Commons it was rejected by a large majority. In the course of the autumn a dissolution took place, and "notwithstanding the coalition," writes Sir J. Mackintosh," of the court, the parsons, and the mob, against all the men of sense in the country,"* the Opposition gained at the elections.

In Ireland, feelings of deep distrust and resentment at the conduct of the Prince found expression in every variety of form. Far from evincing any readiness to adopt the idea of compromise, the popular sentiment was one of vehement hostility to every proposition of what seemed to savour of the Veto. Many individuals, however, of influence and character concurred with those who in the legislature believed it to have become wholly impossible to carry any large measure of relief without some species of "security." Of these were Mr. Grattan, Mr. Plunket, and Mr. Canning. On the 25th February, 1813, Mr. Grattan brought forward the question with his usual ability and earnestness; and was supported by Mr. Ponsonby, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Canning, and Lord Palmerston. It was on this occasion that Mr. Plunket delivered the celebrated speech of which so many of his contempo

* Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 263.

raries have recorded their unbounded admiration.* By all, the principle of "securities" was conceded, though in general terms; and upon a division the numbers were, for leave to bring in the bill, 264, against, 224. When the measure was laid before the House, it appeared to Mr. Canning and his friends to be too vague on the point adverted to. He accordingly undertook to frame clauses providing for the exercise of a Veto by the Crown; and to these Mr. Grattan hesitated to give his assent until the opinions of the Catholic body should be known. Meanwhile, the bill was read a second time, by a majority of 42.

After a long and stormy discussion, the Catholic Board, at the instance of Mr. O'Connell, pronounced the conditions to be inadmissible; and the bishops about the same time declared that they likewise considered them highly objectionable. Sooner than abandon all chance of settling the long-vexed question, Mr. Grattan was willing to incur the responsibility of agreeing to the amendments of Mr. Canning.

"has

"This admirable speech," says Sir J. Mackintosh, made more impression than any speech since Mr. Sheridan's, in 1787, on the charge against Hastings respecting the Begums of Oude."-Memoirs, vol. ii., p. 263. See also Lord Dudley's Correspondence.

"Upon my head," he exclaimed, "be the odium of the clauses. To insure the principle of concession, I shall submit to the minor infringements. The alleged unpopularity of the bill can only be temporary."* He was speedily relieved, however, from all further responsibility in the matter. The Speaker, Mr. Abbott, as soon as the House was in committee, moved that the first clause admitting Catholics to Parliament be omitted; and such use was made of the declarations in Ireland against any conditions, that his amendment was carried by 251 to 247. Upon this the bill was at once withdrawn. Disappointment and distraction were the fruits of this strange drama of tantalization, Bitter reproaches and angry recriminations formed the staple of public discussion in Ireland for a long period. Mr. Grattan, dejected and debilitated by illhealth, declined to renew the Parliamentary struggle, which he had found by experience to be alike thankless and unavailing.

At the Catholic Board the battle of the Veto was incessantly renewed. On the hardships by which they were aggrieved in common, and on the difficulties that beset their path to a remedy, all were agreed; but between Vetoists and Anti-Vetoists an interminable

* Debate, 24th May, 1813. Speeches, vol. iv., p. 336.

strife prevailed, and each party anxiously sought to strengthen itself by the aid of new recruits. Among those who enlisted on the side of the former was young Sheil. His name appears in the latter part of this year as a frequent attendant at the meetings of the Board. On the 8th of December he delivered a speech which attracted no little attention at the time. It was against a proposition made by Dr. Drumgoole, intended to assert more stringently than ever the expediency and duty of resisting every kind and description of securities as a condition of emancipation. After some prefatory observations, Mr. Sheil said :

"This is indeed a debate in which much of Ireland's weal is involved. It has drawn together a numerous assembly of the members of the Board: this room is crowded with men who, although they do not constitute a part of our body, are equally interested in its proceedings.*

"The learned mover bids me to remember that I have a religion to preserve-I hope that I shall never forget it—but does he remember that he has a country to obtain? It is, my Lord, with great reluctance that I enter upon the unfortunate topics which this resolution embraces. But let not the fault be imputed to me-let all the consequences which may result from this discussion rest upon the head of him who has introduced the debate.

* Amongst others who were present, was General Mathew, M.P. for Tipperary, to whose popularity Mr. Sheil in passing paid a just tribute.

It is he who breaks our unanimity. There are many who have assented to the general tenor of our measures, because they thought it better to sacrifice their individual opinions than to dissolve our union. But there is an extreme to which they ought not to be driven. If reason be hunted down by the learned Doctor, reason will turn back and defend herself. Why has he roused this disastrous subject from that oblivious sepulchre where it had enjoyed repose? Why has he, in place of stanching the bleeding of the ulcered wound, why has he torn away its bandages, and, in the spirit of experimental adventure, probed it to the bottom? Why, instead of allowing the arrow to extricate itself, has he poisoned it with new resentments, barbed it with new jealousies, and driven it deeper into the heart? I shall begin by agreeing with the learned Doctor, that nothing can be more absurd than to insist upon securities as a condition of our emancipation. We have already afforded the best securities. The thousands of our countrymen who have perished in the cause of Britain-the battles of which Ireland has paid the bloody price, and of which England has won the renown-these are the glorious evidences of our loyalty. We have endeavoured to appease the irritated genius of the British constitution with the libations of our blood: we have been true to the state even in our servitude. They ask us for a pledge that we shall be faithful to ourselves when we are free. Against what are securities to guard? Against foreign influence? What can give it an operation? Popular Discontent-it is the conductor through which it passes; remove it, and that influence can no longer reach us. Besides, there is no connexion between Catholic emancipation and Catholic securities. Catholic emancipation acts upon the laity— securities upon the clergy. The clergy are to remain in the same state after emancipation, as they are now placed in; how, then, does it happen that securities will be necessary then, and are not necessary now? But, it will be asked, if this is the case, why have our advocates in Parliament entreated us to make these concessions? Why have Lords Wellesley and Castlereagh-why