The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III. / From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria

by Edward Farr; E. H. Nolan

THE TRIUMPH OF CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.

On the 5th of March Mr. Peel moved “that the house resolve itself into a committee of the whole house to consider of the laws imposing civil disabilities on his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects.” He commenced by stating, that, he rose as a minister of the king to vindicate the advice which an united cabinet had given to his majesty to recommend to the consideration of parliament the condition of the Catholics, and to submit to the house measures for carrying such recommendation into effect. He was aware, he said, that the subject was surrounded with difficulties; which difficulties were increased by the relation in which he himself stood to the question. Having, however, come to the honest conviction that the time had arrived, when an amicable adjustment of the disputed claims would be accompanied with less danger than any other course that could be suggested, he was prepared to act on that conviction, unchanged by the forfeiture of public confidence, or by the heavy loss of private friendship. He had long felt, he said, that with a house of commons favourable to emancipation, his position as a minister opposed to it was untenable; and he showed that he had more than once intimated his desire to resign office, and thus remove one obstacle to a settlement of the question. He had done so on the present occasion, though at the same time he notified to the Duke of Wellington, that seeing how the current of public opinion lay, he was ready to support the measure, provided it were undertaken on principles from which no danger to the Protestant establishment need be apprehended. He was aware, he said, that he was called on to make out a case for this change of policy; and he was now about to submit to the house a statement which proved to his own mind, with the force of demonstration that ministers were imperatively called on to recommend the measure, however inconsistent it might appear with their former tenets. The argument by which the case was made out by Mr. Peel resolved itself into the following propositions:—First, matters could not remain in their present state, the evils of divided councils being so great, that something must be done, and a government formed with a common opinion on the subject. Secondly, a united government once constituted must do one of two things—either grant further political rights to the Catholics, or recall those which they already possess. Thirdly, to deprive them of what they already have would be impossible; or at least would be infinitely more mischievous than to grant them more: therefore, no case remained to be adopted but that of concession. Having illustrated these propositions at great length, and with much force of argument, Mr. Peel proceeded to explain the nature of the measure which he and his colleagues proposed as that which ought finally to settle and adjust the question. The principle and basis of the measure was to be, he said, the abolition of civil distinctions and the equality of political rights, with a few exceptions only. Another pervading principle would be, in fact and in word, the maintenance of the Protestant religion as by law established, its doctrines, its discipline, and government. First of all, he would repeal those laws which placed Catholics, unless they took certain oaths, on a different footing from Protestants even in regard to real property; a distinction which Protestants and Catholics were equally interested in abolishing. The next provision would be the admission of Catholics to parliament on the same terms with Protestants; for unless this was granted, all other concessions of political power would be of no avail. The bill would, also, render Catholics admissible to all corporate offices in Ireland, and all offices connected with the administration of justice, and to all the higher civil offices of the state. He was aware, he said, of the objection as to the last; but having once resolved to yield political power, this could not be refused. In order to leave the avenues of ambition open to the Roman Catholic, he was of opinion that we ought to render him capable of being employed in the service of the country. As regards the oaths to be taken, it necessarily followed from their concessions, he said, that they should be modified. In the new oath, the Catholic would be called on to swear allegiance in the usual terms; to disclaim the deposing power of the pope, and the doctrine that his holiness had any temporal or civil power, directly or indirectly, within the realm; solemnly to abjure any intention of subverting the church establishment; and to bind himself not to employ any of his privileges to weaken the Protestant religion or government. As regarded the exceptions from the general rule, Mr. Pitt said that they lay within a narrow compass, and related to duties or offices connected with the established church. The only offices he meant to exclude Catholics from were those of lord-lieutenant, or chief governor of Ireland, and of lord high chancellor, or keeper, or commissioner of the great seal. He meant, however, to exclude Catholics from appointments in any of the Universities or Colleges, and from exercising any right of presentation, as lay patrons, to the benefices and dignities of the church of England. In the bill, also, there were certain prohibitions against carrying the insignia of office to places of Roman Catholic worship, and against the assumption, by prelates of that communion, of the same episcopal titles as those belonging to the church of England. There were also certain precautions against the increase of monastic institutions, particularly that of the Jesuits. A more effective check, however, on the consequences which might result from admitting Roman Catholics in Ireland to civil power, was meditated in a law for raising the qualification of the elective franchise, in counties, from forty shillings to ten pounds: by which means that privilege would be limited to persons really possessed of property, and less liable to be misled by the priests. After detailing the features of the plan in a speech which occupied more than four hours, Mr. Peel remarked:—“And now, although I am not so sanguine as others in my expectations of the future, I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, I fully believe that the adjustment of this question in the manner proposed will not only give much better and stronger securities to the Protestant interest and establishment than any other that the present state of things admits of, but will also avert evils and dangers impending and immediate. I might have taken a more popular and palatable course: more popular with the individuals in concert with whom I long thought and acted, more palatable to the constituents whom I have lost; but I have consulted for the best, for Protestant interests and our Protestant establishment. This is my defence against the accusations I have endured; this is my consolation under the sacrifices I have made; this shall be my revenge. I trust that, by the means now proposed, the moral storm may lie lulled into a calm, the waters of strife may subside, and the elements of discord be stilled and composed. But if these expectations be disappointed; if unhappily civil strife and contentions shall arise; if the differences existing between us do not spring out of artificial distinctions and unequal privileges, but if there be something in the character of the Roman Catholic religion not to be contented with a participation of equal privileges, or with anything short of superiority, still I shall be content to make the trial. If the battle must be fought; if the contest which we would now avoid cannot be averted by those means, let the worst come to the worst—the battle will be fought for other objects, the contest will take place on other grounds; the contest then will be, not for an equality of civil rights, but for the predominance of an intolerant religion. If those more gloomy predictions shall be realized, and if our more favourable hopes shall not be justified by the result, we can fight that battle against the predominance of an intolerant religion more advantageously after this measure shall have been passed than we could do at present. We shall then have the sympathy of other nations; we shall have dissolved the great moral alliance that existed among the Roman Catholics: we shall have with us those great and illustrious authorities that long supported this measure, and which will then be transferred to us, and ranged upon our side: and I do not doubt that in that contest we shall be victorious, aided as we shall be by the unanimous feeling of all classes of society in this country, as demonstrated in the numerous petitions presented to this house, in which I find the best and most real securities for the maintenance of our Protestant constitution; aided, I will add, by the union of orthodoxy and dissent, by the assenting voice of Scotland; and, if other aid be necessary, cheered by the sympathies of every free state, and by the wishes and prayers of every free man, in whatever clime, or under whatever form of government he may live.”

The motion was not very powerfully opposed. The principal speakers in opposition were Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Estcourt, the two members of Oxford University. The chief argument used was an assumption that the grant of equal privileges to Roman Catholics would be the destruction of the Protestant establishment. With regard to Ireland, it was said that discord and agitation were not new features in the condition of that country; that they were not a result of the penal laws; and that they would not cease on the removal of civil disabilities. As regarded the fear of civil war, it was remarked that reliance ought to have been placed on public opinion, and the moral determination of the British people. At best, too, it was argued, the evil days would only be postponed, and resistance to ulterior struggles rendered more difficult. It was asked, with respect to the divided state of the cabinet, why the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, instead of changing their own line of policy, did not rather attempt to bring over their colleagues to their views, especially as they still confessed that there was danger in granting Catholic emancipation. Ministers were also taunted with conceding the question from intimidation; a fact which was evident in the provisions, called securities, against the danger of admitting the Catholics to wield the civil, judicial, and military powers of the state. If Mr. Peel and other converts, it was said, thought they could no longer resist, because they had not a majority in the house of commons, why did they refuse to accept a majority? Why was not parliament dissolved? Such a course, it was argued, was right at any time, when a measure strongly affecting the constitution was contemplated; and it was peculiarly necessary in the present instance, when the country had been deceived into a security, of which those who had practised the deception were now seeking to take advantage. The Marquis of Blandford even maintained, that if the house sanctioned the present audacious invasion of the constitution, it would break the trust reposed in it by the people of England, who were taken by surprise by the unexpected announcement made by ministers. Was it right, he asked, for the government to persist in measures to which public feeling was so strongly opposed? Constituted as the house was then, it did not express the just alarms of the people for the safety of the Protestant institutions of the country. As regards the securities proposed by ministers, they were treated with contempt. Viscount Corry said, that he had in vain looked for them: with the exception of the forty-shilling franchise being raised to ten pounds, there was no attempt at securities; and even that was a half measure.

The motion was supported by Sir. G. Murray, colonial secretary, and by Messrs. Grant, North, and Iiuskisson. These members repeated and enforced the positions that the pacification of Ireland was necessary to the safety of the empire; and that without emancipation pacification could not be effected. All classes in Ireland, it was argued, had identified themselves with the question, and Ireland had hence 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. It was conceded that a certain state of things, not deserving the name of society, might be maintained by means of the sword; but such a frame of society, it was added, could have no analogy whatever to the British constitution. The only intimidation to which ministers could be accused of yielding, was the fear of continuing such a state of affairs, and aggravating all its evils by gradual accumulation, instead of restoring mutual good-will and the peaceful empire of the law. No other intimidation existed: none was felt in Ireland; for what was the force of an unarmed multitude when measured against the force of the state? The power of the Catholics 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 contempt. 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 must submit. But were we, it was asked, to destroy one part of the people, by rousing and inciting the other? It was rather 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, it was answered, that parliament as it existed was as capable of discussing the question now, as any parliament had been at any time during the last twenty-five years; that the question was a fit one for the consideration of the house of commons at all times; and that it was particularly fit for their consideration when it came recommended from the throne, as necessary for the safety and peace of the United Kingdom. A dissolution of parliament, remarked Mr. Peel, must leave the Catholic Association and the elective franchise in Ireland just as they were. If parliament were dissolved, the Catholic Association must be left as it was, as the common law was inadequate to suppress it; and being so left, it would overturn the representation of Ireland. Whatever majority might be returned from Great Britain, Ireland would return eighty or ninety members in the interest of the Association, forming a compact body, against the force of which it would be impossible to carry on the local government of the country. It had, indeed, been said, “Increase the army, or the constabulary force;” but a greater force could not be employed there. He would state one simple fact. Above five-sixths of the infantry had been engaged in aiding the government of Ireland, as by interposing between two hostile parties. Under such circumstances a reaction 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. It was also denied that there was anything peculiar in the nature of the proposed measure to require a special appeal to the people, since it was incorrectly called a violation of the constitution. That constitution, it was argued, 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 a fundamental, or indispensable principle of the British constitution; that bill merely regarded the liberties guaranteed to the people, and the protection of the throne from the intrusion of Popery. 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 this bill, in the unalterable attachment of the people, who, though divided on minor topics, would unite in resisting the errors of Popery. The house, it was said, should also look at the great security which they would derive from the generous attachment of the people of Ireland, who, after ages of oppression, would find themselves restored to their place in society. Moreover, the securities which the bill contained were not so nugatory as they had been represented. Mr. Peel said, that when he looked at the petitions sent from all parts of the country, he could not help being struck with one extraordinary coincidence. These petitions prayed for those securities; and the prayers of them were similar, whether they came from the county of Wicklow, or from the county of Armagh, &c.; that it was impossible to arrive at any other conclusion than that those prayers, and the terms in which they were conveyed, had been suggested by one common head and source. And what were the securities prayed for? Why, the first was, “Put down the Catholic Association;” the second, “Correct the elective franchise of Ireland;” and the third, “Abolish for the future the order of the Jesuits in this country.” Now the bill which he proposed contained all these securities; and if the necessity of obtaining them were so great as the petitioners contended, 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 those securities to be necessary, that any one of them could have been obtained, unless a proposal or adjustment had been made?” On a division the motion was carried by a majority of three hundred and forty-eight against one hundred and sixty; a preponderance which, as regarded the house of commons, was decisive of the ultimate fate of the question.

Resolutions, proposed by Mr. Peel in the committee, were immediately agreed to; and a bill founded on them was introduced and read for the first time on the 10th of March. 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. That reading was fixed for the 17th, on which day it was moved by Mr. Peel. The motion led to a very warm debate. Sir Edward Knatchbull strongly attacked Mr. Peel on the desertion of his principles, as well as other members of the government, asserting that from it the confidence which had hitherto been accorded to public men, had received a blow from which it never would recover. Mr. Goulburn admitted that he had adopted new opinions on this subject; but he had done so, he said, because it was impossible that any other thing could be wisely done in the present state of Ireland. He contended that the measure proposed was calculated to give more complete ascendancy to the Protestant establishment, by diminishing the irritation, and removing the prejudices of its opponents. He argued, that it would also have the effect of causing the people to treat the ministers of the Protestant church with the respect and attention to which their character and virtues so eminently entitled them; and that it was only under such circumstances that the church could be employed as an important engine in the moral improvement of the people. These notions, however, were ridiculed by Mr. G. Bankes, who contended that, although the house did not surrender all the rights of the Protestant church at once, they gave the Catholics the first stepping-stone for reaching everything they might desire. It was admitted, he said, that the adherents of the Catholic faith would struggle for ascendancy; and that this bill was to give them the political power which would be the great instrument used in the struggle: and how a bill which did all this would tend to the security of the Protestant church surpassed human comprehension. The very framers of the measure saw the absurdity and the danger which it was employed to conceal; and they had endeavoured to obviate the danger by a precaution which proved its existence, but was impotent to prevent it. They had devised this remedy—that when the prime minister happened to be a Roman Catholic, all power connected with the established church should be vested in the hands of commissioners. But who was to appoint the commissioners? Why the prime minister. Lord Tullamore followed in a similar strain. Ministers, he said, had themselves given the tone on the opposite side of the question at public meetings; they had sat at the festive board, hearing with approbation the avowal of sentiments which they themselves had avowed, but now disclaimed completing the picture drawn by the poet—

“Drunk at a borough, civil at a ball. Friendly at Hackney, faithless at Whitehall.”

The measure was supported by Lord Palmerston and Sir George Murray with much eloquence and animation; but the speech which on this occasion claimed and deserved the greatest attention from the house was that of Mr. Sadler, a man of distinguished abilities, who had recently been returned to parliament for the borough of Newark, by the Duke of Newcastle’s interest. He rose, he said, to add his humble vote to that faithful band who had resigned the countenance of those whom they had hitherto deeply respected; who had surrendered, in the language of many, all pretensions to common sense or general information; who are branded as intolerants and bigots, from whom ministers had happily escaped; and, what was still more painful to generous minds, who were ranked among those that were as devoid of true liberality and benevolence, as of reason and intelligence. He continued: “All these things, however, move us not. In a cause like that of the Protestant constitution of England, now placed for the first time since its existence in a situation of imminent peril, an humble part in its triumph would indeed give me a share of that unmeasurable joy which its rescue would diffuse throughout the nation; but to be numbered as one of those who, faithful to the end, made a last though ineffectual struggle in its defence, will afford a melancholy satisfaction, which I would not exchange for all the pride, and power, and honours which may await a contrary course.” After this preamble, Mr. Sadler argued at great length against the principles of the bill, and its dangerous tendency toward the Protestant church: and showed its utter futility in remedying the evils which oppressed, or repaying the wrongs which she had suffered from so many generations. He remarked:—“Ireland degraded, deserted, oppressed, pillaged, is turbulent; and you listen to the selfish recommendations of her agitators. You seek not to know, or knowing you wilfully neglect, her real distresses. If you can calm the agitated surface of society, you heed not that fathomless depth of misery, sorrow, and distress whose troubled waves heave unseen and disregarded: and this, forsooth, is patriotism, Ireland asks of you bread, and you proffer her Catholic emancipation: and this, I presume, is construed to be the taking into our consideration, as his majesty recommended, the whole situation of Ireland.” As regards the nature of the measure, Mr. Sadler contended that it could only be described as an inroad on the constitution of the country, and a preparatory movement towards its final destruction. The securities, also, were treated by him as vague and unsatisfactory. Matters, he said, had reached such a point of noisy and dangerous discord between parties in Ireland, that ministers contended there must be an adjustment of the question. Adjustment generally terminated in mutual concessions and reciprocal advantages: but would the authors of this bill point out what it gave to the Protestant constitution for that which it took away? The Protestant faith surrendered everything, it received nothing. As a security, the office of viceroy, an office of pageantry, was to continue Protestant: but what Protestant cared an iota about it, when its holder was to be surrounded with Popish advisers, and to act by Popish instruments? The king, too, it seems, must still continue to be a Protestant. This reservation was the worst of all, and heightened every objection to the measure into abhorrence and disgust. “What!” he continued, “after establishing by a solemn act the doctrine that conscience ought to be free and unrestrained; that disabilities like that sought to be removed, inflict a wound upon the feelings of those whom they reach, intolerable to good and generous minds, worse than persecution, than even death itself, how do you apply it? Why you propose to sear this brand high upon the forehead, and deep into the heart of your very prince, while you render the scar more visible, and the insult more poignant, by making him the solitary individual, whose hereditary rank must be held and transmitted by the disgraceful tenure which you have stigmatized as the badge of slavery. Freedom of conscience to all subjects, but none to your king! Throw open the portals of legislation, that a Duke of Norfolk may take his seat in your senate; but hurl from his loftier seat there, the throne of the realm, a Duke of Lancaster, if he exercise the same privilege, and presume to have a conscience! Hitherto the British constitution has been fair, uniform, equal, demanding from all the same moral qualification. That qualification has long been declared, by a certain school of politicians, to be slavery. Ministers have now adopted their creed; yet they are content, nay, they propose, that the king shall be the only proclaimed slave in his dominions. Worse than this, however, remained behind: the proposed measure not only hurt the feelings of the monarch, it touched his title. It was a bill to reverse the attainder which had been passed upon Popery, and the natural consequences of this reversal were obvious. 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 principles, 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 would be touched. But,” continued Mr. Sadler, “the intended change of the constitution was doubly objectionable on account of its unavoidable consequences. He contended that it would put the real liberties of the people in jeopardy; and that the united church of England and Ireland would be placed in peril by it, the moment it was passed. The real object of the attack was the establishment, or rather its principles and immunities. The war had begun; the siege commenced: 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 efficient establishment which any country had ever yet been blessed with. And could any man, he asked, 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 double vigour, till nothing remained worth attack or defence. An oath was certainly 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. It was even 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. That Roman Catholics once seated in the house should not feel disposed to lessen the influence, and finally to destroy a church which they abhorred was impossible; and that they should not make common cause for a similar purpose with other parties inspired by similar views was equally impossible. Much, it was true, 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.” Referring to the apologies which had been made for these portentous changes, Mr. Sadler said that the country had been beguiled by them. He continued:—“I was one of those who thought the conduct of the noble and right honourable 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 anything than that. It is now too late to rectify the error; all that remains is to regret most deeply, that, faithfully following those who have so secretly, suddenly, and unceremoniously deserted us, we were taught to regard a highly gifted individual, unhappily now 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 recognise as its ornament, whose eloquence was, at 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 the 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 reserved, it rises and triumphs over that of his surviving,—what shall I call them? Let their own consciences supply the hiatus.” Having paid this eloquent tribute to Mr. Canning, a tribute as just also as it is eloquent, Mr. Sadler contended that it was the duty of ministers to have gone to the people, since the invasion of the constitution, bad in itself and ruinous in its consequences, was beyond the power of parliament. The people of England, he continued, had not sent the members of the house of commons for the purpose of throwing 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. He added in conclusion:—“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 is 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 itself up in its mantle, and, hiding its sorrow and disgrace, fall when it feels the last 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 side contended 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, or the compulsory residence of the absentees: even if the expediency of these measures was assumed, this was not the proper time for their application: the question at present was, how 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. Although the evils of Ireland, he said, 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 the religious creeds. The house had been told, for instance, to seek for the source of these evils in the local oppressions practised in Ireland, rather than in the general restrictive laws. Of local oppression, no doubt, plenty had always existed, but it had existed 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, it was said, existed 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 Davies, 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 four hundred years, to attempt by all manner of means to root out the native Irish altogether.” That system had 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; and by removing it, an end would be put to the turbulence and exasperation to which it gave birth. Mr. Grant further argued that this might be done without injury to the constitution, and that the constitution did not recognise any principle of exclusion against any portion of the community. Its essence, he said, was the communication of its protection and privileges to all. Lord Palmerston followed on the same side. He admitted that if the question were, whether we should have any Catholics at all; whether the religion throughout the empire should be exclusively Protestant; then all Ireland should be made Protestant. But this was not possible, 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 six millions in number, and they were seated in the very heart of the empire. What, then, he asked, 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. He called upon the house to turn the 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.

Of all declaimers against the bill, Sir Charles Wetherell, the attorney-general, was the most violent. He had refused to draw up this bill in his official capacity; but he still remained in office, under a minister who was understood to have made implicit submission to his word of command the tenure by which office was to be held. Knowing that nothing but the difficulty of supplying his place prevented his discharge, he delivered a speech of defiance to his colleagues in office, which produced a great impression in the house and throughout the country. In explaining his objection to frame this bill, he said,—“When my attention was drawn to the framing of this bill, I felt it my duty to look over the oath taken by the lord chancellor, as well as that taken by the attorney-general; and it was my judgment, right or wrong, that, when desired to frame this bill, I was called to draw a bill subversive of the Protestant church, which his majesty was bound by his coronation-oath to support. If his majesty chose to dispense with the obligations of the coronation-oath, he might do so; but I would do no act to put him in jeopardy. These are the grounds on which I refused, and would refuse a hundred times over, to put one line to paper of what constitutes the atrocious bill now before the house. Hundreds of those who now listen to me must remember the able, valuable, and impressive speech delivered two years ago by the present lord-chancellor, then master of the rolls, and a member of this house. It will also be in the recollection of hundreds that that eminent individual, than whom none is more acute in reasoning, more classical in language, and more powerful in delivery, quarrelled with the late Mr. Canning on this very subject. Am I then to blame for refusing to do that, in the subordinate office of attorney-general, which a more eminent adviser of the crown, only two years ago, declared he would not consent to do? Am I, then, to be twitted, taunted, and attacked? I dare them to attack me. I have no speech to eat up. I have no apostasy disgracefully to explain. I have no paltry subterfuge to resort to. I have not to say that a thing is black one day and white another. I have not been in one year a Protestant master of the rolls, and in the next a Catholic lord-chancellor. I would rather remain as I am, the humble member for Plympton, than be guilty of such apostasy; such contradiction; such unexplainable conversion; such miserable, contemptible, apostasy.” As for the bill itself, Sir Charles stated, that when it was dissected and anatomized, it destroyed itself. It admitted the danger, and yet provided no security for Protestants. He would not have condescended to stultify himself by the composition of such a bill. The folly and contradictions be upon the heads of those who drew it. They might have turned him out of office; but he would not be made such a dirty tool as to draw that bill. “Let who would, he would not defile pen, or waste paper, by such an act of folly, and forfeit his character for common sense and honesty.”

This attack of the attorney-general called up Mr. Peel, who closed the debate. After complaining of the violence of his colleague, he reverted to the grounds on which he had first proposed the bill; again urging the state of Ireland, and the absolute necessity of doing something; the inability of his opponents to do anything better, though they vehemently opposed the measure now offered; the impossibility of any government standing which should set itself on avowed principles against concession; and the folly of treating the question as one which had any connexion with religion. The Catholics were never excluded at any time because of their religious creed; they were excluded for a supposed deficiency of civil worth, and the religious test was applied to them, not to detect the worship of saints, or any other tenet of their religion, but as a test to discover whether they were Roman Catholics. It was a test to discover the bad, intriguing subject, not the religionist; and, therefore, when he parted with the declaration against transubstantiation, it was not from any doubt which he entertained as to the doctrines of the Roman Catholics, but from looking at it as a test of exclusion, and from thinking that, when the exclusion was deemed unnecessary, the test of exclusion, might be dispensed with. Mr. Peel complained grievously that an unfair application had been made of his unhappy phrase, that the proposed measure would be “a breaking in upon the constitution of 1688.” He meant no more, he said, than that there would be an alteration in the words of the Bill of Rights: and if an alteration of its words were a breaking in upon the constitution, then had the constitution been often broken in upon. He called upon the house to consider the altered position of affairs in Ireland since the annunciation of this measure had been made; and warned it that if the bill was rejected, it would be attended with consequences fatal to the repose of the empire. He added, “I am well aware that the fate of this measure cannot now be altered: if it succeed, the credit will redound to others; if it fail, the responsibility will devolve upon me, and upon those with whom I have acted. These chances, with the loss of private friendship, and the alienation of public confidence, I must have foreseen and calculated before I ventured to recommend these measures. I assure the house that, in conducting them, I have met with the severest blow which it has ever been my lot to experience in my life; but I am convinced that the time will come, though I may not live perhaps to see it, when full justice will be done by men of all parties to the motives on which I have acted; when this question will be fully settled, and when others will see that I had no other alternative than to act as I have acted. They will then admit that the course which I have followed, and which I am still prepared to follow, whatever imputation it may expose me to, is the only course which is necessary for the diminution of the undue, illegitimate, and dangerous power of the Roman Catholics, and for the maintenance and security of the Protestant religion.”