Declaration substantia 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 doctrines of transubstantiation and the invocation against tranof 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, fraught with danger to the constitution; and the second reading of the bill was accordingly denied by a majority of fifty-nine.* was resisted, as 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 this measure, thus far successful, was soon determined in the House of Lords. The Duke of York stood forth as its foremost opponent, saying Rejected by 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. 8 Ibid., 1066. 4 Ibid., 1269; Ayes, 254; Noes, 243. 5 Ibid., 1412-1489. 6 Ayes, 216; Noes, 197. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., iv. 1523. Disturbed state of Ire land, 1822. 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 Roman general measure of relief having failed again and Catholic 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 "It was passed under the same delusion, was forced through the House of Lords with the same posterity unjustly. 1 Contents, 120; Non-contents, 159. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., v. 220, 279. 2 5 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 obvi ous 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 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. 8 Ibid., 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. 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. |