Lord Donoughmore's motion, April 21st, 1812. Thus fortified, motions in support of the Catholic claims were renewed in both Houses; and being now free from any implication of censure upon the government, were offered under more favorable auspices. That of the Earl of Donoughmore, in the House. of Lords, elicited from the Duke of Sussex an elaborate speech in favor of the Catholic claims, which His Royal Highness afterwards edited with many learned notes. Who that heard the arguments of Lord Wellesley and Lord Grenville, could have believed that the settlement of this great question was yet to be postponed for many years? Lord Grenville's warning was like a prophecy. "I ask not," he said, "what in this case will be your ultimate decision. It is easily anticipated. We know, and it has been amply shown in former instances, the cases of America and of Ireland have but too well proved it, how precipitately necessity extorts what power has pertinaciously refused. We shall finally yield to these petitions. No man doubts it. Let us not delay the concession, until it can neither be graced by spontaneous kindness, nor limited by deliberative wisdom." The motion was defeated by a majority of seventy-two.1 Mr. Grattan proposed a similar motion in the House of Commons, in a speech more than usually earnest motion, and impassioned. In this debate, Mr. Brougham raised his voice in support of the Catholic cause, Mr. Grattan's April 23d, 1812. a voice ever on the side of freedom.2 And now Mr. Canning supported the motion, not only with his eloquence, but with his vote; and continued henceforth one of the foremost advocates of the Catholic claims. After two nights' debate Mr. Grattan's motion was submitted to the vote of an un usual number of members, assembled by a call of the House, and lost by a majority of eighty-five. 8 1 Contents, 102; Non-contents, 174. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxii. 509703. The House divided at five in the morning. 2 Mr. Brougham had entered Parliament in 1810. 8 Ayes, 215; Noes, 300. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxii. 728, 860. The House adjourned at half-past six in the morning. But this session promised more than the barren triumphs of debate. On the death of Mr. Perceval, the Marquess of Wellesley, being charged with the formation of a new administration, assumed, as the very basis of his negotiation, the final adjustment of the Catholic claims. The negotiation. failed, indeed;1 but the Marquess and his friends, encour aged by so unprecedented a concession from the throne, sought to pledge Parliament to the consideration of this question in the next session. First, Mr. Canning, in Mr. Canthe House of Commons, gained an unexampled ning's victory. For years past, every motion favorable 22d, 1812. to this cause had been opposed by large majorities; but now his motion for the consideration of the laws affecting His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, was carried by the extraordinary majority of one hundred and twenty-nine.2 motion, June lesley's mo Shortly after this most encouraging resolution, the Marquess of Wellesley made a similar motion in the Lord WelHouse of Lords, where the decision was scarcely tion, July less remarkable. The lord chancellor had moved 1st, 1812. the previous question, and even upon that indefinite and evasive issue, the motion was only lost by a single vote.1 The Catholic an open in 1812. Another circumstance, apparently favorable to the cause, was also disclosed. The Earl of Liverpool's administration, instead of uniting their whole force disabilities against the Catholic cause, agreed that it should question be an 66 open question; " and this freedom of action, on the part of individual members of the government, was first exercised in these debates. The introduction of this new element into the contest was a homage to the justice and reputation of the cause; but its promises were illusory. Had the statesmen who espoused the Catholic claims stead1 Supra, Vol. I. 109. 2 Ayes, 235; Noes, 129. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 633-710. 8 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 711, 814. 4 Non-contents, 126; Contents, 125. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 814 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. motion, 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, of the resolution of the previous sesMr. Grattan's in pursuance 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 8 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. The course of the bill, however, thus far prosperous, 1813. 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 lbid., 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. Bill, 1817. This session, however, was not wholly unfruitful of benefit to the Catholic cause. The Duke of Norfolk sucCatholic Off-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 Military and Naval Offiall ranks in the army and navy to Roman Cathcers' Oaths olics 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 in 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 " 8 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; |