whenever the Government carries that Act into effect. If the
Emancipation Act is never to be executed, why should it not be
repealed? I perfectly understand that an honest man may wish it
to be repealed. But I am at a loss to understand how honest men
can say, "We wish the Emancipation Act to be maintained: you who
accuse us of wishing to repeal it slander us foully: we value it
as much as you do. Let it remain among our statutes, provided
always that it remains as a dead letter. If you dare to put it
in force, indeed, we will agitate against you; for, though we
talk against agitation, we too can practice agitation: we will
denounce you in our associations; for, though we call
associations unconstitutional, we too have our associations: our
divines shall preach about Jezebel: our tavern spouters shall
give significant hints about James the Second." Yes, Sir, such
hints have been given, hints that a sovereign who has merely
executed the law, ought to be treated like a sovereign who
grossly violated the law. I perfectly understand, as I said,
that an honest man may disapprove of the Emancipation Act, and
may wish it repealed. But can any man, who is of opinion that
Roman Catholics ought to be admitted to office, honestly maintain
that they now enjoy more than their fair share of power and
emolument? What is the proportion of Roman Catholics to the
whole population of the United Kingdom? About one-fourth. What
proportion of the Privy Councillors are Roman Catholics? About
one-seventieth. And what, after all, is the power of a Privy
Councillor, merely as such? Are not the right honourable
gentlemen opposite Privy Councillors? If a change should take
place, will not the present Ministers still be Privy Councillors?
It is notorious that no Privy Councillor goes to Council unless
he is specially summoned. He is called Right Honourable, and he