of these divisions in the government, and this state of opinion in parliament, upon the condition of Ireland? He did not know, whether divided councils at home, and disturbance in Ireland, stood in the relation of cause and effect; but, at all events, they had been concurrent. There was scarcely one year during the last twentyfive, in which the government had been able to rely on the ordinary law. In 1800 the habeas corpus was suspended, and the act for suppressing rebellion was passed. In 1801 those measures were repealed. In 1803 broke out what was called Emmett's rebellion, and both the measures just mentioned were renewed. In 1804 they were continued. In 1806 they had expired; but the west and south of Ireland, under the administration of the duke of Bedford, were in such a state of insubordination, that a special commission was appointed. In the following year, 1807, the Insurrection act was passed. This act authorised the lord-lieutenant to suspend trial by jury, and render it a transportable offence to be out of doors between sunset and sunrise. The Insurrection act continued in force during 1808 and 1809, and was repealed in 1810. It had been asked, why government had not suppressed the Catholic Association, as if that body were an evil that had just started into existence. That body had existed long previously, though not under the same title. There had been a Catholic Committee, a body formed of delegates, consisting of ten persons from different parts of Ireland. Two trials took place, in one of which the parties were convicted, and in the other they were acquitted. In 1814, another Catho

lic Convention appeared. A proclamation was issued for its suppression, and it was suppressed. In 1825 parliament had to enact the suppression of another body of a similar character; and now it was called upon to consider what should be done with a third. He himself had quitted the administration of Irish affairs in 1811. The period between that and 1814 was one of excitement in Ireland. In 1814 the Insurrection act was re-enacted; in 1815 it was repealed; it was renewed in 1816, and again repealed in 1817. In 1822 it was once more renewed, and continued in operation during 1823 and 1824. In 1825 Parliament passed an act for the suppression of illegal associations. That act continued in operation during 1826 and 1827, and expired in 1828. The session of 1829 commenced by another act for the suppression of the Catholic Association. Coupling those facts with the divided councils of the king, and the disunited state of parliament, had he not, he asked, established his first position,-namely, that matters could not remain as they were; that there must now be an end to a neutral government, and that there ought to be an united cabinet, determined either to offer unqualified resistance to concessions, or prepared to consider the possibility of adjusting the question.

The next question was, whether an united government, determined to offer permanent resistance, in the present state of the country, could be formed, and could go on? Now to him every consideration connected with the question made it demonstrable, that such a government, even if formed, would not be able to conduct the affairs of

the country to any good purpose. The first thing required of them would be, to put down the Catholic Association; and how would they manage that? Before the introduction of the act of 1825, the opinions of the law officers of the crown in England and Ireland had been taken; and both had declared that the common law was not sufficient to meet the evil. Towards the close of the last session, when the Association had begun to adopt more violent courses, which government was prepared to resist, the opinions of the law-officers of the crown were again taken, as to whether the common law was sufficient to meet the evil; and their unanimous answer was, that it was not sufficient to put that body down. Then, if these remedies were ineffectual, where was the remedy? If it were true, as he believed it was, that there was in the system, as it now existed, an elasticity which could not be wholly repressed, though a law might be carried for putting down those meetings, still, if the causes were allowed to continue, the agitation would be increased, and the evil would continue in an aggravated form. But would the parliament, one branch of which last year voted in favour of concession, by a majority of 272 votes to 266, now be willing, at the call of a government opposed to concession, to pass a fresh measure of coercion? He doubted the fact that it would enable government to carry any measure founded upon the principle of permanent resist ance to those claims. Such a government, therefore, could not cope with the Association; that is, under such a government, things would continue in the

same intolerable state of alarm, discord, and confusion, to which they had now come.

But suppose the Association put down, what would such a government do with the elective franchise? A dissolution of parliament had been called for. Well, suppose it done. He could easily believe that a dissolution, so far as this country went, would add to the numerical strength of the opponents of concession; but he was convinced it would not render the settlement of the question practicable without concession. But, even if, by such means, a government so constituted might be able to carry a measure for the suppression of the Association, and might be able to carry through the supplies of the year, what mode, he would ask, could they adopt for carrying on the internal government of Ireland?

First, they should

look at the constituent body of that country-for this was a most important matter for the consideration of a government formed on the principle of opposition to concession. Now it appeared that, of the Irish members who voted on the Catholic question last year, there were 61 representatives of counties. Of that number 45 voted for concession, and 16 in favour of resistance to the claims. Of the members for large towns in Ireland, 16 voted against concession, and 17 in favour of it; making, in the whole, 62 in favour of concession, and 32 against it. He had been told, twenty-three counties in Ireland were ready to follow the example of the county of Clare. Now, let those who thought so add the probable increase of numbers which that would produce (though he was willing to admit that even in that case many [C 2]

of the present members would be re-elected in those counties), and they would see that a government, constituted on a principle of resistance to concession, would have the whole or the great majority of the representative and constituent body of Ireland against it. In this case, separated as Ireland was from England, he would contend, that, with such a feeling of opposition to government on the part of the representatives and constituents, there would be constituted a moral influence opposed to the local government, which would render it impossible to carry it on. The remedy therefore could not be found in a dissolution of parliament. But still, a government united on the principle of resistance might try one other remedy, viz. they might retract the privileges they had already granted, and which they found too powerful for their control; but in that case they would open a chapter, which, beginning with the recal of privileges, might render measures of a stronger and much more coercive character necessary. It appeared to him that no government could do that; or, if they did, it would lead to a struggle, which, if pushed to its legitimate consequences, must end in a result little short of the re-enactment of the penal laws. We had already gone too far to render such a course practicable. We had removed the seal from the vessel, and suffered the great spirit to escape. We

had no means of conjuring him back again to his former narrow limits. In round numbers, and allowing for the increase of population which had taken place since the last census, the population of Ireland was 7,000,000. Of these, 5,000,000 were Roman

Catholics, and 2,000,000 Protestants of all denominations. At first sight, it might be supposed that the government could be carried on by means of the 2,000,000 of Protestants; but then it should be considered, that, of those Protestants, there were 1,200,000 residing in Ulster. They were then to consider, how they could conduct such a government in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught, where the Catholics were 4,250,000, and the Protestants only 750,000; where there were not only whole parishes, but whole districts of country, even to the extent of ten contiguous parishes. without a single Protestant. How could the administration of justice be carried on in those places? In the withdrawal of the civil privileges, were they to withdraw the trial by jury? If they left that, the re-enactment of the penal code would be useless, for it would be impossible that the laws could be executed fully, as far as the interference of a jury was necessary, where a great body of the people had an interest in defeating them. With the country in that state, with such a feeling on the part of the Catholics, who formed in the country generally the great majority, and in large districts almost the sole population, there could be no security for the Protestant establishment, backed as the views of the Catholics would be by a powerful alliance in parliament. Let it also be considered, that, in the continued resistance to concession, a government would have to fight the battle not only with the Catholics, but also against protestants, who conscientiously supported their claims. Let the House look at the declaration of the Protestants, which had recently been before the public. That de

claration earnestly implored the satisfactory adjustment of this question, as necessary to the security of the Protestant establishment in Ireland. The individuals, by whom parliament was thus addressed, were men who had a great interest at stake. They were the owners of property to an immense amount in Ireland. Could it be said, that this was got up for the purposes of party? The signatures would be a satisfactory answer to that question.

There

were affixed to it the names of two dukes, seven marquises, and twentysix or twenty-seven earls, besides other peers. His wish was, and one of the objects to be accomplished by the measure which he should propose would be, that there should be a union amongst Protestants; for it could not be concealed that there was no security for Protestant establishments, while the Catholics were united in one compact phalanx, and neither the Protestants nor the government were united. But lastly, assuming for a moment that a non-conceding cabinet should not only attempt, but should succeed in carrying into effect this system of coercion, how long would it last? It might endure during peace: but would a government be competent to uphold it in time of war? If not, the commencement of war would be the worst period in the history of the empire. He looked back to the time, when bold hearts animated the head of the government,-to the year 1792, when Mr. Pitt was at the head of affairs. He saw in that year grand juries and other public bodies unanimous in forwarding petitions against any concession to the Catholics-he saw the House of Commons of Ireland rejecting not a resolution, or a bill,

for their relief- but even their very petition to have their grievances considered. The French war broke out in 1793, and, in spite of the declarations of the preceding year, in spite of the numerous petitions, in spite of the vote of the Commons, and the opinions of the preceding session - the session of 1793 opened with a recommendation from the Throne, to take the grievances of the Catholics into consideration; and a bill was almost immediately passed for the removal of many of the disabilities, but with such haste, and so inconsiderately, that to this day we were reaping some of its bitter fruits. Until he saw a bolder man at the head of affairs than Mr. Pitt

until he saw a more Protestant parliament than that of 1793, he could not think we should be safe in time of war with a government determined on continued resistance; nor could he think but that, at the opening of a war, we might feel ourselves obliged to recede from our former declarations, and to grant the prayer we had before refused, and that in a manner to which, at a more favourable opportunity, we should be unwilling to consent, and with much less security than we might obtain on such an occasion as the present. Since, then, the existing state of matters was one which could no longer be suffered to exist, since the time had come when the government must adopt one decided rule of policy or another, and must resolve as a government either to concede or to resist, and since a government determined to resist could not carry on the affairs of the country without aggravating all the evils and dangers which were to be removed, it followed that no course remained but to settle the question by ad

justing a system of concession on the one hand, and security upon the other.

Mr. Peel, in the next place, proceeded to explain the nature of the measure which he and his colleagues had resolved to propose as that which ought finally to adjust and settle the question. No persons, he said, except the members of government had been parties to the framing of the bill. It had been thought advisable, that it should not be proposed as a compromise or compact with any parties whatever, and that for its concessions, as well as for its restrictions, government alone should be responsible. The principle and basis of the measure was to be, the abolition of civil distinctions, and the equality of political rights. There would be exceptions, standing on special grounds, but such was to be the general rule. Another pervading principle of the bill would be, the maintenance, in fact and in word, of the Protestant religion as by law established, its doctrines, its discipline, and its government. He would, first of all 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. Unless this was granted, all other concessions of political power would avail nothing. It had been proposed to restrict the number of Catholic members, and to define certain subjects on which they should not be allowed to vote. Both of these limitations ministers had rejected. Any limi

tation of their numbers it would be difficult to carry practically into effect; and even if it were practicable, it would have the mischievous effect of making them combine; and holding them up as a sacred band, charged with the interests of the Roman Catholics. No less difficult would it be to find any efficient text for deciding on what questions a Roman Catholic member should be entitled to vote, and on what he should not. It would be difficult to determine what questions relate exclusively to the interests of the Established Church and it might be, that questions, nominally relating to the Established Church, might not be those in which its interests were really involved. If the Roman Catholic member were entitled to speak, but were precluded from voting on such questions, injury might be inflicted as effectually by an able man, with party ties and connexions, making an inflammatory speech, and then leaving his party to support it by their votes,-yes, as much mischief might be inflicted by such a man, if he spoke, as if he were entitled to vote. On the whole, such a restriction would be a departure from the principle of the bill, viz. the abolition of all distinctions, and the equality of political rights. In conformity with the same principle, the bill would proceed, as a matter of course to 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 objections as to the last; but having once resolved to yield political power, this could not be refused. He doubted the wisdom of qualifying the Roman Catholic to re