trovertible proofs, that the promoters of the present measure had placed it on ground altogether untenable. Soon after the Revolution, an act was passed which had nothing to do with the causes that produced the act of Charles II., and yet recognized the provisions of that measure. In the same way, the act of George I., without referring to the Revolution, or the causes that produced it, alluded to all the acts and declarations which had sprung out of it, and re-enacted them all. He next mentioned the act of indemnity passed in the reign of George II., in the preamble to which, the causes and circumstances that gave rise to the act of Charles II. were enumerated; and he contended, that their lordships could not agree to the present measure, without saying that all the causes and circumstances, which occasioned the various acts from the time of Charles II. up to the last year, had ceased to exist. How, he demanded, could such an assertion be made by those, who, year after year, when bringing bills into liament on this very subject, ushered them in with a declaration, that they could not think of touching the Protestant establishment in church and state, and therefore proposed what they called securities, though to him they appeared to be no securities at all? How any one could introduce such a measure as the present, and at the same time say, that it could have no effect on the general measure of emancipation, he could not conceive. He knew not the meaning of excluding one body of people from the House of Commons, while another body, professing the same faith, were admitted into the House of Peers. If RoVOL. LXIV.

par

man Catholics were once admitted to sit in that House, they must also of necessity sit in the other. Would the noble mover of the bill abrogate any of those enactments, which, with respect to religion, affected the sovereign? Would he allow the king to marry a papist? If the noble mover, from a conscientious feeling, would prevent his sovereign from marrying a papist, he, from an equally conscientious feeling, must object to the introduction of Roman Catholics to that House. He was quite sure that if he agreed to this specific measure, he could not resist any other. It was nothing more nor less, than a motion for general emancipation; and therefore he could not consent to its adoption. In a short time, it would be of very little consequence, to what he did or to what he did not consent; but while he had the power, he would endeavour to discharge his duty firmly.

It was repeatedly

urged, that the question of emancipation would be carried sooner or later. He did not believe it; and he thought the oftener the assertion was made, the less chance there was of its being confirmed. If these were the last words he ever spoke, he should say, that should this measure be carried, then the liberties of his country, as settled at the revolution, the laws of his country as established by the securities formed at that time for the preservation of her freedom, were all gone; but he should have the pleasure to reflect, that he had not been accessory to their destruction.

Lord Grey, in reply to the lord chancellor, contended, that the acts subsequent to the revolution, which coincided in effect with the 30th of Charles II., had been

[F]

passed merely with temporary views, and under the pressure of peculiar circumstances:-that the evils, against which they were adopted as precautions, were no longer to be apprehended;-that it was not fair to argue the question, as if it were the question of general emancipation;-that the bill now pending was not a preliminary step to complete emancipation, but was an insulated proposition standing on its own separate ground, which would neither retard nor promote the general scheme of relief;-and, that it ought to be passed, as a measure of strict justice, unless some considerable evils could be pointed out, as likely to arise from the admission of six or seven Catholic noblemen into that House.

Lord Liverpool argued the question on the narrow ground chosen by its advocates, and farther insisted, that the bill under consideration was contrary to every sound maxim, unless brought for ward as a part of a general scheme of relief. On what principle, he asked, could their lordships say"We will not object to a peer's sitting amongst us, though he does acknowledge a foreign jurisdiction in some matters of spiritual concern; but we will object to a commoner's sitting in parliament, under similar circumstances." Could any thing so invidious, so monstrous, so unjust, be successfully proposed in modern times? Was it not the boast of our aristocracy, that though they possessed high privileges, they possessed them for the benefit, not for the injury, of any man? If their lordships looked to the nature of the duties and privileges which belonged to them, they would find that the concerns of religion were

especially theirs; and, therefore, if it was the right of any branch, surely it was the right of this branch of the legislature above all others, to require from its members some tests that they were attached to the established church. Upon what principle would their lordships draw a distinction in favour of the Catholic 'peers to the prejudice of the Catholic community of the realm ? A more serious evil could not befall the country than to pass the bill, even assuming that their lordships should proceed no further. If they should pass it, and then take their stand against further Catholic concessions, it would, in that case, still be the most impolitic and mischievous measure imaginable. What could be a more invidious concession, than a favour of this sort to the Roman Catholic peers? The bill was not calculated to effect any certain advantage; it settled nothing: it left the whole question precisely where it was before. It did no good to that great interest, the welfare and protection of which had hitherto been assigned as the grand'objects, with which the general question was brought forward in parliament. All that it offered was a most unwise and most invidious distinction between the peers and the commonalty of a particular church.

Lord Grenville and lord Holland spoke at great length in favour of the bill. The House then divided; when there apeared—

is the very narrow ground on which its patrons placed it. They now abandoned all the great topics of policy, which had been insisted on in times past, whenever the Catholic claims were brought forward; and, in the discussion, they assumed the character of historians or antiquarians rather than of statesmen. Mr. Canning (if his introductory speech can be taken as an exposition of his sentiments) conceived, that, if he proved that the Popish plot was a barbarous and cruel fiction, and that one object with which the 30th of Charles II. had been originally passed by the Commons, was to exclude the then duke of York, the inference necessarily followed, that Catholic peers ought now to be permitted to sit and vote in the legislature. Yet, in truth, what connection is there here between the premises and the conclusion? The present policy, which ought to be pursued towards the Catholics, must depend on general principles applied to the actual state of the world, not on any minute fragments of historical or antiquarian lore. Indeed, the whole of that celebrated speech of Mr. Canning (and, being looked upon as probably the last which he would deliver on any great occasion in the House of Commons, it had excited an unusual degree of interest and expectation) was curious specimen of rhetorical art. It never once touched the real essence of the question in debate, and yet never seemed to deviate from it. The argumentative part of it proved nothing; and the only topics, that had any real connection with the proposition which it was his duty to establish, were some that were introduced incidentally. It was composed of a multitude of well-expressed desultory remarks,

a

which all tended to incline the mind favourably towards the Catholic peers; the want of logical connexion in those remarks was skilfully supplied by tricks of language and artful transitions.

This course was, perhaps, rendered necessary in reference to the peculiar light, in which all the friends of the measure concurred in contemplating it, and in holding it up to the view of others. It was represented as a partial insulated proposition, totally unconnected with the question of Catholic emancipation, and which might be, and ought to be adopted, even by those who were hostile to every scheme of general favour to the Catholics. Consistency thus compelled them to abstain from using the topics, which they were in the habit of urging powerfully in the discussion of the general question: for had they now insisted on these, the answer would have been obvious; you are arguing the general measure-and yet you say that this particular proposition has no connexion with it. In the course of the debates, the supporters of Mr. Canning's bill found themselves not a little perplexed by the confined and disadvantageous position, in which they had chosen to coop themselves up.

The opponents of the bill, on the contrary, had a wide and fair field of argument before them. They maintained first, that the exclusion of the Catholics from legislative and judicial power, was and ought to be of the essence of our constitutional system; and secondly, that such exclusion necessarily implied, that Catholic peers ought not to sit and vote in the House of Lords. The second proposition was undeniable, if the first could not be overthrown; and,

from the nature of the ground which the promoters of the bill had taken up, the first could not even be attacked. The consequence was, that the partisans of the anticatholic system were never more triumphant in argument, than on the present occasion.

If the mode in which the friends of the bill chose to argue the matter, was objectionable, the measure itself was equally so. A question of such vast importance, as that of raising Catholics to a political level with Protestants, ought not to be decided in fragments. To represent one part of it as independent of another, is mere sophistry and delusion. Whether Catholic peers ought to sit in parliament, cannot be determined, till the general question is brought to a conclusion; if the great mass of the Catholic body are to be excluded from political power, their nobles must share in the disabilities. Indeed, to make Catholics eligible to sit in the House of Commons would be a much less important change, than their admission into the upper House. In the Commons, they could not form a permanent body; they would be subject to the caprice and to the opinions of their electors; and if they acted in systematic hostility to Protestantism and the established church, they might run the hazard of finding other candidates preferred to them. But by opening the doors of the House of Peers to Catholics, we introduce into parliament a permanent Catholic body, not liable to Protestant control; and invested with a share of the supreme judicial, as well as of the legislative authority.

The question of parliamentary reform which had for a long time

ceased to excite much interest in the House of Commons, and had in the preceding session, been received there with extreme coldness, assumed this year a more important aspect. Petitions on that subject having been presented from a great number of towns, and from the counties of Middlesex, Devon, Norfolk, Suffolk, Bedford, Cambridge, Surrey, Cornwall, and Huntingdon, lord John Russel on the 29th of April, moved, "that the present state of the representation of the people in parliament requires the most serious consideration of this House." This motion he supported in an exceedingly long and elaborate speech. The foundation of his argument was a comparison of the state of the House with the condition of the people. "If I can show," said he," that the state and condition of the people has materially changed, and that the change in the state of the House has not been agreeable to that change in the state of the people, but of a very different and opposite tendency, then it must be allowed that the House and the people have no longer that accordance which they ought to have, and that some remedy is required; but if I farther show that this discrepancy has made itself evident by acts which the House has done, and which the representatives of the people never could have sanctioned, then it must be admitted, not only that there are abuses to be reformed, but that the duty, and love of our country, command the House immediately to begin the work."

In illustration of the change which had taken place in the state of the people, after insisting on our immense expenditure, and on the increase of our manufactories

so changed as to represent the increased importance of the middling classes; and, after some common place details with respect to the elections for counties, towns, and boroughs, he determined the question in the negative. Then, in order to prove that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, is not a proper engine of government, he entered into an elaborate analysis of the manner in which votes had been given for or against ministers, by the representatives of the larger and the smaller towns. The first calculation, which he gave, had been made by lord Milton. According to it, there were 33 boroughs, in each of which there were less than 1,000 inhabitants. Out of the members for those boroughs, 12 had voted against ministers, 44 for them, and 10 were neutral. There were 35 boroughs containing less than 2,000 inhabitants each; out of the members for these boroughs, 15 had voted against ministers, 55 for them; 8 were neutral. There were 76 boroughs, containing less than 5,000 inhabitants; out of the members for them, 48 had voted against ministers, and 93 for them; 10 were neutral. There were 25 boroughs, containing from 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants each: out of the members for them, 22 had voted against ministers, and 27 for them; and in 31 boroughs, containing 10,000 inhabitants each, and upwards, there were 38 members against ministers, and only 21 for them; one was neutral.

Lord John Russell's own estimate was not very different in its result. In forming it, he considered all those as ministerial, who had never voted for the reduction of the public establishments; and put down, as opposition, members,