no more, as one who ought not to serve his king and country as the head of the government, because he was favourable to the measure now so indecently forced upon the country. I do heartily repent of my share in the too successful attempt of hunting down so noble a victim-a man whom England and the world recognize as its ornament; whose eloquence was, in these days at least, unrivalled-the energies of whose capacious mind, stored with knowledge and elevated by genius, were devoted to the service of his country. This was

man

with whom the present ministers could not act, and for a reason which vitiates their present doings. Coupling, therefore, that transaction with the present, if the annals of our country furnish so disgraceful a page, I have very imperfectly consulted them. But peace to his memory! My humble tribute is paid when it can be no longer heard nor regarded -when it is drowned by the voice of interested adulation now poured only into the ears of the living. He fell, but his character is rescued-it rises and triumphs over that of his surviving- what shall I call them? Let their own consciences supply the hiatus." There no doubt was such a thing as a conscientious conviction, and it was a thing to be honoured. But there was a much more common thing-apostacy-and what else could the people of England denominate these simultaneous conversions, betokening, not change, but want, of principle-whole ranks of public men facing round at the word of command? In these disgusting exhibitions the people of England saw the true VOL. LXXI.

reason for that studied concealment, not to say intentional misleading, which had attended the whole concoction of the measure, and which roused their resentment as well as excited their disgust.

No wonder that such men were unwilling to meet the country on such ground; but it was their bounden duty to have gone to the people; for this invasion of the constitution, bad in itself and ruinous in its consequences, was beyond the power of parliament. That House had no right to proceed in this work of counter-revolution, without consulting the people. On preceding elections the question, by common consent, had been kept from their particular consideration; to have mentioned it would have been stigmatized as the "No Popery cry ;" and, moreover, they confided, in this particular instance, in the express declarations of his Majesty's government, and determined their choice by other grounds of political or local preference. The Protestant constitution, now endangered, had been first established in a convention called for that special purpose; and without as full an appeal, and with equal formality, the people ought not to be robbed of it. Parliament was commonly said to be omnipotent, but that was nevertheless a fiction. It was neither called, nor competent, to alter the original frame work of the constitution. If that House in conjunction with the other branches of the legislature, were to enact that the seats should be perpetual, and not only for life, but hereditary -or if they were to agree to abolish the representative system altogether, or take away trial by jury; who would dare to assert that the power of parliament exa [E]

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 establish ed 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 understandings 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 representa

tives 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 co plained, that that object could be effected. For, although the evils of Ireland had been traced to many

com

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 Ireland, not in the general restrictive Of local oppression there, no 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 constitution. 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?

If danger were to be apprehended from giving the Catholics political power, that danger had for some time existed; for they had political power already. If the will to do injury to the Protestant establish ments existed, the power to exercise that will also existed; and all that the measure could effect in that point would be to check and direct that power. As it would tend to diminish instead of increasing the political power of the Catholics to do injury to the Protestant establishments, the House, in supporting it, would act in accordance with the prayer of the Protestant petitions, "to diminish and not increase the political power of the Catholics." The malus animus towards the establishment apprehended from the Catholics by many zealous friends of the Protestant church in Ireland, would be destroyed by that measure. But supposing it would not, would not that malus animus be more difficult to contend with, under existing circumstances, than if concession had been granted? Therefore, even with a view to contend more successfully with that hostile spirit, was it not the better course to remove the pretext for it by admitting the Catholics to the benefit of the constitution?

Lord Palmerston admitted that, if the question were, whether we should have no Catholics at allwhether the religion throughout the empire should be exclusively Protestant, then let Ireland by all means be made Protestant; but this was not in human power. Catholics there were, and Catholics there must be. There they were, good or bad, and whether their tenets were wholesome or unwholesome, the persons holding

them were 6,000,000 in number, and they were seated in the very heart of the empire. What, then, were we to do with them, since we were not able to exterminate

them? Were we to make them our enemies, fiercer and more inveterate in proportion as we persecuted them, or were we, by kindness and conciliation, to convert them into friends? The latter was clearly the more expedient and desirable in itself, unless it were accompanied by some imminent danger. But their friendship would be perfidious; Catholics could not safely be trusted with powers which they might wield to the injury of the Protestant empire which bestowed them. His answer was, that they were already trusted in situations of far greater moment than those in which it was now proposed to place them. If they were inclined to be traitors, what situations were most favourable for the execution of their designs? Surely, naval and military commands. And how was it that Catholics were allowed these posts? Not by laws enacted in the reign of Charles II.-not by laws originating in the Revolution of 1688, but by a recent enactment, which was sanctioned, or which at least was unopposed, by those very persons who cast these charges in the teeth of the Catholics. Could they allow Catholics to stand sentinels in their camp, and yet fear to trust them in the very centre of the country, surrounded by their guards? Catholics might command their armies in the day of battle,

in that perilous and trying hour, when the safety of England might hang upon the workings, the hidden and secret workings of the mind of one man,-when the commission of one act, or the

treacherous omission of one act, might ruin all,-they were contented that that one man should be a Catholic; they were willing to trust to the honour, to the integrity and to the faith of a Catholic. But when the question was, whether a Catholic should be allowed a seat in that House, where little depended on what was said or done by a few,-where every thing a man said or did was made as public as the art of man could make it, and borne with the dawn of day on the wings of the winds to the extremities of the empire,-there, in such a place, and under such circumstances, people were filled with alarm at his approach; they began to find out that his allegiance was divided, and they saw the ruin of the country completed by permitting a Catholic to vote in a committee of supply. In truth, to refuse emancipation because political power, in the hands of the Catholics, would be dangerous, meant this, that it would be dangerous to regulate for our own benefit, power which they already possessed. What was it that conferred political power? Numbers, wealth, and intelligence. Whether in the republics of the west, or in the despotisms of the east, the persons possessed of these were they who swayed the deliberations of the people, and who controlled the will of the monarch. Look, then, to the Catholics. They were numerous enough-wealth they possessed to our hearts' contentfor intelligence, we were day by day forcing that upon them with all the zeal and activity in our power; and thus, while they were every day becoming more numerous, more wealthy, and more enlightened, we were descanting upon the dangers which must accrue to the

state, if the Catholics should ever acquire political power. If they should ever acquire political power? Why, if those who swayed the wills of five or six millions of discontented men,-who restrained in a leash the angry and troubled passions of such a multitude,-who held in the folds of their garment the dread alternatives of peace or war,-if such persons were not possessed of political power, then there was no meaning in words— no danger in names. A power of this description could be exercised for no good end; it might destroy, but it could not save a state. He called upon the House to turn these materials of discord into strength, and to imitate the skilful and benevolent physician, who from deadly herbs extracted healing balms, and made that the means of health, which others, less able or less good, used for the purposes of destruction.

Sir Charles Wetherell, the Attorney general, had, it was well known, differed from ministers as to the policy they were now pursuing. He had even refused to draw the bill; and still he remained Attorney general, under a minister who was understood to have made unthinking submission to his word of command on this question the tenure by which alone those,* dependent on the government, would be allowed to retain their offices. The only explanation that offered itself was, that, in the event of the Attorney general's office becoming vacant, ministers, in looking out for a successor could

• Lord Lowther, sir John Beckett, and other members dependent on lord Lonsdale, voted against the bill; but

their opposition was without voice or heart: and they had too much borough influence, to be punished for such conduct.