statutes religious (Unita May 11th, 1 present, of any relaxation of the test laws, endeavoured to obtain the repeal of certain Penal penal statutes affecting religious opinions. respecting His bill proposed to repeal several Acts of opinions this nature: but his main object was to rians), exempt the Unitarians, who had petitioned 1792. for relief, from the penalties specially affecting their particular persuasion. They did not pray for civil enfranchisement, but simply for religious freedom. In deprecating the prejudices excited against this sect, he said, 'Dr. South had traced their pedigree from wretch to wretch, back to the devil himself, These descendants of the devil were his clients.' He attributed the late riots at Birmingham, and the attack upon Dr. Priestley, to religious bigotry and persecution; and claimed for this unpopular sect, at least the same toleration as other dissenting bodies. Mr. Burke, in opposing the motion, made a fierce onslaught upon the Unitarians. They were hostile to the church, he said, and had combined to effect its ruin: they had adopted the doctrines of Paine; and approved of the revolutionary excesses of the French Jacobins. The Unitarians were boldly defended by Mr. William Smith,-a constant advocate of religious liberty, who, growing old and honoured in that cause, lived to be the Father of the House of Commons. Mr. Pitt declared his reprobation of the Unitarians, and opposed the motion, which was lost by a majority of seventy-nine. Mr. 2 1 Viz. 9 & 10 Will. III, c. 32 (for suppressing blasphemy and profaneness); I Edw. VI. c. 1; 1 Mary, c. 3; 13 Eliz. c. 2. 2 Ayes, 63; Noes, 142. Parl. Hist., xxix. 1372; Tomline's Life' of Pitt, iii. 317. Pitt and other statesmen, in withholding civil rights from dissenters, had been careful to admit their title to religious freedom: but this vote unequivocally declared that doctrines and opinions might justly be punished as an offence. Catholic relief, Ireland, Meanwhile the perilous distractions of Ireland, and a formidable combination of the Catholic body, forced upon the attention 1792. of the government the wrongs of Irish Catholics. The great body of the Irish people were denied all the rights of citizens. Their public worship was still proscribed: their property, their social and domestic relations, and their civil liberties were under interdict: they were excluded from all offices civil and military, and even from the professions of law and medicine. Already the penal code affecting the exercise of their religion had been partially relaxed: but they still laboured under all the civil disqualifications which the jealousy of ages had imposed. Mr. Pitt not only condemned the injustice of such disabilities: but noped by a policy of conciliation, to heal some of the unhappy feuds by which society was divided. Ireland could no longer be safely governed upon the exclusive principles of Protestant ascendency. Its people must not claim in vain the franchises of British subjects. And accordingly in 1792, some of the most galling dis 1 Some restrictions had been added even in this reign. Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 367, et seq.; 467-477, 484; O'Conor's Hist. of the Irish Catholics; Sydney Smith's Works, i. 269; Goldwin Smith's Irish Hist., &c., 124. 2 Viz. in 1774. 1778, and 1782; 13 & 14 Geo. III. c. 35; 17 & 18 Geo. III. c. 49; 22 Geo. III. c. 24 (Irish); Parnell's Hist. of the Penal Laws, 84, &c.; Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 486. abilities were removed by the Irish Parliament. Catholics were admitted to the legal profession on taking the oath of allegiance, and allowed to become clerks to attorneys. Restrictions on the education of their children, and on their intermarriages with Protestants, were also removed.1 Ireland, In the next year more important privileges were conceded. All remaining restraints on Catholic Catholic worship and education, and the relief, disposition of property, were removed. 1798. Catholics were admitted to vote at elections, on taking the oaths of allegiance and abjuration: to all but the higher civil and military offices, and to the honours and emoluments of Dublin University. In the law they could not rise to the rank of king's counsel nor in the army beyond the rank of colonel nor in their own counties, could they aspire to the offices of sheriff and sub-sheriff: 2 their highest ambition was still curbed; but they received a wide enfranchisement, beyond their former hopes. Scotland, 1793. In this year tardy justice was also rendered to the Roman Catholics of Scotland. All excite- Catholic ment upon the subject having passed relief, away, a bill was brought in and passed without opposition, to relieve them, like their English brethren, from many grievous penalties to which they were exposed. In proposing the measure, the 132 Geo. III. c. 21 (Irish); Debates (Ireland), xii. 39, &c.; Life of Grattan, ii. 53. 2 33 Geo. III. c. 21 (Irish); Debates of Irish Parliament, xiii. 199; Plowden's Hist., ii. 421; Adolphus' Hist., vi. 249-256; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, ii. 277; Butler's Hist. Mem., iv. 62; Life of Grattan, iv. 87; Parnell's Hist, of the Penal Laws, 124. lord advocate stated that the obnoxious statutes were not so obsolete as might be expected. At that very time a Roman Catholic gentleman was in danger of being stripped of his estate,-which had been in his family for at least a century and a half,—by a relation having no other claim to it, than that which he derived, as a Protestant, from the cruel provisions of the law.1 Quakers. April 21st, 1796. The Quakers next appealed to Parliament for relief. In 1796, they presented a petition describing their sufferings on account of religious scruples; and Mr. Sergeant Adair brought in a bill to facilitate the recovery of tithes from members of that sect, without subjecting them to imprisonment; and to allow them to be examined upon affirmation in criminal cases. The remedy proposed for the recovery of tithes had already been provided by statute, in demands not exceeding 10l.;2 and the sole object of this part of the bill was to ensure the recovery of all tithes without requiring the consent of the Quakers themselves, to which they had so strong a religious scruple, that they preferred perpetual imprisonment. At that very time, seven of their brethren were lying in the gaol at York, without any prospect of relief. The bill was passed by the Commons, but was lost in the Lords, upon the representation of the Archbishop of Canterbury that it involved a question of right of very great importance, which there was not then time to consider.3 1 Parl. Hist., xxx. 766; 33 Geo. III. c. 44; Butler's Hist. Mem., iv. 103. 27 & 8 Will. III. c. 34; 1 Geo. I., st. 2, c. 6; Parl. Hist., ix. Parl. Hist., xxxii. 1022. Quakers, In the next session the bill was renewed,' when it encountered the resolute opposition of Sir William Scott.2 The opinions held by the Quakers,' he said, 'were of such a nature as to affect the civil rights of property, and therefore he considered them as unworthy of legislative indulgence.' If one man had conscientious scruples against the payment of tithes to which his property was legally liable, another might object to the payment of rent as sinful, while a third might hold it irreligious to pay his debts. If the principle of indulgence were ever admitted, the sect of anti-tithe Christians would soon become the most numerous He argued that and flourishing in the kingdom.' the security of property in tithes would be diminished. by the bill, and that the tithe-owner would become an owner, not of property, but of suits.' It was replied that the tithe-owner would be enabled by the bill to recover his demands by summary distress, instead of punishing the Quaker with useless imprison ment. The very remedy, indeed, was provided, which the law adopted for the recovery of rent. The bill was also opposed by the solicitor-general, Sir John Mitford, who denied that Quakers entertained any conscientious scruples at all, against the payment of tithes. The question for going into committee on the bill was decided by the casting vote of the speaker: but upon a subsequent day, the bill was lost by a majority of sixteen.3 Such had been the narrow jealousy of the state, 1 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 1206. ' Parl. Hist., xxxii. 1508. 2 Afterwards Lord Stowell. VOL. III. I |