XXI. 1829. Great Britain is immense; the petitions bearing twenty and CHAP. thirty thousand signatures, daily laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament, are a sufficient proof of this. If Ministers have any doubt of it, why not dissolve the House of Commons, and then it will at once be seen with whom the preponderance lies? Why is everything to be sacrificed to the Roman Catholics? And are the claims of the Protestants, at least four times their number in the United Kingdom, to be entirely overlooked? Mr Peel admits that, in the event of a dissolution, Great Britain would return an enlarged majority against the Catholics. What is this but admitting that the measure is forced through now, against the will of the inhabitants of this country? The election of 1826 was not a test of public opinion on this question, because the people then saw a Minister in power who, supported by the very men who now propose concession, would, it was known, resist it to the uttermost. Can anything be so inconsistent as to say in the same breath, We must grant emancipation, because a majority of four, in the present House so elected, have so determined; and we wont dissolve Parliament to ascertain what the feeling of the country, when fairly awakened to the subject, really is? Let them say at once they were determined to surrender the constitution, be the opinion of the country what it might; but let them not seek, in the divided state of parliamentary opinion regarding this measure, a false and flimsy excuse for capitulating, while they declined to adopt the only expedient by which a parliamentary opinion really in harmony with that of the country could be obtained. 145. "The singular character of this measure is this: Its promoters themselves foresee the difficulties which will Continued. ultimately attend even their own policy. They themselves are aware that futurity is big with dangers as to its final consequences, but still, with a political cowardice which has seldom been equalled in the annals of the country (and which has always met its first recompense of punishment XXI. 1829. CHAP. and shame wherever it has), it is proposed to transmit the momentary difficulties, which might be dissipated by dealing with them with a firm but kind hand, to another dayto postpone the conflict to our children, whom we are at this moment disarming of their constitutional rights, and sending to the struggle which awaits them, with a foe whose powers we are now thus increasing. We are surrendering the vantage-ground, dispossessing them of the position in which our ancestors placed us, in anticipation of this perpetual struggle with the enemy of our existing institutions. 146. "What, then, is the apology for this strange course, in Concluded. Which cowardice and apostasy are the avowed guides? It is expediency. This is the Alpha and Omega of the modern school-expediency as to the future character of our religious institutions! Expediency, based on religion and fortified by experience, is indeed the safest of all guides; but what is it when it purposely divests itself of both? It is the ready apology of the practised intriguer ; the excuse of the ambitious slave; the justification of the inexorable tyrant; the life defence of the most unprincipled policy, the most heinous crimes that ever desolated the earth. And is this principle to supplant, in this hitherto Christian country, that safe, that necessary, that universal guide of human beings, in the most exalted as in the humblest walks of existence, a rule of right as inflexible as its Author, and which, like all His ordinations, however shrouded for a moment by doubts and difficulties, will ultimately resolve itself into benevolence, justice, and truth? History affords examples in every page, inscribed in the most appalling characters, of the just punishment which has ever awaited individuals, or bodies of men, or nations, following so selfish and tortuous a path. What xx. 758, did expediency do for France? Boundless felicity was 1618, 1620; promised by large and triumphant majorities.' 1 Parl. Deb. 803; xxi. Ann. Reg. How 1831, 27 well that assurance was justified by the result, all knowhow far the grave of the murdered minister was apart XXI. 1829. from the grave of the murdered monarch. The denoue- CHAP. ment of this tragedy, of which expediency was the prompter throughout, was exhibited in the front of that edifice which you are now repairing. Expediency destroyed the Church, expediency murdered the King." * The 147. the question, resistance to the country. On a division, leave was given to bring in the bill by a majority of 188; the numbers being 348 for the mo- Division on tion, and 160 against it. The country was surprised, but and violent' not intimidated, by this sudden and extraordinary con- the bill in version on a question on which the opinions of the legislature had been so divided that a majority of six against it had been succeeded by one of four in its favour. Protestants, however, were not awanting to themselves in this crisis. From the moment that the determination of the Cabinet was announced, and still more from the time that the majority in the Lower House was known, petitions against the measure flowed in from all quarters with such vehemence as to astonish Ministers themselves, and leave no doubt as to the opinions of the country on the subject. Between the first division on the bill and the first reading, a period of only five days, 957 petitions were presented against the bill, and only 357 in its favour. In vain were the latter represented as the only index to enlightened opinion, and the former as the expression merely of antiquated bigotry and prejudice. The fact remained, that the people of England had loudly and decidedly spoken out on the occasion, and that it was evident to all the world that, if carried at all, it would not be in conformity with the wish of the majority of the nation, but by Government influence, in opposition to their loudly expressed and decided opinion. Great was the sensation excited by this state of things.1 The Ann. Reg. public indignation was loudly expressed against what was 36; Parl. deemed the treachery of some, the slavishness of others, 898, 1631. the tergiversation of all, and a great and irremediable *The two last eloquent paragraphs are taken verbatim from Mr Sadler's splendid speech.-Parl. Deb. xxi. 1618, 1620. 1829, 35, Deb. xx. XXI. CHAP. shake given to the confidence of the people in the integrity of public men, which, as it had been in time past the palladium of the nation's fortune, so its loss presaged its future boundless calamities. 1829. 148. the Duke of in the Lords on The bill was read a third time on March 30 with a Speech of majority of 178; the numbers being 320 to 142; and the Wellington same day it was carried by Mr Secretary Peel, accompanied by an unusually large attendance of members of the the subject. Commons, to the bar of the House of Lords. The debate which ensued in that House, though displaying all the ability by which its discussions have long been distinguished, presented little in addition to what had been urged for and against the measure in the House of Commons. But there were words fell from the Duke of Wellington, in the course of the debate, which deserve to be recorded, both as coming with peculiar grace from so illustrious a warrior, and as illustrating on a momentous occasion the love of peace, which formed so remarkable a feature in his character. "It has been my fortune," said he, "to have seen much of war-more than most men. I have been constantly engaged in the active duties of the military profession from boyhood until I have grown grey. My life has been passed in familiarity with scenes of death and human suffering. Circumstances have placed me in countries where the war was internal, between opposite parties in the same nation; and rather than a country I loved should be visited with the calamities which I have seen, with the unutterable horrors of civil war, I would run any risk, I would make any sacrifice, I would freely lay down my life. There is nothing which destroys property and prosperity, and demoralises character to the extent which civil war does. By it the hand of man is raised against his neighbour, against his brother, and against his father; the servant betrays his master, xxi. 44, 46. the master ruins his servant.1 Yet this is the resource to which we must have looked, these are the means which 1 Parl. Deb. we must have applied, in order to have put an end to this state of things, if we had not embraced the option of bringing forward the measure, for which I hold myself responsible." CHAP. XXI. 1829. carried in large majo The bill was carried on the third reading in the House 149. of Peers by a majority of 104; the numbers being 213 The bill is for it, and 109 against it. This was a much greater and the Peers, more astounding change than the majority in the Com- and by a mons, for the House of Lords had hitherto always thrown rity. out the bills for Catholic emancipation by a majority of from 40 to 50; and as their lordships were fixed legislators, the alteration was much more remarkable than what had occurred in the changing representatives of the people. As such, it tended still farther to unsettle men's minds, and shake that trust in the integrity of statesmen which had hitherto been always felt, even in the worst times, in Great Britain, and been the main source of the national strength in all its difficulties. The people knew not where to turn, or whom to look to, when they were deserted in one House by the representatives whom they had sent to Parliament pledged to defend what they Ann. Reg. regarded as a sacred cause; and in the other by the 97; Parl. hereditary legislators, whose fathers had stood by them 694. in the good fight, and come off victorious.1 1 1829, 96, Deb. xxi. luctance of the bill. But although the bill had thus passed both Houses by 150. overwhelming majorities, and therefore might be regarded Great reas, practically speaking, already the law of the land, yet the King to no small difficulty remained behind; for the Sovereign was resolute against it, and he was supported by an overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the whole empire: so that the extraordinary spectacle was exhibited, unprecedented in English history, of the King and people being decided on one side, and both Houses of Parliament on another. From the outset of the Irish agitation the monarch had become extremely uneasy on the affairs of that island, and most earnestly impressed upon his |