Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1

general acquiescence of all parties; and the bill now proceeded through the House, without further opposition.2

the Lords, April 17th. 1828.

In the House of Lords, the Archbishop of York, expressing the opinion of the primate as well as his own, The bill in "felt bound, on every principle, to give his vote for the repeal of an Act which had, he feared, led, in too many instances, to the profanation of the most sacred ordinance of our religion." "Religious tests imposed for political purposes must in themselves be always liable, more or less, to endanger religious sincerity." His grace accepted the proposed declaration as a sufficient security for the church. The bill was also supported, in the same spirit, by the Bishops of Lincoln, Durham, and Chester.

But there were lay peers, more alive to the interests of the church than the bench of bishops. Lord Winchelsea foresaw dangers, which he endeavored to avert by further securities; and Lord Eldon denounced the entire principle of the bill. He had little expected "that such a bill as that proposed would ever have been received into their Lordships' House;" and rated those who had abandoned their opposition to its progress in the Commons. This stout champion of the church, however, found no supporters to the emphatic "Not content," with which he encountered the bill; and its second reading was affirmed without a division.

In committee, the declaration was amended by the insertion of the words "on the true faith of a Chris- April 21st tian,"- —an amendment which pointedly excluded and 24th. the Jews, and gave rise to further legislation, at a later period. Some other amendments were also made. Lord 2 Ibid., 1330.

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xviii. 1180.

66

8 Ibid., 1450. Lord Eldon, in his private correspondence, called it “a most shameful bill,". as bad, as mischievous, and as revolutionary as the most captious dissenter could wish it to be." And again:-"The administration have, to their shame be it said, got the archbishops and most of the bishops to support this revolutionary bill."-Twiss's Life of Lord Eldon, iii. 37-45; Peel's Mem., i. 99.

4 On the third reading, Lord Holland desired to omit the words, but without success.

[blocks in formation]

Winchelsea endeavored to exclude Unitarians; and Lord Eldon to substitute an oath for a declaration, and to provide more effectual securities against the admission of Catholics; but these and other amendments, inconsistent April 28th. with the liberal design of the measure, were reMay 2d.

jected, and the bill passed.1 The Lords' amendments, though little approved by the Commons, were agreed to, in order to set this long-vexed question at rest by an act of enlightened toleration.

This measure was received with gratitude by dissenters; The Act and the grace of the concession was enhanced by passed. the liberality of the bishops, and the candor and moderation of the leading statesmen who had originally opposed it. The liberal policy of Parliament was fully supported by public opinion, which had undergone a complete revulsion upon this question. "Thirty years since," said Alderman Wood, "there were only two or three persons in the city of London favorable to the repeal: the other day, when the corporation met to petition for the repeal, only two hands were held up against the petition."

Catholic claims.

Sir Francis
Burdett's

motion, May 8th, 1828.

The triumph of dissenters was of happy augury to the Catholic claims, which in a few days were again presented by Sir Francis Burdett. The preponderance of authority as well as argument was undeniably in favor of the motion. Several conversions were avowed; and the younger members especially showed an increasing adhesion to the cause of religious liberty. After a debate of three nights, in which the principal supporters of the measure expressed the greatest confidence in its speedy triumph, the motion was carried by a majority of six. A resolution was agreed to, that it was expedient to consider the laws affecting Roman Catholics, with a view to a final and conciliatory adjustment. Resolutions of this

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xviii. 1571; xix. 39, 110, 156, 186.
2 Peel's Mem., i. 102.

8 Ayes, 272; Noes, 266. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xix. 375-675.

kind had, on former occasions, preceded the introduction of bills which afterwards miscarried; but Sir Francis Burdett resolved to avoid the repetition of proceedings, so tedious and abortive. This resolution was accordingly commu- June 9th, nicated to the Lords, at a conference.1 The Mar- 1828 quess of Lansdowne invited their Lordships to concur in this resolution, in a most forcible speech; and was supported in the debate by the Dukes of Sussex and Gloucester, by Lord Goderich, the Marquess of Londonderry, Lord Plunket, the Marquess of Wellesley, and other peers. It was opposed by the Duke of Cumberland, the powerful Chancellor, — Lord Lyndhurst, the ever-consistent Lord Eldon, the Duke of Wellington, and an overpowering number of speakers. After two nights' debate, the Lords refused to concur in this resolution, by a majority of forty-four.2

1828.

1828.

But while these proceedings seemed as illusory as those of former years, popular agitation was approach- State of ing a crisis in Ireland,3 which convinced the lead- Ireland, ing members of the administration that concessions could no longer be safely withheld. Soon after this discussion, an event of striking significance marked the Clare election, June power and determination of the Irish people. Mr. and July, Vesey Fitzgerald having vacated his seat for the county of Clare, on accepting office, found his reëlection contested by an opponent no less formidable than Mr. O'Connell. Under other circumstances, he could have confidently relied upon his personal popularity, his uniform support of the Catholic claims, his public services, and the property and influence which he enjoyed in his own county. But now all his pretensions were unavailing. The people were resolved that he should succumb to the champion of the Catholic

cause; and, after scenes of excitement and turbulence which

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xix. 680, 767.

2 Ibid., 1133, 1214.

3 Supra, p. 208.

4 Peel's Mem., i. 129.

threatened a disturbance of the public peace, he was signally defeated.1

Doubtful

Catholic

soldiers in

Catholic
Association.

Perhaps no one circumstance contributed more than this election, to extort concessions from the governfidelity of the ment. It proved the dangerous power and organization of the Roman Catholic party. A genIreland. eral election, while such excitement prevailed, could not be contemplated without alarm.2 If riots should occur, the executive were not even assured of the fidelity of Catholic soldiers, who had been worked upon by their priests. They could not be trusted against rioters of their own faith. The Catholic Association, however, continued to be the chief embarrassment to the government. It had made Ireland ripe for rebellion. Its leaders had but to give the word; but, believing their success assured, they were content with threatening demonstrations.* Out of an infantry force of 30,000 men, no less than 25,000 were held in readiness to maintain the peace of Ireland.5 Such was the crisis, that there seemed no alternative between martial law and the removal of the causes of discontent. Nothing but open rebellion would justify the one; and the Commons had, again and again, counselled the other."

1 Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald, writing to Sir R. Peel, July 5th, 1828, said:"I have polled all the gentry and all the fifty-pound freeholders, — the gentry to a man." . . . "All the great interests broke down, and the desertion has been universal. Such a scene as we have had! such a tremendous

prospect as it opens to us!"... "The conduct of the priests has passed all that you could picture to yourself."- Peel's Mem., i. 113.

2 Peel's Mem., i. 117-122, et seq.

"This business," wrote Lord Eldon, "must bring the Roman Catholic question, which has been so often discussed, to a crisis and a conclusion. The nature of that conclusion I do not think likely to be favorable to Protestantism." Twiss's Life, iii. 54.

[ocr errors]

3 Lord Anglesey's Letters, July 20th, 26th, 1828; Peel's Mem., i. 127, 158, 164.

4 Lord Anglesey's Letter, July 2d, 1828; Peel's Mem., i. 147; Ibid., 207, 243-262; supra, p. 209.

5 Peel's Mem., i. 293.

6 In each of "the five parliaments elected since 1807, with one exception, the House of Commons had come to a decision in favor of a consideration

relief ac

In the judgment of Mr. Peel, the settlement of the Catholic question had, at length, become a political Necessity of necessity; and this conviction was shared by the Catholic Duke of Wellington, the Marquess of Anglesey, knowledged by ministers. and Lord Lyndhurst.1 But how were ministers to undertake it? The statesmen who had favored Catholic claims had withdrawn from the ministry; and Lord Anglesey had been removed from the government of Ireland. It was reserved for the Protestant party in the cabinet, to devise a measure which they had spent their lives in opposing. They would necessarily forfeit the confidence, and provoke the hostility, of their own political adherents; and could lay no claim to the gratitude or good will of the Catholics.

[ocr errors]

But another difficulty, even more formidable, presented itself, a difficulty which, on former occasions, Repugnance had alone sufficed to paralyze the efforts of minis- of the king; ters. The king evinced no less repugnance to the measure than his "revered and excellent father" had displayed, nearly thirty years before; and had declared his determination not to assent to Catholic emancipation.*

8

The Duke of Wellington, emboldened by the success of Mr. Peel's former communications with the bishops and of the on the Sacramental Test, endeavored to persuade bishops. them to support concessions to the Catholics. Their concurrence would secure the coöperation of the church and the House of Lords, and influence the reluctant judgment of the of the Catholic question;" and Mr. Peel had long been impressed with the great preponderance of talent and influence on that side. Peel's Mem., i. 146; Ibid., 61, 288, 289.

1 Peel's Mem., i. 180, 181, 188, 284.

2 The circumstances of his removal were fully discussed in the House of Lords, May 4th, 1829.- Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xx. 990.

8 Peel's Mem., i. 274, 276. The king assured Lord Eldon that Mr. Canning had engaged that he would never allow his majesty "to be troubled about the Roman Catholic question." - Peel's Mem., i. 275. But Sir R. Peel expresses his conviction that no such pledge had been given by Mr. Canning (Ibid.); and even Lord Eldon was satisfied that the king's statement was unfounded. - Twiss's Life of Eldon, 82.

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »