the whole tenour of the Act of Set tlement proved-why was not the conduct, pursued in 1688, when the constitution was founded, imitated, when it was designed to alter that constitution? In 1688 the sense of the country was taken by calling the convention parliament, before the constitution was established. At present, it was not too much to ask, why the sense of the country should not also be taken, when that constitution was about to be invaded. He felt the more anxious that the feelings of the people towards the Catholic question should be faithfully represented, because he had heard of no security for the preservation of the established church and the upholding of Protestant ascendancy.

Among the opponents of the bill was viscount Corry, who had seconded the address, agreeing to his majesty's recommendation to take the subject into consideration. He had seconded that address, he said, because he conceived that the adjustment of the question could be much better effected under the immediate influence of government than upon the motion of any individual; but at the same time he had reserved to himself the right of exercising an unbiassed opinion with respect to the measure when it should be brought forward, and had distinctly stated that he should be opposed to any measure of relief, which was not accompanied with sufficient safeguards. However sanguine might have been the hopes he had entertained that he should be able to agree with ministers with respect to the important measure in contemplation, he must confess that the plan, which had now been detailed, had completely dissipated

them. He had in vain looked for securities. In fact, with the exception of the 40s. franchise being raised to 107., there was no attempt at securities, and even that was only a half measure. With this single exception, and the exclusion of Catholics from the offices of lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and lord-chancellors of England and Ireland, the bill was one of unqualified, unconditional emancipation. To a measure of this sort he could never assent; and although it might be more strictly conformable to the forms of the House to state his objection to the measure in the committee, he felt that he was pursuing a more straight-forward course by opposing in limine a measure to which he had the strongest objection, than by waiting till the Speaker should leave the chair, with the hope of obtaining securities which he saw it was in vain to expect.

The motion, on the other hand, was supported by sir G. Murray, the colonial secretary, Mr. C. Grant, Mr. North, and Mr. Huskisson; the opposition members who spoke contenting themselves. as has been already noticed, with general approbation and congratulation. They repeated and enforced the positions, that the pacification of Ireland was necessary to the safety of the empire, and that without emancipation that pacification could not be effected. It had been often averred, they said, that emancipation, however interesting to a few of the higher classes, was utterly uninteresting to the great bulk of the population of Ireland; but the recent events in Ireland completely refuted such statements; for all classes had identified themselves with that very question.

The result had been, that Ireland had fallen into a state in which it was impossible for it to remain; it must either advance or recede, for all the ties, which held society together, had been loosened or broken. The only question, then, which the government had to determine was, whether it should attempt to forward or to throw back the improvement of the condition of the people of Ireland. By retracing our steps nothing could be done. A certain state of things, indeed, not deserving the name of society, might be maintained by means of the sword, but such a frame of society could have no analogy whatever to the British constitution. The only intimidation which ministers could be accused of yielding to, was the fear of continuing such a state of things, and aggravating all its evils by gradual accumulation, instead of restoring mutual good will, and the peaceful empire of the law. There was no other intimidation in existence. The power of the Catholics was as nothing. No intimidation had been felt in Ireland; an unarmed multitude afforded none, since, when measured against the power of the state, its force was as nothing. But when it was considered what effects might arise from disunion,-when it was considered that a spirit of resentment was growing up, which roused men against each other, there did appear a kind of intimidation, of a nature which did not admit of being despised; for no army could be effectual in putting down a system of private outrage and revenge. The Protestant body-at least the body which arrogated to itself that title-knew the enthralment under which they had held the Catholics, and that an unarmed multitude VOL. LXXI.

must submit. But were we to destroy one part of the people by rousing and inciting the other? It was the duty of government to protect the whole, to ensure them the greatest degree of protection, and to give to the people all the privileges they had a right to enjoy.

To those who urged a dissolution of parliament, that the country might have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the measure, it was answered, that parliament, as it existed, was as capable of discussing this question now, as any parliament had been at any time during the last five and twenty years; that this, like every other question, either of a foreign or domestic nature, was fit for the consideration of the House of Commons at all times, when brought forward by any member of that House; and that it was particularly fit for their consideration, when it came recommended from the throne as necessary for the safety and the peace of the United Kingdom. A dissolution of parliament, said Mr. Peel, meant, that the Catholic Association and the elective franchise should be left as they were. parliament were to be dissolved, the Catholic Association must be left as it was; for the law-officers of the Crown had declared, that the common law was inadequate to suppress it; and being so left, it would overturn the representation of Ireland. Whatever majority they might have from Great Britain, that majority would not justify them in bursting asunder the ties between landlord and tenant in Ireland, and in strengthening the influence of the priesthood in that country. If eighty or ninety persons were returned in the interest of the Catholic Association, and, form[D]

If

ing themselves into a compact and united band, were determined nightly to harass and oppose, how could the government transact the affairsof Ireland? He knew that they could carry the measures they proposed; but he knew also that no government could carry on the local administration of Ireland, if they were to be met by such a decided opposition at every turn. It had been said, increase the army or the constabulary force in Ireland. They could not apply a greater force in Ireland. He would state one simple fact. Above five-sixths of the infantry had been employed in conducting the government of Ireland, not in repressing violence, but chiefly in interposing between two hostile parties. There must, under such circumstances, be a reaction which would compel them gradually to this alternative, namely, instead of resting the civil and social government on its base, to narrow it and to rest it on its apex. Neither was there any thing peculiar in the nature of the proposed measure to require a special appeal to the people. It was incorrect to represent it as a violation of the constitution. That constitution was not to be sought for solely in the acts of 1688; its foundations had been laid much earlier-laid by Catholic hands, and cemented with Catholic blood. But, even taking the compact of 1688 to be the foundation of our rights and liberties, yet the most diligent opponent of the Catholic claims would be unable to point out, in the Bill of Rights a single clause, by which the exclusion of Roman Catholics from seats in parliament was declared to be either a fundamental or an indispensable principle of the British constitution. It was true that the Bill of Rights

recorded the grievances committed against the liberties of the people by the preceding monarch, and the remedies provided to prevent a recurrence of them; and that it excluded from the throne any person who should refuse to take the declaration which it contained, and who should profess the popish religion. Such were the two distinctions drawn in the Bill of Rights; but the indispensable articles of it related to the liberties so guaranteed to the people, and to the protection of the throne from the intrusion of popery. All else was mere machinery. The Bill of Rights provided that the king should make, subscribe, and audibly repeat, the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the 30th year of the reign of Charles II.; and the allusion to that act showed, that it came within the contemplation of those who were the authors and promoters of the Revolution. If, then, they had been of opinion, that the exclusion of Roman Catholics from seats in parliament was as indispensable as the Protestant character of the person who filled the throne, how did it happen that there was no provision for the one, when there was an express provision for the other? They found no difficulty in saying, that, if the king should hold communion with the church of Rome, or profess the popish religion, or marry a papist, he should be excluded from the throne; and that, in such cases, the people were absolved from their allegiance: and it would have been just as easy, and, if they had entertained such an intention, it would have been almost impossible for them to have omitted saying, that every Roman Catholic should be prohibited from taking his seat in either House of parliament, and

that the consent of the king to his admission should also be considered as a just cause for absolving the subject from his allegiance.

To the objection that the measure now contemplated was unconditional concession concession without a single security for the Protestant establishment-it was answered, that principles of exclusion were not the securities to which the established religion either did trust, or ought to trust. The real securities of Protestantism would remain unaffected by the bill. They were to be found in the unalterable attachment of the people, who, however much they might be divided on minor topics, would unite in resisting the errors of popery. The safety of the church did not depend on particular statutes, but on the combined force of habits and circumstances, which were not to be shaken. The House should look, too, at that great security which they would derive from the generous attachment of the people of Ireland, who, after ages of oppression, would now find themselves restored to their place in society. Moreover, the securities, which the bill actually contained, were not, in the opinion, at least, of the Protestants of Ireland, so nugatory as they were now represented. Mr. Peel said, that when he looked at the petitions which had been sent from all parts of the country, he could not help observing one very extraordinary coincidence. These petitions prayed for those securities, and the prayers of them were couched in terms so exactly similar, whether they came from the county of Wicklow, or from the county of Cork, or from the county of Armagh, or from the county of Wexford, that it was impossible to arrive at any

"Correct the elective franchise of Ireland." And the third was, "Abolish for the future the order of the Jesuits in this country." Now the bill which he proposed happened to contain all these securities. And if the necessity of them were so great as the petitioners contended they were, let him be answered this question,would the Protestants ever have had the least chance of obtaining them, if his Majesty had not recommended that the disabilities of the Catholics should be taken into consideration, with the view to an adjustment of this question? Could any man say it was possible, though the unanimous voice of the Protestants of Ireland declared these securities to be necessary, that any one of them could have been obtained unless a proposal of adjustment had been made?

On a division, the motion was carried by a majority of 188; the votes being, 348 for the motion, and 160 against it. This preponderance was manifestly decisive of the ultimate fate of the question, at least in the House of Commons; and its extent betrayed an overwhelming weight of ministerial influence, which could scarcely fail to be less successfully employed in the House of Peers.

The country did not desert itself. Though deprived of its accustomed leaders, at the very moment when their vigilance and energy were most required, the public voice announced itself in an expression

of decided opposition; and if a judgment was to be formed from the number of petitions, which began, so soon as the intention of ministers was known, to crowd the tables of both Houses, the proposed measure was one to which the public mind of Britain was utterly averse. Ministers did not attempt to deny the fact, and hence their determination not to risk a new election. Hence, too, a determination to treat the petitioners with as little respect as possible, to regard the petitions as impertinent and troublesome encroachments on the time of an assembly, whose resolutions had been already taken. Before the first reading of the bill, there had been presented nine hundred and fifty-seven petitions against the intended alteration, and three hundred and fifty-seven in its favour. The former were uniformly spoken of with pity, as expressions of well-meaning but ignorant prejudice, or with indignation as the result of persecuting illiberality and knavish contrivance. It is quite true that such modes of expressing opinion always admit the expression of a great deal of opinion which is entitled to little weight: but then the very same facilities exist on both sides; no deduction is to be made from the one, which is not, on the same grounds, to be made from the other; and, after all proper subtractions, the fact remained, that the measure which was now to be forced upon the country was odious to the great majority of its Protestant population. But in parliament they were without leaders of weight and reputation; all the talkers were on the other side; their orators and influential men had wheeled round at the word of their captain, and joined the ranks of the

enemy. The changes, which rushed upon the public eye, were astounding. Those of men like Mr. Peel were matter of melancholy seriousness, because destructive of all public confidence, and drawing with them a practical revolution in the system of government. The hurried wheelings of the subaltern performers, were the ordinary phenomena of official nature, and only excited a smile at the awkwardness with which the evolution was sometimes performed.

But there were examples of change among men who ought to have stood aloof from the threats, as from the seductions, of power. Sir Thomas Lethbridge, one of the Members for Somersetshire, had attended a meeting of the county of Devon, held in the middle of January, to petition against farther concessions to the Catholics. He had there been the organ of most obstinate and enthusiastic resistance to their demands. On the 6th of February, after the royal speech, he had announced that his opinions were unchanged. In the beginning of March he now read his recantation, and announced all at once, that the plan of ministers was wise, patriotic, and excellent in all its parts. Announcements like these were received with shouts of laughter by the House, and with utter loathing by the country.

The House having gone into committee, and agreed to certain resolutions, a bill, in conformity, was directed to be prepared. It was brought in by Mr. Peel on the 10th of March, when it was read a first time. The opponents of the measure allowed the first reading to take place without opposition, it being arranged that the debate on the principle of the bill should take place on the second reading.