the motion, not only with his eloquence, but with his vote; and continued henceforth one of the foremost advocates of the Catholic claims. After two nights' debate, Mr. Grattan's motion was submitted to the vote of an unusual number of members, assembled by a call of the House, and lost by a majority of eighty-five.' But this session promised more than the barren triumphs of debate. On the death of Mr. Perceval, the Marquess Wellesley being charged with the formation of a new administration, assumed, as the very basis of his negotiation, the final adjustment of the Catholic claims. The negotiation failed, indeed: but the Marquess and his friends, encouraged by so unprecedented a concession from the throne, sought to pledge Parliament to the consideration of this question in the next session. First, Mr. CanMr. Canning, in the House of Commons, motion, gained an unexampled victory. For years 1812. past, every motion favourable to this cause had been opposed by large majorities: but now his motion for the consideration of the laws affecting His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, was carried by the extraordinary majority of one hundred and twenty-nine.3 ning's June 22nd, Wellesley's Shortly after this most encouraging resolution, the Marquess Wellesley made a similar mo- Lord tion, in the House of Lords, where the motion. July 1st, decision was scarcely less remarkable. The 1812. 1 Ayes, 215; Noes, 300. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxii. 728, 860. The House adjourned at half-past 6 in the morning. 2 Supra, Vol. I. 125. 3 Ayes, 235; Noes, 129. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser. xxiii. 633-710. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 711, 814. lord chancellor had moved the previous question, and even upon that indefinite and evasive issue, the motion was only lost by a single vote.1 Another circumstance, apparently favourable to The Catholic the cause, was also disclosed. The Earl of disabilities an open question in Liverpool's administration, instead of against the 1812. uniting their whole force Catholic cause, agreed that it should be an open question; and this freedom of action, on the part of individual members of the government, was first exercised in these debates. The introduction of this new element into the contest, was a homage to the justice and reputation of the cause: but its promises were illusory. Had the statesmen who espoused the Catholic claims steadfastly refused to act with ministers who continued to oppose them, it may be doubted whether any competent ministry could much longer have been formed, upon a rigorous policy of exclusion. The influence of the crown and church might, for some time, have sustained such a ministry: but the inevitable conflict of principles would sooner have been precipitated. Alarmed by the improved position of the Catholic Catholic claims, question in Parliament, the clergy and 1812-13. strong Protestant party hastened to remonstrate against concession. The Catholics responded by a renewal of their reiterated appeals. Mr. Grat- In February 1813, Mr. Grattan, in pursuance of the resolution of the previous session, moved the immediate considera tan's motion, Feb. 25th, 1813. Non-contente, 126; Contents, 125. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiii. 814-868. tion of the laws affecting the Roman Catholics, in a committee of the whole House. He was supported by Lord Castlereagh, and opposed by Mr. Peel. After four nights' debate, rich in maiden speeches, well suited to a theme which had too often tried the resources of more practised speakers, the motion was carried by a majority of forty.1 In committee, Mr. Grattan proposed a resolution affirming that it was advisable to remove March 9th, the civil and military disqualifications of 1813. the Catholics, with such exceptions as may be necessary for preserving the Protestant succession, the church of England and Ireland, and the church of Scotland. Mr. Speaker Abbot, free, for the first time, to speak upon this occasion, opposed the resolution. It was agreed to by a majority of sixtyseven.2 The bill founded upon this resolution provided for the admission of Catholics to either Mr. Grattan's bill, House of Parliament, on taking one oath, 1813. instead of the oaths of allegiance, abjuration and supremacy, and the declarations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints. On taking this oath, and without receiving the sacrament, Catholics were also entitled to vote at elections, to hold any civil and military office under the crown, except that of lord-chancellor or lord-lieutenant of Ireland, and any lay corporate office. No Catholic was to advise the crown, in the disposal of church patronage. 1 Ayes, 264; Noes, 224. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiv. 747, 849, 879,985. 2 Ayes, 186; Noes, 119. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxiv. 1194-1248. Every person exercising spiritual functions in the church of Rome was required to take this oath, as well as another, by which he bound himself to approve of none but loyal bishops; and to limit his intercourse with the pope to matters purely ecclesiastical. It was further provided, that none but persons born in the United Kingdom, or of British parents, and resident therein, should be qualified for the episcopal office.1 2 After the second reading, several amendments were introduced by consent,3 mainly for the purpose of establishing a government control over the Roman Catholic bishops, and for regulating the relations of the Roman Catholic church with the see of Rome. These latter provisions were peculiarly distasteful to the Roman Catholic body, who resented the proposal as a surrender of the spiritual freedom of their church, in exchange for their own civil liberties. Bill defeated, May 24th, 1813. The course of the bill, however, thus far prosperous, was soon brought to an abrupt termination. The indefatigable speaker, again released from his chair, moved, in the first clause, the omission of the words, 'to sit and vote in either House of Parliament;' and carried his amendment by a majority of four. The bill having thus lost its principal provision, was 1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxv. 1107; Peel's Mem., i. 354. The Bill as thus amended is printed in Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 271. Ibid., 312-361; Ayes, 247; Noes, 251; Grattan's Life, v. 489-496. immediately abandoned; and the Catholic question was nearly as far from a settlement as ever.1 Catholic Relief This session, however, was not wholly unfruitful of benefit to the Catholic cause. The Duke Roman of Norfolk succeeded in passing a bill, en- Officers' abling Irish Roman Catholics to hold all Bill, 1813. such civil or military offices in England, as by the Act of 1793 they were entitled to hold in Ireland. It removed one of the obvious anomalies of the law, which had been admitted in 1807, even by the king himself.2 Naval Oaths Bill, This measure was followed, in 1817, by the Military and Naval Officers' Oaths Bill, which Military and virtually opened all ranks in the army and officers' navy to Roman Catholics and Dissenters.3 1817. Introduced by Lord Melville simply as a measure of regulation, it escaped the animadversion of the Protestant party,-ever on the watch to prevent further concessions to Catholics. A measure, denounced in 1807 as a violation of the constitution and the king's coronation oath, was now agreed to with the acquiescence of all parties. The church was no longer in danger; 'no popery' was not even 'The speaker, elated by his victory, could not forbear the further satisfaction of alluding to the failure of the bill, in his speech to the Prince Regent, at the end of the session,-an act of indiscretion, if not disorder, which placed him in the awkward position of defending himself, in the chair, from a proposed vote of censure. From this embarrassment he was delivered by the kindness of his friends, and the good feeling of the House, rather than by the completeness of his own defence.-Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 1224; Ibid., xxvii. 465; Lord Colchester's Diary, ii. 453-458, 483-496; Romilly's Life, iii. 133. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxvi. 639; 53 Geo. III. c. 128. 357 Geo. III. c. 92; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvi. 1208; Ibid., xl. 24; Butler's Hist. Mem., iv. 257. |