Catholics and the militia.

that Roman Catholics and dissenters, however loyal and patriotic, were not permitted to share in the defence of their country. They could not be trusted with arms, lest they should turn them against their own countrymen. In 1797, Mr. Wilberforce endeavoured to redress a part of this wrong, by obtaining the admission of Roman Catholics to the militia. Supported by Mr. Pitt, he succeeded in passing his bill through the Commons. In the Lords, however, it was opposed by Bishop Horsley and other peers; and its provisions being extended to dissenters, its fate was sealed.' The English ministers were still alive to the importance of a liberal and conciliatory policy, in the government of Ireland. In 1795, Lord Fitzwilliam accepted the office of lord-lieutenant, in order to carry out such a policy. He even conceived himself to have the authority of the cabinet to favour an extensive enfranchisement of Catholics: but having committed himself too deeply to that party, he was recalled.2 There were, indeed, insurmountable difficulties in reconciling an extended toleration to Catholics, with Protestant ascendency in the Irish Parliament.

Lord Fitzwilliam's policy, 1795.

But the union of Catholic Ireland with Protestant

1 Wilberforce's Life, ii. 222. The debates are not to be found in the Parliamentary History. No power in Europe, but yourselves, has ever thought, for these hundred years past, of asking whether a bayonet is Catholic, or Presbyterian, or Lutheran; but whether it is sharp and well-tempered.'-Peter Plymley's Letters; Sydney Smith's Works, iii. 63.

2 Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 672, &c.; Plowden's Hist., ii. 467; Butler's 'Hist. Mem., iv. 65.

Union with

connection with Catholic disabilities.

Jan. 23rd,

Great Britain, introduced new considerations of state policy. To admit Catholics to the Parliament of the United Kingdom would Ireland, in be a concession full of popularity to the people of Ireland, while their admission to a legislature comprising an overwhelming Protestant majority, would be free from danger to the established church, or to the Protestant character of Parliament. In such a union of the two countries, the two nations would also be embraced. In the discussions relating to the Union, the removal of Catholic disabilities, as one of its probable consequences, was frequently alluded to. Mr. Canning argued that the Union would satisfy the friends of the Protestant ascendency, with- 1799. out passing laws against the Catholics, and without maintaining those which are yet in force.' Jan. 31st. And Mr. Pitt said: No man can say that in the present state of things, and while Ireland remains a separate kingdom, full concessions could be made to the Catholics, without endangering the state, and shaking the constitution of Ireland to its centre.' But when the conduct of the Catholics shall be such as to make it safe for the government to admit them to a participation of the privileges granted to those of the established religion, and when the temper of the times shall be favourable to such a measure, it is obvious that such a question may be agitated in a united Imperial Parliament, with much greater safety than it could be in a

1'

1 Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 230; Lord Holland's Mem., i. 161.

separate legislature." He also hinted at the expediency of proposing some mode of relieving the poorer classes from the pressure of tithes, and for making a provision for the Catholic elergy, without affecting the security of the Protestant establishment.2

The Irish executive and the Catholics.

In securing the support of different parties in Ireland to the Union, the question of Catholic disabilities was one of great delicacy. Distinct promises, which might have secured the hearty support of the Catholics, would have alienated the Protestants,-by far the most powerful party, and endangered the success of the whole measure. At the same time, there was hazard of the Catholics being gained over to oppose the Union, by expectations of relief from the Irish Parliament.3 Lord Cornwallis, alive to these difficulties, appears to have met them with consummate address. Careful not to commit himself or the government to any specific engagements, he succeeded in encouraging the hopes of the Catholics, without alarming the Protestant party. The sentiments of the govern

• Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 272.

2 Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville agreed generally upon the Catholic claims. Previously to the Union with Ireland, it had never entered into the mind of the latter that there could be any further relaxation of the laws against Papists: but from that time he had been convinced that everything necessary for them might be granted without the slightest danger to the Protestant interest.'-Abstract of Lord Grenville's Letter to the Principal of Brazenose, 1810.-Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 224.

* Cornwallis Corr., iii. 51.

* Jan. 2nd, 1799, he writes: I shall endeavour to give them (the Catholics) the most favourable impressions without holding out to them hopes of any relaxation on the part of government, and shall leave no effort untried to prevent an opposition to the Union being made the measure of that party.'-Corr., iii. 29.

2

ment were known to be generally favourable to measures of relief: but Mr. Pitt had been forbidden by the king to offer any concessions whatever;' nor had he himself determined upon the measures which it would be advisable to propose. He was, therefore, able to deny that he had given any pledge upon the subject, or that the Catholics conceived themselves to have received any such pledge :3 but he admitted that they had formed strong expecta

And again, Jan. 28th, 1799: 'I much doubt the policy of at present holding out to them any decided expectations: it might weaken us with the Protestants, and might not strengthen us with the Catholics, whilst they look to carry their question unconnected with Union.' -Corr., iii. 55. See also Ibid., 63, 149, 327, 344, 347.

1 June 11th, 1798, the king writes to Mr. Pitt: 'Lord Cornwallis must clearly understand that no indulgence can be granted to the Catholics farther than has been, I am afraid unadvisedly, done in former sessions, and that he must by a steady conduct effect in future the union of that kingdom with this.-Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. App. xvi.

Again, Jan. 24th, 1790, having seen in a letter from Lord Castlereagh an idea of an established stipend by the authority of government for the Catholic clergy of Ireland,' he wrote: I am certain any encouragement to such an idea must give real offence to the established church in Ireland, as well as to the true friends of our constitution; for it is certainly creating a second church establishment, which could not but be highly injurious.'-Ibid., xviii.

2 Mr. Pitt wrote to Lord Cornwallis, Nov. 17th, 1788: 'Mr. Elliot, when he brought me your letter, stated very strongly all the arguments which he thought might induce us to admit the Catholics to Parliament and office, but I confess he did not satisfy me of the practicability of such a measure at this time, or of the propriety of attempting it. With respect to a provision for the Catholic clergy, and some arrangement respecting tithes, I am happy to find an uniform opinion in favour of the proposal, among all the Irish I have seen.'-Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 161. See also Castlereagh Corr., i. 73; Lord Colchester's Mem., i. 250, 511.

Lord Camden told me that being a member of Mr. Pitt's government in 1800, he knew that Mr. Pitt had never matured any plan for giving what is called emancipation to the Roman Catholics.'Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 326.

March 25th, 1801; Parl. Hist., xxxv. 1124; and see Cornwallis Corr., iii. 343–350.

tions of remedial measures after the Union,—of which indeed there is abundant testimony.'

These expectations Mr. Pitt and his colleagues

Conces

sions to Catholics proposed, after the Union.

were prepared to satisfy. When the Union had been accomplished, they agreed that the altered relations of the two countries would allow them to do full justice to the Catholics, without any danger to the established church. They were of opinion that Catholics might now be safely admitted to office, and to the privilege of sitting in Parliament; and that dissenters should, at the same time, be relieved from civil disabilities. It was also designed to attach the Catholic clergy to the state, by making them dependent upon public funds for a part of their provision, and to induce them to submit to superintendence.2 It was a measure of high and prescient statesmanship,— worthy of the genius of the great minister who had achieved the Union.

Concessions forbidden by the king,

But toleration, which had formerly been resisted by Parliament and the people, now encountered the invincible opposition of the king, who refused his assent to further measures of concession, as inconsistent with the obligations of his coronation oath. To his unfounded scruples were sacrificed the rights of millions, and the peace

1 Lord Liverpool's Mem., 128; Castlereagh Corr., iv. 11, 13, 34; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, iii. 263, 281–288, &c., App., xxiii. et seq.; Lord Malmesbury's Corr., iv. 1, et seq.; Cornwallis' Corr., ii. 436; Butler's Hist. Mem., iv. 70; see also Edinb. Rev., Jan. 1858.

2 Mr. Pitt's Letter to the King, Jan. 31st, 1801; Lord Sidmouth's Life, i. 289; Lord Cornwallis's Corr., iii. 325, 335, 344; Court and Cabinets of Geo. III., iii. 129. The Irish Catholic Bishops had consented to allow the crown a veto on their nomination.-Butler's Hist, Mem., iv, 112–131,