of the Parliamentary discussions of the Catholic Question during the session of 1828.* That result did not in itself contain any thing calculated to excite, among the Protestant part of the community, apprehensions of an approaching change, and still less of the king's ministers being ready to propose and support such a change, as a cabinet measure. The majority of six, which had carried the resolutions in favour of the Catholics in the House of Commons, was smaller than that which had carried the third reading of Mr. Plunkett's Relief Bill in 1821, and of Mr. Canning's bill in 1822, and

⚫ l'ide vol. lxx, chap. 4. VOL. LXXI.

majority of forty-five, which had rejected them in the House of Peers, was larger than the majorities on the first and second of these former occasions, and only three votes smaller than that of 1825. The Catholic leaders themselves, indeed, pretended to know, that government was inclined to lend a more willing ear to their demands; but, on the one hand, they did not act as if they believed their own statements, for they immediately proceeded to do their utmost to rouse Ireland into almost open rebellion; and, on the other, there was nothing in the state of the cabinet, nothing in the expressed sentiments of its principal members, nothing in the complex

[B]

ion of public feeling, that seemed to justify such a prospect. The ministry continued to be, as for years it had been, divided upon the question; but its head, the duke of Wellington, and Mr. Peel, the most influential of his colleagues, were precisely the men who had distinguished themselves by their opposition to the Catholic demands, on every ground both of right and of expediency. During the discussions of 1828, both of them, along with the lord chancellor, had expressed no inclination to desert the principles which they had uniformly defended, and which had gained for the former two, on this particular question, the unlimited confidence of that large majority of the community which regarded concession to the Catholics as dangerous and unconstitutional. On the 10th May, 1828, Mr. Peel, in his place in parliament, had ranked himself among those "in whose minds no disposition to change existed, but who rather found their original belief strengthened by consideration." He had concluded a speech, in which he had proved the danger and unreasonableness of these demands in every point of view, with stating, that he had now gone over "the grounds on which he had acted, and on which he had avowed his intention of still acting." During the autumn, indeed, the Catholic leaders had produced alarm over Ireland, as they had often done before, and had organized the disaffected into a body ready for confusion and rebellion; but the country had not yet learned that an aptitude to yield to clamour and intimidation was one of the qualities of a wise and energetic government; and the long-tried opponents of

the Catholic claims had just been repeating their settled convictions that for this, and other evils affecting that part of the empire, concession would afford no remedy. The speech of Mr. Dawson at Londonderry, on the 12th August, was the first public symptom of the influence of the Association in terrifying its opponents; but although the sentiments of that gentleman derived additional importance from the relation in which he stood to the Home Secretary, and although they were, therefore, eagerly caught at by the friends of concession, as betokening a change of opinion in more powerful men, yet the vacillations of an Irish member, trembling for his seat, under the remembrance of the Clare election, could lead no one to anticipate sudden defection among those who had less reason to dread, and whose first duty it was to restrain, the Catholic demagogues. Though Mr. Peel's brotherin-law had announced, at a public dinner, his change of opinion, Mr. Peel himself accepted, during the autumn, the public banquets of the gentry and manufacturers of Lancashire, as the champion of the Protestant cause, without allowing a syllable to escape from him, which could raise any suspicion that he was more inclined to surrender the Protestant constitution than he had been three months before. Above all, the correspondence between the duke of Wellington and Dr. Curtis, which was given to the public in December, justified the most entire confidence on the part of the country, that his grace, and his grace's ministry, entertained no purpose of yielding. The duke had written, in express words, that he "saw no prospect of a settle

ment of the question:" that, in the existing state of excitation, "it was impossible to expect to prevail upon men to consider it dispassionately;" and that, if an ultimate satisfactory arrangement of the question were wished for, it would be desirable for a time, "to bury it in oblivion."* When the duke of Wellington thus declared, on the 11th December, that he saw no prospect of a settle ment of the question, what man could imagine, that he had already resolved forthwith to force it to a settlement? When he thus represented the excited state of public feeling as opposing an insuperable obstacle to the consideration of concession, who could believe that he and his cabinet had already determined to push concession, in defiance of that very feeling, and amidst excitation a thousand times more violent? When he expressed his opinion, that the question ought to be "buried in oblivion," would it not have been deemed an insult to the understanding, or to the honesty, of his grace to have said, that by these words he meant the instant agitation of the question in parliament, and the agitation of it, too, as a government measure? When the year concluded with the recal of the lord lieutenant, because he had used language, and pursued a line of conduct, favourable to the hopes of the Catholics, what man could dream that the next year was to begin with granting all that the Catholics had ever demanded?

Yet so it was; while the country was thus reposing in secure confidence that the leading members of the government were still faithful to their trust, these very men

Vol ̧ lxx. p. [149.

were

had determined to go over to the Catholics, and, in secresy and silence, were arranging their plans to overwhelm every attempt at resistance by the power of ministerial influence. The consent of the king was the first thing to be obtained, and it was likewise the most difficult. His majesty's opinions against the justice and expediency of concession deeply rooted the subject itself was one on the consideration of which he did not willingly enter. What were the arguments employed for his majesty's conversion can be learned only from the arguments by which ministers subsequently attempted to justify in parliament their own change of policy; but, while the operations of the minister upon the royal mind were going on, no whisper was allowed to go abroad regarding the measure that was in contemplation. There was skilful management in this, if there was not much fairness. Had the people, instead of being lulled into the confidence that those, whom they had trusted before, would be trust-worthy still, been made aware of the counsels which these very men were pouring into the royal ear, the public voice would have been heard at the foot of the throne, strengthening the deep-rooted convictions of the monarch himself, and the reluctant consent, which was ultimately wrung from him, in all probability, would never have been obtained. When his consent was once obtained, the public voice might be allowed to raise itself without danger; for he then stood pledged to his ministers, if these ministers, by whatever means, could only command a majority in parliament. It was not till after this consent