fastly refused to act with ministers who continued to oppose them, it may be doubted whether any competent ministry could much longer have been formed upon a rigorous policy of exclusion. The influence of the crown and church might, for some time, have sustained such a ministry: but the inevitable conflict of principles would sooner have been precipitated. Catholic claims, 1812-13. Alarmed by the improved position of the Catholic question in Parliament, the clergy and strong Protestant party hastened to remonstrate against concession. The Catholics responded by a renewal of their reiterated appeals. In February, 1813, Mr. Grattan, in Mr. Grattan's pursuance of the resolution of the previous sesmotion, sion, moved the immediate consideration of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, in a committee of the whole House. He was supported by Lord Castlereagh, and opposed by Mr. Peel. After four nights' debate, rich in maiden speeches, well suited to a theme which had too often tried the resources of more practised speakers, the motion was carried by a majority of forty.1 Feb. 25th, 1813. In committee, Mr. Grattan proposed a resolution affirming that it was advisable to remove the civil and mili March 9th, 1813. tary disqualifications of the Catholics, with such exceptions as may be necessary for preserving the Protestant succession, the church of England and Ireland, and the church of Scotland. Mr. Speaker Abbot, free, for the first time, to speak upon this question, opposed the resolution. It was agreed to by a majority of sixty-seven.2 The bill founded upon this resolution provided for the adMr. Grattan's mission of Catholics to either House of Parliabill, 1813. ment, on taking one oath, instead of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration and supremacy, and the declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints. On taking this oath, and without receiving the sacrament, Catho 1 Ayes, 264; Noes, 224. 2 Ayes, 186; Noes, 119. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiv. 747, 849, 879, 985. lics were also entitled to vote at elections, to hold any civil and military office under the crown, except that of lord chancellor or lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and any lay corporate office. No Roman Catholic was to advise the crown, in the disposal of church patronage. Every person exercising spiritual functions in the church of Rome was required to take this oath, as well as another, by which he bound himself to approve of none but loyal bishops; and to limit his intercourse with the pope to matters purely ecclesiastical. It was further provided, that none but persons born in the United Kingdom, or of British parents, and resident therein, should be qualified for the episcopal office.1 After the second reading,2 several amendments were introduced by consent, mainly for the purpose of establishing a government control over the Roman Catholic bishops, and for regulating the relations of the Roman Catholic church with the see of Rome. These latter provisions were peculiarly distasteful to the Roman Catholic body, who resented the proposal as a surrender of the spiritual freedom of their church, in exchange for their own civil liberties. -- 1813. The course of the bill, however, - thus far prosperous, was soon brought to an abrupt termination. The Bill defeated, indefatigable speaker, again released from his chair, May 24th, moved, in the first clause, the omission of the words, "to sit and vote in either House of Parliament ;" and carried his amendment by a majority of four.* The bill, having thus lost its principal provision, was immediately abandoned; and the Catholic question was nearly as far from a settlement as ever.5 1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxv. 1107; Peel's Mem., i. 354. 2 Ibid., xxvi. 171; Ayes, 245; Noes, 203. 8 The bill as thus amended is printed in Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 271. 4 Ibid., 312-361; Ayes, 247; Noes, 251; Grattan's Life, v. 489-495. 5 The speaker, elated by his victory, could not forbear the further satisfaction of alluding to the failure of the bill, in his speech to the Prince Regent, at the end of the session,- an act of indiscretion, if not disorder, which placed him in the awkward position of defending himself, in the chair, from a proposed vote of censure. From this embarrassment he was Roman cers' Relief Bill, 1813. Military and This session, however, was not wholly unfruitful of benefit to the Catholic cause. The Duke of Norfolk sucCatholic Offi- ceeded in passing a bill, enabling Irish Roman Catholics to hold all such civil or military offices in England, as by the Act of 1793 they were entitled to hold in Ireland. It removed one of the obvious anomalies of the law, which had been admitted in 1807 even by the king himself.1 This measure was followed, in 1817, by the Military and Naval Officers' Oaths Bill, which virtually opened all ranks in the army and navy to Roman Catholics and Dissenters.2 Introduced by Lord Melvilles imply as a measure of regulation, it escaped the animadversion of the Protestant party, ever on the watch to prevent further concessions to Catholics. A measure, denounced in 1807, as a violation of the constitution and the king's coronation oath, was now agreed to with the acquiescence of all parties. The church was no longer in1 danger: "no popery" was not even whispered. "It was some consolation for him to reflect," said Earl Grey, “that what was resisted, at one period, and in the hands of one man, as dangerous and disastrous, was adopted at another, and from a different quarter, as wise and salutary." In 1815, the Roman Catholic body in Ireland being at issue with their parliamentary friends, upon the question of "securities," their cause languished and declined. Nor, in the two following years, Catholic claims, 1815-1817. did it meet with any signal successes.5 delivered by the kindness of his friends, and the good feeling of the House, rather than by the completeness of his own defence. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 1224; Ibid., xxvii. 465; Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 453-458, 483496; Romilly's Life, iii. 133. 1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 639; 53 Geo. III. c. 128. 2 57 Geo. III. c. 92; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvi. 1208; Ibid., xl. 24; Butler's Hist. Mem., iv. 257. 3 June 10th, 1819; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1042. 4 May 18th and 30th; June 8th, 1815; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxi. 258, 474, 666. 5 May 21st and June 21st, 1816; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxiv. 655, 1239; In 1819, the general question of Catholic emancipation. found no favor in either House;1 and in vain Earl 1819. Grey submitted a modified measure of relief. He introduced a bill for abrogating the declarations against the Declaration doctrines of transubstantiation and the invocation against transubstantiaof saints, required to be taken 2 by civil and mil- tion, May, 25th, 1819. itary officers, and members of both Houses of Parliament. This measure was offered on the ground, that these declarations were simply tests of faith and doctrine, independent of any question of foreign spiritual supremacy. It had been admitted, on all hands, that no one ought to be excluded from office merely on account of his religious belief, — and that nothing would warrant such exclusion, but political tenets connected with religion which were, at the same time, dangerous to the state. The oath of supremacy guarded against such tenets; but to stigmatize purely religious doctrines as "idolatrous and superstitious," was a relic of offensive legislation, contrary to the policy of later times. As a practical measure of relief the bill was wholly inoperative; but even this theoretical legislation, this assertion of a principle without legal consequences, was resisted, as fraught with danger to the constitution; and the second reading of the bill was accordingly denied by a majority of fifty-nine.* Grattan. The weary struggle for Catholic emancipation survived its foremost champion. In 1820, Mr. Grattan was Death of about to resume his exertions in the cause, when death overtook him. His last words bespoke his earnest convictions and sincerity. "I wished," said he, "to go to the House of Commons to testify with my last breath my May 9th and 16th, 1817; Ibid., xxxvi. 301, 600; Mr. Grattan's motion on May 21st, 1816, was the only one carried - by a majority of 31. 1 Commons, May 4th, Ayes, 241; Noes, 213. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 6. Lords, May 17th, Contents, 106; Non-contents, 147. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 386. 2 By 25 Car. II. c. 2; and 30 Car. II. st. 2, c. 2. 8 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 748. 4 Contents, 82; Non-contents, 141. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1034. opinions on the question of Catholic emancipation: but I cannot. The hand of death is upon me." ... "I wish the question to be settled, because I believe it to be essential to the permanent tranquillity and happiness of the country, which are, in fact, identified with it." He also counselled the Catholics to keep aloof from the democratic agitations of that period.1 Mr. Plunket's The mantle of Mr. Grattan descended upon a fellowcountryman of rare eloquence and ability, Mr. Plunket, who had already distinguished himself in the same cause. His first efforts were of happy augury. In February, 1821, in a speech replete with learning, argument, and eloquence, he introduced the familiar motion for a committee on the Roman Catholic oaths, which was carried by a majority of six.2 His bill, founded upon the resolutions of this committee, provided for the abrogation of the declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints, and a legal interpretation of the oath of supremacy, in a sense not obnoxious to the consciences of Catholics. On the 16th of March the bill, after an animated debate, illustrated by one of Mr. Canning's happiest efforts, and generally characterized by moderation, was read a second time, by a majority of eleven. In committee, provisions were introduced to regulate the relations of the Roman Catholic church with the state and with the see of Rome.5 And at length, on the 2d of April, the bill was read a third time, and passed by a majority of nineteen. The fate of Rejected by this measure, thus far successful, was soon determined in the House of Lords. The Duke of York stood forth as its foremost opponent, saying the Lords, April 16th and 17th, 1821. 1 Statement by Mr. Becher, June 14th, 1820; Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., i. 1065; Life of Grattan, by his Son, v. 541, 544, 549. 2 Ayes, 227; Noes, 221. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., iv. 961. 3 Ibid., 1066. 4 Ibid., 1269; Ayes, 254; Noes, 243. 5 Ibid., 1412-1489. 6 Ayes, 216; Noes, 197. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., iv. 1523. |