plied with his demands. Prussia, the only power which might have excited and supported an endeavor among the minor potentates to secede from the confederation of the Rhine, or profit by the misfortunes

of the French emperor, remained inactive, and another year was destined to elapse before the successes in Russia, and the exploits in Spain obtained their proper influence or were generally appreciated.

I

HAVE already noticed in the summary of paliamentary proceedings, the debates which ensued on the subject of catholic emancipation, at an early period of the session, but the question has lately occupied so prominent a place in the de liberations of the legislature and in the domestic politics of the country, as to demand the most minute examination of the historian. The interest naturally excited by a discussion of great intrinsic importance, has been enhanced by the stormy violence with which the injudicious friends of the catholics pursued their claims, and has been perpetuated by the bitter divisions in the state, of which the catholic question became the badge. During the year 1812, the claims of the catholics were sustained and opposed in parliament with an energy and enthusiasm which have seldom been equalled; many conflicts took place in which the highest talents of the country were drawn into vigorous operations, and some of the most brilliant and powerful orations were pronounced which modern history has record ed. Among the most conspicuous of the statesmen who distinguished themselves in the course of the present year, in support of the claims of the catholics, the marquis of Wellesley and Mr. Canning

stood pre-eminent, and added new honor to the cause which they espoused, their speeches will be read with interest and delight even by persons who care but little about the issue of the discussion; while the grave and sober arguments of some of their opponents, may teach the too violent advocates of emancipation that the question, even in the opinion of their friends, is not so easy of solution as might at first appear, and that of all the evils to be dreaded from the determination of parliament, precipitance of decision would be the most fatal and inexcusable.

The most decisive and noblest effort made, during the session, in favor of the Roman catholics was the motion of Mr. Canning. On the 22nd of June he concluded a long and brilliant speech by moving the subjoined resolution.

"That the house will early in the next session of parliament take into its most serious consideration, the state of the laws affecting his majesty's Roman catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as may be conducive to the peace and strength of the united kingdom, to the stability of the protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his majesty's

subjects. The motion was carried by a majority of 235 to 106, and of the brilliant and impressive harangue which occasioned this unexpected result, the reader will be enabled to form an accurate estimation by the report of Mr. Cannings speech, copied as I have reason to believe, from the manuscript sketch of that celebrated and amiable statesman.

Mr. Canning rose and said, when members reflected on the magnitude of the subject which he had undertaken, and which he hoped by the decision of the house to recommend to the consideration of the executive government,-when they reflected on the debates on this important matter, both within those walls and elsewhere, when they reflected on the disturbed and anxious state of Ireland, they might imagine that those topics would lead him into great length. He hoped, however, to disappoint that apprehension; for the subject now rested on a few plain, straight-forward principles. If he had come to this subject as a partisan, he should have felt considerable anxiety; but from the view which he took of the subject, and from what he had this day heard, which was one among the many symptoms of that state of things to which the empire was reduced, he was convinced that his present method was the best and only one which could lead to a right result. He did not wish to allude to, or canvass past discussions; he had hoped, and still hoped, that it was possible to look upon it as a great state question at any rate, the increase of difficulty which now existed was no reason for turning aside from the question, but an additional motive to look at it firmly, if they wished to give peace to the united kingdom. (Hear, hear.) He should, however, lay out of his view all past occurrences, and look at the question with an eye perfectly fresh. This question he could not consider as one that rested upon any of those wild principles which had been floating for the last twenty years; but he might take the general principle, that every citizen of this free community was entitled to the same privileges; and that, though exceptions might certainly

occur, the onus probandi lay, not on those who supported the rule, but on those who maintained the exceptions. The next principle on which he would place this question,-more especially in the present state of the world, when the greatest force that had ever been employed against us, and, perhaps, against any other country, was arrayed under the direction of a great conqueror, who was, step by step, subduing Europe, was the necessity of creating, if possible, that desirable and strict union of interest and affection in the whole empire, which would remove all ground of hope on the part of the enemy from the fomenting of our internal discontents. Exceptions might be taken on grounds impossible to yield; but here again the priuciple must be in favor of union, and the burden of proof must be thrown upon those who opposed the means of obtaining it. The next important point, which he should press upon the attention of the house, was to consider what they ought to do, when, from chance, or the inevitable consequence of events, there existed a great, serious, and permanent question, which it was not prudent or safe for the general interest of the state to leave undecided. A question of that nature, he conceived, should be taken into full consideration by the supreme power of the empire, to settle it by its own legislative authority. Much more dangerous it must be, to leave it unconsidered and uncontroled, than to decide it by the just authorities of the constitution. These assumptions he might fairly make, without great fear of being opposed; but in all questions of change, there were two great political considerations which naturally presented themselves. First, the most popular one, the dread of innovation. Secondly, the propriety of timely concession. In balancing between these, lay the great task. The question then would be, whether the demand made, was that which ought to be conceded, or must ultimately be granted: and then, if to be conceded, how they were to concede it, so as to reap from such concession its best fruits; incurring the smallest possible degree of danger. It appeared to him,

that those who argued on general grounds against the consideration of this measure, undertook a task of peculiar difficulty, if they thought they could make out and substantiate their opinions. They proceeded on some ideas of a regular fixed state of things, of a deliberately formed system, of the results of a long experience, confirmed by the greatest authority, and sanctioned by the acquiescence of ages: but he should be glad to ask, where, in the code respecting the Roman catholics, were to be found those antient and established principles which disdained all experiments, and settled the question for ever? At what period of our history was it, that this sort of perfection existed? When was the system devised-when was it built up, and at what time did it receive its last finishing hand? When was it incorporated with the whole body of the laws of the empire, to form a part of one pure, uumixed, blameless constitution? In truth, these laws were formed in times of a peculiar nature,-when the penal laws were passed,-when the country was di vided between two sects. Was the period of the reformation the authority? Un doubtedly, we could not be enough grate ful for an event which gave to us a pure and perfect system of worship. It was in the high behests of Providence to bring good out of evil; and so the lust and the rapine of one of the worst of monarchs, Henry VIII. ultimately produced the benefit of the nation: but it was vain to look to his reign for the blessings of just, civil legislation, when they saw the law of the Six Articles, by which he hung the followers of the pope, and burned those who were against him,-when he erected his own proclamation into law. Surely those were not times to look at proudly. Even in the reign of Elizabeth, we saw that great princess, glorious as her reign was in other respects, giving into oppression not far short of her father's. In the reign of Charles I. it might be seen, how little Ireland had cause to bless the government of the monarch whose cause it espoused. After the establishment of protestanism, a system resembling extermination was VOL. II.

introduced into that country. They might come down to the revolution, when it was said all laws were settled; but, in fact, many of those laws had been made before, and the most excessive of them were sanctified, even in the eyes of freemen, who solved the problem of the disaffection of their fellow subjects, in the profession of that religious faith which they viewed as the symbol of their political creed. But the system was not perfected till a later period. They must look through queen Aun's, and the two first reigns of the Hanover family, to see it brought to perfection. Under Cromwell it was absolute extermination,at the revolution it was confiscation, and afterwards, up to the present reign, it was artificial oppression, to stunt the energies, to prevent the in dustry, and destroy the growth of property among the Irish catholics, and to leave them an useless unproductive people. (Hear.) This statement was not merely to be inferred from acts passed; for successive reigns labored to sanction the principle and the policy. Was this a time to make what was called a stand? Look at he year 1760. The catholic was then cut off from the advantage of society. The law stimulated his wife to treachery, and his children to disobedience. Let those look at the state of the penal code, even at that period, who think its destruction a danger. It belonged, however, to this system, unlike most others of the sort, that when it arrived at its maturity, it quickly began to decay. It lasted in its full force about fourteen years, to the year 1774, when the first relaxation took place. If they looked at former times, they would see that political disaffection was ever made the ground. Bishop Burnet quoted Walsingham, to shew that Elizabeth was personally averse to persecution; and that it was not till she apprehended political dangers that she relaxed from mercy. Look at the revolution, or any other period, and see whether the system had ever been dissociated from political considerations. By the best of our public writers, it had not been defended upon merely religious grounds. Previous to

30

the enactment of the relaxations, Mr. justice Blackstone, treating of the laws against the Roman catholics, and alluding to the sentiments of an eminent foreigner, said, that he (Montesquieu) observed, "that they are so rigorous, though not professedly of the sanguinary kind, that they do all the hurt that can possibly be done in cold blood. But in answer to this, it might be observed (what foreigners, who only judge from our statute book, are not fully apprized of,) that these laws are seldom exerted to their utmost rigour; and, indeed, if they were, it would be very difficult to excuse them. The restless machinations of the Jesuits during the reign of Elizabeth, the turbulence and uneasiness of the papists under the new religious establish ment, and the boldness of their hopes and wishes for the succession of the queen of Scots, obliged the parliament to counteract so dangerous a spirit, by laws of a great, and then perhaps necessary severity." But what said the learned judge afterwards? "If," says he, "a time should ever arrive, and perhaps it is not very distant, when all fears of a pretender shall have vanished, and the power and influence of the pope shall become feeble, ridiculous, and despicable, not only in England, but in every kingdom in Europe,"-(who, said Mr. Canning, would not suppose that Mr. justice Blackstone was speaking prophetically of the present time?) (hear, hear,)"it probably would not then be amiss to review and soften these rigorous edicts; at least till the civil principles of the Roman catholics called again upon the legislature to renew them; for it ought not to be left in the breast of every merciless bigot, to drag down the vengeance of these occasional laws upon inoffensive, though mistaken subjects, in opposition to the lenient inclinations of the civil magistrate, and to the destruction of every principle of toleration and religious liberty." (Hear.) Now he (Mr. C.) would ask, whether, knowing as we did, the reduced power and influence of the Roman pontiff, and having relaxed the statutes, we were, or were not arrived at that period which

was contemplated by justice Blackstone? The first relaxation, which was by the act of the Irish parliament, in 1774, stated, in its preamble, that many subjects were desirous of shewing their loyalty, and their abhorrence of certain doctrines that were imputed to them, enacted the compurgatory oath, the taking of which entitled them to the privilege of good subjects. A succeeding statute stated their loyal and peaceable behaviour, and that it would be conducive to the general interests and strength of the kingdom, that all denominations of religion should enjoy the protection of the state. Another statute, passed four years afterwards, said, that all subjects who had subscribed according to the provisions of the act of 1774, ought to be considered good and lawful subjects of his majesty. That pointed out the qualification of admission to the privileges of a free constitution. Then again the act of parliament of 1793 stated, that it was fit that disabilities should cease. He must repeat his question, to those who contended that we must not depart from or break in upon the system. At what time was it ascertained? It occupied two centuries in its growth: it was fourteen years in a state of maturity; and it had been for half a century in a progress of decay. (Hear.) What, then, was to be said about hazardous innovation? Different experiments had been tried in Ireland. The government of popish Ireland seemed to be a problem of increasing difficulty. The wisest and most humane statesman had found it difficult to keep in view the same principles in that country, which they had seen it indispensable to apply to this. In more violent times there was nothing but extermination; after that, they were ground down by statute: but that failed, and we had other experiments. Whether we should give the more recent system its complete operation, was now the question. (Hear.) When he spoke of the harshness of former periods, he meant not to cast blame on our ancestors; he made a full allowance for the genius of the times: but, unquestionably, in more modern days a spirit of lenity had been evinced, unknown to unknown to remoter periods