adherents of a cruel, tyrannous, and superstitious church, nothing could be more clear, consistent, and indisputable than the royal title; but if that exclusion were removed, nothing was less so. The privileges of Protestantism were the title-deeds of the royal family to the throne-the actual transfer of the estate which the king held in Parliament and in the country. It was Protestant ascendancy, now become a term of reproach, and Protestant ascendancy alone, that introduced the royal line that rules us; it was that which still formed the foundation of the throne, which combined its title with the very elements of the constitution, identified it with our liberty, consecrated it with the sanctities of our religion, and proclaimed our monarch king by the unanimous suffrages of all our institutions. The Act of Settlement indeed was to remain; and, though it had been passed with difficulty by a parliament exclusively Protestant, it would of course be zealously maintained by a parliament partly Catholic; but still this was to remove the royal title from the broad foundation of national principle, supported by all the analogies of the constitution, and place it upon a mere act of parliament, or rather upon an exception from that act. Whatever became of the legal title, the moral title of the king was touched. And what would be the true value even of his legal title, after the House had declared, that the solitary principle, on which it had first been bestowed, and could be maintained, was tyrannical, unjust, an obsolete piece of disgusting bigotry, which ought never to have brought him there, although, now that he was there, we would condescend to retain him.

The intended change of the con

stitution was therefore objectionable in itself, and doubly so on account of its unavoidable consequences. The real liberties of the people would be put in jeopardy; and that the united Church of England and Ireland would be placed in peril the moment the bill was passed, was certain. The real object of attack, as had been often asserted in that House, was the Establishment, or rather its privileges and immunities. The war had commenced; the siege had begun; the first parallel was nearly completed; the very leaders of the garrison were summoning a bold and numerous band of fresh assailants to the attack; and the approaches would be carried on, till a final triumph was obtained over the most tolerant, the most learned, and the most ffiecient religious establishment which any country had ever yet been blessed with.-And, could any man flatter himself that even when this was destroyed, a long and uninterrupted reign of quietness and peace would ensue ? When this victim had been hunted down, the same pack would scent fresh game, and the cry against our remaining institutions would be renewed with redoubled vigour, till nothing remained worth either attack or defence. An oath, indeed, was to be taken, verbally forbidding Roman Catholics from harming the establishment; but they must be more or less than men, to be enabled to keep such an oath. Totally inefficient as a security, it was immoral to present it to them; it established a war between words and principles, oaths and conscience; and which of these would finally prevail, needed no explanation. When a number of Roman Catholics were seated in that House, that they should not feel

:

disposed to lessen the influence, and finally to destroy a church which they conscientiously abhorred, was absurd that they should not make common cause for a similar purpose with other parties, inspired by similar views and feelings, was impossible. Much, indeed, had been said about the weakness of such a party in point of numbers; but a party acting invariably in unison on this point would ultimately carry it, and, with it, all others of vital importance. They would form the nucleus of a growing party, to whom the measures of the Crown must always be rendered palatable, and who, consequently, would so far dictate the future policy of the country.

Mr. Sadler then adverted to the reasons which had been assigned, or rather the apologies which had been made for these "portentous changes." And first, as to the times, the present was, of all the times at which this measure had been proposed, undeniably the worst, because the latest. On many former occasions, when the present ministers opposed it, concession would have been accepted as a boon; it would now be sullenly taken as the recovery of a just but long-disputed debt, insultingly withheld, and at last reluctantly paid. If it was a measure right in itself, and safe in its consequences, it ought to have been granted from the first, and ministers were deeply responsible for not conceding sooner, if they meant to surrender at all. Now no doubt it was demanded chiefly as being the certain means of extorting fresh concessions, all of which might already be named, and none of which would be long withheld, notwithstanding the new pledges of those who had so nobly redeemed their old ones. But we

were now told there had been previously a divided cabinet on this particular measure, and that it could not, therefore, be carried.— Never was so superficial an excuse put forth. Who were they that caused the division in the preceding cabinet, but those who now complain of it, and who would now suffer none to serve their king or country, but such as approved their altered plans, and changed at the word of command? And was it for ministers to talk about the government being previously divided upon this question as the only obstacle to its adjustment— those who, less than two short years ago, were so strictly and conscientiously devoted to the cause which they had now sacrificed, as to refuse to serve with a premier favourable to emancipation, and who, rather than do so, deserted the king in a body, painful as it no doubt was to them. All the long and laboured explanations, by which this fact was attempted to be concealed or evaded, were not worth a straw. straw. Nothing could ever set this matter in an honest light before the people of England. They had been beguiled, however, by these explanations. "I was one of them," said Mr. Sadler, "who thought the conduct of the noble and right honorable individuals, who resigned in 1827, a sacrifice to principle and consistency; what it really was it is now not worth while to inquire, since it was any thing rather than that. It is now too late to rectify the error; all that remains is to regret most deeply, that, faithfully following those have so secretly, suddenly, and unceremoniously deserted us, we were taught to regard a highlygifted individual, unhappily now

tended thus far? But as to the Protestantism of the constitution, it was certain that their powers to change it in any degree were still more clearly and intentionally limited. The members of that House made a solemn declaration to that effect at taking their seats; and his own had been taken too lately to be forgotten, however it might be by others. Under these circumstances,neither the established constitution of the country, nor their oaths and declarations, permitted them to assume the right now so eagerly sought to be exercised, namely, the right of throw ing open the doors of that House to the admission of popery, to the scandal, disgrace, and danger of the Protestant establishment in church and state. They had no lawful power to do this; the people of England had not sent them thither for any such purpose, but had interdicted them by solemn oaths and declarations from daring to attempt such a course. The voice of that people was heard in their numerous and correct petitions, which cleansed their consciences from the stain of participating in so foul a transaction. "Be assured they will resent it deeply and permanently, if we proceed. I know how dear this sacred, this deserted cause is to the hearts and to the understand ings of Englishmen. The principle may be indeed weak in this House, but abroad it marches in more than all its wonted might, attended, in spite of the aspersions of all its enemies, by the intelligence, the religion, the loyalty of the country; and if the honest zeal, nay, even the cherished prejudices of the people, swell its train, thank God for the accession. Here, Sir, that cause, like

those wasting tapers, may be melting away; there it burns unextinguishably. It lives abroad, though this House, which was its cradle, may be now preparing its grave!. To their representatives the people committed their dearest birthright, the Protestant constitution, and have not deserted it, whoever has. If it must perish, I call God to witness that the people are guiltless! Let it, then, expire in this spot-the place of its birth, the scene of its long triumphs-betrayed, deserted in the House of its pretended friends, who, while they smile, are preparing to smite let it here, while it receives blow after blow from those who have hitherto been its associates and supporters, fold it itself up in its mantle, and, hiding its sorrow and disgrace, fall when it feels the last vital stab at its heart from the hand of one whom it had armed in its defence, and advanced to its highest honours."

Mr. R. Grant, on the other hand, maintained, that it was in vain to speak of applying to the evils of Ireland such cures as it was supposed might be found in the establishment of poor-laws, and the compulsory residence of the absentees. Even assuming these measures to be expedient and desirable in themselves, this was not the time for them. The question at present was, how the existing discontent might be allayed, how the raging pestilence might be stopped. It was only after that had been done, that preventives could rationally be suggested; and it was only by removing the grievances of which Ireland complained, that that object could be effected. For, although the evils of Ireland had been traced to many

causes, these causes themselves, even where they existed, were but the effects of the political distinctions founded on the difference of religious creeds. The House had been told, for instance, to seek for the source of these evils in the local oppressions practised in Ire land, not in the general restrictive laws. Of local oppression there, doubt, had always been enough; but it had existed, and did exist, merely because the adherents of one creed were armed with power to oppress the believers in another faith, who were vested with no power. The same mischiefs, too, it was said had existed even before the Reformation, when all Ireland was of one religion. True; and they had existed just because, even before the Reformation, the same system of excluding the natives from political power had been long followed, though on different grounds. What sir John Davis, who wrote in the days of Elizabeth, stated to be the cause of the evils of Ireland in his time, was in force still. "From the earliest times," said that writer, "of the English government of Ireland, it seemed to be the rule of policy that the native Irish should someway or other be not admitted to the privileges of the constitution equally with the English residents. And in order to perpetuate the ascendancy of the latter, the governors of Ireland had determined to oppress the former as much as possible. Accordingly, it has been the system of rule in that country, for the last 400 years, to attempt by all manner of means to root out the native Irish altogether." That system has been acted on since the time of sir John Davis in some form or

other, and with consequences which would last so long as the laws against the Catholics remained unrepealed. This inequality of political power, then, was the cause; by removing it, you would put an end to the turbulence and exasperation to which it gave birth, and you would do so without either injuring, or producing the danger of injury to the constitu tion. That constitution did not recognize any principle of exclusion against any portion of the community. Its essence was the communication of its protection and privileges to all. The constitution, it had been said, required a religious qualification; it would intrust its powers only to Christ ians.

But the fact was, that the oath required from members of that House did not, could not determine, whether or not the individual, who took it, was a Christian: it only ascertained that he was not a Catholic. That oath admitted all possible modes of infidelity to the rights of the constitution; it was efficient to exclude only one great modification of Christianity. To speak of danger to the Protestant establishment from the removal of that exclusion, was to invert the natural order of causes. The necessary effect of the present measure would be to remove all ground for entertaining any apprehension of the integrity of our Protestant institutions in church and state, in Ireland no less than this country. Did hon. members recollect the safeguard of the peace of Ireland, which the government had had in the Catholic Association? Did they think that an end should be put to the ignoble safety which that body had so long afforded?