Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

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. 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 follow

ing 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.

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.

June 12th,

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

April 2d,

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, 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.

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

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

- still re

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

olic marriages, April

8 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

payment of fees to the Protestant clergymen. Such a change in the law was particularly desirable in the case of Catholics, on grounds distinct from toleration. In the poorer parishes, large numbers were married by their own priests: their marriages were illegal, and their children, being illegitimate, were chargeable upon the parishes in which they were born.1 This marriage law was even more repugnant to principles of toleration, than the code of civil disabilities. It treated every British subject, whatever his faith,member of the church of England; ignored all religious differences; and imposed, with rigorous uniformity, upon all communions alike, the altar, the ritual, the ceremonies, and the priesthood of the state. And under what penalties? celibacy, or concubinage and sin!

as a

Three years later, Mr. W. Smith renewed his measure, in a new form. It permitted Unitarian dissenters, after the publication of bans, to be married before

Unitarian marriages, 1827.

[ocr errors]

a magistrate, thus reviving the principle of a civil contract, which had existed before Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1752. This bill passed the Commons; 2 but failed in the Lords, by reason of the approaching prorogation. And the revision of the law of marriage was left to await a more favorable opportunity.*

Lord Lansdowne's Catholic relief bills, May 24th, 1824.

8

In 1824, Lord Lansdowne vainly endeavored to obtain for English Catholics the elective franchise, the right to serve as justices of the peace, and to hold offices in the revenue.5 But in the same year Parliament agreed to one act of courtly acknowledgment to a distinguished Catholic peer. An Act was passed, not without opposition, to enable the Duke

Office of Earl
Marshal,

1824.

boast of it as a display of their strength, and a proof how little any power in the country can cope with them." — Court and Cabinets of Geo. I V., ii. 72, 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 408.

2 Ibid., xvii. 1343.

8 Ibid., 1407, 1426; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 520.

4 Infra, p. 392.

5 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 842; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 518.

Agitation in

1823-25.

of Norfolk to execute his hereditary office of Earl Marshal, without taking the oath of supremacy, or subscribing the declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints.1 Meanwhile, the repeated failures of the Catholic cause had aroused a dangerous spirit of discontent in Ireland. The Catholic leaders, despairing of success over Ireland, majorities unconvinced and unyielding, were appealing to the excited passions of the people; and threatened to extort from the fears of Parliament what they had vainly sought from its justice. To secure the peace of Ireland, the legislature was called upon, in 1825, to dissolve the Catholic Association: 2 but it was too late to check the progress of the Catholic cause itself, by measures of repression; and ministers disclaimed any such intention.

[ocr errors]

Burdett's

motion, Feb..

While this measure was still before Parliament, the discussion of the Catholic question was revived, on Sir Francis the motion of Sir Francis Burdett, with unusual spirit and effect. After debates of extraordinary 28th, 1825. interest, in which many members avowed their conversion to the Catholic cause, a bill was passed by the Commons, framing a new oath in lieu of the oath of supremacy, as a qualification for office; and regulating the intercourse of Roman Catholic subjects, in Ireland, with the see of Rome. On reaching the House of Lords, however, this bill met the same fate as its predecessors; the second reading being refused by a majority of forty-eight.5

With a view to make the Catholic Relief Bill more acceptable, and at the same time to remove a great elec- Irish 40s. freeholders, toral abuse, Mr. Littleton had introduced a meas- 1825.

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 1455, 1470, 1482; 5 Geo. IV. c. 109; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 326; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 521.

2 Supra, p. 206.

8 Feb. 28th, April 19th and 21st, May 10th, 1825.

4 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xii. 764, 1151; Ibid., xiii. 21, 71, 486. The second reading was carried by a majority of twenty-seven, and the third reading by twenty-one.

5 May 17th. Contents, 130; Non-contents, 178. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xiii. 662.

ure for regulating the elective franchise in Ireland. Respecting vested interests, he proposed to raise the qualification of 40s. freeholders; and to restrain the creation of fictitious voters, who were entirely in the power of their landlords. By some this bill was regarded as an obnoxious measure of disfranchisement; but being supported by several of the steadiest friends of Ireland, and of constitutional rights, its second reading was agreed to. When the Catholic Relief Bill, however, was lost in the House of Lords, this bill was at once abandoned.1

eson Gower's motion, April 29th, 1825.

In April of this year, Lord Francis Leveson Gower carLord F. Lev- ried a resolution, far more startling to the Protestant party than any measure of enfranchisement. He prevailed upon the Commons to declare the expediency of making provision for the secular Roman Catholic clergy, exercising religious functions in Ireland. It was one of those capricious and inconsequent decisions, into which the Commons were occasionally drawn in this protracted controversy, and was barren of results.

In 1827, the hopes of the Catholics, raised for a time by Mr. Canning's the accession of Mr. Canning to the head of death. affairs, were suddenly cast down by his untimely

death.

adminis

4

At the meeting of Parliament in 1828,8 the Duke of The Duke of Wellington's administration had been formed. Wellington's Catholic emancipation was still an open question; tration. but the cabinet, represented in one House by the Duke and in the other by Mr. Peel, promised little for the cause of religious liberty. If compliance was not to be expected, still less was such a government likely to be coerced by fear. The great soldier at its head retained, for a time, the command of the army; and no minister knew so well as

1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xiii. 126, 176, &c., 902.

2 Ayes, 205; Noes, 162. Ibid., 308.

8 Lord Goderich's ministry had been formed and dissolved during the

recess.

4 Peel's Mem., i. 12, 16.

« ForrigeFortsett »