that occasion. prayed for a reduction of only six or seven bishops, on the ground that the number of Protestants in Ireland was then but half a million. In what latitude does the noble lord now find himself, whilst he sails in the same vessel with a government pledged to the open and avowed plunder of that very Church which he then so ably-so eloquently supported at a time when ten bishoprics and two archbishoprics have been already abolishedwhen, beyond all controversy, the number of Protestants exceeds two millions? But we must not do injustice to the consistency of Mr. Plunkett, by withholding the rest of his powerful speech on "Much as I regret," said he, "the "principles upon which the honorable gentleman (Mr. Hume) seems to found his motion, the "means suggested for carrying its design into ex"ecution, are at least equally objectionable. The "honorable gentleman evidently thinks that Par"liament is at liberty to deal with the property of "the Church, exactly in the same way, as if it were "a tax or any other property of the state. Now, "that the property of the Church may not be in"terfered with as well as the property of the state, "in a case of public necessity, I will not assert; "but be it observed, that upon the same principle "the private property of every man in the kingdom 66 is equally liable. I repeat, that to take away the "ancient rights of one class of persons to give them . "to another, cannot be termed any thing but spolia❝tion. If we begin with the Church, let the land"holder look to himself, and let the fundholder "also take care of himself, as he lies even more "conveniently than the landholder." But now mark! British Protestants! the prophetic announcement with which the speech concludes :-" Speaking of it in a political point of view, I have no 66 hesitation to state that the existence of the Pro"testant establishment is the great bond of union "between the two countries, and if ever that unfor"tunate moment shall arrive when we shall rashly 66 lay our hand on the property of the Church, to "rob it of its rights, that moment we shall seal "the doom, and terminate the connexion between "the two countries !!" What is the noble lord blind to the "signs of the times," or does he think that the great agitator's efforts to cement the union, have now obviated all difficulties-removed all danger of laying hands upon the property of the Church? No. 66 Tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis !" One word of comment is unnecessary. To the individual himself, the rebukes of conscience must be a sufficient punishment for the change. 66 There is no future pang But for the honour of our national character, we wish to know what limits are to be assigned to the political tergiversation which the new doctrine of expediency will permit. "Expediency" and "circumstances"-those indulgent names under which modern liberality endeavours to disguise a weak concession to popular clamour, or a corrupt sacrifice of public principle to private interest. Unless England is satisfied to sacrifice our aristocracy, our monarchy, and our religion, at the shrine of that tri-une idol-Popery, Infidelity, and Democracy—surely it is time for British Protestants to awake, and avert the danger which is at hand; surely our present cause is one sufficient to enlist your feelings, your energies, and your influence. The mischievous effects of a modern-Whig government were made tolerably manifest by their foreign policy when last in power; every one knows that their weak and vacillating conduct was only calculated to bring government into derision in the eyes of the nation, and the nation into contempt with all those powers on the continent, who had been so long used to admire and look up to England's policy. They professed, on coming into office, that 'non-intervention' was the principle of their foreign policy, and they, no doubt, adhered to it, where conscious weakness and cowardice precluded any hope of success, in openly espousing the cause of tyranny and oppression. They did not intervene to compel Russia, Prussia, or Austria, to consent to the dismemberment of the kingdom of Holland; but they adopted the milder and more convenient system of mediation as a cloak for an unjustifiable conspiracy with a nation which was for centuries England's deadliest foe-nay which had, almost become her natural enemy-to oppress one of our oldest and most faithful allies, whose interests it was no less our policy, than our imperative duty, to protect. They did not (as Burke once said of France) sacrifice England's honor to her interest, but they abandoned her interest that they might prostitute her honor. But neither the foreign policy of the modernWhigs, nor their domestic policy, as confined to England, can enable us to estimate fairly the danger of allowing the nation again to fall into the possession of such busy hands and empty heads as compose the present cabinet. It is impossible duly to appreciate this without taking a glance at the effects of their policy in Ireland. History certainly presents no parallel to the extraordinary melange of arbitrary domination and unjustifiable concession to popular clamour, which the Irish government exhibited during the four years, for which the Whigs continued last in power. Never was there so lamentable a proof that the statesman who is led into the path of concession, at the sacrifice of principle, only follows the empty phantom, which deludes every votary of mob-popularity, until he finds, when too late, that the inevitable result is "To pluck a thousand dangers on his head, To lose a thousand well-disposed hearts." It is a bold assertion, but one which is fully borne out by facts and by the experience of those who have mixed in Irish politics, that at the dissolution of Lord Melbourne's administration, there was not a single party in Ireland (out of the many which we have the misfortune to possess) who placed 'full confidence in the principles, or gave cordial support to the measures of that ministry; and although they sacrificed the support and confidence of the well-disposed portion of the Irish people— although their weak and wavering policy almost reduced our unhappy country to a state of open insurrection-still they ingeniously contrived to lose the grace of their concessions by some of those steps which they now and then took "for regulating the balance between Irish parties"-some bold measure in vindication of the law, or some unconstitutional bill for which they had actually created the necessity by their own conduct. Gratifying reflection upon their return to office! Retrospects are unpleasant; but in justice to our cause, British Protestants, we must now take a |