a new statute would easily sweep away these clauses, or even the separate bill about the £10 votes, if felt cumbersome. The clauses were calculated and probably intended to form what is vulgarly called "a tub to amuse the whale," or to appear complimentary to the protestants, without truly affecting the Catholics.

The reasons assigned by Mr. Peel for introducing these bills, chiefly were, that unless this boon were granted, there was danger of commotions or rebellion in Ireland,-and it was stated that the British people were not averse to the measure, because the members of the House of Commons, elected by a majority of populous towns and counties, had in several parliaments favoured it; and it was alleged that it was unreasonable to expect that, unsupported by the country, he, Mr. Peel, should persevere in opposing the popish claims as he had formerly done. In the House of Lords, the Duke of Wellington saw the absurdity of pleading danger, because, if men will not defend their religion and liberties, lest somebody oppose them, it is clear they will soon have neither religion nor liberty to defend. The Duke disclaimed any fear of an Irish rebellion,

་

but pleaded the inconvenience resulting, and long felt, from a divided cabinet, and the impossibility even of raising an Irish member to the peerage, lest a new commotion should be excited, by the election of a successor to his seat in the Commons. In both houses the usual plea was maintained, that it was illiberal to impose political disqualifications on men on account of their religious opinions, and that the papists of our days are not the intolerant and persecuting sect that they were in old times.

When too late the nation was alarmed, and pe-. titions against the measure poured into parliament, from all quarters. The heads of the most distinguished Tory families endeavoured in vain to support the protestant constitution; and the Earl of Eldon, confessedly the first lawyer in England, and who had long filled the office of Lord High Chancellor, eminently distinguished himself by fidelity to the constitution. But the new statutes were carried in both houses by triumphant majorities in the House of Lords by a majority of a hundred and one!

What was the King now to do? He might have dissolved parliament amidst a national ferment, the

effect of which he could not foresee. The House of Commons, during a long series of years, had repeatedly passed votes favourable to the papists. On looking back to these votes, and considering the names of the men by whom they had been supported, together with the long supineness of the nation on the subject, who shall say that the King of Great Britain did wrong in complying with the voice of his parliament, and thereby trying to govern his people in the only way in which, consistently with national tranquillity, it seemed practicable that they should be governed? To him the measure must have been painful and humiliating. Be the consequences what they may to the nation, or to the fate of the reigning family, let the future historian consider with candour the situation of that prince, and his conduct will not be regarded as liable to severe reproach. His defence will be that there was 66 a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets."

1805. Mr. Fox moved for a Committee to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes,

124; Noes, 336.-Majority against the Catholics, 212.

1806. Question not brought forward.

1807. Question not brought forward.

1808. Motion for a Committee to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes,

128; Noes, 281.-Majority against the

Catholics, 153.

1809. Question not brought forward.

1810. Motion for a Committee to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes,

109; Noes, 213.-Majority against the Catholics, 104.

1811. Motion for a Committee. Ayes, 83; Noes, 146.-Majority against the Catholics, 63.

1812. April 24. Mr. Grattan's motion for a Committee. Ayes, 215; Noes, 300.-Majority against the Catholics, 85.

June. Mr. Canning's motion for a Committee early in the next Session, to take into consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes, 235; Noes, 106.-Majority for the Catholics, 129.

June. A similar motion in the Lords by Lord Wellesley.-The order of the day being moved in opposition to Lord W.'s

motion-Contents 126; Non-contents, 125.-Majority against the Catholics, 1. Debated for three nights.

1813. Feb. 3.

Mr. Grattan's motion for a Committee to take into serious consideration the Catholic claims. Ayes, 264; Noes, 224.—Majority for the Catholics, 40.

March 9. First reading of the Bill. Ayes, 186; Noes, 119.-Majority for the Catholics, 67.

May 11. Motion by Sir J. C. Hippesley to inquire into the state of the laws affecting Roman Catholics.-Opposed by Mr. Canning, on the ground of its being a manœuvre to delay the Bill. For the motion, 187; Against it, 235.-Majority for the Catholics, 48.

May 13. Second reading.

On the motion that it should be read that day three months-Ayes, 203; Noes, 245.-Majority for the Catholics, 42. May 24. Bill in Committee. On the motion to omit the clause enabling Catholics to sit in Parliament.-Ayes, 251;