vidiously excluded on account of his religion. Mr. Canning was opposed by Mr. Peel, in an able and temperate argument, and supported by the accustomed power and eloquence of Mr. Plunket. It was obvious that his success would carry the outworks, if not the very citadel,-of the Catholic question; yet he obtained leave to bring in his bill by a majority of five.' He carried the second reading by a majority of twelve; 2 after which he was permitted, by the liberality of Mr. Peel, to pass the bill through its other stages, without opposition. But the Lords were still inexorable. Their stout Protestantism was not to be beguiled even by sympathy for their own order; and they refused a second reading to the bill, by a majority of forty-two.* Position of the Catholic question in 1823. After so many disappointments, the Catholics were losing patience and temper. Their cause was supported by the most eminent members of the government; yet it was invariably defeated and lost. Neither argument nor numbers availed it. Mr. Canning was secretary of state for foreign affairs, and leader of the House of Commons; and Mr. Plunket attorney-general for Ireland. But it was felt that so long as Catholic emancipation continued to be an open question, there would be eloquent debates, and sometimes a promising division, but no substantial redress. In the House of Commons, one secretary of state was 3 Ibid., 673. 1 Ayes, 249; Noes, 244. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., vii. 211. April 17th, 1823. opposed to the other; and in the House of Lords, the premier and the chancellor were the foremost opponents of every measure of relief. The majority of the cabinet, and the great body of the ministerial party, in both Houses, were adverse to the cause. This irritation burst forth on the presentation of petitions, before a motion of Mr. Plunket's. Sir Francis Burdett first gave expression to it. He deprecated the annual farce,' which trifled with the feelings of the people of Ireland. He would not assist at its performance. The Catholics would obtain no redress, until the government were united in opinion as to its necessity. An angry debate ensued, and a fierce passage of arms between Mr. Brougham and Mr. Canning. At length, Mr. Plunket rose to make his motion; when Sir Francis Burdett, accompanied by Mr. Hobhouse, Mr. Grey Bennet, and several other members of the opposition, left the House. Under these discouragements Mr. Plunket proceeded with his motion. At the conclusion of his speech, the House becoming impatient, refused to give any other members a fair hearing; and after several divisions, ultimately agreed, by a majority of upwards of two hundred, to an adjournment of the House. This result, however unfavourable to the immediate issue of the Catholic question, was yet a significant warning that so important a measure could not much longer be discussed as an open question. A smaller measure of relief was next tried in vain. 1 Ayes, 313; Noes, 111. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser、, viii. 1070–1123. Lord Nugent sought to extend to English Catholics the elective franchise, the commission of the peace, Lord Nu May 28th, and other offices to which Catho- gent's bill, lics in Ireland were admissible, by the 1823. Act of 1793. Mr. Peel assented to the justice and moderation of this proposal.' The bill was afterwards divided into two,2-the one relating to the elective franchise, and the other to the magistracy and corporate offices.3 In this shape they were agreed to by the Commons, but both miscarried in the House of Lords. In the following year, they were revived in the House of Lords by Lord Lansdowne, with no better success, though supported by five cabinet ministers.5 1822, Marriage ment, 18191827. Ineffectual attempts were also made, at this period, to amend the law of marriage, by which Catholics and dissenters were alike law amendaggrieved. In 1819,6 and again in Mr. William Smith presented the case of dissenters, and particularly of Unitarians. Prior to Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act, dissenters Mr. W. Smith's bill, April 18th, 1822. were allowed to be married in their own places of worship: but under that Act the marriages of all but Jews and Quakers were required to be solemnised in church, by ministers of the establishment, and according to its ritual. At that time the Unitarians were a small sect; and had not a single 'Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., ix. 573. 2 Ibid., 1031. 3 3 Ibid., 1341. Ibid., 1476: Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 292, 299. May 24th, 1824; Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xi. 817, 842; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 326. June 16th, 1819; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xl. 1200, 1503. place of worship. Having since prospered and multiplied, they prayed that they might be married in their own way. They were contented, however, with the omission from the marriage service of passages relating to the Trinity; and Mr. Smith did not venture to propose a more rational and complete relief,—the marriage of dissenters in their own chapels.1 Lord Lans June 12th, 6 In 1823, the Marquess of Lansdowne proposed a more comprehensive measure, embracing downe's bill, Roman Catholics as well as dissenters, and 1823. permitting the solemnisation of their marriages in their own places of worship. The chancellor, boasting that he took as just a view of toleration as any noble Lord in that House could do,' yet protested against 'such mighty changes in the law of marriage.' The Archbishop of Canterbury regarded the measure in a more liberal spirit; and merely objected to any change in the church service, which had been suggested by Lord Liverpool. The second reading of the bill was refused by a majority of six.2 Unitarian marriages. In the following session, relief to Unitarians was again sought, in another form. Lord Lansdowne introduced a bill enabling Unitarians to be married in their own places of worship, after publications of bans in church, and payment of the church fees. This proposal received the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London: but the chancellor, more sensitive in his orthodoxy, de2 Ibid., ix. 967. Lord Lansdowne's bill, April 2nd, May 4th, 1824. 'Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., vi. 1460. nounced it as tending to dishonour and degrade the church of England.' To the Unitarians he gave just offence, by expressing a doubt whether they were not still liable to punishment, at common law, for denying the doctrine of the Trinity. The bill passed the second reading by a small majority: but was afterwards lost on going into committee, by a majority of thirty-nine.2 Catholic April 13th, Dr. Phillimore, with no better success, brought in another bill to permit the solemnisation of Roman marriages between Catholics, by their own marriages, priests, still retaining the publication of 1824. bans or licences, and the payment of fees to the Protestant clergyman. Such a change in the law was particularly desirable in the case of Catholics, on grounds distinct from toleration. In the poorer parishes, large numbers were married by their own priests: their marriages were illegal, and their children, being illegitimate, were chargeable on the parishes in which they were born.3 This marriage law was even more repugnant to principles of toleration than the code of civil disabilities. It treated every British subject, whatever his faith,—as member of the Church of England,-ignored all religious differences; and imposed, with rigorous uniformity, upon all communions alike, the altar, 1 See also Rex v. Curl: Strange, 789; St. Tr., xvii. 154. a 2 Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xi. 75, 434; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 512. Mr. C Wynn, writing to the Duke of Buckingham, May 6th, 1824, said, 'You will, I am sure, though you doubted the propriety of the Unitarian Marriage Act, regret the triumphant majority of the intolerant party, who boast of it as a display of their strength, and a proof how little any power in the country can cope with them.'Court and Cabinets of Geo. IV., ii. 72. Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xi. 408. |