smoke, which, from time to time produced a temporary darkness. The mob, which completely blocked up the whole street in every part, and in all directions, prevented our approaching within fifty or sixty yards of the building, but the populace, though still principally composed of persons allured by curiosity, yet evidently began here to assume a more disorderly and ferocious character. Troops, either horse or foot, we still saw none; nor, in the midst of this combination of tumult, terror and violence, had the ordinary police ceased to continue its functions. While we stood by the wall of St. Andrew's churchyard, a watchman, with a lanthorn in his hand, passed us, calling the hour, as if in time of profound tranquillity. Finding it altogether impracticable to force our way any further down Holborn Hill, and hearing that the Fleet Prison had been set on fire; we penetrated through a number of narrow lanes, behind St. Andrew's church, and presently found ourselves in the middle of Fleet Market. Here, the same destruction raged, but in a different stage of progress. Mr Langdale's houses were already at the height of their demolition: the Fleet Prison on the contrary was only beginning to blaze, and the sparks of flaming particles that filled the air, fell so thick upon us on every side, as to render unsafe its immediate vicinity, meanwhile we began to hear the platoons discharged on the other side of the river, towards St. George's Fields; and were informed, that a considerable number of rioters had been killed on Blackfriars Bridge, which was occupied by the troops. On approaching it, we beheld the King's Bench Prison completely wrapt in flames. It exhibited a sublime sight, and we might be said there to stand in a central point, from which London offered on every side, before, as well as behind us, the picture of a city sacked and abandoned to a ferocious enemy. The shouts of the populace, the cries of women, the crackling of the fires, the blaze reflected in the stream of the Thames, and the irregular firing which was kept up both in St. George's Fields, as well as towards the quarter of the mansion-house, and the bank; - all these sounds, or images combined, left scarcely any thing for the imagination to supply; presenting to the view every recollection, which the classic descriptions in Virgil, or in Tacitus, have impressed on the mind in youth, but which I so little expected to see exemplified in the capital of Great Britain. (Historical Memoirs of my own Time, by Sir N. W. Wraxall, Phila., 1837 Part II, 134 ff.) 210. Speech of King George on Catholic Emancipation Annual Register For more than a century Catholics had been subjected to many disabilities. They were not only excluded from holding civil office, but every relation of life was affected. The repressive legislation harassed the Catholics in the possession of their property, the education of their children, and the exercise of their religion. Such an attitude toward Catholic citizens resulted in agitation looking toward emancipation, a number of Protestants joining in the movement. The final conflict with intolerance was begun in 1778, with Sir George Saville's measure for the relief of Roman Catholics. It was carried on by Pitt, Grenville, Grattan, Canning, and other leaders, until in 1829 came the last struggle, which was to end in Catholic emancipation. The necessity of such a measure had been accentuated by the condition of Ireland. The King's Address, given below, was the first step in the movement of the session. It was a surprise and disaster to the intolerant party. It aroused the bitterest invective; but the majority, Protestants as well as Catholics, welcomed the promise of support which it bore, and which alone their cause had lacked for success. My Lords and Gentlemen: The state of Ireland has been the object of His Majesty's continued solicitude. His Majesty laments that in that part of the United Kingdom an Association should still exist, which is dangerous to the public peace, and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution; which keeps alive discord and ill-will amongst His Majesty's subjects; and which must, if permitted to continue, effectually obstruct every effort permanently to improve the condition of Ireland. His Majesty confidently relies on the wisdom and on the support of his parliament; and His Majesty feels assured that you will commit to him such powers that may enable His Majesty to maintain his just authority. His Majesty recommends that, when his essential object shall have been accomplished, you should take into your deliberate consideration the whole condition of Ireland, and that you should review the laws which impose civil disabilities on His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. You will consider whether the removal of these disabilities can be effected consistently with the full and permanent security of our establishments in church and state, with the maintenance of the reformed religion established by law, and of the rights and privileges of the bishops and of the clergy of this realm, and of the churches committed to their charge. These are institutions which must ever be held sacred in this Protestant kingdom, and which it is the duty and determination of his Majesty to preserve inviolate. His Majesty most earnestly recommends to you to enter upon the consideration of a subject of such paramount importance, deeply interesting to the best feelings of his people, and involving the tranquillity and concord of the United Kingdoms, with the temper and the moderation which will best ensure the successful issue of your deliberations. (Annual Register, 1829, p. v. 71, 5.) 211. Speech of the Attorney-General against the Catholic Annual Register The opponents of the Emancipation Bill were not entirely influenced by religious intolerance. The relation of Church and State was considered by many a very buckler of English independence, and any measure likely to weaken the influence of the Church of England was thought by them to be dangerous to the welfare of the realm. The following speech, though intemperate in its language, well sums up the main arguments of the opponents of the Bill. ... When he, the Attorney-general of the king, was called on to frame an act of parliament, it was not unnatural that he should look, as a lawyer, to a higher authority than himself, namely the lord Chancellor. How could the Attorneygeneral prepare a bill, which the lord Chancellor had declared would subvert the Protestant church of England? and he thought he was placing himself under a strong shield, when he took his position behind the buckler of lord Chancellor Lyndhurst. "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 Attorneygeneral; 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, then Master of the Rolls, but now lord Chancellor, 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 apostacy 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 apostacy—such contradiction - such unexplainable conversion such miserable, contemptible apos tacy." The Attorney-general then entered into an examination of the bill itself, which, he said, he was doubtful whether members understood. It contained an oath to be taken, instead of the present oaths of abjuration and supremacy which had excluded the Catholics. But there was no provision in the bill which confined this oath to Catholics. It was an oath which any man might take, whether Catholic or not. A person, who was not a Catholic, might, by taking it, enjoy the privilege of a Catholic. The oath ought to have stated, "I am a Catholic, and swear so and so." But the bill did not require any such declaration. He supposed that this was an imitation of James the Second's scheme of liberty and conscience. Peel and Co. were supported on the principles of James II. For the effect of the oath was, that any man might gain admission to office, or to the House of Commons; whereas he understands the object of the alteration to be, that only those, who swore they were Catholics, were to be permitted to take the oath. Another clause supposed that a man, who was a Catholic, might be prime minister; it gave a general capacity to office. All offices, said the bill, are open to Catholics, with one or two exceptions; ecclesiastical appointments, however, were to be separated from the patronage, and vested in commissions. Now, Catholics had never manifested an unambitious temper, and a Catholic prime minister would never be satisfied with this retrenchment of his privileges. And who was to appoint the commissioners? Why, a Protestant lord Chancellor, lord Lyndhurst. The lord Chancellor would have the appointment to ecclesiastical places; but was this sufficient security? Lord Shaftesbury was a Protestant chancellor, and so was lord Jeffries. Was the conduct of Jeffries to the bishops forgotten?-a man who, though a Protestant, was as great an enemy to Protestants, and as adverse to admitting them to power, as Father Peter himself. The protection of the Great Seal was as little to be relied on as in the reign of Charles II., when lord Shaftesbury was chancellor, or in that of James II., when Jeffries filled that office. There might come a time, when no security would be found in the character of a lord Chancellor. And who would the commissioners select? Would they select Protestants who would, or those who would not, apostatize. According to the bill, any Catholic, who took ecclesiastical preferment, was guilty of a misdemeanour, and could hold his office no longer; and again, any Catholic, who advised His Majesty respecting the appointment to an ecclesiastical office, was subject to the same penalty. Might he be permitted to ask who drew that clause? the very clause, which created the offence, contained an absolute prevention of a conviction for that offence. The church of Ireland was protected by a flimsy sort of security in the bill. None of the dignities of the Romish church were to be permitted, eo nomine, to hold English titles, as nominees of the pope; but these titles might be held by virtue of a money medium; a 50 l bank note would enable Dr. Doyle, or Dr. Curtis, or any other, to sport Catholic titles. The bill forbade this, except upon the payment of 50 l, which was all the penalty inflicted. There was no penalty in the act higher than 200 l., so that, in fact, the whole protection of the British constitution consisted in penalties of 50 l., 100 l., and 200 l. No control over the see of Rome; none over the nomination of the bishops; nothing after the passing of this bill in the way of security of the Protestant establishment — but those penalties of 50 l., 100 l., and 200 . This was the declared value of the Protestant constitution of the empire in current coin. When this bill 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 him |