anybody in power had proposed to do or try to do anything on the subject of a revolutionary or retrograde character, then the excitement, and even resistance, to the extent of civil war, would have been more than justified; but when we come to examine the legislation that was really adopted, the excitement becomes contemptible, and the socalled concessions appear to be only a certain amount of truckling to a mere fog of unwholesome sentiments.

On the very same day that the Suppression Act had received the royal assent, Peel moved, in the House of Commons, "That the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider of the laws imposing civil disabilities on his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects."

This proposal was accompanied by an extremely long speech, which was a laboured apology for the course Peel now sought to pursue; a course which, less than two years before, he had solemnly declared in the same House he never would and never could assent to or sanction. The speech was delivered to perhaps the most crowded assemblage that had ever gathered there, and Sir Robert, in effect, told the assemblage that he, the government, the Union, the Parliament, the whole Protestant people of England, were ignominiously beaten and put to shame. He enumerated the long list of Coercion Acts that had been passed since the Union; he pointed out that the whole course of that legislation had been an utter failure; and he added, "Shall this state of things continue without some decisive effort at a remedy? Can we remain as we are? Have I not established the first step in my argument, that our present position is not tenable?" He found it. convenient not to point out that he had that very day completed another of those ineffectual pieces of legislation which he so declared were not tenable. He decisively proved that two years before he had exhibited himself as unworthy of being regarded as a statesman; and now, in effect, he appealed to Parliament, not to do justice because it was right, but to palter with popular demands because the Union had failed, because the government was afraid, and because Parliament was helpless; and the House, conscious of its helplessness, and

THE DUKE OF WELLINGTON'S SPEECH. 193

hastening to acknowledge it, threw overboard the reputation of Peel, and at the same time all its legislation for a quarter of a century or more, and passed the resolution by 348 to 160.

After that, the passing of the bill was a foregone conclusion.

On the 10th of March Mr. Peel introduced it. His contention was the same all through, and the House of Commons went on throwing itself overboard to the end, when the third reading passed on the 30th of March. The Marquis of Chandos made one last effort to resist, divided the House, and was beaten by 178 to 142.

The bill was read the first time in the Lords, on the motion of the Duke of Wellington, on the 31st of March, after a brief debate, without a division. The 2nd of April being named for the second reading, the interest excited by the expected debate collected a great crowd round the doors of the House at an early hour. Although there was a great number of constables, they could with difficulty keep order. The House was much crowded when the reporters were admitted, the space below the throne being completely filled, as well as that allotted to the public, several ladies being also present. After the presentation of numerous petitions on both sides, and speeches thereon, the Duke Wellington moved the second reading of the bill. After showing that the Catholic Association had succeeded in evading the law, and in setting itself above the law, and in carrying on its operations in defiance of the law, he referred to an observation that "if that will not do, let us come to blows." To which he replied: "What I suppose is meant by proceeding to blows, is coming to civil war. Now I believe that every government must be prepared to carry into execution the laws of the country by the force placed at its disposition, by the military force in case that should be necessary; and, above all things, to oppose resistance to the law, in case the disaffected or the ill-disposed are inclined to resist the authority or sentence of the law; but, as I have already stated to your lordships, there was no resistance of the law; nay, more, I will go farther, and say I am positively certain that this state of things existing in Ireland for the last year and a half, bordering upon civil war-being attended by nearly all the evils of

civil war-might have continued a considerable time longer, to the great injury and disgrace of the country and those who managed the State."

To these very illustrative admissions, the Duke added: "They know as well as I do, they are not strong enough to wrestle with the King's government, backed by the law; they know perfectly well they would have been the first victims of that resistance; but, knowing this, and knowing as I do that they are sensible, able men, and perfectly aware of the materials upon which they have to work, I have not the smallest doubt that the state of things which I have stated to your lordships would have continued for years, and that you would never have had an opportunity of putting it down in the manner some noble lords imagine. Even if I had been certain of possessing such means of putting it down, I should certainly have considered it my duty to avoid resorting to those means."

While admitting, however, that the government had been baffled and defeated by the Catholic Association, the Duke' did himself eternal honour when he added: "I am one of those who have probably passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men, and principally, I may say, in civil war; and I must say thisthat if I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it. Yet, my lords, this is the resource to which we must have looked-these are the means to which we must have applied, in order to have put an end to this state of things, if we had not made the option of bringing forward the measures for which I hold myself responsible."

Nothing can be clearer than the lesson to be learned from this noble speech, that the attempt of the Union to govern Ireland had utterly failed, and had then forced the country to the utmost verge of civil war, from which the only escape was a candid confession of past blunders and an energetic attempt to introduce a new order of things. In reply, the leader of the opposition was the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. William Howley), and the fact that he so led the opposition

OPPOSITION OF THE ARCHBISHOP.

195

shows how self-interest can blind men to a sense of decency. As a person so deeply involved in the question before the House, it would have been becoming in him to remain silent while the case was considered by less interested men, plenty of whom were there to follow him. The Archbishop of York joined in the opposition next day, and the debate was again adjourned until the 4th, when a large number of peers having spoken at great length, the second reading was carried in the following manner : Content, present 147, proxies 70-217. Not content, present 79, proxies 33-112. Majority 105. On the 10th of April the third reading was expressly opposed by Lord Eldon, who had been conspicuous all through ; and, after a final and angry debate, the majority came out almost peer for peer as the second reading did, 213 to 109. On the 13th of April the royal assent was given, and so ended a controversy that had continued for at least twenty-five years.

CHAPTER XXVIII.

THE EMANCIPATION ACT, AND WHAT IT AMOUNTED TO.

OTHING could sound much more modest than the title of "An

NOTHI

Act for the Relief of His Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects."

All oaths and declarations against transubstantiation, the invocation of saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, are abolished.

It is made expressly lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, if otherwise duly qualified, to sit and vote in either House of Parliament. It was quite reasonable to remove all doubts by such a provision; but there does not appear to have ever been a law to restrain a Catholic from so sitting and voting. The Act makes no reference to any former Act to that effect, and it is pretty clear that the only obstacle was the being required to take oaths expressly designed to exclude Catholics, to which oaths Catholics would not submit.

It is provided that Catholics, upon entering Parliament, should not be required to take the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration. Protestant members continued to be subject to those oaths, but a special form of oath was devised for Catholics.

The oath thus devised is especially instructive upon two points. It shows how much or how little progress in toleration had been made since the previous oath prescribed for Catholics in 1791. But when the two oaths come to be compared, and the slightness of the alterations considered, it shows what an insignificant concession the so-called Emancipation Act really was. In order that the littleness and the character of the concession may be appreciated, we quote the oath of 1829 as follows: "I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear, That I will