lled upon the house to turn
the materials of discord into strength, and to imitate the skilful and
benevolent physician, who from deadly herbs extracted healing balms, and
made that the means of health which others, less able, or less good,
used for the purposes of destruction.

Of all declaimers against the bill, Sir Charles Wetherell, the
attorney-general, was the most violent. He had refused to draw up this
bill in his official capacity; but he still remained in office, under a
minister who was understood to have made implicit submission to his
word of command the tenure by which office was to be held. Knowing
that nothing but the difficulty of supplying his place prevented his
discharge, he delivered a speech of defiance to his colleagues in
office, which produced a great impression in the house and throughout
the country. In explaining his objection to frame this bill, he
said,--"When my attention was drawn to the framing of this bill, I
felt it my duty to look over the oath taken by the lord chancellor,
as well as that taken by the attorney-general; and it was my judgment,
right or wrong, that, when desired to frame this bill, I was called to
draw a bill subversive of the Protestant church, which his majesty
was bound by his coronation-oath to support. If his majesty chose to
dispense with the obligations of the coronation-oath, he might do so;
but I would do no act to put him in jeopardy. These are the grounds on
which I refused, and would refuse a hundred times over, to put one line
to paper of what constitutes the atrocious bill now before the house.
Hundreds of those who now listen to me must remember the able,
valuable, and impressive speech delivered two years ago by the present
lord-chancellor, then master of the rolls, and a member of this house.
It will also be in the recollection of hundreds that that eminent
individual, than whom none is more acute in reasoning, more classical
in language, and more powerful in delivery, quarrelled with the late
Mr. Canning on this very subject. Am I then to blame for refusing to
do that, in the subordinate office of attorney-general, which a more
eminent adviser of the crown, only two years ago, declared he would not
consent to do? Am I, then, to be twitted, taunted, and attacked? I
dare them to attack me. I have no speech to eat up. I have no apostasy
disgracefully to explain. I have no paltry subterfuge to resort to. I
have not to say that a thing is black one day and