choice. But these visions were soon to collapse and vanish, like bubbles in the air; and the weary struggle was continued, with scarcely a change in its prospects. worship to Roman Catholic The first year of the regency, however, was marked Freedom of by the consummation of one act of toleration. The Grenville ministry had failed soldiers. to secure freedom of religious worship to Catholic soldiers by legislation:2 but they had partially secured that object by a circular to commanding officers. Orders to the same effect had since been annually issued by the commander-in-chief. The articles of war, however, recognised no right in the soldier to absent himself from divine service; and in ignorance or neglect of these orders, soldiers had been punished for refusing to attend the services of the established church. To repress such an abuse, the commander-in-chief issued general orders, in January 1811; and Mr. Parnell afterwards proposed March 11th, a clause in the Mutiny Bill, to give legal effect to them. The clause was not agreed to: but, in the debate, no doubt was left that, by the regulations of the service, full toleration would henceforth be enjoyed by Catholic soldiers, in the exercise of their religion.3 1811. Another measure, affecting dissenters, was conceived in a somewhat different spirit. Lord Protestant Sidmouth complained of the facility with which dissenting ministers were able to obtain certificates, under the Act of 1779, without 1 Vol. I. 119. 3 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xix. 350. 2 Supra, p. 128. • Supra, p. 94. 1811. any proof of their fitness to preach, or of there being any congregation requiring their ministrations. Some had been admitted who could not even read and write, but were prepared to preach by inspiration. One of the abuses resulting from this facility was the exemption of so many preachers from serving on juries, and from other civil duties. To correct these evils, he proposed certain securities, of which the principal was a certificate of fitness from six reputable householders, of the same persuasion as the minister seeking a licence to preach.' May 9th, His bill met with little favour. It was, at best, a trivial measure: but its policy was in the wrong direction. It ill becomes a state, which disowns any relations with dissenters, to intermeddle with their discipline. The dissenters rose up against the bill; and before the second reading, the House was overwhelmed with their petitions. The government discouraged it: the Archbishop of Canterbury counselled its withdrawal: the leading peers of the liberal party denounced it; and Lord Sidmouth, standing almost alone, was obliged to allow his illadvised measure to be defeated, without a division.2 Ministers' Lord Sidmouth's bill had not only alarmed the dissenters, but had raised legal doubts, Protestant which exposed them to further molesta- Dissenting tion.3 And, in the next year, another bill Bill, 1812. was passed, with the grateful approval of the dissenters, by which they were relieved from the oaths Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xix. 1128-1140. 2 Ibid., xx. 233; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 38-65; Brook's Hist. of Relig. Lib., ii. 386. Brook's Hist. of Relig. Lib., ii. 394. and declaration required by the Toleration Act, and the Act of 1779, and from other vexatious restrictions.1 And in the following year, relief, 1813. Mr. W. Smith obtained for Unitarians that Unitarians' relief which, many years before, Mr. Fox had vainly sought from the legislature." Nothing distinguished the tedious annals of the Catholic question in 1811, but a motion, Catholic petitions, May 31st, June 18th, 1811. Catholic question, 1812. State of Jan. 31st. in one House, by Mr. Grattan, and, in the other, by Lord Donoughmore, which met with their accustomed fate.3 But, in 1812, the aspect of the Catholic question was, in some degree, changed. The claims of the Catholics, always associated with the peace and good government of Ireland, were now brought forward, in the form of a motion, by Lord Fitzwilliam, for a committee on the state of Ireland; and were urged more on the ground of state policy than of justice. The debate was chiefly remarkable for a wise and statesmanlike speech of the Marquess Wellesley. The motion was lost by a majority of eighty-three. A few days afterwards, Feb. 3rd. a similar motion was made in the House of Commons, by Lord Morpeth. Mr. Canning opposed it in a masterly speech,-more encouraging to the cause than the support of most other men. 1 52 Geo. III. c. 155; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 994, 1105, 1247; Lord Sidmouth's Life, iii. 65; Brook's Hist. of Relig. Lib., ii. 394. 2 53 Geo. III. c. 160; Brook's Hist. of Relig. Lib., ii. 395. Ayes, 83; Noes, 146, in the Commons, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xx. 369-427. Contents, 62; Non-contents, 121, in the Lords. Deb., 1st Ser., xx. 645-685; Grattan's Life, v. 376. Hans. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxi. 408-483. The House adjourned at half-past 6 in the morning. Objecting to the motion in point of time alone, he urged every abstract argument in its favour; declared that the policy of enfranchisement must be progressive; and that since the obstacle caused by the king's conscientious scruples had been removed, it had become the duty of ministers to undertake the settlement of a question, vital to the interests of the empire. The general tone of the discussion was also encouraging to the Catholic cause; and after two nights' debate, the motion was lost by a majority of ninety-four, a number increased by the belief that the motion implied a censure upon the executive government of Ireland.2 Another aspect in the Catholic cause is also observable in this year. Not only were peti- Protestant tions from the Catholics of England and sympathy. Ireland more numerous and imposing: but Protestant noblemen, gentlemen of landed property, clergy, commercial capitalists, officers in the army and navy, and the inhabitants of large towns, added their prayers to those of their Catholic fellowcountrymen. Even the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which presented petitions against the Catholic claims, were much divided in opinion; and minorities, considerable in academic rank, learning, and numbers, were ranged on the other side.4 · Thus fortified, motions in support of the Catholic It was in this speech that he uttered his celebrated exclamation, ' repeal the Union! restore the Heptarchy !' Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxi. 494, 605. The House adjourned at half-past 5. 3 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxii. 452, 478, 482-706, &c. Ibid., 462, 507; Grattan's Life, v. 467. Lord more's April 21st, 1812. claims were renewed in both Houses; and being now free from any implication of censure upon the government, were offered under more favourable auspices. That of the Earl of Donoughmore, in the House of Lords, elicited from the Duke of Sussex an elaborate speech in favour of the Catholic claims, which His Royal Highness afterwards edited with many learned notes. Who that heard the arguments of Lord Wellesley and Lord Grenville, could have believed that the settlement of this great question was yet to be postponed for many years? Lord Grenville's warning was like a prophecy. 'I ask not,' he said, 'what in this case will be your ultimate decision. It is easily anticipated. We know, and it has been amply shown in former instances,-the cases of America and of Ireland have but too well proved it, -how precipitately necessity extorts what power has pertinaciously refused. We shall finally yield to these petitions. No man doubts it. Let us not delay the concession, until it can neither be graced by spontaneous kindness, nor limited by deliberative wisdom.' The motion was defeated by a majority of seventy-two.1 tan's motion, April 23rd, 1812. Mr. Grattan proposed a similar motion in the Mr. Grat- House of Commons, in a speech more than usually earnest and impassioned. In this debate, Mr. Brougham raised his voice in support of the Catholic cause,―a voice ever on the side of freedom. And now Mr. Canning supported Contents, 102; Non-contents, 174. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxii. 509-703. The House divided at 5 in the morning. 2 Mr. Brougham had entered Parliament in 1810. |