es shall
not be justified by the result, we can fight that battle against the
predominance of an intolerant religion more advantageously after this
measure shall have been passed than we could do at present. We shall
then have the sympathy of other nations; we shall have dissolved the
great moral alliance that existed among the Roman Catholics: we shall
have with us those great and illustrious authorities that long supported
this measure, and which will then be transferred to us, and ranged
upon our side: and I do not doubt that in that contest we shall be
victorious, aided as we shall be by the unanimous feeling of all classes
of society in this country, as demonstrated in the numerous petitions
presented to this house, in which I find the best and most real
securities for the maintenance of our Protestant constitution; aided, I
will add, by the union of orthodoxy and dissent, by the assenting voice
of Scotland; and, if other aid be necessary, cheered by the sympathies
of every free state, and by the wishes and prayers of every free man, in
whatever clime, or under whatever form of government he may live."

The motion was not very powerfully opposed. The principal speakers in
opposition were Sir Robert Inglis and Mr. Estcourt, the two members of
Oxford University. The chief argument used was an assumption that the
grant of equal privileges to Roman Catholics would be the destruction of
the Protestant establishment. With regard to Ireland, it was said that
discord and agitation were not new features in the condition of that
country; that they were not a result of the penal laws; and that they
would not cease on the removal of civil disabilities. As regarded the
fear of civil war, it was remarked that reliance ought to have been
placed on public opinion, and the moral determination of the British
people. At best, too, it was argued, the evil days would only be
postponed, and resistance to ulterior struggles rendered more difficult.
It was asked, with respect to the divided state of the cabinet, why the
Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, instead of changing their own line of
policy, did not rather attempt to bring over their colleagues to their
views, especially as they still confessed that there was danger in
granting Catholic emancipation. Ministers were also taunted with
conceding the question from intimidation; a fact which was evident in
the provisions, called securities, against the danger of admitting
the Catholics t