disappointed and irritated feelings of the people Speak to us too in plain language, such as men use when they are fairly estimating danger. Take an example from the beautiful simplicity of Scrip ture: "whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him who cometh against him with twenty thousand;" that is the rational way to estimate danger. We do not want to hear in your splendid metaphorical declamation, "that every barrier may be safely broken down; nay, every obstruction and inconvenience must be carefully swept away, in order that the armed ruffian, with defiance on his front and menace on his tongue, may find a free and unencumbered passage to the very sanctuary of our laws and our religion." We want the key to your metaphor. We want to know who the armed ruffian is-whether it is the Duke of Norfolk, who with the squad of peers of his own communion is to vote away Protestant ascendancy in the Lords; or whether it is Mr. O'Connell, who at the head of the Catholic interest in Parliament, or perhaps himself the Catholic minister, is to deliver over to the claimants of the Catholic church the revenues of our archbishops and bishops, deans, prebendaries, and rectors; and, moreover, the throne of these goodly Protestant kingdoms to some popish aspirant; probably to the King of France, for I see, by a genealogical tree which is before me, that he is in direct lineal descent from our Charles I.; or whether it is the Catholic commander-in-chief, who is to betray our army to the Pope; or the Catholic admiral, who is to deliver over our ships and our naval stores to be deposited in his Holiness's arsenals; whether it is his worship the Catholic mayor, who, in virtue of his elevation to the magistracy, shall convict poachers in the county of Tipperary; if the game-laws should happily escape the torrent of liberality which will have swept away your cherished statutes; or finally, whether it is Mr. Charles Butler, who shall appear in his silk gown, and be invited by the Lord Chancellor to take his seat within the bar, and shall receive the congratulations of his brethren on the occasion. We want also to know where is the very sanctuary of our laws and our religion ;-whether it is the House of Lords, or the House of Commons, or the courts of law, or the page in the statute-book in which your darling enactments are recorded. We want to know also what the armed ruffian will do when he gets there; and what will be the conduct of those who are now in possession. When we are estimating danger, all these things want clear explanation. If the dangers I have suggested are not your dangers, come forward and tell us what

are.

At least let us estimate them like men, and if they are too

Letter I. p. 37.

strong for us, retire before them; but not set up a scream like children, and run away from a bugbear of our own imagining. Come forward intelligibly, and I will promise you that you shall be answered; and if your terrors are amenable to reason and calculation, which all terrors are not, they shall be allayed. If Achilles, and Ajax, and Diomede, hang in the back-ground, some Menelaus of the cause shall be able to give you satisfaction.

of

Having satiated my appetite with your dangers, I have leisure to turn for a moment to look at the dish in which they are served up. It proves to be somewhat antique, singular in its form, but of no ordinary workmanship. It is, indeed, no other than a dissertation, clause by clause, on a measure which the legislature condemned two years ago. But you resolve to put it again on its trial. You do not, indeed, bring it to the test of established facts, known axioms, and incontrovertible positions; that is a mode of ratiocination which you abhor. You determine to try the measure which the Lords would not have two years ago, by another which the Commons would not have fourteen years ago; nor indeed, as you tell us, the Catholics either. To doubt, that you were sternly determined to drag Mr. Canning "quocunque modo" before the public, on the Catholic question, would be, indeed, to sacrifice judgment to candor. Of this the mode that you have adopted is sufficient proof. You address him on "the bill of 1825." It was not his bill. He did not bring it into parliament. In p. 35 your first letter he gives that measure his support; in 42 he is its "leading advocate" (which considering his mental calibre and official consequence is merely to say, that a thirty-two pounder makes a louder report and carries a ball farther than an eighteen); in 43 it is, "you and your fellow-laborers;" in 44 it is, "your new security oath ;" in 48, "you were also so good ;" and again, "the following items standing against you," in 58, "why was it that you reverted ;" in 65, "the precedents before you" and "your own principle;" till at length passing over many other instances, it becomes in plain terms at p. 70, "if your bill had passed into a law." To all other Catholic bills you give their paternal designation: "It is Mr. Grattan's bill of 1810," "Mr. Canning's bill of 1813," " Mr. Plunkett's bill of 1821," but it is simply, "the bill of 1825." You write about it for one hundred and sixty-seven pages, but you never happen to mention Sir Francis Burdett; and in your skilful hands it becomes, by almost imperceptible degrees, Mr. Canning's bill. You have not told us why, when you wanted to write about the bill of 1825, you did not address its real author instead of Mr. Canning; who, being one of a class of men lying under an engagement not to introduce concession to the Catholics as a cabinet measure, would seem

peculiarly unobnoxious to such an address. Perhaps you will prefer to remain silent on the subject; and, indeed, this is one of the occasions, though far from the only one which occurs in your Letter, on which I find it necessary to restrain my pen, and to leave you to the uninterrupted influence of those reflections which the open exposure of your conduct is calculated to inspire.

I have little interest in the by-gone measure of 1825. I dare say, what Mr. Canning said of its securities was true, "that they were the best which could be had ;" and the oath seems to me to contain such words as will bind any man to support the Protestant establishments, who intends to be bound by an oath, and it is useless to attempt, by multiplying words, to bind a man who doesnot. Any Catholic bill, which has passed even the Commons, has acquired almost more than a presumption of merit by its success. Interest, influence, precedent and prejudice were all against it. It had nothing but its merits to carry it through. It could have none but disinterested supporters. I am more influenced by these considerations than by your sweeping declaration, that "the bill of 1825" was an insult on the common sense of the country.

There is, however, one of your statements about the Bill which I cannot wholly pass over in silence. You say that "Mr. O'Connell wrote to his friends in Dublin, that such was the liberal wish for conciliation in England, that he himself was employed to draw the Bill;" and you say that the dignity of our senators took fire at the intimation. Then you choose to " suspect" that Dr. Doyle was of the party, because the interests of his order were warily provided for. If I were to suspect that you were not of the party because a liberal wish for conciliation was shown, you would think me a very unmannerly fellow; yet I should have better grounds for my suspicion than you have for yours, and should commit no greater breach of charity or of good manners in expressing it. But to come to the first point. It suited you to belaud the Bill of 1813, so in that case to engage the co-operation of Mr. Charles Butler in arranging the securities was laudable; but to employ Mr. O'Connell in 1825 was degrading. I take a different view of the matter. That the agent of parties coming to Parliament for relief or benefit should draw the Act to be introduced for that purpose, is not only every-day practice, but is the most convenient course. To satisfy the Catholics is the object of a Concession Bill; not to secure the Protestant Establishments, they are secure already. To bring in a measure which would not satisfy them, would be about as sapient as to manufacture your pet oath. The parliamentary father of the Bill therefore says to the agent of the Catholics,-Give me the

draft of a measure which will satisfy you, and, if it compromises no other interests, I will introduce it into Parliament. The agent knows well enough the ordeal his Bill has to pass through: it is as safe to trust him to draw it as any one else. The question is-Did the Bill of 1825 compromise other interests? Not, Was it drawn by Mr. O'Connell? You introduce that gentleman and Dr. Doyle merely to cast obloquy.

When you bring sweeping charges of "retrocession" and inconsistency against Lord Grenville, Earl Grey, Mr. Canning, and in your own phrase, «all, or almost all, the distinguished men" who have advocated the cause of the Catholics; in other words, against two-thirds of those on whose talents, virtue, and constancy, we must necessarily depend for the good government of the country, it may be worth while to consider for a moment to what degree they have merited your loud condemnation. You illustrate the matter by your comnion-room story. Allow me also to attempt its illustration, by a supposition respecting yourself, which, I trust, you will find in no way offensive.

Allow me to suppose, that near one of your otherwise pleasant residences stands the house of a neighbor. He is a somewhat restless, turbulent, nay even dangerous fellow, and you determine to purchase quiet and security; in short, to buy him out. You agree for three hundred pounds, and he covenants not to build again in a certain situation where his presence might in some degree annoy you. Your money is under the control of an old gentleman, your trustee, and you find, to your grievous disappointment, that he will not sanction the bargain on any terms. There is no present remedy; but in process of time the old gentlemau dies, and the new trustee does not forbid you to negotiate. From year to year the nuisance has been in a progressive course of aggravation. The man's family has increased, and you are tormented with the noise of his children. You agree to the increased price of five hundred pounds, on the old conditions; but before your lawyers can make him fast, he declares off the covenant about building again. You declare, in the fervor of your virtuous indignation at his faithlessness, that if he does not fulfil this bargain you will never treat with him again as long as you live. But years roll on, and the nuisance still increases. His children are more numerous, more clamorous,

Letter I. p. 40.-Your story does not tally with the facts of the case. Neither party ever have backed. To make the sting of your story," If you had not backed I must," good for any thing, when Parliament threw out the Bill of 1813, the Catholics should have come forward to say-As you will not concede to us on the veto of 1813, we must give you the veto of 1808. But back they neither did nor will. As coachmen say-They have no back in them; they are too high-mettled to stand the breeching.

more impudent. A new negotiation ensues for an increased price and diminished restrictions, but they satisfy neither party. You think them too lax, he thinks them too strict, and the bargain drops to the ground. But the old evils all recur. His children are out of work, ragged, ill fed, a disgrace to your premises; and, moreover, the sturdiest of beggars, they mob you even in your own house. You have but this resource-to make the best bargain you can. It is A thousand pounds and no restrictions. You pay the money, and pull down the house. The man is grateful; he does nothing to annoy you. The money enables him to feed, clothe, and educate his children. Their dispositions improve with their circumstances. One becomes your bailiff; another manage one of your estates beyond the sea. Though you might, in the old trustee's time, have had the house for three hundred pounds with your own restrictions, you never cease to rejoice that you gave a thousand for it without any-when you could do no better. This little history, Sir, as it exemplifies the progress, so I am confident will it exemplify the result of the Catholic question.

goes to

This question has generally been brought forward as a bargain. We call what we stipulate for, securities; but they are powers and even patronage which we never had before, but which the agitation of this question gives us a convenient opportunity of acquiring. If it be desirable that you should appoint the Catholic bishops, it is just as desirable now as when the claims are conceded. The effectual veto might be a security to the state, but it is no security against any danger which the concession of the claims creates. The oath is. When you admit a man into Parliament you put power into his hands, and you create the danger that he may abuse it. You take an oath from him as security that he will not. Mr. Pitt's plan involved no bargaining. He would have removed the disabilities, and taken an oath as security. His other measures probably would have been cotemporaneous with the concession of the claims, but they were independent of it. They were plans for increasing the security of all our establishments; and if desirable, were equally so whether the claims were conceded or not. bargaining system appears to have begun in 1808. From that time there has been a constant struggle on one side to exact as much, and on the other to give as little as possible. We have had the worst of it, as might have been expected. The Catholics can do better without the claims, than we can do with their turbulence and discontent. It is bootless now to inquire whether we were niggardly, or they exorbitant; whether we were vacillating, or they faithless. Let us look at our present state. There the monster stands before us still, in daily increasing deformity. The necessity which existed in Mr. Pitt's day of tranquillising Ireland

The