1827.] The Catholics of Ireland. .18 



rous in a silk gown than in a stuff one ? The silk gown gives no title- 

 not even any claim to farther promotion. Judges and attorney gene- 

 rals are as commonly taken from the stuff gown as from the silk ; and the 

 advanced rank depends for its value entirely upon the man : for the silk 

 gown inevitably beggars any barrister, who has not sufficient public estima- 

 tion to support it. The real difference between the silk gown and the stuff 

 one is simply this that the gentleman who wears the first takes double 

 the amount of fee, upon any given brief, which is taken by the second. 

 And, although much general inconvenience is known to be sustained in 

 the course of legal business, by keeping any counsel behind the bar 

 whose popularity entitles him to promotion : it is difficult to perceive how 

 the tranquillity of a country can be interested, in compelling Mr. Donovan 

 to be content with half-a-crown, where Mr. O'Shaughnessy receives five 

 shillings ! 



Let us take for the next point the case of the Judgeships. Why 

 should we close against the Catholics (in England and Ireland together) 

 thirty places of honour and profit, which it is impossible to call parts of 

 direct political authority ? The office of Judge is to a lawyer an 

 honourable retreat from active labour ; it is a rank which stamps or 

 ought to stamp as meritorious the individual who receives it ; and it 

 has a pecuniary value of from four to eight thousand pounds a year. 

 There seems to be no reason why such an office should not be as compe- 

 tently filled by a person of one religious persuasion as by a person of 

 another ? The office of Judge embraces the performance of no political 

 duty, in the execution or neglect of which the security of the State 

 could be suddenly endangered ; and a sudden peril one which should 

 do much mischief at a blow, and before it can be checked or remedied- 

 is all that we are entitled, in the consideration of a question like this, to 

 guard against. And, for undue prejudice or partiality in private cases 

 suppose any such disposition likely to manifest itself how would it be 

 more difficult of correction and punishment in a Catholic Judge than ia 

 a Protestant one ? No one supposes the danger of misconduct from a 

 Protestant Judge throwing the country into insecurity or confusion* 

 We know that such conduct might and certainly would lead to the 

 ruin of the offender himself; but we should find it difficult to point out 

 any course by which it would be likely to be the ruin of the State. 



Then, for the third point of restriction which we propose to get rid of 

 the law which excludes Catholics from sitting in both Houses of Par- 

 liament we think that exclusion will be the most impracticable for 

 defence of all the three. In the first place, it is assumed by the oppo- 

 nents of Emancipation, that, if once Catholics were eligible to the 

 House of Commons, not a single Protestant member or at least scarcely 

 a single one would ever again be returned from Ireland. Now we do 

 not well understand from what data this consequence is inferred. When 

 one-half of the Protestant members of the House of Commons are 

 already voting in favour of the Catholics of Ireland, why is it so impos- 

 sible that wealth and character should continue (as they have always 

 done in elections) to maintain their sway ; and that some Catholics in 

 Ireland should vote in favour of Protestants, who had merit to deserve 

 their votes not to say any thing of power to command them ? We 

 hardly think too favourably of Irish stability, nor yet, wrecked as the 

 national character has been, too confidently of Irish principle ; but yet 



