CHAPTER XIV.

RENEWED CATHOLIC STRUGGLES-GOVERNMENT PROSECUTIONS PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS - THE ASSASSINATION OF MR. PERCEVAL.

IT

T was perceived that while repeal would probably cost England much material gain, that could not be relinquished without a fierce struggle, Catholic emancipation might be comparatively easy, because it would cost England nothing material, and only the sacrifice of a little frothy sentiment for which the bulk of the monied classes cared very little. Therefore it occurred to O'Connell that, though he would prefer repeal on the lines laid down in his Dublin speech, he keenly appreciated the material character and magnitude of that proposal, and thought it more judicious to move for it indirectly by making Catholic emancipation the stepping-stone.

The Convention Act gave the power to the government of stopping the meetings of the Catholic committee; but as they were conducted quietly, and not ostensibly for sedition, there was considerable hesitation in enforcing the Act. Some furtive attempts were made early in 1811 to prevent the meetings, but they were not persevered in. Daniel O'Connell was quietly making himself a recognized power in that connexion, and from that time his power expanded. In March, the conduct of the Irish government was brought before the House of Commons, and on the 31st of May another Catholic petition was presented, and as usual was rejected by a large majority. This petition was presented by Mr. Grattan. Mr. Hutchinson moved for the repeal of the Convention Act. The Mr. Parnell of those days moved a second time for an inquiry into the Irish tithe system.

All these motions were defeated, but government became alarmed, and determined to strike a blow at the Catholic committee. It was arranged that it should consist of delegates from each county, and that brought it under the Convention Act. Early in the summer preparations were accordingly made for the election of the Catholic delegates, and the government issued a proclamation in which the proceedings of the Catholic committee were described, and it was declared to be the intention of the government to enforce the penalties of the law against all persons who should proceed to elect deputies, managers, or delegates to the Catholic committee. This proclamation was resisted by the magistrates in many parts of the country, on the ground that it was contrary to the intentions of the Convention Act; and magistrates who did not go so far were generally very lukewarm on the subject. Consequently, the election of delegates proceeded, and was completed almost everywhere except in Dublin. There the government, under a warrant of Lord Chief Justice Downes, arrested Mr. Taaffe, a partner in the bank of Lord Ffrench and Co., and Mr. Kirwan, a Dublin merchant, and three other persons, for acting as electors of delegates. They were all released on bail, but great excitement resulted all over Ireland. Protestants joined with Catholics in opposition to the action of the government. A bungling attempt to stop and disperse the first meeting of delegates on the 19th of October entirely fell though. In November the Irish AttorneyGeneral filed informations against the Earl of Fingall for presiding over meetings of the committee, against several persons for attending them, and against the proprietors of the Freeman's Journal and the Correspondent for publishing reports of their proceedings, and Mr. Magee of the Dublin Evening Post for a comment upon government proceedings. The government offered to stop proceedings if the Catholic committee would discontinue its meetings. The reply to the offer was a great public banquet in Dublin, attended by many peers and other Catholics, and also by numerous Protestants, including Curran and Grattan.

On the 23rd December there was another full meeting of the Catholic

THE PRINCE REGENT'S PLEDGES.

III

Committee at the Fishamble Street Theatre. Lord Fingall presided. As soon as proceedings commenced Mr. Hare, a magistrate, with many explanations and apologies, called upon the meeting to disperse, and the chairman to leave the chair. Lord Fingall and Lord Netterville were successively arrested for occupying the chair, but as the meeting then dispersed the two lords were released. A public meeting was soon after held, at which resolutions of protest were unanimously passed. But, after a jury had acquitted Dr. Sheridan, the government succeeded in convicting Mr. Kirwan of acting as a delegate. He was punished with only a nominal penalty, but this and other government proceedings did for that time stay the Catholic organization.

George the Third was still King; but, in October 1811, he became so incapable that his place was practically taken by the Prince Regent. The objections of the King had been often made the excuse of ministers for putting off Catholic relief, and it was therefore hoped that his removal from active participation in the government would be advantageous to the Catholics. The Prince Regent had frequently sought to cultivate the good opinion of Catholics of high rank by promising that when he attained to real power he would promote their views. This he undertook, especially in 1806, and on many other occasions, but the Catholics soon found a practical illustration of the wisdom of the injunction, " Put not your trust in princes." The first fruits of the Regent's accession to power were the previously described prosecutions, and upon being reminded of his numerous pledges, he declined to act upon them. At that time the Marchioness of Hertford had great influence over him, and she is said to have declared herself unable to reconcile her conscience to the thought of conceding any right to persons who believed in seven sacraments!

The Regent, for these or other reasons, contrary to all his former pledges, encouraged a policy inimical to the Catholics, and for that purpose retained Mr. Perceval as his Prime Minister. On the meeting of Parliament, very early in 1812, immediate notices were given of motions on the state of Ireland, especially with reference to the dis

abilities of Catholics. Earl Fitzwilliam in the Lords on the 31st of January, and Lord Morpeth in the Commons on the 3rd of February, respectively opened debates which were considerably prolonged. In both Houses a decisive majority pronounced against the Catholic claims; and as all the leading statesmen of the day had earnestly taken part in the discussion, the result was considered at the time to have seriously damaged the Catholic cause.

Statesmen who were rightly convinced that the Catholic grievances, so long as they lasted, would never cease to cause serious evils, sought to compromise matters, and the Regent was induced to entertain the idea of inviting Lords Grey, Erskine, and Bedford to form a new ministry; but counsels prevailed against those noblemen, and Mr. Perceval continued to enjoy office in the full confidence of the Regent. Notwithstanding this, petitions poured in, not only from Ireland, but from all parts of England—not only from Catholics, but from Protestants in considerable numbers; and on the 21st of April Lord Donoughmore moved in the Lords an order of the day to take into consideration the claims of the Catholics. The debate that ensued was remarkable for the part in favour of the Catholics taken by the Duke of Sussex. On the 23rd of April Mr. Grattan moved a similar order of the day in the Commons; and so, twice in one session, Catholic Ireland delayed the course of legislation. At the end of both these second debates, the champions of the Catholics were again defeated,—in the Lords by 174 to 102, in the Commons by 300 to 215.

Mr. Grattan, whose motion was thus defeated in the Commons, is described as having risen by the power of his abilities alone. In person he was extremely diminutive and ungraceful. He had a disagreeably yellow countenance, disfigured by ravages of smallpox ; a chin remarkably long, angular, and the reverse of handsome. In carriage he was singularly ungraceful, and from having got into a habit when young of not setting his heels to the ground when walking, he acquired the soubriquet of "the elastic boy." In dress he was exceedingly slovenly and careless. The debate he initiated on this occasion included a curious passage illustrative of the character of

MURDER OF MR. PERCEVAL.

113

personages of the day. Mr. Stuart Wortley asked whether it was the fact that the Prince of Wales, before he had become Regent, had commissioned Mr. Ponsonby and the Duke of Bedford to intimate to the Catholics of Ireland that his (the Regent's) sympathies were strongly with them. Mr. Ponsonby replied that such was unquestionably the case. The answer is a confirmation of the duplicity of the Regent.

Subsequent occurrences in the same session proved that the majority in both houses continued compact, and immovably determined to resist everything the Catholics could urge in favour of their emancipation. But the precise state of parties during the earlier portion of the session was destined to be rudely shattered by a tragic event. On the 11th of May, 1812, about five in the afternoon, as Mr. Perceval was entering the lobby of the House of Commons, a man named Bellingham fired a pistol, the ball from which pierced Mr. Perceval's heart, and he instantly expired. The assassin made no attempt to escape. He was a Liverpool broker, trading with Russia, who, having sustained some losses and injuries, which he had vainly applied to the government to redress, determined to avenge himself by taking the life of the Prime Minister. Thus ended the Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, second son of the Earl of Egmont, and with him fell his ministry also. On many accounts it is fortunate that Bellingham was not an Irish Catholic, and the cause of his mania was beyond all doubt what he avowed it to be, otherwise history would have been encumbered with additional painful complications. It has been said of Mr. Perceval that his death was rather a private than a public loss. The Marquis of Wellesley, his Foreign Secretary, had the candour afterwards to say, “With all my respect for the virtues and excellences of the late minister, I still feel it my duty to say that I did not consider him a fit man to lead the councils of this great empire." There is no doubt, however, that he helped to make some Irish history, and that his sudden death tended to recast events so far as Ireland was and is concerned.