Well, thus we are bound up; though every sentient being in Great Britain and Ireland cursed the compact and all its articles, they must, to the last syllable of recorded time,' be bound together by this contract between two metaphysical entities. But be it so:-No one proposes to infringe upon this contract, or to dissolve it. As we must leave the laity, even of the favoured religion, out of the question, let us look to the manner in which the Protestant ecclesiastical establishment may be destroyed. There are but two ways, we think, in which this can be done by a deliberate act of the Legislature, or by a rebellion of the Catholics, and a separation from England; for, if the body of Ireland were once lost, that ethereal essence,' of which Mr Webber speaks in so sublime a strain, would be lost with it. Now, by the emancipation of the Catholics, we contend, that the danger of the destruction of Protestantism by an act of the Legislature is not increased, and its danger of destruction by rebellion is infinitely diminished.

If the Catholics are admitted into Parliament in the greatest proportion which their numbers and importance will warrant, they must still form a small minority. If they entertain designs hostile to the Protestant establishment, they will immediately be discovered; as it is quite impossible that they should at the same time keep themselves concealed, and be busy in making proselytes. If they do take measures, therefore, to increase their own consequence, they will be looked on with the same jealousy with which all other innovators are regarded;-they will be shut out from the share they would otherwise have in the employments and honours of the State:-and all this for what? That their clergy might be more rich and more idle; that the religious offices might be more negligently administered; and that the interests of Catholicism, as a sect, might be in the main injured. They would have to carry on this Bellum Episcopale without any prospect of success; and, after the forfeiture of their political hopes, would be as far from the attainment of their religious end as ever. The continuance of such a contest does not seem much to be apprehended from the known principles of human nature. All men could not be alike under the domination of the priests; and those would be least subject to this domination who would be best qualified to advance a political cause. In proportion as they become men of the world-in proportion to the variety of their knowledge, and to the earnestness with which they enter into political pursuits-they must get rid of something of the bigot. What reason have we to expect, that, when the Catholics of Ireland shall be put on the same footing with the Catholics of other countries, they will be less

susceptible to the influence of education, and the practical lessons of toleration to be derived from an intercourse with other sects? Though at present persons of all opinions, except the Catholics, are admitted into the House of Commons, there can be no assembly of men in which the difference of religious opinions is more rarely discoverable in the words or actions of its members. So far, therefore, from a possibility of success, a proposal for a transfer of the ecclesiastical property of Ireland would scarcely obtain a thought as a Parliamentary measure. That 50 cannot be equal to 500, is a position to which few persons can be blind, in a question affecting their own interests and reputation.

1

There remains the alternative of rebellion and separation from Great Britain. Let us see how far the probability of such an occurrence would be increased or diminished by the admission of the Catholics to the privileges which they claim. At present, the Catholics of wealth and consequence possess all the means of influencing the people which any Aristocracy can possess. It is in the space between this Aristocracy and the Government, that the chain of connexion is broken. They have this additional claim to respect, this peculiar source of power over the other members of their religion, that they have suffered, and continue to suffer, privations in a common cause. As they have so much power of doing mischief, it is proposed to give them an additional motive not to turn this power against the interests of the State. They may be told, indeed, that they have already sufficient protection for their persons and property. If man had only to fatten himself like an ox in a stall-if he had no desire of fame, or power, or action—no emulation nor envy→ the argument might have weight. But let us see how it stands, as human nature is actually constituted. The Catholics have protection in the enjoyment of their property, however considerable; therefore they should be contented, without any share of the political power. Such is the argument of the advocates of exclusion. The Catholics have protection for their persons and property, therefore they are not contented without a share of political power;-such is the way in which the nature of man answers that argument. It is precisely because they are not harassed and plundered, that other wants and desires spring up in their minds, and that these wants lead to dangerous aspirations and endeavours. The question, we must recollect, is not between the Protestants and the Catholics as to the meaning of words, but is a question discussed by the Protestants among themselves, as to the security of their empire. If we could exenterate the Catholics-deprive them of passions and preju

ioners to be loyal and obedient subjects, they are suspected of being in the pay of Government. +

Mr Peel begs the House of Commons to reflect how difficult it is to predict the consequences of much less important alterations than those proposed. He desires every man who is yet undecided, to weigh the substantial blessings which he knows to have been derived from the Government that is, against all the speculative advantages which is promised from the Government that is to be.' This commonplace is rarely misapplied; for, according to the very statements of those who have opposed emancipation-that of Mr Foster, for instanceis it not just as difficult to predict the consequences of the present system, if it be persevered in? Is it not more difficult to imagine that they should prove otherwise than fatal? Yet the substantial blessings of the present system should make us hesitate to change it!-What, in the name of heaven, are these boasted blessings? In any country of Europe, is life and property more insecure than in Ireland? Is there any country in which so large a class feels itself degraded, and in which the favoured class stands in such fear of those above whom it is elevated? To prevent such a state of things-to prevent robbery and murder, and heartburnings and terror-is deemed the principal end of government. Yet Mr Peel trembles to expose Ireland to a change.-We recollect a speech ascribed to this gentleman not long ago by the Parliamentary Reports. It seems he gave a description of the state of Ireland. He affirmed that committees of assassination sat in judgment on obnoxious individuals. He related an instance of the execution of this sentence. A magistrate-according to Mr Peel a benevolent and respectable magistrate-was shot by a band of ruffians at a place through which he had to pass, and which was previously marked out as the scene of the death; and as the guns were fired, and the victim fell, numbers of people who had assembled on the tops of houses or turf stacks to witness the event, shouted in approbation. Can it be conceived, that people who could applaud such a crime as this, do not feel themselves degraded, and imagine that the law was made for a favoured caste, and not for them?

Mr Wakefield, in the work above mentioned, says- Some persons assert that the Catholics are not degraded; but the • circumstances which might be produced to prove the contrary, are too striking and too numerous to admit of any doubt,

† Account of Ireland, Vol. II. p. 610.