and his imitators, the vast space which is ever discernible between a man of real genius, philosophy and business, and a mere artist in language.

At the end of May 1820, Mr. Grattan came for the last time to London :-On the first day of the following June, the writer of these pages called upon him; and, being informed that he was extremely ill, was retiring without having seen him; but Mr. Grattan, having heard that he was in the house, sent for him. It was evident that he touched the moment of his dissolution :-but the ethereal vigour of his mind was unsubdued, and his zeal for the catholic cause unabated. He pressed the writer by the hand :"It is," he said, "all over!--yes,-all over!-but "I will die in the cause.-I mean to be carried to "the house of commons to-morrow-to beg leave " of the speaker to take the oaths sitting, and then "to move two resolutions." These he mentioned to the writer; but spoke so indistinctly, that the writer could only perceive, generally, that they were substantially the same as the clauses, which he had prefixed to the bill, which, in 1812, he brought into parliament for the relief of the catholics. He again pressed the writer by the hand, repeated the intention of being carried to the house, and desired the writer to attend him to it:-But-he died in the ensuing night!

He was buried in Westminster Abbey: his funeral was most honourably attended: the charity-boys of all the catholic schools in London were present, and behaved with a seriousness which affected every beholder.

As a parliamentary orator Mr. Grattan was equalled

passed by none. He reflected honour on the country which gave him birth: in the parliament of Ireland he had but one rival: the parliament of the united empire felt that he added to its lustre, admired, respected and loved him.

It is honourable to the catholic cause to have had such an advocate.

CHAP. XCVI.

DISAPPOINTMENT OF THE CATHOLICS AT THE FAILURE

OF THE BILL FOR THEIR RELIEF IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS: PROPOSED RENEWAL OF THEIR APPLICATIONS TO PARLIAMENT.

THE result of the debate in the house of lords, on the bill for the relief of the roman-catholics, was a 'severe disappointment to them.-Under it they cling to every subject of consolation which offers,-fortu nately several present themselves :-

I. The strange objection from the coronation oath is no longer urged:-nor has a whisper from any respectable quarter intimated, that any prejudice against the bill is entertained by our enlightened sovereign:

II. For the first time, a bill for the emancipation of the roman-catholics has passed the house of commons; for the first time, four cabinet ministers have voted for it; for the first time, a British secretary of state, and a chief secretary for Ireland, have declared in parliament, that catholic emancipation is a measure essential to the tranquillity and prosperity of the empire, and to the completion of the union;

! III. It has also been admitted, that catholic emancipation made a part of the plans of Mr. Pitt, for the final incorporation and settlement of the two` kingdoms:

IV. By the universal confession of the opponents of this great national measure, all the reasons which have been assigned for continuing in force the penalties and disabilities, under which the catholics still suffer, are now reduced to ONE. It is also confessed, that this one reason cannot be supported in argument, except by supposing the existence of an imperious state necessity, which still requires the depression and the degradation of the catholics in opposition to every general principle of wisdom, sound policy and humanity :—Here we beg leave shortly to detain our readers:

1. During the reign of queen Elizabeth general disloyalty was charged on the catholics; the conduct of a very small number of individuals was criminal, but it is now acknowledged that the general conduct of the body was not only blameless but exemplary. At all events, this charge ceased with the life of the queen:2. During the two following reigns, the religion of the catholics was the only charge against them; the church and state pronounced that their religion was superstitious, erroneous and idolatrous; that the toleration of it was therefore a crime, and, (to use the very words of Knox), that" the idolater "should die the death:"--but intolerance on this ground is now universally exploded, this charge therefore vanishes:-3. In the reign of Charles the second, Oates's plot was fabricated; and for their

-

"Judgment of divers of the archbishops and bishops of Ireland on the toleration of religion." Ante, vol. ii. p. 101.

supposed participation in it, those laws were passed which inflicted the penalties and disabilities of which the catholics now particularly complain: but Mr. Hume, (with all other writers of the present time), now informs us, that "Oates's plot is an incident, "which, for the credit of the nation, it is desirable "to bury in eternal oblivion." This charge therefore is withdrawn :-4. The Revolution subjected the catholics to a new charge, a supposed attachment to James the second and his descendants;—but James and all his descendants are gone to the grave of all the Capulets, and the attachment of the catholics to the house of Hanover is now undisputed; no ground for this charge therefore exists:—5. Forced, even by their own confession, from all these holds, the enemies of catholic emancipation profess to justify it on the ground, that the catholics divide their allegiance between the king and the pope; but allegiance to the pope is nonsense :-the catholics, with all the gravity of face in their power, have disclaimed it; and no one now really imagines it. Thus this charge has passed away with the rest:-6. At last,-all other reasons for the refusal of catholic emancipation failing,—it has been discovered that catholic emancipation is incompatible with the protestant ascendancy, which, it is said, the revolution of 1688, consecrated as a principle of the constitution. This is THE ONE, -the only reason, now alleged for resisting the catholic claims.

But, will it not be found extremely difficult to prove, or even so much as to define with accuracy, the supposed constitutional principle of protestant ascendancy, without maintaining a principle confessedly unconstitutional? that there are laws which,

though the repeal of them is required both by justice and policy, it is not within the power of parliament to repeal. This, lord Coke declares to be an impossibility to assert it, is treason to the constitution.

But, let the principle be conceded,—let it be admitted to be the duty of the legislature to preserve the protestant ascendancy, because, in consequence of the revolution in 1688, this has become a principle of the constitution :-Still,-if, according to all rational calculation, centuries must pass away after catholic emancipation shall take place, before there will be twenty catholics in the upper or forty in the lower house, what real, what substantial danger can be justly apprehended to the protestant ascendancy from the measure? Can this imaginary danger be put into comparison with the real dangers, the real losses, the real inconveniences of every kind, both actually felt and reasonably to be apprehended, from the increasing irritation and discontent which now exist and must increase among the large catholic population of these realms, and the morbid results of this irritation and discontent to the state?

Thus then, all the pretences for the continuance of catholic degradation are reduced to this ONE; and

1

4 Inst. 42.-And see 25 Edw. III. s. 6, and the very curious and interesting proceedings, Rot. Parl. 21 Rich. II. 50. 59. The record closes with this observation :

"N're S le roi apres avisement et deliberation avec les prelats "et clergie de son roiolme a bien entendu qu'il ne purra obliger ses "successeurs-rois d'Angleterre-par leur serment, ne par autre "voie contre la liberté de la corone."

"Our lord the king, after advising and deliberating with the "bishops and clergy of his kingdom, fully understands, that he * cannot bind his successors, kings of England, by his oath or " in any other manner, against the liberty of the crown."