CHAPTER I.

THE election of a Burgess to represent in Parliament the University of Oxford, was to commence at noon on Thursday Feb. 26, 1829. About nine that morning, a large sheet of letter-paper, printed on four sides, was thrown into active circulation, containing thirty-eight Considerations calculated to work in favour of Mr. Peel, and what is called "The Emancipation of Papists," subscribed by Mr. Davison, late Fellow of Oriel College and dated, not Oxford, but Upton-upon-Severn; not Feb. 26, but Feb. 23. These Considerations were stated, at the beginning of them, " to be respectfully submitted to the Members of Convocation, as expressing the opinion of the individual who submitted them, upon the subject which then engaged their attention." It was not stated whether that subject were the return of their Burgess, or the concession of Civil Power to Papists; or the two subjects made one, by the amalgam of party spirit.

These thirty-eight Considerations were, in the second edition published on Friday the 27th of February, made into forty, by a division into four of the two originally numbered 28 and 30: and on the title-page were called, "Considerations on the Justice and Wisdom of conciliatory measures towards Ireland; addressed to the Electors of the University of Oxford, by John Davison, B.D., late Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford. Sold by J. Parker, Oxford; and C. & J. Rivington, London."

The first surprise to myself, who so much respect Mr. Davison, was, that these Considerations, so called, should in reality be so many questions: the second, that these questions

B

were not answerable by simple facts; but were arguments in masquerade, adroitly drawn up; and so skilfully put, as to supply any faltering voter with a plausible justification. It is evident, that a Socratic system of questioning is admirably calculated to embarrass an opponent, and is not at all calculated to give him information, or to serve the cause of truth. If this fashion of argument by questioning were adopted systematically, it would lead the questioner towards a state of proud and selfish confidence; and would not lead the respondents to that meek and teachable conviction, which is the best security for promptitude of action in the hour of need, and for change of opinion under any future circumstances when it might appear advisable; a tone of feeling which tends to give men the comfort of being persuaded in their own minds, so that their present strength may be in quietness and in confidence, while it leaves them as open to reasonable arguments as the greatest doubter could possibly have been. A leading question, where it is to take any effect as such, implies a purpose to bias the belief of the respondent without argument, and is not even addressed to his independent judgment, and applies itself readily to his indolence, pride, prejudice, or other such wrong principle. The shew of reasoning in these questions was often dependent upon the combination of propositions, some of them true, some of them untenable, and some of them occasionally begging the question at issue there were also epithets so important as to require distinct notice; so that any answer which should meet the whole question would most probably be tedious; and certainly so long, that the electors, during the fever of the contest, were not likely to give these long answers their attention, even if such long answers in themselves deserved it, and, deserving it, could be printed before the end of the contest. There was a reasonable expectation that the poll would close on Saturday; and some difficulties might well occur in finding a press at liberty. The opportunity for publishing these Considerations was excellent; and they were rendered palatable to many, but irresistible

to more, by an admixture of sarcasm, or irony at least: but all irony, and, much more, all sarcasm, is painful to earnest inquirers after truth, and profitable to a bad cause in a way that furthers the cause to the moral injury of the deluded supporters it so gains.

Mr. Davison well knows, that an example is not ever an argument, even under exactly similar circumstances; and that examples may be produced to justify any folly under the sun. Yet he adduced examples, as "so many instances to shew" the truth of his conclusions. (See Considerations 22, 23, 31, 32, 33.) If examples could have been arguments, all the conditions under which only they could become such, in any degree, were wanting; and Mr. Davison should have known they were wanting in the present case. Many of the Considerations cannot stand the touchstone (Con. 1, 2, 10, 13): others betray too much of the advocate; and some may justly be treated as sophisms, capable of misleading those who were already balancing so difficult a question; who were using the high character of Mr. Peel as an excuse for their want of diligence to examine the subject for themselves, and a cloak for their conscious vacillation, until it might suit them to wear it as a livery, and throw off the gown of their freedom: (Con. 3, 5, 6, 11, 15, 18, 19.)

I felt what is here stated, the moment I had read Mr. Davison's Considerations; and in the conviction that his equals would then be otherwise engaged, and could not spare time to publish any reply to him, deemed it my duty to make the attempt myself. There were some remarks too much bordering upon levity in my first Reply; and some hasty questions retorted upon Mr. Davison, which I have struck out from this edition; and beg him to accept such an apology as that striking out implies: it is the best I can make. To the arguments involved in his Considerations, I think the following pages supply the materials of a full answer: and I have thought it fairer to reprint Mr. Davison's Considerations in his own words, than to incorporate

them in my Replies. These Replies are now reprinted; and the only alteration in them is made by correcting their tone, and changing what were questions into positive statements. The Remarks that follow each Reply are intended to take up Mr. Davison's arguments more in detail, and to bring before any reader such observations as seemed to me worth his attention.

It is painful to be obliged to publish anonymously; but if my name had been printed at the end of the first edition of my Replies to the Considerations, I felt that none but my own personal friends would have read them at that conjuncture. The Considerations are said to have had influence on many voters : and yet Mr. Davison has not stated why he himself voted for Mr. Peel. Mr. Davison has not said when Mr. Peel changed his opinions, or why: or upon what grounds, Mr. Peel allowed his friends to try whether the University would or would not follow his leading.

The Oxford Election is indeed over; but a higher question remains to be decided; and a determinate opinion on that question is most likely to have influenced the greater part of those who gave their votes to Mr. Peel, and were not connected with him by private friendship. How far, in a Constitution like that of Great Britain, the Cabinet Ministers should, as such, have seats in the respective Houses of Parliament, is a difficult question; and if they be to have seats at all, those in the House of Commons might hold their seats as Cabinet Ministers but it does not seem difficult to prove, that an individual high in office should not represent the University of Oxford; for his duty, as an adviser of the Crown, may seem to him a warrant for overruling his private opinions, and induce him to act in defiance of them, rather than resign his office in the State; for it is his duty to retain the higher situation. They who gain by his defection to himself, will applaud his manliness; and they who lose by it, will be filled with bitterness, while he himself must be sunk in no common

distress. It is not in general incumbent upon a Member of Parliament to resign his constituents, because he has changed his opinions. Who would be returned to Parliament under such a slavish condition, and fetter himself in the ignorance of his younger days? State-craft is a hard word, but it conveys a real and painful truth, as many British statesmen have felt; there are State secrets, which must be kept, at least for a season, May it henceforward be felt, that an office which imposes upon its holder higher duties than his station as Representative of the University of Oxford, disqualifies him for that station. It seems to me, that, upon political grounds, political power should not be conceded to Papists; and, waving every question directly concerning transubstantiation, or other such religious differences among Christians, a call should be made upon every more immediate servant of his Majesty, to deny that any other person is entitled to any temporal or spiritual dominion within this realm of Great Britain. A true Papist dare not call his soul his own, and is therefore incapable of governing himself or me. On the most important question, the English Papist is, in effect, a child in understanding, and should be taken care of, like other children in manner he is worse than a child, for his weakness is voluntary. He chooses darkness; and why he does not come to the light, is best known to himself. It is true, that, indirectly, the objection lies against his religion, but not as religion: if the tendency of any religion be to keep or make its sincere professors weak or wicked men, the State may surely prefer other characters for its legislators and governors. By wicked is meant, not conformable to their Maker's revealed will and image. If spiritual dominion have no important` meaning, every man is deprived of every reason for refusing to deny it to the Pope. If it have any meaning, it can only work by means of temporal things; and Protestants must not admit into Government a foreign and undefined power, of the nature and extent of which they only know that it will work in the same manner as any temporal power, and with at least equal influence.