We did intend to abstain from bestowing any farther notice on the Catholic Question, until circumstances would permit us to advert to it in taking a review of the leading features of the present session of Parliament, but we feel it to be our duty to abandon this intention. The gigantic importance of the subject demands, that in discussing it, we should keep it apart from all other topics. The question is the leading one of the moment, and we apprehend that it will long be the leading one. The conduct which the Opposition prints have adopted, and the course which the Catholics threaten to pursue, lead us to believe, that, for some time to come, the deeds of Catholicism will occupy a prominent station in political discussion.

We will, in the first place, as in duty bound, strip the question of the misrepresentations and falsehoods in which party-spirit has been pleased to invest it, and place it before us in all the ua

kedness of truth.

The Roman Catholics of these realms lie under certain disabilities, which, when they were imposed, and long afterwards, were most just and necessary. This is not merely the opinion of Tories and high-churchmen; it is an opinion which, during the present session of Parliament, has been expressed by Lord Holland and other leading Whigs, and it has been coincided in by some of the better portion of the Catholics. Of course, it cuts up the doctrine of abstract right by the roots. In the judgment, not only of the Tories, but of the genuine Whigs -not only of the opponents of the Catholics, but of the greater part of their advocates-not only of Protestants, but of certain of the Catholics themselves-the disabilities ought not to be removed on the ground of abstract right. In the opinion of all these, the disabilities were originally most justly and wisely imposed.

The Catholic Question therefore is simply this:-Have those public dan gers which called for, and sanctioned, the disabilities, passed away without having been replaced by others equally formidable;-are the Catholics so far changed, that they can be safely admitted into Parliament and the Mi

nistry? This, and this alone, is the question. The British nation, the two Houses of Parliament, and the Executive, constitute the only tribunal that can decide it.

It must be clear to all men to whom the blessing of common sense is not denied, that this tribunal could not decide rationally and constitutionally upon removing the disabilities, without first receiving satisfactory evidence that the causes for them no longer existed. It must be equally clear to all' such men, that the Catholics could only have a right to hope for the removal of the disabilities through the tendering of such evidence. It must be alike clear to all such men, that in all matters of difference between the State and the Catholics, the latter, and not the former, should make the sacrifice; or, at any rate, sacrifice in the one, should be followed by equal sacrifice in the other. Nothing can be more indisputable than that, if the Catholics cannot prove that they are reformed, cannot show their qualification, and will not conform their conduct and religion to the laws and constitution, they ought still to be subject to the disabilities..

Passing by justice and reason, and looking at fact alone, the British nation, Parliament, and the Executive, deny, that the Catholics have any abstract right to the removal of the disabilities. They insist upon qualification. Were the question debated in the House of Commons on the ground of abstract right only, the Catholics would have scarcely any advocates. If the Catholics, therefore, really wish for the removal of the disabilities, there is but one path that will lead them to success ;-they must tender to the only tribunal that can relieve them the proper evidence; they must clear their character, and display their qualification.

We assume this to be perfectly indisputable, and we shall therefore use it as our test in reviewing the conduct of the Catholics in their late application to Parliament.

The hostility of the Catholics towards the established religion and Protestantism generally, has been one of the chief reasons for continuing the

disabilities. Proofs, therefore, to show that they were no longer actuated by such hostility, were essential for giving success to their application. Now, what proofs did they offer? For some time previously to the assembling of Parliament, they were occupied in putting down, by the instrumentality of ferocious mobs, the Bible, Missionary, and School Meetings, of the members of the Established Church, and the other Protestants. They petitioned Parliament for a revision of the property of the Irish church, the meaning of which, according to their open declarations, was, that this church should be robbed of a large part of its possessions. One of their priests declared at a meeting of the Catholic Association, that their priesthood did not admit the established clergy to have any religious character. A member of this Association expressed a wish at two of its meetings, that the Protestant Church might long be the established church of Ireland, and it was received with murmurs and disapprobation. They linked themselves to Cobbett, who was striking with all his might at the foundations of British Protestantism, and they circulated among the ignorant people the most foul and diabolical slanders, touching the religion of the state and its ministers. Everything that could goad the people into a determination to pay no tithes-everything that could exasperate the people against the Established Church everything that could manifest a wish for the ruin of this church and of Protestantism, was said or done by their leaders, and solemnly sanctioned by the body at large.

Even after the Catholic deputation arrived in London; after its members had assumed the mask of peace, and at the critical moment when their case was before Parliament, they could not refrain from displaying their animosity towards Protestantism. Lawless entered a London Bible Meeting, and attempted to get up an uproar, but not having an Irish mob to aid him, he was put down. O'Connell straggled into a Whig School Meeting, and made such insinuations against the Protestants, that he was hissed out of it.

Setting aside some empty professions which were only calculated to impose upon children, this constituted the only evidence that the Catholics

had to offer, to prove that the hostility to the national church establishment, which had been mainly instrumental in placing them under the disabilities, no longer existed.

From the greatness of the number of the Catholics, and their perfect organization as a body, it was of the first importance for them to convince the tribunal which had to decide on their case, that their political principles were at least harmless-were in no respect inconsistent with, and hostile to, the constitution. Now, what evidence did they tender to produce this conviction? Their question, so far as regards parties, is not a party one; men of all parties support it, and men of all parties oppose it. Some of the most eloquent and influential of the Ministers, and the flower of the Opposition, stood before them ready to become their advisers and advocates. Now, no one would have quarrelled with them for keeping at a distance from the Tories-for passing by Mr Canning and Mr Plunkett for their Toryism; but it was natural for every one to expect that they would not go beyond the genuine and constitutional Whigs; it was natural for every one to expect that they would from policy, if not from principle, scrupulously avoid all connexion with faction, and more especially with those who advocated schemes involving the ruin of the constitution. We have already mentioned Cobbett; we need not give his history; we need not repeat what he has at various times published touching the King, the Royal Family, the Aristocracy, the Church, the Clergy, the Protestant religion, the Constitution, and all our public possessions; we need not say what character is assigned to this man by every one of our sects and parties. Well, with this Cobbett the Catholic Deputation connected itself immediately on its arrival in London. It was ostentatiously announced in the newspapers, that the Deputation had been to visit Mr Cobbett-it was ostentatiously announced in the newspapers, that Mr O'Connell had been to Mr Cobbett, to obtain his advice for the guidance of the Catholics, and that, in obedience to this advice, they had put their cause into the hands of Sir F. Burdett.

Our readers are no strangers to the history of the Radical Baronet; we,

therefore, need not detail his past vagaries, repeat his political creed, and dilate on his universal suffrage and unnual parliaments, or his other schemes of public ruin. We need not say that he is destitute of the confidence of Parliament and the country; and that he can scarcely espouse any cause whatever, without rendering it odious in the eyes of both. If there were two men in the British empire whom the Catholics, on the score of interest alone, ought to have shunned above all others, these men were William Cobbett and Sir Francis Burdett.

To identify themselves with these two individuals to the utmost point, seemed to be the great object of the Catholics. O'Connell, their acknowledged leader, acquainted the House of Lords that he was the advocate of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. He wandered about from one public meeting to another, to utter silly slang in favour of liberty, which was as repugnant to Whiggism as to Toryism; and which had been uttered by the Liberals before him, until the very groundlings disdained to listen to it. He could only cry up revolutionists and republicanism; he could only worship a species of liberty the very reverse in shape and principles to

that of Britain.

To that tribunal, therefore, which alone could relieve the Catholics-to that tribunal which, however the question of right might stand, they well knew would only decide in their favour from receiving satisfactory evidence that their religious and political feelings were unexceptionable, they brought only evidence to prove that they were a religious and political faction of the most dangerous character. That tribunal, upon listening to them, was told that they wished the Irish Church to be robbed, and the constitution to be altered: that they detested Bible and Missionary Meetings, and the Protestant religion; and that they were enamoured with the schemes of Radicalism: that, as a religious body, they meant to support those who were labouring to root up, by piecemeal, the established church; and that, as a political body, they meant to support those who were attempting to pull to pieces the constitution.

The leaders of the Catholics were noblemen, and men of liberal education-they were men of age and exVOL. XVIII.

perience they were men perfectly exempted from the control of their humble and ignorant brethren; yet no body of men in the universe ever made a display of ignorance, folly, and imbecility, equal to this: It is amazing

it is incomprehensible. If they had wished to unite the British nation against them, and to convince Parliament and the Executive that it would be ruinous to relieve them from the disabilities, they would have done what they did, to have taken the wisest method. If this ought not to be charged upon insincerity, or weakness of intellect, but upon the debasing influence of Catholicism, we regret, from our souls, that any of our fellow-subjects should be subject to the influence of such a religion.

In other times, Parliament would scarcely have listened to the claims of the Catholics after witnessing such an exhibition. The sight of the old spirit of Popery, holding its faggot in one hand, and waving the blood-stained banner of Reform in the other, would have been quite sufficient to deter any member from risking his reputation with the country by becoming its champion. But the nation happened to be in the midst of an outrageous fit of "liberality," the mania had excessive power in the House of Commons, and it was declared to be in the highest degree" illiberal" to keep the Catholics under disabilities. The Catholic question was, therefore, brought before this House in due form; its passage through it was characterized by various most remarkable circumstances.

Almost the first duty that Parliament had to discharge after its assembling, was to put down the Catholic Association: an association which practically comprehended the Catholics of the three kingdoms. It was put down on the avowed ground, that it was following the most unconstitutional and dangerous conduct, and putting the public peace in jeopardy. This Association had vilified in every way the religion of Britain, the British people, and the British government; it had displayed political principles perfectly at variance with the principles of the British constitution, and it had exhibited almost everything that is supposed to disqualify men for being British legislators and ministers. Yet no sooner had the

B

House of Commons crushed it, than it determined that those who had composed it the O'Connells and Shiells -were most fit and proper persons to be the legislators and ministers of Britain. This was unquestionably quite free from bigotry; perhaps it was not quite so free from foolishness.

In the session of 1823, sixty-two members of the House of Commons supported a resolution, which, in substance, declared that the Irish Church establishment was too large, and ought to be reduced. It was pretty well known, that these members had manifested anything but friendship towards the Church of England and its clergy. Mr Canning adverted to this in the debate on the Bill for putting down the Association, and declared, that Catholic emancipation, and the measure for spoiling the Irish Church, could not pass simultaneously. Unluckily Mr Hume, the famous arithmetic-master, had already given notice that he meant to place a similar resolution before the House for its adoption. Well-Mr Hume, sweet, pliant man! was prevailed on to with draw his notice; and the nation, sweet, credulous creature! was to imagine that the sixty-two had changed their opinion. No disavowal was made, and the nation was not to be so illiberal as to look for one. The nation was to believe, that when the Catholics got into Parliament, the sixty-two would not assist them to lay the established church in ruins. Things being thus prepared, the Catholic question was ushered into the House of Commons.

Sir Francis Burdett opened the business with a speech that astounded every one. It was all-every syllable -every letter-sugar and butter. He had, in the preceding sessions, lavished everything upon the Orangemen that could be called abuse; now he declared these Orangemen to be the most noble and the best of beings. Those who, before, had always received from him the most bitter diatribes, were now honoured with an overflowing share of his panegyric. The established clergy were fine men -the Ministers were excellent meneven the opponents of the Catholics were very decent, honest people. The Catholic priests were the first of human beings; and the Catholics, generally, were the most finished speci

mens of purity, intelligence, wisdom, patriotism, and loyalty. Poor Sir Francis!-We never dreamed that he was capable of plunging himself into such degradation. We have laughed at his follies, we have pitied his failings, we have detested his schemes, we have execrated his conduct, and still we never, before this, ceased to respect him. We never mistook him for a statesman, but we always thought that he possessed a share of that manly, frank, blunt, honest, downright, old English spirit, which disdains trickery and cunning, and which we shall ever honour wherever we may find it. He blundered amazingly in his new tactics; he overdid the thing in the most shocking manner. His speech did but little service to his cause, and it lost him Westminster.

The advocates of the Catholics, generally speaking, were, no doubt, placed in a very distressing situation. Instead of being able to expatiate on Catholic desert, they had only Catholic delinquency to extenuate; instead of being able to claim the removal of the disabilities on the ground of qualification, they were actually compelled to claim it on the ground of disqualification!-Our clients have certainly acted in a most improper manner-they have manifested very bad religious and political feelings-they have uttered language and done deeds which we cannot possibly defendbut this constitutes their merit. This ought to be irresistible with you in their favour. If you decide against them they will become rebels, therefore you ought to make them your legislators and ministers !-A large part of their reasoning amounted to this, and no more. It certainly displayed great liberality, and this was no slight matter. It was new, and new sophistry is often more effectual than old arguments, however unanswerable.

It was speedily discovered that the securities, as they were called, appended to the Catholic Bill, were universally laughed at, and that without something else in the shape of security, the bill would never pass the House of Commons. Two wings, as they have been called, were therefore added, to enable the clumsy paperkite to soar to the Lords.

We have spoken as warmly as any one against the present system of manu

therefore, need not detail his past vagaries, repeat his political creed, and dilate on his universal suffrage and annual parliaments, or his other schemes of public ruin. We need not say that he is destitute of the confidence of Parliament and the country; and that he can scarcely espouse any cause whatever, without rendering it odious in the eyes of both. If there were two men in the British empire whom the Catholics, on the score of interest alone, ought to have shunned above all others, these men were William Cobbett and Sir Francis Burdett.

To identify themselves with these two individuals to the utmost point, seemed to be the great object of the Catholics. O'Connell, their acknowledged leader, acquainted the House of Lords that he was the advocate of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. He wandered about from one public meeting to another, to utter silly slang in favour of liberty, which was as repugnant to Whiggism as to Toryism; and which had been uttered by the Liberals before him, until the very groundlings disdained to listen to it. He could only cry up revolutionists and republicanism; he could only worship a species of liberty the very reverse in shape and principles to that of Britain.

To that tribunal, therefore, which alone could relieve the Catholics-to that tribunal which, however the question of right might stand, they well knew would only decide in their favour from receiving satisfactory evidence that their religious and political feelings were unexceptionable, they brought only evidence to prove that they were a religious and political faction of the most dangerous character. That tribunal, upon listening to them, was told that they wished the Irish Church to be robbed, and the constitution to be altered: that they detested Bible and Missionary Meetings, and the Protestant religion; and that they were enamoured with the schemes of Radicalism: that, as a religious body, they meant to support those who were labouring to root up, by piecemeal, the established church; and that, as a political body, they meant to support those who were attempting to pull to pieces the constitution.

The leaders of the Catholics were noblemen, and men of liberal education-they were men of age and exVOL. XVIII.

perience they were men perfectly exempted from the control of their humble and ignorant brethren; yet no body of men in the universe ever made a display of ignorance, folly, and imbecility, equal to this: It is amazing

it is incomprehensible. If they had wished to unite the British nation against them, and to convince Parliament and the Executive that it would be ruinous to relieve them from the disabilities, they would have done what they did, to have taken the wisest method. If this ought not to be charged upon insincerity, or weakness of intellect, but upon the debasing influence of Catholicism, we regret, from our souls, that any of our fellow-subjects should be subject to the influence of such a religion.

In other times, Parliament would scarcely have listened to the claims of the Catholics after witnessing such an exhibition. The sight of the old spirit of Popery, holding its faggot in one hand, and waving the blood-stained banner of Reform in the other, would have been quite sufficient to deter any member from risking his reputation with the country by becoming its champion. But the nation happened to be in the midst of an outrageous fit of "liberality," the mania had excessive power in the House of Commons, and it was declared to be in the highest degree “ illiberal" to keep the Catholics under disabilities. The Catholic question was, therefore, brought before this House in due form; its passage through it was characterized by various most remarkable circumstances.

Almost the first duty that Parliament had to discharge after its assembling, was to put down the Catholic Association: an association which practically comprehended the Catholics of the three kingdoms. It was put down on the avowed ground, that it was following the most unconstitutional and dangerous conduct, and putting the public peace in jeopardy. This Association had vilified in every way the religion of Britain, the British people, and the British government; it had displayed political principles perfectly at variance with the principles of the British constitution, and it had exhibited almost everything that is supposed to disqualify men for being British legislators and ministers. Yet no sooner had the

B