENDIX.\\ncontrol. With respect to those offices which are exercised in courts of\\njustice, whether the persons who are to fill them be appointed by the\\ncourts or not, in all cases where they are to be admitted by the court,\\nthe care of them is intrusted to that court and to that alone. If the\\ncrown conceives itself injured by such an admission, the attorney-general\\nhas no right to proceed by a prerogative information, but the only legal\\nmode of trying the right, is by the crown\u00e2\u0080\u0099s appointing an officer and\\nhaving his title tried in the first instance in the court to which he is ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointed, and if their decision be unsatisfactory, then by appealing to\\nanother. This proposition I pledge myself to demonstrate to the court\\nand the jury.\\nHaving premised so much, I shall call the attention of the court to\\nthe admitted facts of this case namely, that the office of clerk of the\\nPleas is an ancient office in the Court of Pleas of the Exchequer, the\\nduty of which is to enrol pleas and judgments of that court, and which\\nis of high concern to the administration of public justice, that the pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent defendant has been appointed by the chief judge of that court, and\\nthat he has been regularly admitted by the entire court. Having stated\\nso much, I must beg leave to say, that this proceeding is unprecedented,\\nvexatious, unwarrantable, and illegal in every particular. I state once\\nfor all, to my learned friend the attorney-general, that I am sure he\\nwill not suppose, that in so speaking, I mean any personal disrespect to\\nhim. I am sure that in instituting this proceeding, he has been actuated\\nsolely by considerations of duty and a laudable desire to maintain what\\nlie conceives to be the just rights of the crown. Is or is there any man\\nfor whose legal knowledge and information upon general subjects I en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntertain a higher lespect. But I must say, that in the present instance,\\nby some fatality, he has acted in direct violation of the best established\\nprinciples of the constitution; and that a proceeding of this nature can\\nhave no other tendency than to bring humiliation and disgrace on courts\\nof justice, and odium upon the prerogative of the crown. And I say\\nthis now, because I conceive this is the place and the time\u00e2\u0080\u0094when the\\njudges of the land are brought to the bar of this court to answer for\\ntheir conduct, upon a criminal information\u00e2\u0080\u0094when the judges of a su\u00c2\u00ac\\nperior original court are called as culprits and usurpers before the tri-\\nbunal of another and a co-ordinate jurisdiction.\\nWherever a court of justice is created, of necessity the judging of\\nthe admissions of the persons who are to be their clerks is vested in\\nsuch court. They are the persons intrusted by the law to judge of\\nMie sufficiency of the persons to be admitted, and also the legality of\\ntheir title. Unless they are satisfied of both, they ought not to admit.\\nUpou this. I shall refer your lordships to the treatise on the authority\\nof the Master of the Rolls, a book, your lordships are aware, of very\\nhigh authority, and which, it is well known, was written by Sir Joseph\\nJekyll. In the second section, 64, 65, it is laid down, The admission\\nof officers of courts of justice, by whomsoever nominated, belongs to\\nthose courts, who are to judge of their qualifications. And accordingly,\\nthough the nominated officer is usualiv admitted, yet in some instances.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0454.jp2"}, "455": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n445\\nhe has been rejected, as in Dyer, 150, in the case of the clerk of\\ncrown, who is nominated by the king under the great seal. For the\\nnomination, admission, and swearing of officers, is an act of the court/*\\nAnd for these positions he cites the year book 9. Edw. IV., p. 5, which I\\nhave examined, and which is direct on the point. The case referred to in\\nDyer is Hunt v. Allen (Dy., 149 a. 152 b.), which was an assize by Hunt\\nagainst Allen, the question turning on the validity of the nomination of\\nHunt. And the case of Fogge, chief clerk or custos brevium, in 18\\nEdw. IV. was cited, \u00e2\u0080\u009cwhere the justices would not allow the patent of\\nthe king to encumber the place, because there cannot be two chiefs in\\none office.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And the court accordingly refused to admit him. There\\nis a further case in Dy. 150 b. upon the same subject. The crown\\nappointed Croxton and Vynter clerks of the crown Croxton died,\\nand Vynter came into court and showed the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s patent, and prayed\\nto be admitted, c., but the court refused to admit him, and appointed\\nanother person. I am now showing the authority of courts to refuse\\nadmission if they think proper. The admission of the officer is an\\nact of the court,\u00e2\u0080\u009d judging of the fitness of the person, and the legality\\nof the appointment. The latter of the above cases in Dyer is an in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance of rejection on account of unfitness in the person, and the former\\nfor the illegality of the appointment. And in further confirmation of\\nthis right I beg leave to cite to the court, Cavendish\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case, 1 Ander\u00c2\u00ac\\nson, 152. There the crown appointed a person to execute writs of\\nsupersedeas in the Court of Common Pleas. The judge of that court\\nrefused to admit him, because in point of law the grant was void, inas\u00c2\u00ac\\nmuch as the duty of making such writs belonged to the chief prothono-\\ntary. It appears that this case was attended with much difficulty on\\nthe part of the court, and much exertion on the part of the crown.\\nBut yet no idea was entertained that such a proceeding as a quo war\u00c2\u00ac\\nranto would lie, notwithstanding that great efforts were made on the\\npart of Cavendish. The justices, however, refused to yield to either\\nmenaces or importunities, and the crown was at length obliged to ac\u00c2\u00ac\\nquiesce. This was in the reign of Elizabeth. Now, according to these\\ndoctrines and these precedents, I take upon me to say, that the uniform\\ncourse and practice has been, in every case where it is conceived that\\nthe right of the crown or of any other party has been affected by the\\nadmission of any officer by a court, to try the right by the nomination\\nof an officer on the part of the party complaining, and to have the title\\nof that officer in the first instance tried by the court which has given\\nsuch admission. The present proceeding is without even the colour of\\nprecedent in the whole history of the law in England or in Ireland\\nbefore the Revolution or since the Revolution there never before was\\nan example in which the act of a superior court of justice admitting its\\nown officer has been questioned at the bar of another court; much less\\nby such a proceeding as a criminal information; and I must again re\u00c2\u00ac\\npeat, that the direct tendency of it is to throw disgrace upon the ad\u00c2\u00ac\\nministration of justice, and odium upon the prerogative of the crown.\\nI thought it my duty to apprise the attorney-gem ral, that we couau", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0455.jp2"}, "456": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n446\\ndered this proceeding so mischievous and unconstitutional, that we\\nBhould be called upon to arraign it. I do not find that the attorney-\\ngeneral has stated any other reason in its vindication, than an usage on\\nthe part of the crown to appoint to this office for 400 years. It is not\\nonly the privilege, but the duty of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s officer to assert his right;\\nI do not mean to say there is anything criminal in it; but why the\\nstaleness of this demand should now for the first time justify a pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding in the teeth of all decency and all precedent, I do not see the\\nsemblance of a reason. If it be said, no action has been brought, be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncause if it had, it must have been tried in the first instance in the Court\\nof Exchequer; the answer is, that the law has said so. And it has\\nsaid so, for the best reason, in order to avoid a clashing of jurisdictions,\\nwhich must be the consequence of allowing one court to be called be\u00c2\u00ac\\nfore another, as is done here, to answer for the exercise of its discre\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion in the appointment of its own officer. Nor is it in the power of\\nthe crown to defeat this courtesy of the law by resorting to such a\\nproceeding as a criminal information. The privilege of correcting an\\nerroneous decision (if this was so), is as great a privilege as that of\\naffirming it. If the Court of Exchequer had done anything amiss, if\\non the trial of an action they should decide against the just rights of\\nthe crown, they are liable to be corrected by way of appeal, and in no\\nother way. No other court has any original jurisdiction. Suppose au\\napplication had been made to this court, not as is now done, by a pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nrogative information, but for liberty to file such an information, the\\ncourt must have refused it. They must have refused it, in analogy to\\nevery principle of law; for there is no instance to be found of one court\\nof justice questioning the act of another, of co-ordinate jurisdiction,\\nespecially in the appointment of its own officers. This court never had,\\nin any shape, an appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Exchequer.\\nThis doctrine is fully laid down in 4 Inst. 71,105, 106, where it is said,\\nthat the crown could not grant such a jurisdiction. So that this is au\\nattempt to give originally to this court the right to reverse the deci\u00c2\u00ac\\nsions of the Court of Exchequer, a right which even the crown coual\\nnot give by way of appeal.\\nSuppose judgment of ouster given by this court against the officer of\\nthe Exchequer, where is the jurisdiction in this court to arm its officers\\nwith the power of enforcing it Suppose, after such a judgment, the\\nCourt of Exchequer were to say that the officer should still act, where\\nis the power, either in this court or in the crown to restrain him Is\\na party to be brought into court by criminal information as an usurper,\\nbecause he acts under the authority of a superior court, a court which\\nhas exclusive jurisdiction over his office, and which can commit him to\\nprison if he refuses to perform it What authority has this court to\\npunish the officer of the Court of Exchequer, any more than the Court\\nof Exchequer has to punish the officer of this court\\nI have complained that this proceeding is vexatious I say again, it\\nis vexatious in every part of it, and that it cannot be attended with any\\nadvantage to either the king or the public. It not merely puts the de-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0456.jp2"}, "457": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n447\\nfendant to prove his title., as has been said by Mr. Attorney-General,\\nbut it hampers him in point of pleading: so that even if his title were\\ngood, he would be liable to be defeated by a trivial irregularity. Ho\\nis precluded from pleading double matter: so that if he had ten de\u00c2\u00ac\\nfences, he must yet resort to only one, and if the issue be found against\\nhim on that one, it is fatal to his case. If lie be successful, he can have\\nno costs, but is compelled to defend himself at his own expense and\\nif he fails, he has costs to pay. I say, it is a prerogative of so severe a\\nnature, that it ought not to be resorted to, unless where there has been\\na direct and manifest usurpation of the rights of the crown. Had the\\nattorney-general inquired, he would have been informed of the nature\\nof this appointment. He would have learned,.that it was not a claim\\nset up by a stranger, but made by the chief baron, and ratified by the\\ncourt. Immediately upon the making of this appointment, my lord\\nchief baron waited upon the lord lieutenant, and informed him that he\\nfelt himself bound by his oath to maintain the rights of the crown, and\\nproposed that the case should be referred to the principal law officers:\\noffering at the same time to waive any advantage gained by the appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\nment. That proposal, for what reason I know not, has been declined.\\nI do not mean to say that any blame upon this subject is imputable to\\nthe lord lieutenant, of whom I wish to be considered as speaking with\\nevery sentiment of personal respect. The first intimation given to the\\nchief baron after this communication of the intention of the crown,\\nwas by the filing of this information.\\nAllow me now to ask, whether, if the Court of Exchequer refused\\nto admit another officer, a mandamus could issue from this court to\\ncompel them To show that it could not, I beg to cite Lee\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case,\\nCarth. 169, 170. 3 Mod. 332, 335. S. C. In that case, a manda\u00c2\u00ac\\nmus to admit a proctor into the Ecclesiastical Court was refused, and\\non this ground that (3. Mod. 335.) officers are incident to all courts,\\nand must partake of the nature of those several and respective courts,\\nin which they attend; and the judges, or those who have the supreme\\nauthority in those courts, are the proper persons to censure the beha\u00c2\u00ac\\nviour of their own officers, and if they should be mistaken, the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nBench cannot relieve: for in all cases where.such judges keep within\\ntheir bounds, no other courts can correct their errors in proceedings.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAnd the sole question raised in that case was, whether the court had\\nacted within its jurisdiction. Sir Bartholomew Shower, who was coun\u00c2\u00ac\\nsel for the mandamus, in his argument endeavours to distinguish the\\ncase, as being that of an inferior jurisdiction admitting that it would\\nbe otherwise in the case of the Court of Common Pleas. This case\\nwill be material in a subsequent part of my argument, as showing that\\nthe course of the court is the law: but at present I use it only to show\\nthat one court is not subjeot to the control of another of co-ordinate\\njurisdiction.\\nAgain, this proceeding is most vexatious; for even if judgment of\\nouster should be pronounced against the defendant, there could.not. be\\njudgment for the king to put him into possession of this franchLe* be-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0457.jp2"}, "458": {"fulltext": "*48\\nAPPENDIX.\\ncause he cannot exercise it himself. Rex v. Stanton, Cro. Jac. 259,\\n260. From the entry in 1 Lill. 6. Woodhouse v. Twyford, it appears,\\nthat when a plea or privilege is put in by an officer of the court, he is\\nnot obliged to go into the right of appointment, but need merely state\\nhis appointment and admission. Thus this proceeding is additionally\\nvexatious. If the crown gets a judgment of ouster, the consequence\\nwill be, that it will appoint a person to execute this office, who must go\\nback to the Court of Exchequer, and according to the course of law,\\nsubmit to them the validity of that appointment. Nor is this merely\\na wanton conjecture; for in the late act of parliament passed in the\\nlast session, making provision for the fees of this office, it is recited,\\nAnd whereas his royal highness the Prince Regent, in the name, c.\\nproposes to make a grant of the said office,\u00e2\u0080\u009d which is a direct inti\u00c2\u00ac\\nmation that the crown is to grant. And whereas a suit has been\\ninstituted, and other suits may hereafter be instituted respecting\\nthe right of a grantee of his majesty, c.\u00e2\u0080\u0099\u00e2\u0080\u0099 So that this proceed\u00c2\u00ac\\ning is to end in a grant by the crown to try the right. Should these\\nsuits which are spoken of, be instituted, where are they to be tried l\\nCan they be tried any where but in the Court of Exchequer Unless,\\nindeed, in the spirit of these proceedings, an act of parliament is to be\\npassed for transferring the jurisdiction. If these suits are to be con\u00c2\u00ac\\nformable to precedents from the earliest times, they can follow no other\\ncourse than that which I have suggested. And can it be thought a\\nwholesome or a sound exercise of that discretion which is placed in the\\ncrown, instead of trying the right in the first instance, to institute a\\nproceeding which is to deprive the party of the benefit of pleading, to\\nsubject him to costs, and to call down condemnation upon the Court of\\nExchequer? And this for the purpose of again submitting the same\\nquestion to that same court, thus degraded and vilified It can only\\nbring the law into disgrace: and if my learned friend the attorney-\\ngeneral were now addressing your lordships, he would disclaim such an\\nimputation. I am sure he is incapable of sanctioning so revolutionary\\nand jacobinical a doctrine: and if these shameful consequences had\\nstruck his mind, he would never have prosecuted such a suit. So firmly\\nwas I impressed with the weight of these consequences, that I advised\\nthe chief baron to call on this court to enter a remanet upon this record,\\ntill the opinion of the twelve judges could be had upon it, and until\\n(if necessary) the twelve judges of England should be consulted. He\\nhas, however, declined to do so, and desires his case to go before a jury\\nbut I should not have conceived I had done my duty, had I not advised\\nhim as I did.\\nThere are three material issues before the court and the jury. The\\nfirst is upon an uniform usage alleged by the attorney-general to have\\nexisted in the crown from time immemorial, to appoint to this office.\\nThe second is upon a right of the chief baron as chief judge of the\\ncourt (which he is by this pleading admitted to be,) and by the usage\\nand course of the court, namely, that he should appoint to all such of\u00c2\u00ac\\nfices as the court were at any time entitled to appoint to: and the third", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0458.jp2"}, "459": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX\\n449\\nh simply upon that usage. These issues are all nearly connected with\\neach other. In order to have a determination upon the second, we\\nmust previously dispose of the first: and accordingly this course has\\nbeen taken by the crown. The argument of the attorney-general is\\nthis that if the court has such a right, it must be, either by the origi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnal constitution of the court, or by prescription, or by act of parliament:\\nand he says that there is no evidence of this being the original consti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntution of the court. Again he says, that even if the right ever were in\\nthe court, yet, first, it could not be legally transferred, and secondly\\nthat in point of fact it was not transferred. This, if I mistake not,\\ncomprehends the sum of his argument. The words used by him in stat\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the right of the court, are somewhat ambiguous: he says that if\\nthere be such a right, it must be either by the constitution of the\\ncourt, or by prescription, or by act of parliament.\u00e2\u0080\u009d What is meant by\\nthe original constitution of the court, I do not exactly know. If it\\nmeans the common law, then I heartily subscribe to the position: buo\\nif it means some positive institution of the court, as implying some at\u00c2\u00ac\\ntributes which the common law does not allow to it, then I must deny\\nit. And here let me remark, that by a singular and unaccountable\\nfelicity, the attorney-general has not once in the whole course of his\\nargument mentioned the name of the common law. That this should\\nbe the case, I am not surprised: because the attorney-general has\\nfound himself under the necessity of falling foul of Lord Coke and Lord\\nHolt.\\nThere is a difference between the two modes of expression, common\\nlaw and usage. According to the one, it would be necessary to show the\\nright had always existed but not so in the other. The common law\\nis the protection of the inheritances and the liberties of the subject.\\nIt is a body of immemorial usage not arising from prescription\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor\\nfrom act of parliament\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor from charter: but growing out of the\\nimmemorial usages which have prevailed in these countries As they\\nexisted in England they were imported here, as a grand code of law,\\nby King John, in the 12th year of his reign. The attorney-general\\nhas alleged, that although by the common law of England these rights\\nwere established in the chief justices there, yet it would not be so\\nhere. I deny that; for I say the subjects of this country are purchasers\\nof the common law of England, and of all its properties and all its\\nbenefits. It was not arbitrarily imposed upon them by conquest: they\\nwere purchasers of the entire benefit of it; and therefore if by the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon law of England this right is vested in courts of law, it is necessarily\\n\u00c2\u00abo here also.\\nIn order to learn what is the common law, I know of no other mode,\\nthan by inquiring into the reasonableness of the thing, the ancient usage\\nof the country in that and in analogous cases, the declaration of the legis\u00c2\u00ac\\nlature, the expositions of wise and learned men, and finally the decisions\\nof courts of justice. I shall refer to all these criterions for the pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose of seeing whether there is any common law upon this subject, and\\nil so, what it is. The first circumstance for your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention i s tl", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0459.jp2"}, "460": {"fulltext": "450\\nAPPENDIX.\\ndeclaration in the Stat. of Wcstm. 2 c. 30,13 Edward I., anno 1285; the\\nwords of which are, All justices of the benches from henceforth shall\\nhave in their circuits clerks to enroll all pleas pleaded before them, like\\nas they used to have in times past.\u00e2\u0080\u009d By the common law, wherever a\\ncourt of common law exists, tne judges of that court, or one of them,\\nmust have a power of appointing the clerks who are to enroll the plead\u00c2\u00ac\\nings and judgments. My Lord Coke, in his comment on the above\\npassage,* says, *Hereby it appeareth that the justices of courts,did\\never appoint their clerks, some of which after, by prescription, grew to\\nbe officers in their courts as here it is put for example, that the jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntices of the benches in their circuits had clerks that enrolled all pleas\\npleaded before them, as anciently^they used to have, that is, as by the\\ncommon law.\u00e2\u0080\u009d So that by this comment, Lord Coke declares that the\\nstatute is in this respect but confirmatory of the common law; and fur\u00c2\u00ac\\nther, that the case to which the legislature had applied this declaration,\\nis only put by way of example. He then proceeds, Now the cause of\\nmaking this branch was, tnat the king was informed that he might\\nerect offices for entering and enrolment of records in his courts of jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice, and especially justices of assize, which this branch declaretn to\\nbelong to the justices, and that they had enjoyed this of ancient time,\\nthat is, by common law.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Here then Lord Coke declares the common\\nlaw, and expressly states the encroachments of the crown: and that for\\nthe remedy of this particular encroachment, the statute declared the\\ncommon law. And the reason (says he) is twofold. These reasons\\nof Lord Coke the attorney-general has treated as ludicrous. I think\\nI am sufficiently live to the ridiculous, and have a due sense of the\\nfacetious powers of my learned friend the attorney-general; but in this\\ninstance 1 am so dull and stupid as not to feel the ludicrous effect of\\nthese reasons. The first of them is, for that the law doth ever appoint\\nthose that have the greatest knowledge and skill, to perform that which\\nis to be done.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now, for the life of me, I cannot see the joke. On\\nthe contrary, if I were looking for a grave and satisfactory reason,\\nfit to come from the lips of one of the sages of the law, and to be incor\u00c2\u00ac\\nporated in that great comment, which is, more than anything that I\\nknow, the evidence of the common law, I could not have found one\\nmore so in every respect than this. These were the feelings of ancient\\ntimes\u00e2\u0080\u0094the presumption then was in favour of the wisdom and integrity\\nof judges, and that they would exercise their offices with honesty and\\njudgment. But it is in these days to be supposed, that judges will not\\nexercise their rights with impartiality and integrity Such were not\\nthe feelings of Lord Coke, or of that day, or under which our common\\n^w has grown.\\nThe second reason given by Lord Coke is, that the officers and\\nclerks are but to enter, enrol, or effect that which the justices do\\nadjudge, award or order, the insufficient doing of which maketh the pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceeding of the justices erroneous, (this is a precise statement of the\\n2 Inst. 425.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0460.jp2"}, "461": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n451\\nduty of the clerk of the pleas in the several courts), than which nothing\\ncan be more dishonourable and grievous to the justices, and prejudicial\\nto the party: therefore the law, as here it appeareth, did appropriate\\nto the justices the making of their own clerks and officers, and so to\\nproceed judicially by their own instruments; and that this was the\\ncommon law, the king cannot grant the office of the shire or county\\nc-erk (who is to enter all judgments and proceedings in the county\\ncourt) for that the making of the shire clerk belongeth to the sheriff\\nby tlie common law, as in Mitton\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case it appeareth, et sic de cceteris.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nIf a century had been employed in condensing the reasons of this\\ncommon law principle, it could not have been done in words more em-\\nphatical than those of Lord Coke. The attorney-general says, the\\ncourt has no interest in the proceedings but only the party. This is\\nnot the law. The judges are interested, first in the propriety of their\\nown judgments, and next in the faithful entering of them. They are\\ninterested in having their judgments duly taken down and enrolled by\\ntheir own instruments. They are likewise interested in the safety and\\nrights of the subjects, suitors in their courts. They are the persons to\\nguard that safety and those rights. From the moment that courts of jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice are framed, from that moment the rights and the duties of protecting\\nthe subject devolve upon them, and it is their interest as well as their duty\\nto protect his rights. And yet we are now told, that courts are not proper\\njuuges of their duty, but are to be called to the tribunal of some other\\ncourt, to answer for their discharge of those duties of which the law\\nhas constituted them the only judges. It is a doctrine in the highest\\ndegree illegal and unconstitutional, fraught with the most mischievous\\nconsequences, and one which ought to be instantly met and put down.\\nFor the doctrine thus laid down by Lord Coke, he refers to Mitton\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\ncase, 4 Rep. 32. In that case, the crown appointed a sheriff, and then\\nappointed a shire clerk. The question was between the sheriff (who\\nclaimed a power of appointing tne shire clerk) and the appointee of the\\ncrown. This was in 26 Elizabeth, 1584. The argument for the crown\\nadmitted, that if the sheriff were the judge of the county court, the\\nright by common law belonged to him. The whole question turned\\nupon tnis, whether it was the sheriff\u00e2\u0080\u0099s court or not. The attorney-\\ngeneral says the question was whether it was the property of the sheriff\\nor not; and with some degree of triumph asked, if the Exchequer was\\nthe chief baron\u00e2\u0080\u0099s court N o one ever said that it was; but in the same\\nsense as the sheriff\u00e2\u0080\u0099s court is his, the Exchequer is the court of the barons.\\nThey are both the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s courts, though these judges preside in them.\\nThe true and only inquiry was this, was the sheriff the president of the\\ncourt And it Is then laid down, that law and reason require that\\nthe sheriff, who is a public officer, and minister of justice, and who\\nhas an office of such eminency, confidence, peril, and charge, ought to\\nhave all rights appertaining to his office, and ought to be favoured in\\nlaw before any private person for his singular benefit and avail.\u00e2\u0080\u009d To\\nthis case Lord Coke adds a decision by Anderson and Popham with\\nregard to gaolers, to the same effect. Ail are parts of the same principle", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0461.jp2"}, "462": {"fulltext": "452\\nAPPENDIX.\\nand analogy, namely, that a derivative office is inseparably incident to\\nits principal. In Mitton\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case many precedents of appointments by\\nthe king were stated but what was the answer \u00e2\u0080\u009cjudicandum est\\nlegibus, non exemplis\u00e2\u0080\u009d that is to say, that if the law be clear, instances\\nthe other way are to be considered not as precedents, but as usurpations.\\nNow apply these principles to this case: although the king may have\\nthe power of appointing the judges who constitute the court, yet having\\nonce constituted them to be a court, the appointment of their clerks\\nmust be incident to their office, and the crown cannot take it from\\nthem. In Mitton\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case, though the crown had the appointment and\\nremoval of the principal, yet it was held not to have the appointment\\nof the subordinate officer.\\nIn the case of Harcourt v. Fox, cited on the other side (1 Show 526)\\nthis doctrine is still more strongly exemplified. There the king might\\nby virtue of his prerogative appoint any of the justices custos rotulorum;\\nbut the moment he did appoiut one, then, ex necessitate and by the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon law, such custos must have the appointment of clerk of the peace.\\nSuch is the law as laid down by C. J. Holt, who was one of the most\\ndistinguished men in the history of our law. He suffered under the\\ntyranny of James II., for hi3 integrity and principles, and for his efforts\\nin establishing our civil and religious liberties. After the Revolution\\nlie was made by King William chief justice of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench: and\\nby his learning and talents he dignified and adorned that high situation\\nto which he had been raised by his integrity and independence. It is\\ntherefore (allow me to say) a flippant mode of getting rid of the autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrity of such a man to say that he had a cause involving a similar point\\non his own part, and was therefore influenced in giving his judgment.\\nHis words are (530) the clerk being the person that must be trusted\\nwith the rolls to make entries upon, to draw judgments, to record pleas,\\nto join issues, and enter judgments, then of common right, by the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon law of the land, it belongs to him that hath the keeping of the re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncords, to nominate this clerk, and not to any one else.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Here the keep\u00c2\u00ac\\ning of the records is relied on as if the right of appointment grew out\\nof it. The case of the custos rotulorum was peculiarly circumstanced.\\nAll the justices were of equal degree, and they could not agree amongst\\neach other, which of them should have the right that must belong to\\none, namely, of nominating the custos rotulorum. If they could have\\nagreed, it would have become the usage of the court that the one so\\nagreed upon should appoint, and there would then have been no pretence\\nfor the interference of the crown. But this not having been done, the\\ncrown of necessity appointed the custos, and he, when so appointed, had\\nof course the nomination of the clerk of the peace.\\nThe powers of superior courts do not grow out of the keeping of the\\nrecords, but the keeping of the records belongs to them as judges of\\nthe courts. The custody of the records is incident to the pronouncing\\nof the judgments. Thus it is said that all the justices being judges\\nof record, the records of the court must belong to them, and certiorari\u00e2\u0080\u0099s", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0462.jp2"}, "463": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n453\\nto remove them must be directed to the justices in general, c.\u00e2\u0080\u009d* I\\ntake this case to be a most governing one upon this subject. Your\\nlordships see that the right of having the custody of the records is not\\nderived from the act of the crown appointing a custos, but the law an\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexes the custody of the records to the merely being judges in the court.\\nAnd in like manner Lord Coke states this right of appointment to be in\\nthe court from its constitution, and without reference to any custody of\\nthe records; he deduces it not from any such custody, but solely from\\ntheir being judges.\\nAll the points in this case of Harcourt v. Fox are important; because\\njustices of the peace, custos rotulorum, and clerk of the peace, are all\\noffices created within time of memory; they did not exist at common\\nlaw; their origin was recent. But yet the consequence of the common\\nlaw principle that wherever a court is created they are to appoint their\\nown clerks, did, when this new jurisdiction was created, attach to it;\\naud this is the reason why the attorney-general was so unwilling to allow\\nthis right to be in the court by common law, but w@uld have your lord-\\nships suppose it must have been in them, if at all, by what he calls the\\noriginal constitution cf the court. At all times, and under all circum\u00c2\u00ac\\nstances, the court, who are to pronounce the judgment, must nominate\\nthe clerk; so that even if other persons had originally been the judges,\\nand then new persons should be appointed, the common law principle\\nwould attach, and those new persons would have the nomination. For\\ninstance, your lordships see, that upon the creation of this new jurisdic\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of justices of the peace in the time of Edward III., there did not\\nresult to the king a right of nominating their clerks, but the common\\nlaw principle took it out of the king, and put it into the court; and so\\nby the common law, the justices of the peace had the appointment of\\nthe custos; but they not being able to agree upon the particular person\\nwho should exercise that right, the king nominated one; but even then,\\nthe king could not nominate a man who was not in the commission.\\nAud yet if he be the fountain of all office, except so far as a court has\\nthe appointment from its original constitution, or by prescription, (as\\nhas been asserted) he might have done so. Why is it then that he could\\nnot because when the legislature had once created a new court of re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncord, the appointment of its clerks necessarily belonged to that court.\\nYour lordships will find that Lord Holt has expressly stated these courts\\nto have been created within time of memory. He says, the com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmission of the peace did commence in time of memory, and the justices\\nwere appointed by the crown, not before the 1st of Edward III., and\\nthen they were made in lieu of the conservators of the peace, who were\\nas ancient officers as the law knew.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The conservators were at com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon law, and to them of right belonged the nomination of their own\\nclerks. Then the constitution of the court was changed; instead ot\\nconservators, there were appointed justices of the peace; but still the\\ncommon law attributes of judges were transferred to those new officers.\\n1 Shew. 528,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0463.jp2"}, "464": {"fulltext": "454\\nAPPENDIX.\\nand in virtue of them, they also had the nomination of their clerks.\\nSo in 4 Mod. 173. S. C. It is plain that it was not an office time\\nimmemorial, because the commission of the peace is not so.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It then\\nmentions the original of the office of custos, and goes on, Afterwards\\nit became incident to the office of the lord keeper to nominate the cust.\\nrot. and then because of the necessity of one to make entries and join\\nissues, the custos appointed a clerk for that purpose, who is now called\\njlerk of the peace; and this seems very agreeable to the statute of\\nVVestm. 2, by which it appears, that such officers and clerks who are to\\nenter and enrol pleas, were always appointed by the judge or chief\\nminister of the same court.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe next authority to which I shall call your lordships\u00e2\u0080\u0099 attention, is\\nSkroggs v. Coleshil, 1 Dy. 175. a. b. The office of exigenter of Lon\u00c2\u00ac\\ndon and other counties became vacant, and afterwards the chief justice\\nof the common bench died, and during the vacancy of both offices, the\\nqueen granted to Coleshil the office of exigenter, and then appointed\\nBrown chief justice, who refused to admit Coleshil, and admitted Skroggs\\nhis nephew. The queen commanded Sir Nicholas Bacon, keeper of the\\ngreat seal, to examine and report the title of Coleshil. And he having\\nconvened the judges of the Queen\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, the chief baron, the attorney-\\ngeneral, and the attorney-general of the duchy, took a clear resolu\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion after a long debate and hesitation of all the premises, that the title\\nof Coleshil was null, and that the gift of the said office by no means,\\nand at no time belongs or can belong to our lady the queen, but is only\\nin the disposal of the chief justice for the time being, as an inseparable\\nincident belonging to the person of the said chief, and this by reason of\\nprescription and usage. Aud it follows from this, that our lady the\\nqueen herself cannot be chief justice in the said bench.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It appears\\nhowever, that the queen was not satisfied with this exclusion to which\\n3he was subjected, for notwithstanding the said resolution of the judges\\naforesaid, the queen upon importunate suit, directed her commission to\\nthe Earl of Bedford and nine others, giving them authority to hear and\\ndetermine the interest and title of the said office, c.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And afterwards,\\nColeshil exhibited a bill to those commissioners stating his title, and\\nSkroggs demurred to the jurisdiction, for which he was committed to\\nthe fleet, and there remained for two weeks: and then request was\\nmade by three serjeants in the bench to grant a corpus cum causa di\u00c2\u00ac\\nrected to the warden of the fleet. And upon consideration of the court,\\nthe request was held reasonable, and to be granted, because he was a\\nperson in the court, and a necessary member of it. And note the words\\nof the statute West. 2. c. 30, for the origin of clerks of assize, c.\\nAll justices shall have in their circuits clerks to enrol all pleas pleaded\\nbefore them, like as they used to have in times past. And so it seems\\nin reason, that the justices were before the clerks, and made clerks at\\ntheir pleasure.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nI do not mean to quit this argument without explaining the words\\nprescription and usage,\u00e2\u0080\u009d above used; because it has been argued\\nfrom them by the attorney-general, that this right of appointment was", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0464.jp2"}, "465": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n455\\nvested in the chief justice by a personal prescription. The term pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription\u00e2\u0080\u009d in this instance means this, that by the common law the right\\nof appointment was necessarily vested in all the judges of the court,\\nbut that the personal right of appointment as exercised by the chief\\njustice alone, was founded upon prescription and usage,\u00e2\u0080\u009d which trans\u00c2\u00ac\\nferred that power which was originally in the whole court, to him indi\u00c2\u00ac\\nvidually exactly what we say has been done in the present case. Upon\\nthis part of the case, the authority already cited from Anderson* is ma\u00c2\u00ac\\nterial, as also the case of Brownlow v. Cop and Michell, Mo. 842.\\nBrownlow was the prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas the\\ncrown appointed another person, and Brownlow brought his assize\\nagainst the appointee of the crown. He waived his privilege, and\\nbrought his assize in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, The king directed his writ to\\nthe justices, reciting that he had by his patent granted the making of\\nsupersedeas\u00e2\u0080\u0099s to the defendant, and requiring the justices not to pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nceed rege inconsulto. It was insisted that the writ should be quashed,\\nand there was a long argument upon it. The mode of arguing does\\nnot exactly appear, but the crown admitted they had not the right, by\\nentering into an undertaking with the court, not to appoint in future,\\nthus clinging to their usurpation at the very moment they were ob\u00c2\u00ac\\nliged to admit that it was a usurpation. And an indenture was ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntually executed to that effect.\\nAfter all these authorities and all these principles, it might well be\\nsupposed that in England this question would be set at rest. But it\\nwas not so and the crown once more attempted to raise it in the case\\nin Show P. C. cited by the attorney-general.f This was the case of\\nBridgeman v. Holt, reported also in Skinn. 354. And this case itself\\ncontains the principles upon which the common law right of the chief\\njustice has been established. I wish to apprise you, gentlemen of the\\njury, that the uniform usage in England is, that the crown has no right\\nto appoint, and in fact never does appoint, the officer called clerk of\\nthe Pleas, either in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, or the Common Pleas, or in the\\nExchequer.\\nFrom the statement of this case of Bridgeman v. Holt by the attor\u00c2\u00ac\\nney-general, your lordships might imagine that C. J. Holt had pleaded\\na prescriptive personal right, and not a right at common law. Now,\\nthe first thing material to be observed in that case is, that it was an ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of assize, and the general issue was pleaded so that it did not\\nappear from the pleading, whether the defendant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s claim rested on pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription or on common law. The whole case came out upon evidence,\\nof which it will be necessary to trouble the court with the detail. The\\nfirst piece of evidence given by the plaintiff was the patent from the\\ncrown. The defendant insisted that the office of clerk of the Pleas\\nwas not grantable by the crown, but that the right of appointment be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlonged to the chief justice of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench. And to prove this, it\\ntfas shown that the business of the officer is to enrol pleas between\\nCavendish\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Case, 1 And. 152.\\nt 111.\\n-I", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0465.jp2"}, "466": {"fulltext": "(156\\nAPPENDIX.\\nparty and party only, that is to say, common pleas, and had nothing* to\\ndo with pleas of the crown that all the rolls and records in this office\\nwere in the custody of the chief justice: that all the writs to certify or\\nremove records in this clerk\u00e2\u0080\u0099s office are directed to the chief justice\\nand from the nature of the employment, it was insisted, that in truth\\nlie was but the chief justice\u00e2\u0080\u0099s clerk and that consequently the office\\nmust be granted by the chief justice. Thus, they first state the nature\\nof the office, and then the particular reasons which gave the right of\\nappointing to it, to the chief justice. And for further proof it was\\n\u00c2\u00abh*wn by the records of the court, that for the space of 235 years past,\\nthis office, when void, had been granted by the chief justice.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It has\\nbeen asked, why, if the chief justice had really this right by common*\\nlaw, should he be so absurd as to go into evidence of the usage I\\nwould be glad to know whether there is any common law right claimed\\nby the crown jn this case Or has such a right been abandoned by the\\ncounsel for the crown For the whole of this day, and part of yester\u00c2\u00ac\\nday, has been employed by them in giving evidence of the usage. If the\\ncrown have no common law right, then let them give up any claim to it;\\nand if they have, they cannot lay any stress upon Lord Holt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s going\\ninto evidence of usage. The fact is, that Lord Holt did no more than\\nthe attorney-general has done in this very case, or than any prudent\\nman would. He first showed his common law right, and having the\\nusage in his favour, he offered that usage in evidence in farther confir\u00c2\u00ac\\nmation of his common law right. But 1 undertake to show that his\\nright was determined on the ground of common law, and not of any\\npersonal prescription.\\nIn the first place,, his counsel insisted upon the mere right of grant\u00c2\u00ac\\ning the said office, viz., that it was not grantable by the crown, but was\\nad office belonging to the chief justice of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, and\\ngrantable by him.\u00e2\u0080\u009d In the next place, it was observed on behalf of\\nthe defendant, that in all these records produced and read in court,\\nafter the mention of the surrender to the chief justice, there are these\\nwords, to whom of right it doth belong to grant that office whenso\u00c2\u00ac\\never it shall be void.\u00e2\u0080\u0099 Again, it was further insisted and proved that\\nthere are, in the nature of clerks, three considerable officers of the\\nCourt of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench the first and chiefest is the clerk of the crown.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAnd here let me answer the objection that our argument would go to\\nprove too much, as according to it the clerk of the crown ought also to\\nto be appointed by the court. We mean only to say, that in the case\\nof Common Pleas the court has such a right. The clerk of the crown\\n(Shower 113) is the attorney-general and prosecutor of the crown, and\\nis to draw all indictments, informations, c.,in pleas of the crown, and\\ntliis without the interference of the court. The crown might therefore\\njustly enough say, that an office of this nature should be in its own dis\u00c2\u00ac\\nposal but yet even in that case, so strong was the leaning in favour of\\nthe general common law principle, that this clerk also was originally\\nappointed by the court. Com. Dig. Courts.\u00e2\u0080\u009d B. 4. A statute was\\nafterwards framed (15th Edward HI.) to this effect: It is consented", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0466.jp2"}, "467": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX,\\n45 7\\nthat if any of tlie offices aforesaid (which are mentioned in the act) or\\nthe controller or chief clerk in the Common Bench or King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench,\\nby death or other case, be ousted of their office, the king, with the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nsent of the great men, c., shall put another tit person in such office.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAfter the making of this statute, the king appointed the clerk of the\\ncrown, which he had never done before; and though the act has since\\nbeen repealed, yet it having been considered as in this respect declara\u00c2\u00ac\\ntory of the common law, the crown has continued still to appoint the\\nclerk of the crown in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench but on the circuits the senior\\njudge appoints the clerk of the crown.\\nThe second officer (say the counsel in the case in Shower) is the\\nprothonotary or chief clerk for enrolling pleas between party and party\\nin civil matters; he and his under clerks do enrol all declarations,\\npleadings, c., in civil causes, especially where the proceedings are by\\nbill. This clerk files in his office all the bills, declarations, c., and all\\nthe writs of this court in civil matters are made by him and his under\\nclerks, and tested by the chief justice; and\u00e2\u0080\u0098he hath the custody of all\\nreturns of elegits, executions, scire facias\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, and the filing of all bills,\\nevery of which are, in the eye and judgment of the law, in the hands of\\nthe chief justice, whose clerk this officer is.\\nThe third is the custos brevium, who keeps all the rolls and records\\nof judgments in this court, which are also said to be in the custody of\\nthe chief justice and this office, when void, is in his gift and disposal.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe defendant then insisted on the statute of Edward VI. against\\nthe sale of offices,* which contains a salvo to the two chief justices and\\njudges of assize to dispose of the offices in their disposition, as they used\\nto do, and so far recognizes the common law right of the judges.\\nAnd then to prove the defendant\u00e2\u0080\u0099s title, the grant of the chief justice\\nwas produced and read and proved, and that the defendant was admitted\\nand sworn.\\nTo answer all this evidence, there was produced the copy of an act\\nof parliament made in 15 Edw. III., allowing the king, as already men\u00c2\u00ac\\ntioned, to fill certain places when vacant, and it was urged, that by vir\u00c2\u00ac\\ntue of this act, the king had the right of appointing to the office.\\nUpon this evidence, the court declared they would nonsuit the plain\u00c2\u00ac\\ntiff. Now if this were a case in which the right of the chief justice\\nhad rested (as alleged) upon a personal prescription, it was a case to go\\nto the jury, but if on the other hand, it were a right at common law,\\nthen it v/as a question for the court itself to decide. Having put the act\\nof parliament out of the way, the court would nonsuit, because there\\nwas a clear common law right in the chief justice, whicli if not taken\\nout of him by the act, would bar the plaintiff. The counsel for the\\ncrown did not deny, that if the act were out of the way, the court were\\nright, but they insisted that it was impossible to get rid of the act, and\\nprayed the court that it should go to the jury. The court, did wiiaG\\nthey ought not to have done, and did suffer it to go to the jury; and\\ntiie jury found that this office did not pass to the crown under the act.\\n5 and 6 Edward VI. c. 16.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0467.jp2"}, "468": {"fulltext": "458\\nAPPENDIX.\\nThe plaintiffs counsel then tendered a bill of exceptions, on the\\nground that the court and not the jury ought to have judged of the act\\nof parliament, which bill the court very properly refused to sign, inas\u00c2\u00ac\\nmuch as this was done at their own instance and desire, whereupon they\\nwent to the House of Lords. In the report of this case in Skinn. 355,\\nit is said the counsel pressed it should go to the jury, and the judges\\naccordingly left it to them.\\nWhat then was the case of Chief Justice Holt,, on the whole of this\\ntrial Your lordships will recollect he was not hampered by any par\u00c2\u00ac\\nticular pleading, but was allowed to give everything in evidence under\\nthe general issue. The opinion of the court clearly was, that (the act\\nbeing once out of the way) there was a principle that enabled them to\\ndecide in favour of the defendant. This could only be a common law\\nprinciple, which was a question for the court and not for the jury. The\\ndefendant did in evidence, what we have been obliged to do in pleading,\\nthat is, he showed a common law right in the court at large, and then\\na transfer of the exercise of that right by usage and prescription to the\\nperson of the chief justice. Had Chief Justice Holt spread his title out\\nupon the record, he would not have called it a prescription. It was no\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing more than an usage. He would have stated his title exactly as\\nwe do here, namely a right at first inherent in the court, but by usage\\nto be exercised by the chief justice.\\nThere is a great distinction between prescription and usage. A pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription implies a grant: an usage implies no such thing. On the con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrary, the idea of a grant would be inconsistent with it. An usage is a\\ncustomary mode of modifying or qualifying an existing right. But in\\nno case does it imply a grant. It is merely what becomes a practice.\\nHence it is not necessary, for the validity of an usage, or in order to\\nconstitute the practice of a court, to go beyond time of legal memory.\\nForty or fifty years, or any time which is long enough to show the court,\\nthat such a thing is the practice, will suffice. A course of the court\\nwhen ascertained, is the law of the court, and is binding not only upon\\nthat court itself, but upon all other courts.\\nWe have been driven to strictness in pleading, and been obliged\\n(perhaps fortunately) to state our title with a degree of accuracy^ to\\nwhich Lord Holt was not bound. He showed in evidence first the law,\\nand theu the usage grounding his own right. And just so have we done\\nin pleading. In fact, the usage of a court must be decided by the court,\\nand in Lord Holt\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case there could be no question for the jury upon\\nthat point. Had the question been upon a personal prescription, it must\\nhave gone to the jury, but the court negatived that supposition, by ex\u00c2\u00ac\\npressing their determination to nonsuit the plaintiff.\\nI think therefore that the case establishes two points for me firsts\\nthat the defendant there set up and established a common law right in\\nthe court: and next, that besides that, he showed an usage to give that\\nright to the chief justice, that is to say, an usage of which the court, and\\nthe court only were to judge.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0468.jp2"}, "469": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX,\\n459\\nTuesday November 19*\\nMy lords and gentlemen of the jury,\u00e2\u0080\u0094The head of argument of which I\\ntreated yesterday, was the common law right of the court to appoint to\\nthis office, and in investigating that head, and the authorities referred\\nto in support of it, I have endeavoured to show that the ground on which\\nthe right is vested in the chief justice of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench and Common\\nPleas in England, must be a principle of the common law, which an\u00c2\u00ac\\nnexed the right to the court, and then an usage enabling the chief jus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntice to appoint, and that the right cannot be founded upon any personal\\nprescription in the chief justice. I do not think it necessary now to re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncapitulate these arguments. The last argument I submitted from the\\ncase in Shower, was, that the court could not have proceeded upon the\\nnotion of a prescription, inasmuch as they declared their intention of non\u00c2\u00ac\\nsuiting, and would have done so, had it not been for the importunity of\\nthe plaintiffs counsel.\\nIn addition to that argument, I have a few more remarks to offer\\nupon this case, which appear to me to be most material. If the title\\nthere relied upon had been a prescription against the crown, your lord-\\nships know it must have been founded upon the supposition of some\u00c2\u00ac\\nthing which the crown might lawfully grant, for every prescription im\u00c2\u00ac\\nplies a grant. The argument on the other side is, that it was not the\\nusage of the court that was relied on, but a prescriptive right in the\\nperson of the chief justice. This right, if not derived from the court,\\nmust have been derived from the crown. It will be necessary therefore\\nto probe this position, that the right is vested by prescription.\\nLet me ask in the first place, ha d the king a right to make a grant of\\nhis power of nomination And secondly, if he had, might he have\\ngranted it to an absolute stranger, or was he bound to grant to one of\\nthe court If he had the right at all, it must be either generally and\\nwithout restriction, or in the modified way I have just stated, namely,\\na right to grant to one of the court, and to no other. If the former is\\nasserted, and if the proposition be, that the king has a right to grant to\\nany person at his pleasure, I must beg leave totally to deny it; because\\nI think your lordships will find, that where there are any certain rights\\nand prerogatives remaining in the crown, and undeparted with (I am\\nnow, for argument\u00e2\u0080\u0099s sake, supposing the right of nominating this officer\\nnot to be out of the crown,) these are original and inherent prerogatives\\nof the crown, and cannot be divested by the constitution of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nBench. If this particular right was vested in the crown, it was so vested\\nfor the public benefit, and could not be departed with. If this be so,\\nthough the king, it is true, might grant the office, yet it is equally true,\\nhe could not grant to another the power of granting the office. For\\nI lay it down as a principle of law, that though the king may depart\\nwith his lands, which are his private property, and though as to then\\nthere might therefore have been a prescription against him even prior\\nto the nullum tempus act, yet from the nature of the thing, such pre-.\\n^cription must be confined to such things as the king may lawfully grant.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0469.jp2"}, "470": {"fulltext": "appendu.\\n400\\nIt is so laid down by Lord Mansfield in the case of the Mayor of Hull\\nv. Horner, Cowper, 102. He refers to the case of the King v. Brown,\\nand says, that even before the nullum tempus act, he had always held,\\nthat there might be a prescriptive right against the crown. But he\\nconfines it to cases where the crown might lawfully grant.\u00e2\u0080\u0094This indeed\\nis so clear upon principles of reason, of analogy, and of policy, that it\\nis scarcely necessary to cite authorities in support of it. To instance a\\nfamiliar case if I appoint a trustee to act for me, he may do anything\\nnecessary for the execution of his trust, but he cannot transfer the trust\\nitself. That is a personal confidence, and cannot be conveyed to an\u00c2\u00ac\\nother. So it is with regard to the crown, which is a public trustee.\\nThough it may grant an office to any person it thinks proper, yet it can\u00c2\u00ac\\nnot transfer the right of nominating to such office. If (as we are now\\nsupposing) the right of appointing to the office of clerk of the Pleas\\nwas not attached to the Court of King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench, and if the exercise of\\nit in the crown was not confined to any member of that court, then it\\nmust be an original right in the crown, for the benefit of the public, and\\ntherefore the crown must be disabled from granting it. Your lordships\\nwill find, that the moment anything is vested in the crown, which in the\\ncontemplation of law is for the public good, that moment is the crown\\ndisabled from transferring it. In the case of the temporalities of a\\nbishop, they are vested in the crown during the vacancy of the see. It\\ndoes not very clearly appear that the public benefit requires that such\\na right should not be granted away. It might at first be well supposed,\\nthat it was a sort of private property in the crown, and accordingly it\\nwas not originally clear, but that the crown might have transferred it.\\nBut yet it is declared by Magna Charta, that these temporalities shall\\nnot be sold. From the moment it was ascertained by this declaration,\\nthat such a prerogative was a public one, from that moment was the\\ncrown incapacitated from deputing it. And Lord Coke, in his com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmentary on Magna Charta (2 Inst. 15.) lays it down, that there can be\\nno prescription for these temporalities against the crown. The same\\nthing is laid down, Com. Dig. Grant G. 2. And indeed this is strictly\\nconsonant to the spirit of our civil polity. And in confirmation of this\\ndoctrine,! beg to refer your lordships to the case of Colt and Glover v.\\nBishop of Coventry. Hob. 140, 154. The court there say, But a\\nlapse (as I have said) is an act and office of trust reposed by law in the\\nordinary, metropolitan, and lastly in the king (who is cerium et stabili\\nmention justiticB) the end of which is to provide the church of a rector,\\nin default of the patron and yet as for him, and to his behoof. And\\ntherefore, as he cannot transfer his trust to another, so cannot he di\u00c2\u00ac\\nrect the thing wherewith he is trusted, to any other purpose; and\\ntherefore, though the king or bishop may suffer the church to stand void\\n(winch yet is culpa yet they cannot bind themselves, that they will not\\nfill the church, for that were injuria et malum in se; and therefore\\nspall be judged in law, in deceit of the king for eadem mens prcesum-\\nitur Regis, quce est juris, et quace esse debet prczsertim in dubiis J\\nAllow me now to apply this general analogy of the law to the present", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0470.jp2"}, "471": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n401\\nquestion, namely, whether the case in Show, could have been decided\\non the ground of a personal prescription. To suppose it was, necessa\u00c2\u00ac\\nrily infers that the right of nominating to the office was a prerogative\\nnot departed with by the crown; and then the claim of the chief justice\\nmust nave been this, that the king being intrusted with this right, had\\ndelegated that prerogative to another person just in the same manner\\n(though less in degree) as if he had delegated the right of appointing\\nhis judges or other ministers of justice. iS T ow this, I say, he could not\\ndo; because such a prerogative is for the public advantage, and cannot\\nbe deputed.\\nI have put this supposed right of delegation alternatively, either as\\na general one, or as modified in a particular way. Let us now consider\\nthe second supposition, viz., that the right is to be granted only to one\\nof the court. What is it that has so restricted it? If there be nothing\\nin the nature of the court or the common law to restrict it, I do not\\nknow what else cao. And if it be by the common law, the right of\\ngranting the office necessarily belongs to the court. It is impossible\\nfor ingenuity to confuse this argument or to get out of it. If this sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposed prescription be not void as asserting a general right of delegation\\nm the crown, it must inevitably admit a right in the court.\\nThe cases in England have decided this very point; that is, that\\nthere is a right by common law in the court, but that it is exercised by\\none only, namely the head, of the court. Whether this be said to be\\nby prescription or by usage, (if it be granted there is a common law\\nright in the court,) is a matter perfectly indifferent, as to either the\\nrights of the parties, or the determination of the question. If it were\\nclear that there was a right in the court, though it might be erro\u00c2\u00ac\\nneously stated in the pleading, that the chief justice\u00e2\u0080\u0099s right is founded\\non usage instead of prescription, yet still the crown having no right,\\nthis quo warranto information could be wholly unwarrantable.\\nIt appears from the pleadings here, that the chief baron is the chief\\njudge of the Pleas side of the Court of Exchequer; that the chief\\nbaron has named this defendant as the officer, and that he has been\\nadmitted as such by the entire court. So that if I am right in saying\\nthere is a common law right in the court, and that that right is some\\nway or other (no matter how) vested in tlqe chief judge, there is here\\na complete title admitted upon the record. Nay,if it be even alleged that\\nthat right never could be taken out of the court, yet still I say there is\\na clear title on this pleading, because the court made this appointment.\\nA prerogative process to question such an appointment is an abuse\\nof the prerogative. What concern is it of the crown\u00e2\u0080\u0099s, in what manner\\nthe court have exercised their right They have exercised it, and the\\ncrown has nothing to do with it. See whether the grantee of the chief\\nbaron has not done what he was bound to do in pleading. The attor\u00c2\u00ac\\nney-general admitted that if this right was by common law in the\\ncourt (and this will be most material in another part of this case) it\\ncould not be taken from them by grant, or prescription, or anything\\nshort of an act of parliament. It is true, that being once vested in the\\n2 g", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0471.jp2"}, "472": {"fulltext": "462\\nAPPENDIX.\\ncourt, it could not be divested out of them, either by grant, or by pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription, which implies a part. Therefore when we plead our title ac\u00c2\u00ac\\ncording to the nature of this proceeding (not give it in evidence as we\\nwere entitled to do, and as was done in the case in Shower) as a title\\narising from a usage or practice of the court it must avail; for although\\nno usage can divest the court of its right, yet it may modify such right,\\nand determine by whom in particular it may be exercised. This is not\\na grant, nor a prescription, but the usage (which is the law) of the\\ncourt; a law to be recognized not only by the court itself, but by all\\nother courts.\\nThe argument of the attorney-general against this claim is, first that\\nno such usage in point of fact exists; and secondly, that it is not a\\nlawful usage. I have already mentioned, that a usage differs from a\\nprescription, in that prescription supposes a grant, whereas usage does\\nnot, but on the contrary, cannot be supported by a gr,ant. And in\\nproof of this distinction, I beg leave to refer to Gateward\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case, 6 Rep.\\n61, where it is said, \u00e2\u0080\u009cthat every prescription ought to have a lawful\\nbeginning, but otherwise of a custom; for though that ought to be\\nreasonable, it need not be intended to have a lawful beginning, as cus\u00c2\u00ac\\ntom of Gavelkind Borough, English, c. The common law is the\\ngeneral usage of the entire land; but a particular usage (such as\\nGavelkind,) is only a reasonable act which need not to have had such\\nbeginning as a prescription.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And therefore when we talk of the\\nusage of a court it is totally different from a prescription, and cannot\\nhave originated in a grant; it grows merely by admitting such a cer\u00c2\u00ac\\ntain practice. Nor is it necessary, that such a usage of a court should\\nexist from time immemorial; for this would be tying up the hands of\\na court, and preventing it from altering its practice, however inconve-\\nnient^it might be found to be. Indeed it is monstrous to assert that\\nthe usage of a court requires to be from time beyond memory and the\\ncontrary was expressly decided in DeverelTs case, 2 Anstr. 624. The\\nquestion in that case was whether Deverell should be confirmed in the\\nplace of clerk in the remembrancer\u00e2\u0080\u0099s office. It was relied on itliat he\\nshould not be passed over, and it was argued, as here, that the usage\\ninsisted on against him, was not a usage from time immemorial. But\\nChief Baron Macdonald\u00e2\u0080\u0099s answer to that is as follows: It has been\\nargued that no usage can have effect to bind this question, unless such\\nas could be legally set up as a prescription. I cannot agree to this\\nargument. In offices in every court, new customs and new usages\\ngrow up, and get firm root by continuance much short of legal prescrip\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion.\u00e2\u0080\u009d It was not necessary for me to have cited this authority, because\\nit stands to common sense, that a court of justice must cease to be such,\\nwhere it is not at liberty to alter its own practice, and to appoint suck\\nofficers as it thinks fit.\\nUpon this part of the case, your lordships will find that the argument\\nof C. J. Treby in Owen v. Saunders, 1 Lord Raym. 163, is very mate\u00c2\u00ac\\nrial. He is speaking of the office of custos rotulorum v and supposes\\nthat he may have been originally named by the justices themselves, and", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0472.jp2"}, "473": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n463\\nthat the clerk of the peace may have been nominated by him, with the\\nconsent of the court. His words are: The original of this office of\\ncust. rot. is not very clear but in all probability, the trust of the con\u00c2\u00ac\\nservation of the Rolls was committed to one of the justices of the peace,\\nand then he was called custos rotulorum and probably by the consent\\nof his brethren he nominated the clerk of the peace. He is called so,\\n13 Hen. IV., 10 pi. 33. And in Dyer 175 b. it is said that it seems in\\nreason that the justices were before clerks. 12 Ric. 2, c. 10, calls\\nhim clerk of the justices, and appoints him wages. 2 Hen. VII. 1,\\nfirst makes mention of the custos rotulorum, c.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now, in this, two\\nthings are important to be observed. First, that all this is alleged to\\nbe within time of memory; the establishment of justices of the peace\\nis so, and consequently so must this usage. And secondly, that the\\npower of nominating the clerk of the peace may have been given by\\nthe justices at large, and by their consent, to one of their brethren\\nand this, by a usage of the court. And it is also to be remarked, that\\nno doubt is here entertained of the legality of such usage. The only\\ndoubt is as to the fact.\\n1 take it, therefore, that the usage of a court with respect to matters\\nwithin its jurisdiction, makes the law; it binds the court itself and\\nevery other court: and every court is bound ex officio to take notice of\\nit, just as much as if it were the law of that particular court. It is a\\nthing not questionable\u00e2\u0080\u0094not traversable\u00e2\u0080\u0094nor for a jury to decide upon\\n\u00e2\u0080\u0094but is a question for the consideration of the court. This is clearly\\nexemplified in Lane\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case, 2 Rep. 16, a very strong case. By the\\ngeneral law of the land, the lands of the king cannot pass unless by\\ngrant under the great seal. But nevertheless, by the usage of the\\nCourt of Exchequer, the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s lands may pass under the seal of\\nthat court. And this is so, not by any general law of the coun\u00c2\u00ac\\ntry, but by the usage of that particular court, which, in that in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance, makes the law. Lane\u00e2\u0080\u0099s case arose in the Common Pleas, and\\nthree points were there resolved by the court. First, that although\\nby the common law no grant of any land by the king is available or\\npleadable but under the great seal of England, and although in this\\ncase it was not alleged that in the Exchequer the common course of\\nthe court was to make such leases under the seal of the court; yet it\\nwas adjudged that the said lease under the Exchequer seal was good,\\nand that by the common usage of the Court of Exchequer: for the\\ncustoms and courses of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s courts are as a law, and the common\\nlaw for the universality thereof doth take notice of them: and it is not\\nnecessary to allege in pleading any usage or prescription to warrant\\nthe same. And so it is holden in L. 5, E. 4, 1, a. and 11 E. 4, 2 b.\\nthat the course of a court is a law: and in 2 R. 3, 9, b. it is holden that\\nevery court of Westminster ought to take notice of the customs of the\\nother courts otherwise it is of courts in patrid\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now, after reading\\nthis case, I cannot help feeling and complaining of it as a monstrous\\nhardship in the present case, upon the defendant, upon the Court of\\nExchequer, aud upon this court, that by this proceeding we should", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0473.jp2"}, "474": {"fulltext": "464\\nAPPENDIX.\\nbe called upon to establish in evidence the usage of the Court of Ex\\nchequer. Suppose the present defendant were an officer of this court,\\nand your lordships had admitted him, the crown claiming the right of\\nappointment: by the very same right of prerogative by which this in\u00c2\u00ac\\nformation is filed, it might have been filed in the case I have just put.\\nThe one is as much a supreme court as the other both have the same\\nright of admitting their own officers: and both are equally uncontrollable\\nin the exercise of that right, unless by way of appeal. Suppose, then\\nthe attorney-general had thought fit to do so in the case of an officer\\nof this court, and this without any claim on the part of the crown (for\\nwe arq now supposing the right to be absolutely vested in the court),\\nand suppose he had called on your lordships to send up an issue to the\\njury, to try what was the course of the court, what would your lordships,\\nwhat would the jury, what would the public say to so gross an abuse of\\nthe royal prerogative I put it to the good sense and feeling of the\\ncounsel for the crown themselves, whether they will involve this court,\\nthe Court of Exchequer, and the public, in the monstrous consequences\\nof such a proceeding\u00e2\u0080\u0094whether they will put upon this court the odious\\ntask of deciding upon the customs of another superior court\u00e2\u0080\u0094or whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther they will expose the Court of Exchequer to the humiliation of\\nsubmitting to such a censure I appeal to them, whether they will\\npersevere in such a course of proceeding, when they see it thus dilated\\ninto its monstrous disproportions, until it at length assumes the gigantic\\nform of unconstitutionality If your lordships think it right, send your\\ntipstaff into the Court of Exchequer, to drag the judges of that court\\nfrom the bench, in order to give this court an account of their conduct.\\nIf this proceeding is to be persevered in, we shall be compelled to pro\u00c2\u00ac\\nduce one of the learned judges of that court to prove the usage if the\\ncourt can submit to the indecency of such a spectacle, if we must be\\nforced to do so, we shall produce Mr. Baron George, and your lordships\\nshall see what has been the usage of the Court of Exchequer, and in\\nwhat various instances rights and duties, which were originally vested\\nin the court, have been exercised by a particular individual of it.\\nEvery court is bound to notice the usage of another. If it were\\nstated in a book of entries, that by the requisition of the court, the\\nchief baron had the right to a certain appointment, would not that be\\nconsidered as a sufficient authority That is what is done on the re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncord here: for it is stated that the officer was admitted. If we are obliged\\nto resort to the proof of that usage, we shall show, that the taking and\\nsigning of all recognizances\u00e2\u0080\u0094the signing of all writs after judgment\u00e2\u0080\u0094\\nof every writ of Habeas Corpus \u00e2\u0080\u0094the examining and signing of every\\ntaxed bill of costs\u00e2\u0080\u0094the signing of every writ of privilege, of all com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmissions of rebellion, all venditioni exponas\u00e2\u0080\u0099s all writs of supersedeas,\\nand all injunctions in cases of estrepement, are, by the usage of the\\ncourt, confined to the chief baron alone. Every writ of error directed\\nto the Court of Exchequer is, by the same usage, allowed by the chief\\nbaron alone. On his allocatur alone the clerk of the Pleas is autho\u00c2\u00ac\\nrised to transmit the record, and without his allocatur he cannot do so.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0474.jp2"}, "475": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n465\\nIn all those cases in which any patronage is vested in the court, (for\\nexample, in the appointment of crier and tipstaff,) by the usage of the\\ncourt, such patronage is exercised by the chief baron alone. And uot\\nonly in the Court of Exchequer, but in every court in England and Ire\u00c2\u00ac\\nland where any patronage is exercisable in the appointment of its\\nofficers, it is, in point of fact, exercised by the chief judge alone. And\\nyet we are now told, it is impossible that this can be done.\\nI hope the court will not consider me as endeavouring to create any\\nunnecessary embarrassment in this case. I have stated what appears to\\nme to be a most serious one, growing out of this proceeding. I trust\\nthe opposite party will tell the court how they are to get out of it.\\nThere is an issue joined here upon the usage of the Exchequer: do the\\ncounsel for the crown desire that a jury shall try that fact Are they\\ndesirous of diverting a jury from its proper functions, for the pur\u00c2\u00ac\\npose of ascertaining a right, which is admitted to exist in the court\\nitself? We are ready to do in this respect as your lordships shall\\nthink fit.\\nI have now considered this case as resting upon the common law, and\\nanswered the cases which have been put by the attorney-general on\\nthe ground of prescription, as also the argument, that the right, sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposing it to exist in the court, could not be exercised by a particular\\nmember of it: and I hope I have given to them a satisfactory answer.\\nIt now remains, in the first place, to advert to the argument, that there\\nis something peculiar in the constitution of the Court of Exchequer,\\nwhich makes the law there different from what it is in any other court,\\nand then to observe upon the alleged usage contended to exist in favour\\nof the crown.\\nIn the first place, it is said, that by the peculiar constitution of the\\nCourt of Exchequer, the chief baron is not the keeper of the records\\nof that court, nor even all the barons but that the custody of them is\\nin the treasurer and barons and that in consequence of this peculiar\\nconstitution of the court, the records of the Exchequer must be consi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndered as a parcel of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasure, and as the muniments of his rights.\\nBefore I go into the examination of this argument, I should be glad to\\nknow in what manner, and with wffiat view, it is to be applied? Is this\\na case between the crown and the Court of Exchequer Or is it, under\\nthe pretence of a prerogative investigation, an experiment to try whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther there can be a right in any third person, such, for instance, as the\\ntreasurer I cannot conceive that the latter is the meaning of this\\ninformation, because that would be an abuse of the prerogative, which\\nI think the persons concerned for the crown would be incapable of ad-,\\nvising. I must take it, therefore, that this is a proceeding, not for the\\npurpose of knowing whether there be a title in the treasurer, but whe\u00c2\u00ac\\nther, by the constitution of the court, they can hold this title against\\nthe crown.\\nNow, as to the argument that the Court of Exchequer is established\\nfor the recovery of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s debts, and that suitors can only sue in it\\non the fiction of being the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s debtors, and that, therefore, the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0475.jp2"}, "476": {"fulltext": "466\\nAPPENDIX.\\ncommon pleas of the Court of Exchequer are not the pleas of the sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject, but the king s pleas. I hold all this to be the very quintessence of\\nprerogative pedantry. If this doctrine were to be pushed to its extent,\\nit would go to show that in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench also, the appointment of\\nthe clerk of the Common Pleas ought to be in the crown. For in that\\ncourt also, a party is obliged to sue under a fiction, namely, that the\\ndefendant has been guilty of a breach of the peace. In like manner,\\nin any case, the party, if he fails, is liable to be amerced \u00e2\u0080\u009cpro Jalso\\nclamore\u00e2\u0080\u009d and he would thus be subject as a debtor to the king. If\\nfictions of law are to be resorted to, and every remote degree in which\\nthe rights of the crown maybe supposed to be affected is to be brought\\nin aid of the claims of the prerogative, there is not a muniment of public\\njustice which may not be considered as part of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasure.\\nIt was objected by the attorney-general, that the argument drawn\\nfrom the keeping of the records would prove too much, because it would\\ngo to show that the custos brevium should also be appointed by the\\ncourt. The custos brevium of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench in England is in the\\nappointment of the crown, but not the custos brevium of the Common\\nPleas. And what is the reason of the difference Because in the\\nlatter, the writs are original writs; whereas in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench they\\nare judicial, or at least the greater part of them, and of consequence,\\nin illustration of the common law doctrine, and according to what is\\nlaid down by Lord Coke, the court which pronounces the judgment has\\nan interest in having these writs properly entered. They therefore ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npoint the clerk of the writs, where the writs are judicial, but not other\u00c2\u00ac\\nwise.\\nNow as to the constitution of the Exchequer. If the chief baron of\\nthat court has not, from the usage of the court, the right of appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to this office\u00e2\u0080\u0094if, I say, he is precluded from it by the particular\\nconstitution of the court, it is to be inquired upon what other officer it\\ncould devolve. If the common law be as I have stated, it could not\\ndevolve upon the crown: it must devolve upon some other officer. It\\nwould suffice to answer to this part of the case, that there is no claim\\nset up by any other officer of the court, but that the claim is made by\\nthe crown alone. It is to be observed, that no such argument can\\narise upon the issue on the usage of the crown, but only on the second\\nissue. And on this issue, the only way in which it can affect the right,\\nis by showing that by the constitution of the court it cannot be in the\\nchief baron. If it cannot be in him, I cannot imagine any other person\\nin whom it can be, except either the chancellor of the Exchequer, or the\\ntreasurer of the Exchequer. As to the first of these officers_he is no\\njudge of the common law side of the Exchequer, and never was. He\\nnever exercised any judicial function on that side of the court. The\\npleas at the common law side are before the barons only but on the\\nequity side they are before the chancellor, treasurer, and barons. And as\\nto the custody of the records, the chancellor of the Exchequer never had\\nit, either actually or constructively. The only function which he ever\\nexercises on the law side of the court is, that he is holder of the seal,", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0476.jp2"}, "477": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n467\\nthere being but one seal for both sides, law and equity. As therefore\\nhe holds the seal, he must necessarily use it for the law proceeding.\\nBut yet, so careful was the law that this circumstance of his holding the\\nseal should not entitle him to interfere in the law side, that by his oath\\nhe is precluded from using the seal in any law proceeding without the\\nconsent of the treasurer or chief baron, or some other baron and in\\nno act connected with the judicial power of the court can he use the\\nseal without their concurrence. The form of his oath is, the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nseal you shall carefully keep, and shall seal no process except such as\\nshall be ordered by the treasurer or chief baron, or some other baron,\\nexcept only original process.\u00e2\u0080\u009d So that the chancellor of the Exchequer\\ncould not of himself have used the seal in appointing to this very office,\\nunless by applying to the chief baron.\\nNow by what law is it, that the chief baron is in this instance sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nstituted for the entire court Is it by act of parliament or by pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nscription No: but by the usage of the court. But I only use this at\\npresent for the purpose of showing, that the accidental circumstance of\\ntheir being but one seal induced the necessity of disabling the chan\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellor from using it without the warrant of the chief baron.\\nAnother argument relied on is, that the chancellor of the Exchequer\\nis the person who appoints to this office of clerk of the Pleas in Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland. I suppose it is so but it is equally true that the king does not\\nappoint to it. The office of chancellor of the Exchequer in England\\nis in its nature different from ours. For a long series of years, the\\nperson exercising that office in England has also filled the office of un\u00c2\u00ac\\nder-treasurer of the Exchequer in England. The act of parliament\\ngiving him precedence, describes him as such. In all grants and acta\\nof parliament where he is named, he is so described. And in the writ\\nwhich issued for inquiring into the state of the public records in the\\ncountry, and in which the two chancellors are named, the one (the Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nlish officer) is described as chancellor of the Exchequer and under\\ntreasurer, and the other simply as chancellor of the Exchequer.\\nThe treasurer was originally the head of the law side of the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer, and so long as he continued so, he had in virtue of that situation\\nthe appointment to such offices as were in the disposal of the law court.\\nHe has, however, from a remote period ceased to be the head of the\\nlaw side; but in England, from the commencement, when he had that\\nright of appointment, a prescription has prevailed in his favour of con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinuing to appoint; and from that period to the present, there has\\nbeen an uniform exercise of the right by him in England whereas\\nthroughout all that period, no such right has been exercised by the\\ntreasurer in Ireland. Nor is this an argument to be lightly dealt with.\\nThe chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland has not been treasurer in\\nIreland, except by accident; the two offices have never gone together\\nas they have done in England. The chancellor of the Exchequer in\\nIreland cannot have any law right; for a period of 400 years the\\noffices of treasurer of the Exchequer and chancellor of the Exchequer\\nhave been separated. And hence, the chancellor of the Exchequer in", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0477.jp2"}, "478": {"fulltext": "468\\nAPPENDIX.\\nIreland never 1ms exercised the right of appointing to any of the law\\noffices of the Exchequer. So that the chancellor of the Exchequer in\\nIreland has no common law right, and so far from having a prescrip\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion in his favour, he has never even set up a claim. The chancel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlor of the Exchequer in England on the other hand has always held the\\noffice which entitled him to grant the offices of the law side of the\\ncourt\\nit seems that originally, by the constitution of the Exchequer, this\\nright of appointment would belong to the treasurer as head of the law\\nside, and as long as he acted as such, the common law would have con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinued to him that right; but when he ceased to act, then of course it\\nought to devolve upon the next acting officer. At what period exactly\\nthe treasurer ceased to act, is involved in obscurity. It was not proba\u00c2\u00ac\\nbly all at once, but by degrees and thereupon the chief baron became\\nthe acting chief law officer. Had the treasurer continued ever since to\\nthis day, it is not for me to say whether or not he would still have had\\nan actual right; that is a question with which I have nothing to do.\\nI do not mean to pronounce any opinion as to whether the chief baron\\nin England could controvert the right of the English treasurer but he\\ncertainly could controvert the right of the crown. In England the chief\\nbaron would have a very different case from that which we make. He\\nwould have to say, that an officer who originally had this right of ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointment, in virtue of his office, and who though he had ceased to\\nexercise his office, had yet continued to exercise such right of appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\nment, was not entitled to appoint j perhaps he could not say so. But\\nin this country an officer, such as the chancellor of the Exchequer, who\\nnever had the right, could not now in the first instance set up a claim.\\nSo that as to any argument drawn from the chancellor of the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer in England, it is wholly (to use a phrase of my learned friend the\\nattorney-general) a chimera. No claim is here made by the chancel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlor of the Exchequer, or on his behalf; the only ground of the case is\\nan alleged right in the crown. And this right is stated, not as one de\u00c2\u00ac\\nrived from and incident to the right of appointing the chancellor of the\\nExchequer, but as inherent in the crown, and as part of its prerogative.\\nIt remains to consider how far the treasurer can affect the right of\\nthe chief baron. Originally the treasurer perhaps had this right; but\\nwhen he ceased to act, the chief baron, as the acting chief judge, then\\nbecame entitled to appoint. In confirmation of this, allow me to men\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion the case of the creation of a new court. For example, the creation\\nof a new Court of Error in this country by the act of 1800.* A new\\nofficer thereupon became necessary, namely, the clerk of the Pleas of\\nthat court. And so strongly felt was the force of the common law\\nprinciple that the right of appointment would belong to the head of the\\ncourt, that the act of parliament makes a special provision giving the\\nright of appointment to the crown. Here is a direct legislative recog\u00c2\u00ac\\nnition of the common law right. This provision was considered as a\\n40 Geo. III., c. 39.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0478.jp2"}, "479": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX*\\n4fi9\\ngreat hardship, and the chief justice of that day, (the late lamented\\nLord Kilwarden) complained of it, as an injury done to him, that he\\nand the court were deprived of the right. And here I may observe,\\nthat in the former Court of Error, the chancellor who was the head of\\nit, nominated his secretary to be the clerk.\\nHaving premised so much, I shall proceed to consider how far, ori\u00c2\u00ac\\nginally, the treasurer was a judge of the common law side of the\\nExchequer. The statute de scaccario made in the 51 Hen. III., st. 5,\\nwect. 7, enacts, And the warden of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s wardrobe shall make\\naccompt yearly in the Exchequer in the feast of St. Margaret; and\\nthe treasurer and barons shall be charged by oath, that ttiey shall not\\nattend to hear the pleas or matters of other men, while they have to do\\nwith the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s business, if it be not a matter that concerneth the king s\\nown debt.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And the 8th section adds, And the king commandeth\\nthe treasurer and barons of the Exchequer, upon their allegiance, and\\nby the oath that they have made to him, that they shall not assign any\\nin their rooms, but such as this act meaneth of, and that the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer be not charged with more persons than is necessary.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Here the\\ntreasurer and barons are alluded to as the persons who have the nomi\u00c2\u00ac\\nnation of such people in the Exchequer the chancellor of the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer is not mentioned.\\nAn act made 12 Rich. II., c. 2, to regulate offices, enacts as follows:\\nItem, it is accorded, that the chancellor, treasurer, keeper of the\\nprivy seal, stewards of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s house, the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s chamberlain, clerk\\nof the rolls, the justices of the one bench, and of the other, the barons\\nof the Exchequer, and all other that shall be called to ordain\u00e2\u0080\u009d (this word\\nordain\u00e2\u0080\u009d comes upon one rather by surprise, for the attorney-general\\nhas been insisting that ordination is not an appointment), name, or\\nmake justices of peace, sheriffs, escheators, c., shall be tirmly sworn\\nthat they shall not ordain, name, or make justices of peace, c., for\\nany gift or brocage, favour or affection, c.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Not a word here of the\\nchancellor of the Exchequer.\\nThe 2nd Hen. VI., c. 10, makes all officers who appoint clerks, an\u00c2\u00ac\\nswerable for such clerks.\\nThe next recognition of these officers is in stat. 6, Edw. 1, c. 14,\\nwhereby the king grants to the citizens of London that disseisees shall\\nhave damages by recognizance of assize, by which they recover. \u00e2\u0080\u009cAnd\\nit shall be commanded unto the barons and to the treasurer of the Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nchequer, that they shall cause it every year to be levied by two of them\\nat tneir rising after Candlemas.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThen comes the 10th Edw. I. addressed, The king to his treasurer\\nand barons of the Exchequer, greeting.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And in sect. 10, Moreover\\nwe provide, that all debts whereunto the sheriffs make return that the\\ndebtors have nothing in their bailiwicks, c., shall be estreated in Rolls,\\nto be delivered to faithful and circumspect men, which shall make en\u00c2\u00ac\\nquiry thereof, after such form as shall be provided by the treasurer and\\nbarons.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This, your lordships observe, is a regulation as to common\\npleas returns.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0479.jp2"}, "480": {"fulltext": "470\\nAPPENDIX.\\nIn 13 Edw. I., c. 8,it is directed that the writs mentioned in it shall\\nbe enrolled, and at the year\u00e2\u0080\u0099s end the transcripts sent into the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer, that the treasurer and barons may see the sheriff\u00e2\u0080\u0099s answer.\\nMaddox, in his History of the Exchequer, thinks it was the part of\\nthe treasurer to act with the barons in matters relating to the revenue.\\nI shall now show that these powers have long since ceased on the\\npart of the treasurer. Your lordships will find in the statute 20 Edw.\\nIII., c. 2, In the same manner we have ordained, in the right of the\\nbarons of the Exchequer, and we have expressly charged them in our\\npresence that they shall do right and reason to all our subjects, great\\nand small; and that they shall deliver the people reasonably, and with\u00c2\u00ac\\nout delay of the business they have to do before them, without undue\\ntarrying as hath been done in times past.\u00e2\u0080\u009d The barons of the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer, your lordships will observe, are here enjoined, as the only persons\\nconcerned. In remarking upon this statute, Lord Coke, 4 Inst. 115,\\neays, Hereby it appeareth, that to them belongeth doing of right and\\nreason in legal proceedings.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nSo the statute 31 Edw. c. 12, constituting the Court of Exchequer\\nChamber, recognises the barons as then the only judges of the law side.\\nAgain the 5 Rich. II., c. 10, after reciting that certain complaints\\nhad been made of the officers of the Exchequer, gives to the barons\\nfull power to hear such complaints.\\nLord Coke, 4 Inst. 118, in treating of the equity side of the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer, says, The judges of this court are the lord treasurer, the chan\u00c2\u00ac\\ncellor, and barons of the Exchequer: generally, their jurisdiction is as\\nlarge for matter of equity as the barons in the Court of Exchequer have\\nfor the benefit of the king by the common law.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nAnd in 4. Inst. 109, he lays it down, All judicial proceedings, accord\u00c2\u00ac\\ning to law in the Exchequer, are coram baronibus, and not coram the-\\nsaurario et baronibus.\\nIn the Bankers* case (82) Lord Somers, (who we know was not in\u00c2\u00ac\\nterested to enlarge the jurisdiction of the barons), speaking of the court\\nof Exchequer, says, but if it be considered in its several parts, as to\\nwhat is intrusted distinctly to the treasurer and chamberlains, and what\\nis put under the direction and government of the barons, it comprehends\\ndistinct courts, and such as have no proper communication one with\\nanother; though, perhaps, as to some things, the treasurer, chamber\u00c2\u00ac\\nlains, and barons are intrusted jointly: as my Lord Chief Justice Coke\\n4 Inst. 105, says they are with the custody of the judicial records.\u00e2\u0080\u009d\\nThe passage of Lord Coke here alluded to is, Albeit the barons, as\\nhath been said, are the judges, yet the treasurer of the Exchequer is\\njoined with them in keeping of the records, whereof the barons are\\njudges, for they are parcel of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasure.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This passage of\\nLord Coke relates entirely to an information of intrusion into the kind\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nlands, which, of course, are the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasure and these records are\\nkept not in the office of the clerk of the Pleas, but of the treasurer\u00e2\u0080\u0099s\\nremembrancer.\\nAll writs of error, it is true, are, in the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench and Common", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0480.jp2"}, "481": {"fulltext": "appendix.\\n471\\nPleas, directed to the chief judges of those courts, whereas in the Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nchequer they are directed to the treasurer and barons. But that we\\nare not to be concluded by the form of the writ appears from 2 Inst.\\n881, where Lord Coke, speaking of the writ ex parte tails, says, The\\nwrit in the register and F. N. B. ubi supra is, coram thesaurario et\\nbaronibus, nostris de scaccario, but it ought to be coram baronibus de\\nscaccario according to the act, and that the rather, because the barons\\nare (as hath been said) the soveraigne auditors of England, and here\u00c2\u00ac\\nwith agreeth Fleta.\u00e2\u0080\u009d So, though on the treasurer\u00e2\u0080\u0099s ceasing to be the\\nhead of the court, the form of the writ should have been altered, yet it\\ncontinued to be the same. But notwithstanding the direction of writs\\nof error to the treasurer and barons, the records are in the custody of\\nthe barons only, and so in ail records, removed by writ of error, it ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npears on the face of the pleadings. The writ itself mentions the judg\u00c2\u00ac\\nment to be given by them only: and though directed to the treasurer\\nand barons, yet it is allowed by the chief baron only, he being, in fact\\nand of right, the head of the common law side of the court, and upon\\nhis allocatur alone is it that the clerk transmits the record. There are\\na variety of records in the Exchequer, which are the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasure, in\\nwhich the king has an interest, and which are in the custody of the\\ntreasurer\u00e2\u0080\u0099s remembrancer; there are others in which the crown is also\\ninterested, and which contain proceedings before the barons; and, thirdly,\\nthere is a class called common pleas, or pleas between subject and sub\u00c2\u00ac\\nject, and they are in the custody of the barons, and of the clerk of Com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon Pleas, as their clerk. But to argue from the records being in the\\ntreasurer\u00e2\u0080\u0099s custody, as part of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasure, is absurd, because\\nthe treasurer originally kept the records of the King\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Bench and Com\u00c2\u00ac\\nmon Pleas also, so far as the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s rights were concerned; so that if\\nthis argument be well founded, it would give to the crown or to the\\ntreasurer the right of appointing also the clerks of the pleas in those\\ncourts. But the treasurer never claimed that right, nor has he, since\\nhe ceased to be a common law judge, ever claimed to appoint the clerk\\nof the pleas in the Court of Exchequer. The offices of chancellor of the\\nExchequer and of treasurer have been united immemorially in England,\\nand the oath of the chancellor of the Exchequer in England is different\\nfrom that of ours. It contains no restriction, as ours does, as to the\\nuse of the seal. Here there is no claim by the treasurer, and, in fact,\\nno such officer has for some time existed, although the form of the writs\\ncontinues to include him. The English treasurer is called in records\\nby various names, sometimes the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasurer, sometimes the trea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsurer of England (2 Madd. 41). The treasurer of Ireland is sometimes\\ncalled lord treasurer, treasurer, and the 33rd of the king calls him high\\ntreasurer; and he has been sometimes called treasurer of the Exchequer,\\nand sometimes our treasurer of the Exchequer. The judicial duties can\u00c2\u00ac\\nnot be put in commission. What is become of them I cannot see.\\nThe last grant is to one of the Boyle family and the office of vice\u00c2\u00ac\\ntreasurer was formally abolished in the person of Mr. Clements, in\\n1795. The king now appoints a receiver-general. By the act of last", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0481.jp2"}, "482": {"fulltext": "472\\nAPPENDIX.\\nsession consolidating the offices of chancellor of the Exchequer in both\\ncountries, the same person is to execute the duties of both, which shows\\nthe impossibility of his being a judicial officer on the common law side\\nof the Irish Exchequer.\\nNow as to the length of time which has been urged on the part of\\nthe crown, it will be conceded, that if this right was at first vested in\\nthe court, it could not be taken out of them but by act of parliament,\\nor by prescription: no length of time short of a prescription can deprive\\nthem of it. A court of justice is not like an individual; no encroach\u00c2\u00ac\\nment on its rights can bar them. Littleton (S. 413) says, no dying\\nseized (where the tenement come to another by succession) shall take\\naway an entry. As of prelates, abbots, priors, deans, or of the parson\\nof a church, or of other bodies politio, c., albeit there were twenty\\ndyings seized, and twenty successors, this shall not put any man from\\nhis entry.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And Co. Litt. 250. a. says, this is applied to bodies politic,\\nwhose successors come in in the post, and not to natural persons, whoso\\nheirs come in in the per. And the same is also laid down, 2 Inst. 154.\\nio5. Wherefore should not the successors of a bishop, dean, abbot,\\nprior, c., be as well in the per, as the heir by descent and the reason\\nthereof is, for that the heir cometh in by his ancestor, and therefore a\\ndescent shall take away an entry, and the warranty of the ancestor shall\\nbarre the heir but in case of succession, a dying seized taketh not\\naway an entry, nor the warranty of the predecessor doth bind the suc\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessor.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Here, too, I have to mention a case which occurred in this\\ncourt, the King v. Carmichael. The crown had appointed the clerk of\\nthe peace for the county of Carlow in the time of Henry VIII., and\\nfrom that time downwards. Mr. Bruen, as cus. rot. granted to Car\u00c2\u00ac\\nmichael the attorney-general filed an information against him Car\u00c2\u00ac\\nmichael pleaded the facts, and had judgment against the crown. The\\nsole argument was, whether the clerk of the peace derived under the\\ncustos for if he did, it was not disputed that the custos would have the\\nappointment; and the right being shown to be in the custos, the length\\nof time was held to make no title for the crown. That decision has\\nbeen acted upon ever since.\\nI shall now apply myself to the question of usage, and will at present\\nsuppose there is a common law right in the court. I must suppose that,\\nor the question of usage would be immaterial; for otherwise there must\\nbe judgment against the chief baron\u00e2\u0080\u0099s grantee. This alleged usage is\\nurged as amounting to a legal prescription. It is not contended on\\nthe part of the crown that there is any act of parliament to give them\\nthis right. If they mean to rely upon usage as evidence, whence to\\npresume an act of parliament, I say that is illegal. The case of Hew-\\nett v. Parish of St. Audrew, in this court, is said to favour such a pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsumption. That case was afterwards on in Chancery, and it was stated\\nto my Lord Redesdale (who then presided in that court) that such a\\ndoctrine had been acted on. It struck him with surprise, and he ob\u00c2\u00ac\\njected to it what cannot be answered, that if such a doctrine were al\u00c2\u00ac\\nlowed, there would be an end of all the ancient and received notions of", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0482.jp2"}, "483": {"fulltext": "appendix\\n473\\nprescription. According to them, no prescription can be admitted, ex\u00c2\u00ac\\ncept a legal commencement could be presumed; but if an act of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament is to be presumed to make a new law, there is an end of all re\u00c2\u00ac\\nstriction upon prescription. Why is it that a prescription de non ded-\\nmando is not valid because it could not have a legal origin. But we\\nhave only to suppose an act of parliament, and it could. In fact, such\\na presumption as this would amount to a power of legislating, and say\u00c2\u00ac\\ning that length of time shall have the effect of making that law, which\\notherwise could not be so. Lord Redesdale denied there was any pre\u00c2\u00ac\\ncedent for such a doctrine, and refused to act upon it.\\nBut even if this were a case in which the court would submit such\\npresumption to a jury, it is hopeless to look for any evidence to warrant\\nit. It is an usage against the common law, which I conceive could\\nnever have arisen in this country. The common law was introduced\\nhere, in the 12th year of King John\u00e2\u0080\u0099s reign, and it abrogated every\\nusage contrary to it; and as time of memory is previous to that period,\\nit follows that in this country there can be no prescription against the\\ncommon law. In the case of Tanistry (Davies 37, 38, 39, 40 it was\\nheld that the introduction of the common law into Ireland abolished\\nthese customs. And the same would have been the consequence of its\\nintroduction into Wales: but for the purpose of preventing ft, the stat.\\nof Wales (27. H. VIII. c. 26. s. 27.) appoints commissioners to inquire\\ninto the customs of Wales, and expressly saves them. And accordingly,\\nin this country the custom of gavelkind prevailed before the introduc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion of the common law, as appears from Sir James Ware\u00e2\u0080\u0099s antiquities,\\nbut it was then abolished. Gavelkind is good at this day in England,\\nbecause it is a part of the local common law. Any custom that might\\nhave a legal commencement, may prevail in Ireland as well as in Eng\u00c2\u00ac\\nland: but the common law of England, when introduced here, abolished\\nall customs at variance with it, notwithstanding those customs might be\\nlegal in England. If previously to that period, a subject had a grant of\\nlands, that would not have been disturbed in like manner of anything\\nnot contrary to the common law. It is to be remembered, that we are\\nnow taking for granted the right is in the court: it is contended th i\\nthere is a prescription to take it out of them, and put it in the crown.\\nNow I say that cannot be: that is a prescription which could not have\\na legal origin, and if not, it cannot have any validity.\\nFurther, the pleading of this as a prescription in the crown, presup\u00c2\u00ac\\nposes it has no common law right. For where a prescription is set up\\nfor anything, it is an admission that the law does not give it. Noy. 20,\\nPells v. Towers. Com. Dig. Prescription, F. 4. Wilson v. Bishop of\\nCarlisle, Hob. 107.\\nNow, gentlemen of the jury, a word to you upon this question of\\nusage. The evidence of it has been derived from a book of extracts\\nagreed on both sides to be read. In the first place, there is no evidence\\nof any exercise of this alleged right on the part of the crown until the\\nyear 1403, 254 years within time of memory. The first document\\navowing by whom any appointment was made, is in 1375, and that was", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0483.jp2"}, "484": {"fulltext": "474\\nAPPENDIX.\\nan appointment by the court. The first appointment by the crown was\\nin 1403. Where the actual entries do not appear, to show by whom\\nthe earlier appointments were in fact made, the first presumption is that\\nthey were made according to law. If then the defendant be right in\\nsaying the court has a common law right, this court is bound to pre\u00c2\u00ac\\nsume, in the absence of the records, that the earlier appointments were\\nmade by the court, who thus had the right. I admit it is a presump\u00c2\u00ac\\ntion liable, like all others, to be rebutted by contrary evidence, but it is\\ngood till so encountered. And in analogy to this, in the case in Shower,\\nwhere Chief Justice Holt, in aid of his common law right, referred to\\nthe usage, he only produced the entries for 250 years, although the en\u00c2\u00ac\\ntries went farther back and for this reason, that it was to be presumed\\nthe earlier entries were in conformity with the right.\\nGentlemen of the jury, I have now to call your attention to the first\\nof these entries, that is an order for payment to Bromley in 1332.\\nGentlemen, it has been argued that all these entries, showing that pay\u00c2\u00ac\\nment was made to this officer out of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasury, are so many\\nS roofs that the appointments were made by the crown. But you will\\nnd that in the case where the appointments were made by the court,\\nthe entries are also for payment out of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s treasury. So that\\nthis circumstance affords no evidence who it was that appointed. The\\ncrier of the Court of Exchequer, who is confessedly appointed by the\\nchief baron, is also paid out of the treasury. I take it therefore that\\nthe case may be cleared of all these entries.\\nThe next entry is in 1334, 8th and 9th Edward III., and is for pay\u00c2\u00ac\\nment to John de Carleton as clerk of the Pleas. This John de Carle-\\nton was also appointed chamberlain. The patent appointing him to this\\nlatter office appears, but no patent is to be found appointing him clerk\\nof the Pleas. Here is an entry stating him to hold both offices, and\\nyet the patent for one appears, and not for the other. It cannot be said\\nthat the patents are lost; for here is one. If we suppose him appointed\\nby the court, it is natural enough that there should be no entry of the\\nmode of his appointment, because nothing more would be necessary than\\nhis admission by the court. But, on the other hand, if the crown had\\nappointed, a patent would have appeared, and that not being the case,\\nthe inference is irresistible, that he was not appointed by the crown.\\nThe next document is a%i order for payment to Simon de Legaston,\\ndated 14 Dec. 1342, and in the same year is one to Robert Baynard.\\nIt is here material to remark, that during this period there appears to\\nhave been a scramble for this office, and the appointments are involved\\nin confusion. This circumstance of two orders for payment to two dif\u00c2\u00ac\\nferent persons in the same year sufficiently shows it.\\nIn 1344, John de Hacksey appears to be sworn in before the trea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsurer and barons, and the same John de Hacksey is again sworn in in\\n1357 there is no reason to show why. There was evidently some con\u00c2\u00ac\\ntest for the office during that interval. And here let me observe, that\\nthe evidence of the swearing in has been preserved then why not the\\nevidence of an appointment by the crown, if any", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0484.jp2"}, "485": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n475\\nThen, in 1352, is an order for payment to John de Carleton, the\\nsame who was formerly appointed. You will recollect, gentlemen, that\\nto support the allegation of the crown, of a prescription, there must be\\nan uniform uninterrupted usage. After all this comes an order, in\\n1355, for payment to Robert Baynard and again, 1363, for the same\\nperson, who held till 1375. It will not be contended that, up to this\\nperiod, there is any evidence of an appointment by the crown, or indeed\\nby any person. There is some evidence against the crown.\\nNow comes the entry in 1375, the first which is clear as to the mode\\nof appointment. It is not surprising that, after the state of confusion\\nin which the title to the office had been involved, it should be thought\\nexpedient to put an end to all doubt, by the ministers of the court join\u00c2\u00ac\\ning in an appointment. Accordingly, in this entry it is stated, that\\nJohn de Penkeston stood ordained\u00e2\u0080\u009d by the chancellor and treasurer\\nof Ireland, and the barons, and others our ministers of our Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer aforesaid.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Much has been observed upon this appointment.\\nFirst, it is said, it was made by the lord chancellor of Ireland, and not\\nthe chancellor of the Exchequer. Let it be so; it is indifferent to me.\\nBut then a record is produced, to show that Robert de Emeldon was\\nchancellor of the Exchequer, in order, by a subsequent entry, to show\\nthis appointment must have been by him. It clearly appears, however,\\nthat this first instance of an appointment is not by the crown, and that\\nit was thought necessary that the treasurer, barons, and other ministers\\nof the court should concur. Many expedients have been resorted to,\\nto get rid of this record. It is said, the wind was unfavourable, the\\npacket could not sail\u00e2\u0080\u0094the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s letter did not arrive, and the office\\nwas of so much importance, and the necessity for filling it so urgent,\\nthat all the principal officers met, and appointed. It is curious, that\\nthis appointment was made in 1375, and the entry was not made till\\ntwo years after. Had the steam packet been delayed all this time\\nAnother remarkable fact is, that no entry is to be found of the appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\nment itself, though it was certainly made by the court. And the king,\\nwhen he orders payment to this officer, not only recites his appoint\u00c2\u00ac\\nment by the court, but expressly states that to be his title. It is con\u00c2\u00ac\\nceded, that though an interruption in the possession will not destroy a\\nprescription, yet an interruption of the right will. Here then is an entry\\non the part of the crown, acknowledging that Penkeston was lawfully\\nordained by the court. It cannot be said the law officers had not time\\nto communicate with the crown before this entry was made. Now if\\nthe appointment was an extraordinary one, would not the king have as\u00c2\u00ac\\nserted his prerogative He does not do so. So that, in short, this is\\na prescription set up by the crown, to be maintained by uninterrupted\\nusage, and the very first entry brought to prove it is destructive of the\\nright. I really cannot help commiserating my learned friend who is to\\nreply to me, for the hopeless task he has to encounter, of persuading\\nyou, gentlemen of the jury, that this is a clear, uniform, uninterrupted\\nusage.\\nThi 3 appointment was in 1375. It i\u00c2\u00ab a curious fact in natural his-", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0485.jp2"}, "486": {"fulltext": "470\\nAPPENDIX.\\ntory, and one that deserves to be particularly recorded-, that the wind\\nblew in the same direction for eight and twenty years; for so long this\\nPenkeston held the situation.\\nIn 1403, it appears that William Sutton was appointed by the crown,\\nand in 1423, (1 Hen. VI.) he was confirmed. This is the first instance\\nin which the crown exercised the right. The grant of the oifice, 1\\nHen. VI. recites an inspeximus of letters patent to Sutton, recogni\u00c2\u00ac\\nsing the appointment of Penkeston, and concludes by confirming them,\\nany grant of the said office by our chancellor of the Exchequer or\\nany other person or persons notwithstanding.\u00e2\u0080\u009d So that this first in\u00c2\u00ac\\nstance of any appointment by the crown, begins by recognising the ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointment by the court, and concludes by being validated by a non\\nobstante clause. I protest, it is really difficult to continue an argument\\nupon such a thing. If we suppose a right at any time in the chancel\u00c2\u00ac\\nlor of the Exchequer, that instaut we destroy the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s claim: for the\\nargument is not that the right is in the crown, as incident to the power\\nof appointing the chancellor of the Exchequer: but that it has a dis\u00c2\u00ac\\ntinct inherent, independent right by prescription. Is a grant by the\\ncrown with a non obstante clause, is that, I ask, to be evidence for the\\ncrown It is not, it cannot be, evidence of anything but an unconsti\u00c2\u00ac\\ntutional usurpation. The non obstante doctrines, as we know from\\nour history, were so rooted as to be admitted even in the courts of law.\\nwhether right or wrong, anything could have been done by a non obstantt\\nclause. It is wonderful our liberties could have survived sy.ch a doc\u00c2\u00ac\\ntrine. If there had not been a buoyancy in the British constitution\\nwhich made it incapable of sinking, if there had not been a spring in\\nthe minds of the English nation too strong to be subdued, if they had\\nnot been predoomed to be a free people, their liberties could never\\nhave survived so deadly an instrument of tyranny and usurpation. It\\nwas urged and acted upon till the revolution, and to use the language\\nof the luminous and classical commentator on the laws of England, it\\ndid not abdicate Westminister-liall, till James the Second abdicated the\\nthrone.\u00e2\u0080\u009d And shall such a thing as this, be sent up in our days to a\\njury, as evidence to the right of the crown\\nUp to the period of Penkeston\u00e2\u0080\u0099s appointment, all, as I have observed,\\nwas confusion. After this appointment there was none\u00e2\u0080\u0094no small evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence that where the court acted, their appointment was acquiesced\\nin as rightful. But from the appointment of Su4on, the confusion\\nbegins again. James Blakeney is next appointed, it does not appear\\nby whom, or when.\\nThe next entry is in 1430,27th July\u00e2\u0080\u0094a very important one. It states,\\nthat the crown had granted to Robert Dyke the office of chancellor of\\nthe Exchequer, And moreover by reason that the said office of clerk\\nof the pleas in our Court of Exchequer is member and parcel of the\\nsaid office of chancellor of the green wax and annexed to the same\\nand the same office of clerk of the pleas has been held by Robert de\\nEmeldon as chancellor of the said Exchequer, as may appear of re\u00c2\u00ac\\ncord, and also by other persons as we are informed,\u00e2\u0080\u009d it then grants to", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0486.jp2"}, "487": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n477\\nDyke the office of clerk of the pleas. Now, suppose it were true that\\nthe office of clerk of the pleas is member and parcel of the office of\\nchancellor of the Exchequer, it destroys the right of the crown, because\\non that supposition the right belongs to the chancellor of the Exchequer:\\nand if it be false, then it amounts to an acknowledgment that the crown\\ndid not claim by virtue of its prerogative. And that the same office\\nof clerk of the pleas has been held and occupied by Robert de Emeldon,\\nas may be of record in our treasury, and by other persons, as we are\\ninformed.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This is the crown s statement of its own title. Now, I\\nsay, that whether that statement be true or false, it equally destroys the\\nright of the crown. The crown is clearly looking for arguments to sup\u00c2\u00ac\\nport its usurpation. Robert Dyke appointed Stannaher and another\\nhis deputie|. The recital of that appointment is, that Robert Dyke was\\nnominated in 1 Hen. VI. At the very time of the grant to this Dyke,\\nthe office of clerk of the pleas was full, by William Sutton, to whom it\\nwas previously granted. So that the crown having appointed Sutton\\nto the prejudice of the right of the chancellor of the Exchequer, then\\ngrants to Dyke the office of clerk of the pleas, as parcel of the very\\nsame office of chancellor of the Exchequer; and the reason is because\\nit was so held by Robert de Emeldon,\u00e2\u0080\u009d who had been in 1348, (a hun\u00c2\u00ac\\ndred years before), locum tenens of the treasurer. He is so recited 22\\n8c 23 Edw. III. in a patent granting to William de Burton. When\\nthe crown had the right, the entry is made so early as 1348. In this\\ngrant of 1431, therefore, the crown rests its title on the office of clerk\\nof the pleas being part of that of chancellor of the Exchequer, and re\u00c2\u00ac\\nfers to Robert de Emeldon, as the only instance in support of its being\\nso: and upon referring to that, it appears he was also locum tenens of\\nthe treasurer, an office which might of itself have given him a right:\\nand all this when the office was full by Sutton, the crown s own grantee.\\nEven after this assumption of right, that is to say, in the year 1432,\\nand in 1436, there are orders for payment to Sutton: so that this claim\\nof title was clearly an usurpation by the crown, and not only that, but\\nan usurpation by the crown on its own grantee. The whole proceed\u00c2\u00ac\\ning is a complicated tissue of folly and usurpation, and affords no evi\u00c2\u00ac\\ndence whatever of any right.\\nAfter this, (1438) John Hardwicke is appointed chancellor of the\\nExchequer and clerk of the Pleas, and in the same year, notwithstand\u00c2\u00ac\\ning this appointment, the chancellorship of the Exchequer is given to\\nJohn Baynard. Again, in the same year, on the 5th of June, this of\u00c2\u00ac\\nfice is granted to Richard de Waterton. Here are three different per\u00c2\u00ac\\nsons appointed by the crown in one year.\\nIn the same year (1438) is an order to admit Cunningham and White\\nas deputies, and on the 14th of December, in that year, an order to pay\\nSutton, the very man who was appointed in 1403. And yet, after all\\nthis confusion, it is gravely said, that this is a case of irrefragable, uni\u00c2\u00ac\\nform, and consistent usage. It is really astonishing, that with such\\ndocuments before them, the counsel for the crown should venture to\\nstate them as evidence of an unMerrupted possession in the crown.\\n2 h", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0487.jp2"}, "488": {"fulltext": "478\\nAPPENDIX.\\nI hold in my hand the draft of an act of parliament, which was pre-\\nlented to the House of Commons, before my lord chief baron could lay\\nhis case before the house. It was carried hastily and precipitately\\nthrough that house, and presented to the lords on the very same day.\\nIt was read a first time\u00e2\u0080\u0094it was ordered for a second reading, and it\\nwould have been carried there also on the third day, but for one noble\\nlord. This act, as it was first framed, and had nearly passed, recited,\\nWhereas the office of clerk of the Pleas in his majesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s Court of Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nchequer in Ireland is an ancient office; and whereas the said office has\\nhitherto been held under the appointment of his majesty and his prede\u00c2\u00ac\\ncessors.\u00e2\u0080\u009d This really looks as if there had been some misgiving on the\\npart of those concerned for the crown, that they could not maintain an un\u00c2\u00ac\\ninterrupted usage, and therefore would not venture to state it to be im\u00c2\u00ac\\nmemorial. But the House of Commons, when they passed this statute,\\nmust have imagined there was such an usage. If, instead of the words\\nused, the expression had been, Whereas the crown has now and then\\nenjoyed,\u00e2\u0080\u009d the act would never have passed. However it was passed,\\nthe house having conceived there was an immemorial usage. It was\\nthrown out in the Lords, and the new act which has been passed, does\\nnot recite any enjoyment by the crown. That was retracted, because\\nit could not be maintained and yet they now bring forward to influence\\na Dublin jury, what they had not the audacity even to assert to the\\nlegislature!\\nGentlemen, there are a number of other entries. 29th September,\\n1439, Waterton is appointed clerk of the Pleas. 1st October he is\\nsworn in in Chancery, and a writ issues from the chancellor to the barons\\nto admit him. Is this a lawful mode of appointing\\nIn 1445 is a patent from the crown, confirming the deputy of Hard-\\nwicke. Then there is a grant of the office of chancellor of the Ex\u00c2\u00ac\\nchequer and clerk of the Pleas to Hardwicke and Shelton by authority\\nof parliament. They were also appointed collectors of customs. The\\nauthority of parliament\u00e2\u0080\u009d means this, that these officers\u00e2\u0080\u0099 fees being\\ncharged upon the customs, this could only be by authority of parlia\u00c2\u00ac\\nment.\\nIn 1448, we find a grant of the offices of chancellor of the Exche\u00c2\u00ac\\nquer and clerk of the Pleas to Birmingham and Fitz Robert. Then an\\norder to pay Fox and Powel as deputies. In 1451, Birmingham and\\nFitz Robert apply to be allowed their fees. Next is an order to pay\\nBrowne as their deputy. Then in 1452, an order to pay Toole, the\\ndeputy of Birmingham, and another to John Dennis in 1458.\\nIn 1460, we find a grant to Pickering of the office of clerk of the\\nPleas. This is said to be by bill of the lieutenant himself and by au\\nfchority of parliament.\u00e2\u0080\u009d Now if a presumption is to be made of an act\\nof parliament, this would probably be relied on as such by those con\u00c2\u00ac\\ncerned for the crown. We can show the meaning of this authority of\\nparliament. The Duke of York, the father of Edward the Fourth, was\\nthen lieutenant in Ireland. It was thought a desirable thing on the\\npart of Henry the Sixth, who was then king of England, to induce the", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0488.jp2"}, "489": {"fulltext": "APPENDIX.\\n479\\nDuke of York to accept the lieutenantcy of Ireland, in order to get him\\nout of the way. He accepted the situation, but determined to fortify\\nhimself in it; for we find from Cox\u00e2\u0080\u0099s History of Ireland (160) that he only\\nconsented to take it, on the express conditions, first, that he should be\\nlieutenant for ten years; secondly, that he should receive the whole\\nrevenue, without accounting thirdly, that he should have treasure from\\nEngland: fourthly, that he should let the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s lands to farm and\\nfifthly, that he should appoint to and dispose of, all offices at his plea\u00c2\u00ac\\nsure. And now I make the gentlemen a present of the authority of\\nparliament.\\nThe next appointment is by the crown to Delahide and Dartas. And\\nthere is a special act of parliament made for the purpose of ratifying\\nthat appointment. This single fact demonstrates that the crown had\\nAo right. If the king was entitled, why should he pray the legislature\\nto give him what he had before Will it be said that at that time\\nthere was any act of parliament enabling the crown What now be\u00c2\u00ac\\ncomes of this presumption What becomes of the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s inherent right\\nGentlemen of the jury, if it be possible to have a plain document show\u00c2\u00ac\\ning that up to a certain period the crown had no right, this act of par\u00c2\u00ac\\nliament is that document. The crown cannot get out of it: it is vain\\nto try. It cannot be said the act is for the purpose of enabling the\\ntwo offices to be held together; that was often done before. No, gentle\u00c2\u00ac\\nmen, it was clearly and manifestly for the purpose of enabling the\\ngrantee of the crown to hold against the general rule of law.\\nFrom this period till the statute of Henry VII. there is but one ap\u00c2\u00ac\\npointment, namely, to Woffer. When, or by whom that was made does\\nnot appear. It may be presumed to have been by the court. The\\nstatute of Henry VII. was then passed, making the judges dependent\\nupon the crown. If while they held during pleasure, and while the non\\nobstante doctrine continued, the judges had questioned the king\u00e2\u0080\u0099s right,\\nthey could not have prevailed; for the crown had the power by a non\\nobstante to compel the admission of its officer. Whilst the non obstante\\nclaim existed, it was just the same thing as if it was exercised. Arguments,\\ntherefore, drawn from the acquiescence of the judges during that period\\nweigh nothing. Would it, I ask you, gentlemen, have been advisable\\nfor them to go to law with the crown, while they were removable at its\\npleasure What do you think would have been their fate, if they had\\nDo you think that my Lord Chief Baron O\u00e2\u0080\u0099Grady, if he had held during\\npleasure, would have set up the present claim We know from history\\nthat Lord Coke lost his office for asserting his common law right, and\\ninsisting upon the appointment of Filazer in his court. It is sometimes\\nAccounted for otherwise; but this was his real offence; and it is so\\nstated by Blackstone, and in the life of Lord Coke, in the Biographia\\nBritannica. We now, thank God, live in better times. The affairs of\\nthis country are no longer considered as of the same provincial insigni\u00c2\u00ac\\nficance in which they were formerly held; and the rights of the court\\n10 Hen. 7, C. 2.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0489.jp2"}, "490": {"fulltext": "480\\nAPPENDIX.\\nand of the subject in this country are on the other side of the watei\\nheld as sacred as the rights of Englishmen. I am far from insinuating\\nthat even here there would be any disposition to take advantage of the\\ndependent situation of a judge, if he were dependent. I sincerely be\u00c2\u00ac\\nlieve there is not an individual in the profession, or in the community,\\nmore incapable of stooping to a base or unworthy action than his\\nmajesty\u00e2\u0080\u0099s attorney-general. But to talk of acquiescence on the part\\nof judges in former times, as affording a presumption in favour of the\\ncrown, is ridiculous; because the whole history of England from the\\neriod of the union of the Houses of York and Lancaster to the Revo-\\nution, is nothing but a series of usurpations by the crown on the rights\\nof the people. Ware\u00e2\u0080\u0099s history shows the usurpations committed on the\\nrights of the treasurer and chancellor of Ireland, and when they were\\nspoliated, it is not surprising that those of the judges should. It was\\nnot till the 22nd year of his reign, that the judges in Ireland were made\\nindependent of the crown; and in addition to this, from the time of the\\nRevolution to the present, all the grants of this office from the crown\\nhave been in reversion, so that no vacancy has occurred to act upon,\\nbefore the present appointment.\\nGentlemen, I have exhausted my own strength and your patience.\\nI shall not attempt to recapitulate. Our case rests upon the common\\nlaw: we claim the same rights as the judges in England. As to an\\nuninterrupted usage in the crown, gentlemen of the jury, if you think j\\nthere is evidence of it, if you are ready to find upon your solemn oaths,\\nthat which has not been so much as asserted to the legislature, let it be\\n40 and in God\u00e2\u0080\u0099s name find a verdict for the crown.", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0490.jp2"}, "491": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0491.jp2"}, "492": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0492.jp2"}, "493": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0493.jp2"}, "494": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0494.jp2"}, "495": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0495.jp2"}, "496": {"fulltext": "", "height": "3385", "width": "1979", "jp2-path": "speechesatbarins00plun_0_0496.jp2"}}