Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Disturbed state of Ire

land, 1822.

Roman
Catholic
Peers' Bill,
1822.

that "his opposition to the bill arose from principles which he had embraced ever since he had been able to judge for himself, and which he hoped he should cherish to the last day of his life." After a debate of two days, the second reading of the bill was refused by a majority of thirty-nine.1 Before the next session, Ireland was nearly in a state of revolt; and the attention of Parliament was first occupied with urgent measures of repression, an Insurrection Bill, and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Catholic question was now presented in a modified and exceptional form. A general measure of relief having failed again and again, it occurred to Mr. Canning that there were special circumstances affecting the disqualification of Catholic peers, which made it advisable to single out their case for legislation. And accordingly, in a masterly April 20th. speech, at once learned, argumentative, and eloquent, he moved for a bill to relieve Roman Catholic Peers from their disability to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Peers had been specially exempted from taking Queen Elizabeth's oath of supremacy, because the queen was "otherwise sufficiently assured of the faith and loyalty of the temporal lords of her high court of parliament."2 The Catholics of that order had, therefore, continued to exercise their right of sitting in the Upper House unquestioned, until the evil times of Titus Oates. The Act of 30 Charles II. was passed in the very paroxysm of excitement, which marked that period. It had been chiefly directed against the Duke of York, who had escaped from its provisions; and was forced upon the Lords by the earnestness and menaces of the Commons. Eighteen Catholic Peers had been excluded by it, of whom five were under arrest on charges of treason; and one, Lord Stafford, was attainted in the judgment of history and posterity unjustly. "It was passed under the same delusion, was forced through the House of Lords with the same

[ocr errors]

1 Contents, 120; Non-contents, 159. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., v. 220, 279. 25 Eliz. c. 1, s. 17.

impulse, as it were, which brought Lord Stafford to the block." It was only intended as a temporary Act; and with that understanding was assented to by the king, as being "thought fitting at that time." Yet it had been suffered to continue ever since, and to deprive the innocent descendants of those peers of their right of inheritance. The Act of 1791 had already restored to Catholic peers their privilege of advising the crown, as hereditary councillors, of which the Act of Charles II. had also deprived them; and it was now sought to replace them in their seats in Parliament. In referring to the recent coronation, to which the Catholic peers had been invited, for the first time for upwards of 130 years, he pictured, in the most glowing eloquence, the contrast between their lofty position in that ceremony, and their humiliation in the senate, where "he who headed the procession of the peers to-day, could not sit among them as their equal on the morrow." Other Catholics might never be returned to Parliament; but the peer had the inherent hereditary right to sit with his peers; and yet was personally and invidiously excluded on account of his religion. Mr. Canning was opposed by Mr. Peel, in an able and temperate argument, and supported by the accustomed power and eloquence of Mr. Plunket. It was obvious that his success would carry the outworks, if not the very citadel, of the Catholic question; yet he obtained leave to bring in his bill by a majority of five.1

[ocr errors]

He carried the second reading by a majority of twelve; 2 after which he was permitted, by the liberality of Mr. Peel, to pass the bill through its other stages, without opposition. But the Lords were still inexorable. Their stout Protestantism was not to be beguiled even by sympathy for their own order; and they refused a second reading to the bill, by a majority of forty-two.*

1 Ayes, 249; Noes, 244. Hans. Deb.. 2d Ser., vii. 211.
2 Ibid., 475.
8 lbid., 673.

4 Ibid., 1216; Court and Cabinets of Geo. IV., i. 306.

the Catholic

After so many disappointments, the Catholics were losing patience and temper. Their cause was supported Position of by the most eminent members of the government; question in yet was it invariably defeated and lost. Neither 1823. argument nor numbers availed it. Mr. Canning was secretary of state for foreign affairs and leader of the House of Commons, and Mr. Plunket attorney-general for Ireland. But it was felt that so long as Catholic emancipation continued to be an open question, there would be eloquent debates, and sometimes a promising division, but no substantial redress. In the House of Commons, one secretary of state was opposed to the other; and in the House of Lords, the premier and the chancellor were the foremost opponents of every measure of relief. The majority of the cabinet, and the great body of the ministerial party, in both Houses, were adverse to the cause. This irritation burst forth on the presentation of petitions, before a motion of Mr. April 17th, Plunket's. Sir Francis Burdett first gave ex- 1823. pression to it. He deprecated "the annual farce," which trifled with the feelings of the people of Ireland. He would not assist at its performance. The Catholics would obtain no redress, until the government were united in opinion as to its necessity. An angry debate ensued, and a fierce passage of arms between Mr. Brougham and Mr. Canning. At length, Mr. Plunket rose to make his motion; when Sir Francis Burdett, accompanied by Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Grey Bennet, and several other members of the opposition, left the House. Under these discouragements Mr. Plunket proceeded with his motion. At the conclusion of his speech, the House becoming impatient, refused to give any other members a fair hearing; and after several divisions, ultimately agreed, by a majority of upwards of two hundred, to an adjournment of the House.1 This result, however unfavorable to the immediate issue of the Catholic question, was yet a significant warning that so important a measure could not much longer be discussed as an open question.

1 Ayes, 313; Noes, 111. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., viii. 1070–1123.

Lord Nugent's bill, May 28th,

1823.

A smaller measure of relief was next tried in vain. Lord Nugent sought to extend to English Catholics the elective franchise, the commission of the peace, and other offices to which Catholics in Ireland were admissible by the Act of 1793. Mr. Peel assented to the justice and moderation of this proposal.1 The bill was afterwards divided into two,2— the one relating to the elective franchise, and the other to the magistracy and corporate offices. In this shape they were agreed to by the Commons, but both miscarried in the House of Lords. In the following year, they were revived in the House of Lords by Lord Lansdowne, with no better success, though supported by five cabinet ministers.5

1819-1827.

Mr. W.
Smith's bill,
April 18th,
1822.

Ineffectual attempts were also made, at this period, to amend the law of marriage, by which Catholics Marriage law amendment, and dissenters were alike aggrieved. In 1819, and again in 1822, Mr. William Smith presented the case of dissenters, and particularly of Unitarians. Prior to Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, dissenters were allowed to be married in their own places of worship; but under that Act the marriages of all but Jews and Quakers were required to be solemnized in church, by ministers of the establishment, and according to its ritual. At that time the Unitarians were a small sect, and had not a single place of worship. Having since prospered and multiplied, they prayed that they might be married in their own way. They were contented, however, with the omission from the marriage service, of passages relating to the Trinity; and Mr. Smith did not venture to propose a more rational and complete relief, the marriage of dissenters

in their own chapels."

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., ix. 573.

2 Ibid., 1031.

[ocr errors]

8 Ibid., 1341.

4 Ibid., 1476; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 292, 299.

5 May 24th, 1824; Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 817, 842; Lord Colchester's

Diary, iii. 326.

6 June 16th, 1819; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1200, 1503.

7 Hans. Deb., 2d. Ser., vi. 1460.

In 1823, the Marquess of Lansdowne proposed a more comprehensive measure, embracing Roman Catho- Lord Lanslics as well as dissenters, and permitting the sol- June 12th, emnization of their marriages in their own places 1823.

downe's bill,

of worship. The chancellor, boasting "that he took as just a view of toleration as any noble Lord in that House could do," yet protested against "such mighty changes in the law of marriage." The Archbishop of Canterbury regarded the measure in a more liberal spirit; and merely objected to any change in the church service, which had been suggested by Lord Liverpool. The second reading of the bill was refused by a majority of six.1

1824.

In the following session, relief to Unitarians was again sought, in another form. Lord Lansdowne intro- Unitarian duced a bill enabling Unitarians to be married in marriages. their own places of worship, after publication of bans in church and payment of the church fees. This Lord Lansproposal received the support of the Archbishop downe's bill, April 2d, of Canterbury and the Bishop of London: but May 4th, the chancellor, more sensitive in his orthodoxy, denounced it as "tending to dishonor and degrade the church of England." To the Unitarians he gave just offence, by expressing a doubt whether they were not still liable to punishment, at common law, for denying the doctrine of the Trinity. The bill passed the second reading by a small majority but was afterwards lost on going into committee, by a majority of thirty-nine.

2

8

Dr. Phillimore, with no better success, brought in another bill to permit the solemnization of marriages be- Roman Cathtween Catholics, by their own priests, still retaining the publication of bans or licenses, and the 13th, 1824.

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., ix. 967.

[ocr errors]

2 See also Rex v. Curl, Strange, 789; State Tr., xvii. 154.

olic marriages, April

[ocr errors]

3 Haus. Deb., 2d Ser., xi., 75, 434; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 512. Mr. C. Wynn, writing to the Duke of Buckingham, May 6th, 1824, said: "You will, I am sure, though you doubted the propriety of the Unitarian Marriage Act, regret the triumphant majority of the intolerant party, who

« AnteriorContinuar »