and they were met with respect, flattery, and concession. The Protestants confined themselves within the quiet and peaceful paths of the constitution, which they and their fathers had been taught to believe would protect them, and they were treated with ridicule and contempt. For the first time the government

of a British monarch announced to the British public, that, when they set their minds on some great public object, or wish to avoid some great public danger, they are not to be listened to, unless they assume the attitude of insurrection, and speak the plain and bold language of open menace.

HIT

ITHERTO the most steady and uniform resistance to the demands of the Catholics had been found in the House of Lords. Whenever the Commons passed a bill, or adopted a resolution, favourable to their views, a large majority of the peers had always refused to concur in any thing which went to alter the Protestant characteristics of the constitution. Even in 1828, when the lower House had passed resolutions intended to be the foundation of a relief bill, they had been rejected by the peers by a majority of fortyfive. Not twelve months had elapsed; and the Protestants, finding themselves deserted and betrayed among their own representatives, placed their last hope in the steadiness which had so often distinguished the House of Lords. It was not to be expected, however, that the dictatorial powers of the ministry, which had been strong enough to make the lower House disregard the public opinion, of which it ought to have been the organ, would lose their efficacy, when applied to a body less deVOL. LXXI,

pendent on popular sentiment. The aristocracy obeyed the word of command, as the Commons had done; the same means which had secured a triumph in the one House, prepared the way for it in the other.

On the 31st of March, the day following that on which the bill had passed the House of Commons, it was brought up to the Lords by Mr. Peel, and was immediately read a first time. The duke of Wellington then moved, that the second reading should take place two days thereafter, on the 2nd of April. Lord Bexley and the earl of Malmesbury opposed this motion, on the ground that such precipitate haste was unbecoming; urging that, on all former occasions, a much longer time had been allowed for consideration, and that such breathless hurry was the conduct of men who were merely to decide as another dictated, rather than of legislators called to deliberate on a grave matter of public policy. The duke answered, that the subject had been sufficiently discussed already, and that the public were anxious to obtain their lordships' decision. Lord [F]

Holland justified him by referring to the haste with which the statutes about to be repealed had been originally passed; and the motion was carried without a division.

On the 2nd of April, the duke of Wellington introduced the motion for the second reading, by stating, that he trusted the House would believe that the course, which he had now adopted on this question, had not been adopted without the fullest conviction that it was a

sound and a just one. From the moment his majesty had intrusted him with the high office which he now held, the disturbed state of Ireland had forced itself upon his notice as a public evil, which those, to whom the powers of government had been confided, were bound to remove, if it were practicable. It was quite true that Ireland had been disturbed for many years; but circumstances of peculiar aggravation had occurred within the last year or two. Government knew, although not possessed of legal evidence of the fact, that there existed a general organization of the people for purposes of mischief-shewing itself by simultaneous meetings in different quarters-attending the footsteps of gentlemen sent from the Catholic Association-and manifesting the influence of a superior source of authority. That organization had produced a state of society, which aggravated the previously existing evils of Ireland. In two instances towns had been attacked during the night by armed bodies of men. The Catholic Association had deliberated on the propriety of putting an end to all dealings with Protestants; and who doubted but that, if they had adopted that resolution, they would have been able to carry it through, and even to dissuade

the people from fulfilling contracts into which they might have entered with Protestants? In such a state of society the best parts of the constitution became inoperative. Trial by jury could no longer be used in the administration of the law. The king's prerogative, too, was touched. He could not create a peer, for such an act would have produced an election; while an election, in the state of the country, was almost sure to end in bloodshed; might occasion a civil war, and, at the best, could only be a new triumph to the Catholic Association. It was not fair to say, that all this arose in consequence of the laws not being executed. There was no tangible violation of the law; there was no resistance. No troops were employed except on the occasion of processions in the north of Ireland, because no instance occurred, in which the laws could not be enforced in the usual manner. In a case which extended over the whole country it was impossible to have magistrates at every spot, and ready at every hour, to put an end to proceedings so outrageous and disgraceful. It appeared clearly that neither the form of the power, nor the means possessed by government, were sufficient to extirpate such a state of things; that they must come to Parliament, and that, without concession, nothing could be effected. This state of things, bordering upon civil war, attended by all the evils of civil war (and which had continued for the last year and a half,) might have continued much longer to disgrace the country and the government; and those, who were at the head of, and directed those proceedings, would have taken good care not to offer such resistance as would have given

to the government such force as might be necessary to put an end to them. Those persons knew too well that they could not offer effective resistance to the king's government; that they themselves would be the first victims of any collision; and, being able, and sagacious, and well informed men, they were perfectly aware of what mischief might have resulted to themselves; and, therefore, would have taken very good care to avoid it. Consequently, this state of things might have continued for several years, without his majesty's government having an opportunity offered them of effectually putting it down. But even if such an opportunity had been presented, he would have thought it his duty to correct it by other means than force. "I am one of those" said his grace, "who have been engaged in war beyond most men, and, unfortunately, principally in civil war; and I must say this, that, at any sacrifice whatever, I would avoid every approach to civil war. I would do all I could, even sacrifice my life, to prevent such a catastrophe. Nothing could be so disastrous to the country, nothing so destructive of its prosperity as civil war; nothing could take place that tended so completely to demoralize and degrade as such a conflict, in which the hand of neighbour is raised against neighbour-that of the father against the son, and of the son against the father-of the brother against the brother of the servant against his master-a conflict which must end in confusion and destruction. If civil war be so bad, when occasioned by resistance to government-if such a collision is to be avoided by all means possible-how much more necessary is it to avoid a civil war, in

which, in order to put down one portion, it would be necessary to arm and excite the other. I am quite sure there is no man that now hears me, who would not shudder were such a proposition made to him; yet such must have been the result, had we attempted to terminate the state of things, to which I have referred, otherwise than by a measure of conciliation. In this view, then, merely, I think we are justified in the measure we have proposed to parliament."

On the other hand, what possible benefit could arise to any one class in the state, from pertinaciously persisting in an opposition which had already produced consequences so bad, and threatened worse. The first thing said was, that concession must be resisted, to secure the settlement of the constitution, as fixed in 1688. But a great mistake prevailed on this head regarding the permanent exclusion of the Catholics. In the Bill of Rights many things were permanently enacted, and properly so; and these were, that liberty should be permanent, and that the security for the Protestantism of the person who sits on the throne should be permanent— that is, that the king should be a Protestant, and should not marry a Papist. Then there was an Oath of Allegiance, which was also permanent; but there was no permanency given to the Oath of Supremacy, nor to the Declaration against Transubstantiation, for the Oath of Supremacy was altered before the end of the reign. With respect to the oaths to be taken by members of parliament, and the declaration to be made against transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, these were not imposed by acts of William 3rd, but by acts of Charles 2nd.

During that reign certain oaths were prescribed to be taken by persons of the Church of England namely, those of the 13th and 14th years of his reign; and, in the 25th and 30th years, oaths were framed to exclude Catholics from Parliament. At the Revolution king William thought it would be proper to extend the basis of his government by the admission of Protestant dissenters; and, therefore, recommended, that that part of the Oath of Supremacy prescribed by the 13th and 14th Charles 2nd., which the dissenters could not take, should be repealed-for the great principle of the Revolution was, to narrow as much as possible the exclusory laws, and that principle had been embodied in the Bill of Rights. Here, then, was just the difference between what were intended to form permanent, unalterable parts of the constitution, and what was intended to be variable, though adopted, or retained, at the time, to guard against peculiar dangers. If the act excluding Catholics from parliament was meant to be permanent, there was another, of the 8th of William and Mary, requiring officers of the navy and army to take these very oaths, before they could act under their commissions. How could the former have been meant to be more permanent than the latter? and yet lord Eldon himself had consented to the repeal of the 8th of William and Mary. On what ground, then, could he now oppose the repeal of the former as being contrary to the permanency of the constitution.

The next obstacle was the safety of the Protestant church. Now, that part of the united church of England and Ireland, which was placed in the latter kingdom, was

No man

in the peculiar situation of being the church of the minority of the people; and if violence against it were apprehended, he would ask, whether that church was more likely to be defended against violence by an unanimous government, and a parliament united with government, and with itself, or by a divided government, and a parliament of which the parts were opposed to each other? could look with patience and attention at the present state of this question without being convinced, that the real interests of all classes in this country, and particularly the church itself, required the consideration and settlement now proposed. This settlement would give security to the church, strength to every department of the government, and general tranquillity to the country at large.

His grace then explained the. reasons which had induced him, in framing his measure, to concede every thing, and to ask nothing. He had done the first, he said, because he had observed that any restrictions on former partial acts of concession, instead of doing good had only increased the demands, and strengthened the power of those who were the subjects of the restriction. So long as you gave something which added to the power of asking with effect, and left something which could not fail. to be asked for, you could do only mischief. He had provided no securities; because he did not think that any were necessary, or could be useful. He did not see how the admission of Catholics to seats in parliament could do the church any harm. They had been excluded only in the 30th of Charles 2nd; and when they were now readmitted, the church would be no