THE words of Mr. Peel, in stating to the House of Commons the measures of Government, are taken from the Times Papers, March 6 and 7.

Mr. Peel" had been called upon to state the reasons why he now advised a course to which he had hitherto been opposed; and would attempt to make out his case, to convince those who differed from him of their error; and to satisfy the country, that there was more evil than advantage in continuing the present. system." He should rather have proved, that the system he proposed was less fraught with evil, than the one whose continuance he alleges, and does not prove, to be attended with more evil than advantage. "The outline of his argument was this: We are placed in a position in which we cannot remainsomething must be done-we cannot remain stationary-there is that degree of evil in divided Councils, and a disunited Cabinet, which can no longer be suffered to continue;" therefore the Cabinet is to be unanimous in favour of Papists. "If an united Government ought to be formed; when formed, it will have the choice of one of two courses, and only of two:" but this does not follow, and is hastily said. "It must either grant the Papists further political liberties, or retract those which have already been granted them: it must either remove those barriers which obstruct the flow of the waters which are pressing on the Institutions of this country, or must throw back the current which has now set in." Metaphors are bad arguments: the barriers might be strengthened, or changed in position; the current might be diverted, or stopped at the fountainhead. The present system might work well, when in proper hands.

G

ments of public cancer tea

ANSWER-M Pee's sove i z reet eivale

the bare facta e a ate N De a

not objected against um.

That under his responsibility in e

his course, makes nothing if tself or as resent es sures; which are in themselves inconsistent and nerve i the Papists believe the Creed of us he 27the strat of his course may yet, under his cramstances naken ver of himself as a man, not as a statesman: sich & hange of vimen is not indeed to be called apostacy, all his natives are known. and found what they should not have been.

knowledge of the learned must bow before the force of the vulgar; the experience of many ages give way to the folly of one. True wisdom in this respect, from whatever source it is borrowed, consists not in encouraging far-sighted fears, or in maintaining a blind indifference to real ones; but, rather, in the rarer act of conceding to liberty where its demands are safe, or in checking its encroachments when they are dangerous. Mr. Davison's experience from history, leads him to conclude that the spirit of liberty should be let go to work without controul. The inference from academical study surely is in a form with which the University bring us to be conversant. Whatever is dangerous, must be guarded. The spirit of liberty is dangerous; and therefore the spirit of liberty must be guarded; and it will not, we hope, be let go. The sons of liberty, especially in elder and ruder days, may have forced even wisdom's children to act against their better principles; but they have not persuaded them, after all, that foolish liberty was better, or better entitled to be called liberty than a state of wise controul. It is not desirable, therefore, that we should learn from the one what they had no intention to teach us; or that we should be convinced by the other of that which nothing but an overpowering necessity can warrant us in conceding. "I know the risk of the alternative: but I know and calculate also the risks of the concession: I know that every concession has been met by larger demands in bolder tones: I know that for every step which we have receded, the Roman Catholics of Ireland have advanced with louder outcries: I see that our only human safety is in our own unshrinking firmness."-Inglis, 154.

"XXXII. Whether the erection of the United States of Holland, and of America, may not teach us something."

ANSWER.

We may not defer either to history or to our fears, when they advise us against our duty.

REMARKS.

Our past mismanagement of other countries, must not lead us to suppose that there is only one way of mismanaging our dependents. It has never been the part of a large and judicious mind, to imagine that a principle, however hardly learned at first, is, on that account, of universal application afterwards. By nature, as well as by cultivation, the United States of Holland and of America were circumstanced very differently from Ireland. The true lesson we are taught by the examples alluded to, does not go beyond shewing the importance, in a Civil as well as moral view, of acting out of regard to our fellows, if we would pay a wise regard to ourselves. We were selfish: it does not therefore follow we should now be weak. Grown men have been lost for lack of convenient food; yet we may still keep on our guard, lest we indulge children to surfeit and intoxication.

"XXXIII. Whether the views of Government which have been heretofore applied to Ireland do not remind us of the mistakes of our policy towards America."

ANSWER.-The two may be confounded; but they are not justly connected, in our mind.

REMARKS.

In the opinion of impartial judges, our conduct towards America was at once vacillating and vexatious: and, with respect to that country, the views of Government were more questionable and if just, far more difficult of execution. The complaints of America were founded on property and the general interests of her people; while those of Ireland are founded on superstition, and the partial interests of her priesthood and demagogues. Representatives from America would have rejoiced in the harmony of our Constitution: Papists from Ireland would create there a disturbance and discord which would end in its destruction.