were wholly with the church. Believing penal laws to be necessary to her interests, they supported them, indifferently, against dissenters and Catholics. But the growing enlightenment of the time made the more reflecting statesmen, of all parties, revolt against some of the penal laws still in force against the Catholics. They had generally been suffered to sleep; but could, at any time, be revived by the bigotry of zealots, or the cupidity of relatives and informers. Several priests had been prosecuted for saying mass. Mr. Maloney, a priest, having been informed against, was unavoidably condemned to perpetual imprisonment. The government were shocked at this startling illustration of the law; and the king being afraid to grant a pardon, they ventured, on their own responsibility, to give the unfortunate priest his liberty.1 Another priest owed his acquittal to the ingenuity and tolerant spirit of Lord Mansfield.2 In many cases, Roman Catholics had escaped the penalties of the law, by bribing informers not to enforce them. Lord Camden had protected a Catholic lady from spoliation, under the law, by a private Act of Parliament.*

Relief Act, 1778.

To avert such scandals as these, and to redeem the law from the reproach of intolerance, Sir George Sa- Roman vile, in 1778, proposed a measure of relief for Catholic English Catholics. Its introduction was preceded by a loyal address to the king, signed by ten Catholic Lords and one hundred and sixty-three Commoners, giving assurance of their affection for His Majesty and attachment to the civil constitution of the country, and expressing sentiments calculated to conciliate the favor of Parliament and ministers. When it was explained that the penalties, imposed in 1700 and now to be repealed, were the perpetual imprisonment of priests for officiating in the services of their church, the for

1 Lord Shelburne's Speech, May 25th, 1773; Parl. Hist., xix. 1145; Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 276.

2 Holl., 176; Lord Campbell's Chief Justices, ii. 514.

8 Parl. Hist., xix. 1137-1145.

4 Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 284.

feiture of the estates of Roman Catholic heirs, educated abroad, in favor of the next Protestant heir, and the prohibition to acquire land by purchase,1 the bill was allowed to

be introduced without a dissentient voice; and was afterwards passed through both Houses, with general approbation.2 Such was the change in the feelings of the legislature, since the beginning of the century!

land, 1778.

But in its views of religious liberty, Parliament was far Riots in Scot- in advance of considerable classes of the people. The fanaticism of the Puritans was not yet extinct. Any favor extended to the Roman Catholics, however just and moderate, aroused its latent flames. This bill extended to England only. The laws of Scotland relating to Roman Catholics, having been passed before its union with England, required further consideration and a different form of treatment. The lord-advocate had, therefore, promised to introduce a similar measure, applicable to Scotland, in the ensuing session. But in the meantime, the violent fanatics of a country which had nothing to fear from Catholics, were alarmed at the projected measure. They had vainly endeavored to oppose the English bill, and were now resolved that, at least, no relief should be granted to their own fellowcountrymen. They banded together in "Protestant Associations;" and by inflammatory language incited the people to dangerous outrages. In Edinburgh, the mob destroyed two Roman Catholic chapels and several houses of reputed Papists. In Glasgow, there were no chapels to destroy; but the mob were able to show their zeal for religion, by sacking the factory of a Papist. The Roman Catholics trembled for their property and their lives. Few in numbers, they found little protection from Presbyterian magistrates; and were at the mercy of the rioters. Preferring indemnity for their losses, and immediate protection for their 1 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4.

2 Parl. Hist., xix. 1137-1145; 18 Geo. III. c. 60; Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 286-297.

8 Supra, p. 129.

persons, to a prospective relief from penal statutes, they concurred with the government in the postponement of the contemplated measure, till a more favorable occasion.1 March In an admirable petition to the House of Com- 18th, 1779. mons, they described the outrages which had been committed against them, and expressed their loyalty and attachment to the constitution. While they readily forbore to press for a revision of the penal statutes, they claimed a present compensation for the damages inflicted upon their property. Such compensation was at once promised by the government." The success of the fanatical rioters in Scotland, who had accomplished an easy triumph over the Roman Riots in LonCatholics and the government, encouraged the anti- don, 1780. Catholic bigotry of England. If it was wrong to favor Papists in Scotland, the recent English Act was also an error, of which Parliament must now repent. The fanatics found a congenial leader in Lord George Gordon; and the metropolis of England soon exceeded the two first cities of the North in religious zeal, and outrage. London was in flames, and Parliament invested by the mob, because some penalties against Roman Catholics, condemned by sober men of all parties, had lately been repealed. The insensate cry of "No Popery" resounded in the streets, in the midst of plunder and the torches of incendiaries.3

Petitions praying for the repeal of the recent Act were met by resolutions of the House of Commons, vindicating its provisions from misrepresentation. One unworthy concession, however, was made to the popular excitement. Sir George Savile, hitherto the foremost friend of toleration, consented to introduce a bill to restrain Papists from teaching the children of Protestants. It was speedily passed through the House of Commons.5 In the House of Lords, however,

1 March 15th, 1779; Parl. Hist., xx. 280; Ann. Reg., 1780, p. 26. 2 Parl. Hist., xx. 322.

8 See supra, p. 130.

4 June 20th, 1780; Parl. Hist., xxi. 713.

5 Parl. Hist., xxi. 726.

the lord chancellor inserted an amendment limiting the bill to boarding-schools; and this limitation, being afterwards opposed by the bishops, led to the loss of the bill.1

For several years, the grievances of Catholics were permitted to rest in oblivion; but the claims of Protestant dissenters to further toleration elicited ample discussion.

Corporation and Test Acts, 1787.

March 28th, 1787.

2

The grievances suffered by dissenters, under the Corporation and Test Acts, had not been urged upon Parliament since the days of Sir Robert Walpole; but in 1787, the time seemed favorable for obtaining redress. In Mr. Pitt's struggle with the coalition, the dissenters, having sided with the minister and contributed to his electoral triumphs, expected a recognition of their services at his hands. Having distributed a printed case, in which the history and claims of nonconformists were ably Mr. Beaufoy's stated, they intrusted their cause to Mr. Beaufoy, motion, who moved for a bill to repeal the Corporation and Test Acts. He showed how the patriotism of a nonconformist soldier might be rewarded with penalties and proscription; and how a public-spirited merchant would be excluded from municipal offices, in the city which his enterprise had enriched, unless he became an apostate from his faith. The annual indemnity acts proved the inutility of penal laws, while they failed effectually to protect dissenters. Members were admitted to both Houses of Parliament without any religious test: then why insist upon the orthodoxy of an exciseman? No danger to the state could be apprehended from the admission of dissenters to office. Who, since the Revolution, had been more faithful to the constitution and

1 Parl. Hist., xxi. 754-766. In this year (1780) the Earl of Surrey, eldest son of the Duke of Norfolk, and Sir Thomas Gascoigne, abjured the Roman Catholic faith, and were immediately returned to Parliament. - Lord Mahon's Hist., vii. 111.

2 Parl. Hist., ix. 1046.

8 Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 254; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 337, &c.

4 Case of the Protestant Dissenters, with reference to the Test and Corporation Acts. Parl. Hist., xxvi. 780, n.

1

monarchy than they? Was there danger to the church? The church was in no danger from dissenters before the Test Act: the church of Scotland was in no danger where no Test Act had ever existed: the church of Ireland was in no danger now, though dissenters had for the last seven years been admitted to office in that country. But danger was to be apprehended from oppressive laws which united different bodies of dissenters, otherwise hostile, in a common resentment to the church. Howard, the philanthropist, in serving his country, had braved the penalties of an outlaw, which any informer might enforce. Even members of the church of Scotland were disqualified for office in England. Belonging to the state church, they were treated as dissenters. In conclusion, he condemned the profanation of the holy sacrament itself: that rite should be administered to none unworthy to receive it; yet it had become the common test of fitness for secular employments. Such was the case presented in favor of dissenters. Mr. Beaufoy was not in the first rank of debaters, yet from the force of truth and a good cause, his admirable speech puts to shame the arguments with which the first statesmen of the day then ventured to oppose him.

Lord North regarded the Test Act as "the great bulwark of the constitution, to which we owed those inestimable blessings of freedom, which we now happily enjoyed." He contended that the exclusion of dissenters from office was still as necessary as when it was first imposed by the legislature; and denied that it involved the least contradiction to the principles of toleration. The state had allowed all persons to follow their own religion freely; but might decline to employ them unless they belonged to the established church.

Mr. Pitt was no friend to the penal laws: his statesmanship was superior to the narrow jealousies which favored them. On this occasion he had been disposed to support

2

1 Supra, p. 318.

2" To the mind of Pitt the whole system of penal laws was utterly abhorrent." - Lord Stanhope's Life, ii. 276.