The bill in April 2nd, 1829. eighty-eight. Such was the change which the sudden conversion of the government, and the pressure of circumstances, had effected in the opinions of Parliament. Meanwhile, the church and the Protestant party throughout the country, were in the greatest alarm and excitement. They naturally resented the sudden desertion of their cause, by ministers in whom they had confided.2 The press overflowed with their indignant remonstrances; and public meetings, addresses, and petitions gave tokens of their activity. Their petitions far outnumbered those of the advocates of the measure; and the daily discussions upon their presentation, served to increase the public excitement. The higher intelligence of the country approved the wise and equitable policy of the government: but there can be little question, that the sentiments of a majority of the people of Great Britain were opposed to emancipation. Churchmen dreaded it, as dangerous to their church; and dissenters inherited from their Puritan forefathers, a pious horror of Papists. But in Parliament, the union of the ministerial party with the accustomed supporters of the Catholic cause, easily overcame all opposition; and the bill was passed through its further stages, in the Commons, by large majorities.1 On the second reading of the bill, in the House of the Lords, Lords, the Duke of Wellington justified the measure, irrespective of other considerations, by the necessity of averting a civil war, saying; "If I could avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice my 1 Ayes, 348; Noes, 160. Deb., 2nd Ser., xx. 727-892. 2 Supra, p. 55. 3 See supra, Vol. I. 449. Hans. 4 On the second reading-Ayes, 353; Noes, 173. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xx. 1115-1290. On the third reading-Ayes, 320; Noes, 142. Ibid., 1633. ་ life in order to do it." He added, that when the Irish rebellion of 1798 had been suppressed, the Legislative Union had been proposed in the next year, mainly for the purpose of introducing this very measure of concession; and that had the civil war, which he had lately striven to avert, broken out, and been subdued,— still such a measure would have been insisted upon by one, if not by both Houses of Parliament. The bill was opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury,-Dr. Howley, in a judicious speech, in which he pointed out the practical evils to which the church and the Protestant religion might be exposed, by the employment of Roman Catholics as ministers of the crown, especially in the office of secretary of state. It was also opposed in debate by the Archbishops of York and Armagh, the Bishops of Durham and London, and several lay peers. But of the Protestant party, Lord Eldon was still the leader. Surrounded by a converted senate,―severed from all his old colleagues,-deserted by the peers who had hitherto cheered and supported him, he raised his voice against a measure which he had spent a long life in resisting. Standing almost alone among the statesmen of his age, there was a moral dignity in his isolation, which commands our respect. The bill was supported by Mr. Peel's constant friend, the Bishop of Oxford, the Duke of Sussex, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Goderich, Earl Grey, Lord Plunket, and other peers. The second reading was affirmed by a majority of one hundred and five.' The bill passed through committee without a single amendment and on the 10th of April the third reading was affirmed by a majority of one hundred and four.2 1 Contents, 217; Non-contents, 2 Contents, 213; Non-contents, 112. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xxi. 109. Ibid., 614-694. The Royal assent. Elective franchise Meanwhile the king, whose formal assent was still to be given, was as strongly opposed to the measure as ever; and even discussed with Lord Eldon the possibility of preventing its further progress, or of refusing his assent. But neither the king nor his old minister could seriously have contemplated so hazardous an exercise of prerogative; and the Royal assent was accordingly given, without further remonstrance.1 The time had passed, when the word of a king could overrule his ministers and Parliament. The third measure of the government still remains in Ireland. to be noticed, the regulation of the elective franchise in Ireland. The abuses of the 40s. freehold franchise had already been exposed; and were closely connected with Catholic emancipation." The Protestant landlords had encouraged the multiplication of small freeholds,being, in fact, leases held of middlemen,-in order to increase the number of dependent voters, and extend their own political influence. Such an abuse would, at any time, have demanded correction: but now these voters had transferred their allegiance from the landlord to the Catholic priest. "That weapon," said Mr. Peel, "which the landlord has forged with so much care, and has heretofore wielded with such success, has broke short in his hand." To leave such a franchise without regulation, was to place the county representation at the mercy of priests and agitators. It was therefore proposed to raise the qualification of a freeholder from 40s. to 10l., to require due proof of such qualification, and to introduce a system of registration. So large a measure of disfranchisement was, in itself, 1 Twiss's Life of Eldon, iii. 84, et seq. Court and Cabinets of Geo. IV., ii. 395, 2 Supra, p. 387; and Reports of Committees in Lords and Commons, 1825. open to many objections. It swept away existing rights without proof of misconduct or corruption, on the part of the voters. So long as they had served the purposes of Protestant landlords, they were encouraged and protected: but when they asserted their independence, they were to be deprived of their franchise. Strong opinions were pronounced that the measure should not be retrospective; and that the bonâ fide 40s. freeholders, at least, should be protected1: but the connection between this and the greater measure, then in progress, saved it from any effective opposition; and it was passed rapidly through both Houses. By one party, it was hailed as a necessary protection against the Catholic priests and leaders; and by the other, it was reluctantly accepted as the price of Catholic emancipation. Catholic April 28th, 1829. On the 28th April, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Roman Clifford, and Lord Dormer came to the House of Lords, and claimed their hereditary seats among their peers, from which they had been so long excluded; and were followed, a few days afterwards, by Lord Stafford, Lord Petre, and Lord Stourton. Respectable in the antiquity of their titles, and their own character, they were an honourable addition to the Upper House; and no one could affirm that their number was such as to impair the Protestant character of that assembly. nell and Mr. O'Connell, as already stated, had been returned Mr. O'Conin the previous year for the county of Clare: but the the Clare privilege of taking the new oath was restricted to election. members returned after the passing of the Act. That Mr. O'Connell would be excluded from its immediate benefit, had been noticed while the bill was in progress; 1 See especially the speeches of Mr. Huskisson, Viscount Palmerston, and the Marquess of Lansdowne, Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xx. 1373, 1468; xxi. 407, 574. 2 Ibid., xx. 1329. 3 Lords' Journ., lxi. 402, 408. i 18th. and there can be little doubt that its language had been framed for that express purpose. So personal an exclusion was a petty accompaniment of this great remedial measure. By Mr. O'Connell it was termed “an May 15th, outlawry" against himself. He contended ably, at the bar, for his right of admission: but the Act was too distinct to allow of an interpretation in his favour. Not May 19th, being permitted to take the new oath, and refusing, of course, to take the oath of supremacy, a new writ was issued for the county of Clare.1 Though returned again without opposition, Mr. O'Connell made his exclusion the subject of unmeasured invective; and he entered the House of Commons, embittered against those by whom he had been enfranchised. 21st. Emancipation too long deferred. Sequel of emancipation. At length this great measure of toleration and justice was accomplished. But the concession came too late. Accompanied by one measure of repression, and another of disfranchisement, it was wrung by violence, from reluctant and unfriendly rulers. Had the counsels of wiser statesmen prevailed, their political foresight would have averted the dangers before which the government, at length, had quailed. By rendering timely justice, in a spirit of conciliation and equity, they would have spared their country the bitterness, the evil passions, and turbulence of this protracted struggle. But thirty years of hope deferred, of rights withheld, of discontents and agitation, had exasperated the Catholic population of Ireland against the English government. They had overcome their rulers; and owing them no gratitude, were ripe for new disorders.2 Catholic emancipation, like other great measures, fell short of the anticipations, alike of supporters and opponents. The former were disappointed to observe the continued distractions of Ireland,-the fierce con 1 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xxi. 1395, 1459, 151. 2 See supra, p. 213. |