Excerpt from Hansard's Parliamentary Debates The Dublin Proce$U 9 U Lords The Dublin Proceision prosecuted by the Government and that as the lav was not put in force against those who went out to meet Lord Mu Ugrave, those creatures of Mr. OConnelit should be equally restrained in it.% application to those loyal individuals of whom he had the happiness to acknowledge himself a Member. He was not sorry for the decision of the noble Viscount, for he thought that much less harm was likely to be done from adopting it than from adopting one of an opposite kind. He had altered his opinion on this point from circumstances which had recently taken place, and he believed that by permitting processions to proceed, and allowing each party to show what its sentiments were boldly and openly, much less harm was likely to be done than by circumscribing the expression of opinion. He had come to that opinion since the passing of the law that had put down those peaceable processions which had formerly been common in most parts of Ulster. He should not enter into the reason for his opinions at the present moment, but he demanded that justice from the noble Viscount, and that same line of conduct towards the loyal Protestants, which he dealt out to those other parties who carried in their hands the symbols of sedition. He moved that the petition be laid upon the Table. Viscount Melbourne could only say, that facts which had been stated by the noble Lord were entirely contrary to the statement of facts which he had received from the highest authority, and which was also made on the assertions of eye-witnesses, as well as that put forward by the noble Lord. He had already said, that he greatly lamented these displays of party feeling, and that in his opinion it was to be hoped that both sides would abstain from them, and then the irregularities which necessarily arose from them might be avoided. But he must observe, that much as he should condemn, if it were proved, that which had been stated by the noble Lord much as he should lament the use of those symbols, he much doubted whether the carrying of those banners, provided they were carried on the occasion, were illegal and would bring them within the purview of the law. He lamented that such symbols should be used and such inscriptions exhibited to the public; but, without taking upon himself to give a legal opinion, he doubted whether this was an occasion on which the Act could betaken to apply. If it did apply here, it would apply to every occasion of public rejoicing to every event of a public nature which the people might meet to celebrate. He believed that it was confined to certain occasions, when there were processions arising out of religious differences. Now, supposing that this assembly was legal the use of these banners would not then be of itself illegal, though he repeated that their use was to be lamented. It was not illegal to inscribe on abanner, OConnell for ever! nor even Repeal of the Union! for the Repeal of the Union might be effected by legal means, as well as the Repeal of the Tithes. And, much as the circumstances stated were to be lamented and deprecated, he did not think that of themselves they constituted a violation of the law. Banners had been exhibited on former occasions in a manner which, as he understood it, ought undoubtedly to be condemned. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Haddington) had stated, that on the occasion of the procession on bis departure from Doblrn no banners were exhibited; but was that always the case?- Wm that the case when the noble lrl went to the theatre in Dublin? The theatre was a place where persons met in a room-- where therefore, there was more opportunity to prevent the display of banners than among a multitude in the open air. On that occasion, as he had been informed, an Orange flag had been waved over the head of the noble Earl during all the time that he was in the theatre. He did not blame the noble Earl for the circumstan...