question. It was true that, during the five years that followed, under the ministry of Mr. Perceval, government resisted the consideration of this question: but the resistance did not proceed on permanent grounds for, during great part of that interval, lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning were members of the government, and consented to act only in deference to the conscientious scruples of his late majesty. So soon as the restrictions on the regency had expired, the same parliament, which had been elected in 1807, determined, by a very large majority, to take the question into consideration. Since then, up to the commencement of the present session, the Catholic question had been made what was called a neutral question: any member of every government, was allowed to take his own course with respect to it; the consequences of which had been most unfortunate, though perhaps unavoidable. During the whole of that period the' cabinet was divided sometimes equally; sometimes the proportion was seven to six against concession; sometimes it was six to seven in favour of concession. Usually, however, the cabinet was equally divided. This divided government had been but an apt representative of the divided opinion of the branch of the legislature which he was addressing. Four out of the five Houses of Commons which had sat in the five last Parliaments, had at some time or other come to a decision in favour of the Catholic question. One House of Commons, did resist the consideration of the question, but that single House, out of five, resisted its consideration by a majority of only 243 to 241. From a list of the divisions during the last ten years, he found,

that, in 1819, there was a majority, of two against the question; in 1823, there was a majority of six in its favour; in 1821, a bill was passed by a majority of nine; in 1822, the bill for the admission of Roman Catholic peers into the House of Lords was passed by a majority of five; in 1824, the question was not brought forward; in 1825, a bill was passed by a majority of twenty-one; in 1826, there was a general election; and in 1827, the present House of Commons decided against the question by a majority of four; but in the last session, they decided in its favour by a majority of six. And was the present House of Commons, elected in 1826, an unfair representation of the public opinion with respect to the Catholic question? Was not this House elected, when the public mind was sufficiently alive to the question? Its predecessor had twice carried bills for the removal of disabilities. It was elected immediately after the discussions in Parliament with respect to the Catholic Association. The proceedings of the Association were manifest. It had been found necessary to introduce a bill having for its object the suppression of that Association, and that bill had been passed. The discussion upon that bill in the House of Commons lasted five nights. He mentioned these circumstances to prove, that public attention had been called to the state of the question; and if the public had determined to prevent its future agitation, then was the time when the public might have practically given effect to its views. That it did not do so, however, was manifest from numerical details, into which Mr. Peel now entered, and which shewed that, out of the members

returned by fifteen principal coun ties, fifteen voted against concession, and seventeen for it; and of the members returned by twenty principal towns and cities, eighteen voted against concession,and twenty-eight for it. In these circumstances, continued Mr. Peel, it was somewhat hard to be compelled to fight the battle of constant resistance without being furnished with the materials for doing it effectually; to be made responsible for not being able to carry on an administration on the principle of resistance with a Parliament so nicely balanced, the House of Lords opposed to the House of Commons, and the latter equally divided within itself. When he heard it stated that the feeling of the country was almost unanimous against the attempted settlement of the question, he must declare that this was a very recent discovery. The opposition of the country ought not to have been manifested by public meetings in every parish, but by the exercise of the elective franchise. It was not fair for the country to expect (supposing its feelings to be truly described), that one minister should take upon himself the whole responsibility of resistance, and yet to exercise their privileges in such a way as absolutely to render resistance powerless. How could any human being engage to conduct the administration of Ireland upon the principle of the exclusions which pressed upon the great body of the people of that country, if the removal of those disabilities was prayed and pressed for by the Protestant population of England? An inference, too, in regard to public opinion might be drawn from the debates in that House from the number of speakers, and the zeal which they had displayed VOL. LXXI.

on either side. Had the younger members, the youthful talent of the House, been enlisted in opposition to the claims of the Roman Catholics? He must say, when the whole responsibility was cast upon him, that, on looking back, he found it impossible not to declare, that almost every young man, who had come forward in parliament during the last ten years, had come forward, actively and eloquently, as the advocate for concession. It was unreasonable, therefore, that individuals, who for ten years had permitted the question to pass over without opening their mouths to express their sentiments; who had seen, during that period, speakers in favour of concession, urging their arguments with the utmost ability, three or four consecutively, without having assisted, on any one occasion, to oppose their reasonings, should come forward in 1829, and say, that there had been a want of zeal for the Protestant cause,-that the arguments in its favour were triumphant,-and that they only needed to be stated to have their truth admitted. Now, when the battle was almost won,— when the spirits of those who had fought it were exhausted,-he was told that a vigorous defence must be made; though those, who told him so, had themselves allowed every opportunity of making a defence, which had occurred during the last ten years, to slip away. Many important conclusions might be drawn from the facts which he had stated to the House. In the face of all these facts, how long could resistance be maintained? That was the question which those who resisted, and those who were responsible for advising resistance, must consider.

Next, what had been the result [C]

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 re

pealed. 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 sunrisc. 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 Parlia ment 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 coereion? 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 coun-, ties 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

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