king. But he found them resolutely opposed to his views; and the government were now alarmed, lest their opinions should confirm the objections of his majesty. It was under these unpromising circumstances that, in January 1829, the time had arrived at which Embarrassment of ministers. some definite course must be submitted to the king, in anticipation of the approaching session. It is not surprising that Mr. Peel should have thought such difficulties almost insuperable. "There was the declared opinion of the king, the declared opinion of the House of Lords, the declared opinion of the church, unfavorable to the measures we were about to propose ;" and, as he afterwards added, "a majority, probably, of the people of Great Britain was hostile to concession." 1 Proffered of Mr. Peel. Mr. Peel, considering the peculiarity of his own position, had contemplated the necessity of retirement; 2 but resignation viewing with deep concern the accumulating embarrassments of the government, he afterwards placed his service at the command of the Duke of Wellington. At length, an elaborate memorandum by Mr. Peel having been submitted to the king, His Majesty gave audience to those members of his cabinet who had The king consents to the measure. always opposed the Catholic claims; and then 4 consented that the cabinet should submit their views on the state of Ireland, without pledging himself to concur in them, even if adopted unanimously. A draft of the king's speech was accordingly prepared, referring to the state of Ireland, the necessity of restraining the Catholic Association, and of a review of the Catholic disabilities. To this draft the king gave a "reluctant consent; "5 and it was, accordingly, delivered at the commencement of the session. 1 Peel's Mem., i. 278, 308. 2 Letter to Duke of Wellington, Aug. 11th, 1828. Peel's Mem., i. 184. 3 Letter, Jan. 12th, 1829. Peel's Mem., i. 283, 294, 295. 4 lbid., 297. 5 Ibid., 310. Government The government projected three measures, founded upon this speech, the suppression of the Catholic Association, a Relief Bill, and a revision of the measures. elective franchise in Ireland. The first measure submitted to Parliament was a bill for the suppression of dangerous associations or as- Associations semblies in Ireland. It met with general support. Bill, Feb. Suppression The opponents of emancipation complained that 10th, 1829. the suppression of the Association had been too long delayed. The friends of the Catholic claims, who would have condemned it separately, as a restraint upon public liberty, consented to it, as a necessary part of the measures for the relief of the Catholics and the pacification of Ireland.1 Hence the bill passed rapidly through both Houses.2 But before it became law, the Catholic Association was dissolved. A measure of relief having been promised, its mission was accomplished. loses his When this bill had passed the Commons, Mr. Peel accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, in order to give his Mr. Peel constituents at Oxford an opportunity of express- election at ing their opinion of his new policy. The Protes- Oxford. tant feeling of the university was unequivocally pronounced. He was defeated by Sir Robert Inglis, and obliged to take refuge at Westbury. The civil disabilities of the Catholics were about to be considered, on the 5th of March, when an unex- Further pected obstacle arose. On the 3d, the king difficulties with the commanded the attendance of the Duke of Wel- king. lington, the Lord Chancellor, and Mr. Peel on the following day. He then desired a more detailed explanation of the proposed measure. On finding that it was proposed to alter the oath of supremacy, his majesty refused his consent; and his three ministers at once tendered their resignation, which 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xx. 177. 2 Ibid., 280, 519, &c. 8 On Feb. 24th, Lord Anglesey said it was "defunct." was accepted. Late the same evening, however, he desired them to withdraw their resignation, and gave his consent, in writing, to their proceeding with the proposed measure.1 Catholic to This last obstacle being removed, Mr. Peel opened his measure of Catholic emancipation to the House of Commons. In a speech of four hours, he explained the various circumstances, already described, which, in the opinion of the government, had made the emancipation of the Catholics a necessity. The measure itself was complete: it admitted Roman Catholics, on taking a new oath, instead of the oath of supremacy, both Houses of Parliament, to all corporate offices, to all judicial offices, except in the ecclesiastical courts; and to all civil and political offices, except those of regent, lord chancellor in England and Ireland, and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. Restraints, however, were imposed upon the interference of Roman Catholics in the dispensation of church patronage. The government renounced the idea of introducing any securities, as they were termed, in regard to the Roman Catholic church and its relations to the state. When proposed at an earlier period, in deference to the fears of the opponents of emancipation, they had offended Roman Catholics, without allaying the apprehensions of the Protestant party. But it was proposed to prevent the insignia of corporations from being taken to any place of religious worship except the established church, to restrain Roman Catholic bishops from assuming the titles of existing sees, to prevent the admission of Jesuits to this country, to insure the registration of those already here, and to discourage the extension of monastic orders. After two nights' debate, Mr. Peel's motion for going into committee of the whole House was 2 1 Peel's Mem., i. 343-349. The king gave Lord Eldon a different version of this interview, evidently to excuse himself from consenting to a measure of which his old councillor disapproved so strongly. - Twiss's Life of Eldon, iii. 83. 2 In 1813. Supra, p. 354. 3 agreed to by a majority of one hundred and eighty-eight.1 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. the Lords, On the second reading of the bill in the House of Lords, the Duke of Wellington justified the measure, The bill in irrespective of other considerations, by the neces- April 2d, sity of averting a civil war, saying, “If I could 1829. avoid, by any sacrifice whatever, even one month of civil war in the country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice my 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 1 Ayes, 348; Noes, 160. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xx. 727-892. 2 Supra, p. 66. 3 See supra, Vol. I. 415. 4 On the second reading-Ayes, 353; Noes, 173. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xx. 1115-1290. On the third reading-Ayes, 320; Noes, 142. Ibid., 1633. 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.1 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 Meanwhile the king, whose formal assent was still to be The Royal given, was as strongly opposed to the measure as Assent. 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, 1 Contents, 217; Non-contents, 112. 2 Contents, 213; Non-contents, 109. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xxi. 42-394. |