precluded from holding certain offices in the state. Would their advocates contend that as a matter of right they could claim an admissibility to them? If that doctrine was set up, he, for one, would not hesitate to declare that it was not tenable. His lordship then went into a vindication of the measures of the Irish government, and the late judicial proceedings; and he concluded with regarding the question as one of expediency, on which ground he should vote against the motion.

The Marquis of Downshire spoke chiefly to the act of union, and the failure of the assurance given to the Irish catholics at the time of passing it, and which, if persisted in, would cause a permanent separation of heart and mind, not. withstanding a nominal union.

The Earl of Hardwicke alluded to his own administration in Ire land, and could see no reason why any penal laws against the catholics should remain in force, when the cause of their enactment no longer subsisted.

Of Lord Sidmouth's speech, the most observable part was the view he took of the subject, in the following terms;-He asked, was not this a religious question? Was not the house called upon to protect the true religion established by law in this country? And must they not greatly detract from that estimation in which it was essential it should be held, by allowing it to be supposed that they so far countenanced mass, as to put it on a level with the established religion-allowing it to be regarded as a matter of indifference whether persons went

gogue?

ne

Marquis Wellesley began a speech of great force and comprehension, by a view of all that had been done by the Irish government in this matter, the whole of which he vigorously defended. He asserted that no obstruction had been given to the legal exercise of the right of petitioning by the catholics; that the convention act was a measure of prevention proved salutary by expe rience; that due warning had been given to the catholics of the late intention of putting it in force; that the legal proceedings had been just and dignified; and that on these points there was ground for the proposed inquiry. He then proceeded to a general consideration of the cause of the Irish catholics, respecting which, he said, he did not agree with any of the declared champions in this conflict. His noble friend, the Earl of Aberdeen, had most justly styled it a question of mere state expediency, in which opinion he entirely concurred. Toleration (said the marquis) is the intermediate point between persecution and encouragement; the boundaries of these, however, can no otherwise be ascertained, than by reference to the relative situation of the parties, and the circumstances of the state and times. It is a clear and undeniable maxim, that every state possesses a right to restrain whatever is dangerous to its security, and no sect or individual can assert a right against the state. On the other hand, every restraint excluding any description of subjects from the advantages possessed by the community is a

positive

positive evil, which can be endured only so long as the probable danger to be incurred by its removal exceeds the mischief of its continuance. How does this reasoning apply to the catholics of Ireland? what justification remains for continuing the restraint of which they complain? The marquis then declared that, in his judgment, the mischief of continuing the system of restraint greatly overbalanced any danger to be apprehended from reverting to the more mild and liberal policy which had adorned the earlier periods of his Majesty's reign. The political power possessed by the catholics of Ireland afforded matter of deep reflection. It must be the policy of every wise state to connect all persons possessing such power with the general frame of the community, to blend their individual pursuits with the common interests of the state, and to attach them by the ties of honourable ambition and honest gain to the established order of the government. It was not so much a question whether additional political power should be given to the Irish catholics, as whether they should now be refused those appendages to their political power which would identify its exercise with the interests of the state, and constitute the bonds and pledges of attachment to government. After pursuing this vein of reflection for some time, Lord Wellesley touched upon the delicate point of the danger to the protestant establishment in Ireland; and contended, that the removal of the catholic restraints, so far from being dangerous to the establishment, was indispensably necessary for its security, since it could never be safe

while such a force of discontent was arrayed against it, a force which would be disarmed most ef fectually by abolishing the causes of dissatisfaction. He then shewed, that their desires were not unreasonable, or the offspring of a criminal ambition, but implied a just sense of the constitutional use of the advantages they had already gained. Having expressed his opinion on these points, he proceeded to say, that he trusted he should not be accused of a spirit of procrastination or delusion if he now objected to enter into a committee for the purpose of instantaneously removing the restrictions under which the catholics laboured. His reasons for this conduct were drawn from the menacing attitude which they assumed, their outrages on the law of the land, the passing trials of the offenders, and the propriety of giving time for the return of tranquillity before the voice of petition could be heard in a tone adapted to the solemnity of the oc

casion.

The Marquis of Lansdowne wished to inquire how the last noble speaker, after urging his arguments for the removal of all partial restrictions, could come to his final conclusions.

In his mind there could be no period more appropriate for a full discussion of this subject than the present, when parliament was about establishing a new government. He then took a view of that part of the marquis's speech which went to vindicate the conduct of the Irish government, and attempted to shew that it had been wavering and inconsistent, and that the judicial proceedings had been deficient in candour and justice.

A cum

A number of other lords afterwards spoke both for and against the motion; but as their speeches chiefly consisted in recapitulations of the arguments already advanced, it does not seem necessary to notice them individually. After a very late sitting, the house divided on the motion; when the numbers were, contents, 42; proxies, 37; total 79: non-contents, 86; proxies 76; total, 162. Majority against the motion, 83.

cool. The other speakers, however, comprehending almost the whole debating force of the house, took a decided part either for, or against, the object of the motion; and on a division at a very late hour there appeared, for Lord Morpeth's motion, 135; against it, 229; majority, 94-a proportion considerably less than that in the other house.

In the House of Commons, on Feb. 3, a similar motion for appointing a committee on the state of Ireland, was made by Lord Morpeth. Of the debate which ensued, and which was still longer and more copious than that in the House of Lords, being continued by adjournment to the following day, it would be impossible to give even a summary view without occupying more of our pages than we can spare from other purposes. In general, it embraced all the topics discussed in the other house, relative to abstract right and political expediency, to the hazards attending the granting or the refusing of the catholic claims, and to the conduct of the Irish govern ment in its interference respecting the delegation of the catholics. One of the most admired speeches was that of Mr. Canning, who, taking the ground opened by Marquis Wellesley in the lords, maintained with great force, and with much historical illustration, the political wisdom of granting the catholics an eligibility to all the offices in the state from which they were still excluded, but at the same time deprecated the agitation of the question in parliament fill men's minds were suffered to

It is observable, that although the terms of these motions included a consideration of the general state of Ireland, yet the subject of the catholics was alone the matter of discussion; whence these debates may be considered as only a renewal of those which had before occurred on direct questions relative to the same topics.

On Jan. 28, Mr. Bankes gave notice in the House of Commors, that the bill to prohibit the granting of offices in reversion being to expire on the 5th of February, it was his intention to render it a permanent measure, and be there. fore moved for leave to bring in a new one for that purpose; which was accordingly given.

Mr. Bankes, on Feb. 7th having moved the second reading of his bill, Mr. Dundas rose, and said that he should expect more substantial reasons than any he had yet heard from the honourab gentleman before he could give his vote for making that permanent, which had hitherto been on y temporary. He understood it to have originated in a wish of the finance committee, that those sinecure places might not be granted in reversion, which they might think it expedient to abolish, and therefore a suspension of the power of the crown had beɔn asked. Was

it too much to desire that this branch of the prerogative of the crown might not be destroyed, at least till the embryo plans of the honourable gentleman who recommended such a measure were known? He also said, that it would be to no purpose to press the bill here, since it would certainly be thrown ont in another place.

Mr. Bankes, moved that the entry in the journals of March 24, 1807, of the resolution of the house respecting offices in reversion be read: it was as follows-Resolved that no office, place, employment, or salary, in any part of his Majesty's dominions, ought hereafter to be granted in reversion." He then said, that the introduction of this bill was not in the least connected with any pending inquiry. He stated its origin and progress, and said, that although that house, not being able to carry it through as a perpetual measure, had made it a temporary one, they had by no means abandoned their first intention. Why were they to suppose that the other branch of the legislature would continue its opposition, and was incapable of changing its opinion? As the evil proposed to be remedied by this bill was of a perpetual nature, the law ought to be perpetual also. As a measure of economy, he had never held it out as likely to produce a material effeet, but the committee had dwelt upon it as having a tendency to that end. With respect to the prerogative of the crown, it tended rather to increase than diminish it; for if one right of the crown were taken away, another of more consequence would be substituted to VOL. LIV.

it. The bill was also necessary to remedy a growing evil. Many, of the places recently granted in reversion were not so formerly, and what was there to prevent such a practice from being extended? Pensions were now granted in reversion; and this abuse could only be put an end to by a reprobation of the principle shewn in both houses of parliament.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer treated the bill as of such slight importance, that it was not worth supporting at the hazard of a difference between the two houses of parliament.

Sir S. Romilly denied that the bill which had several times received the sanction of the house was of slight importance, or that, as the right honourable Chancellor had suggested, it had been previously carried by popular clamour, and he repeated the arguments of the mover in its favour.

Mr. Whitbread remarked, that the only two members who had spoken against the bill were two very principal reversionists, and he made some pointed observations on the Chancellor of the Exche quer's opposition to it.

Several other members spoke, all of them in support of the bill; and Mr. Ponsonby, who concluded, urged the house with the charges of inconsistency, and inattention to the wishes of the public, which their rejection of it would bring upon them. The house then divided upon the question of the second reading, when the numbers were, ayes, 54; noes, 56; leaving a majority of two against the bill. A second division took place on the Chancellor of the Exchequer's mo[D]

tion,