In 1779, however, Sir Henry Hoghton at length succeeded in passing his measure. Dissen Dissenting ters were enabled to preach and to act as schoolmasters, without subscribing any of the thirtynine articles. No other subscription was proposed to be substituted: but, on the motion of Lord North, a declaration was required to be made, that the person taking it was a Christian and a Protestant dissenter; and that he took the scriptures for the rule of his faith and practice. Except upon the question of this declaration, the Bill passed through both Houses, with little opposition.' admitted to offices in Ireland, 1779. In Ireland, a much greater advance was made, Dissenters at this time, in the principles of toleration. An Act was passed admitting Protestants to civil and military offices who had not taken the sacrament, a measure nearly fifty years in advance of the policy of the British Parliament. It must, however, be confessed that the dissenters owed this concession less to an enlightened toleration of their religion, than to the necessity of uniting all classes of Protestants in the cause of Protestant ascendency. Prevalent opinions At this period, the penal laws affecting Roman Catholics also came under review. By the concerning government, the English Catholics were no Catholics. longer regarded with political distrust. The memory of Jacobite troubles had nearly passed Tower! would have echoed round the benches of the House of Lords; but fuit Ilium, the whole constitution is a shadow.'-Letter to Lord Shelburne, April 14th, 1773; Chatham Corr., iv. 259. Parl. Hist., xx. 239, 306–322. See 19 Geo. III. c. 44; Clarke, iii. 269, 355; Brook's Hist. cf Relig. Lib., ii. 369. 2 19 & 20 Geo. III. c. 6 (Ireland). away; and the Catholics of this generation were not suspected of disloyalty. Inconsiderable in numbers, and in influence, they threatened no danger to church or state. Their religion, however, was still held in aversion by the great body of the people; and they received little favour from any political party. With the exception of Fox, Burke, and Sir G. Savile, few of the Whigs felt any sympathy for their grievances. The Whigs were a party strongly influenced by traditions and hereditary sympathies. In struggling for civil and religious liberty at the Revolution, they had been leagued with the Puritans against the Papists: in maintaining the House of Hanover and the Protestant succession, they had still been in alliance with the church and dissenters, and in opposition to Catholics. Toleration to the Catholics, therefore, formed no part of the traditional creed of the Whig party. Still less indulgence was to be expected from the Tories, whose sympathies were wholly with the church. Believing penal laws to be necessary to her interests, they supported them, indifferently, against dissenters and Catholics. But the growing enlightenment of the time made the more reflecting statesmen, of all parties, revolt against some of the penal laws still in force against the Catholics. They had generally been suffered to sleep: but could, at any time, be revived by the bigotry of zealots, or the cupidity of relatives and informers. Several priests had been prosecuted for saying mass. Mr. Maloney, a priest, 1 Fox's Mem., i. 176, 203-4; Rockingham Memoirs, i. 228; Macaulay's Hist., iv. 118. having been informed against, was unavoidably condemned to perpetual imprisonment. The government were shocked at this startling illustration of the law; and the king being afraid to grant a pardon, they ventured, on their own responsibility, to give the unfortunate priest his liberty.' Another priest owed his acquittal to the ingenuity and tolerant spirit of Lord Mansfield.2 In many cases, Roman Catholics had escaped the penalties of the law, by bribing informers not to enforce them.3 Lord Camden had protected a Catholic lady from spoliation, under the law, by a private Act of Parliament.4 Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1778. To avert such scandals as these, and to redeem the law from the reproach of intolerance, Sir George Savile, in 1778, proposed a measure of relief for English Catholics. Its introduction was preceded by a loyal address to the king, signed by ten Catholic Lords and one hundred and sixty-three Commoners, giving assurance of their affection for His Majesty, and attachment to the civil constitution of the country; and expressing sentiments calculated to conciliate the favour of Parliament and ministers. When it was explained that the penalties, imposed in 1700, and now to be repealed, were the perpetual imprisonment of priests for officiating in the services of their church, the forfeiture of the estates of Roman 1 Lord Shelburne's Speech, May 25th, 1773; Parl. Hist., xix. 1145; Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 276. 2 Holl., 176; Lord Campbell's Chief Justices, ii. 514. 3 Parl. Hist., xix. 1137–1145. Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 284. Burke's Works, iii. 389. Catholic heirs, educated abroad, in favour of the next Protestant heir,-and the prohibition to acquire land by purchase,'-the bill was allowed to be introduced without a dissentient voice; and was afterwards passed through both Houses, with general approbation. Such was the change in the feelings of the legislature, since the beginning of the century! Scotland, But in its views of religious liberty, Parliament was far in advance of considerable classes Riots in of the people. The fanaticism of the 1778, puritans was not yet extinct. Any favour extended to Roman Catholics, however just and moderate, ároused its latent flames. This bill extended to England only. The laws of Scotland relating to Roman Catholics, having been passed before its union with England, required further consideration, and a different form of treatment. The lord advocate had, therefore, promised to introduce a similar measure, applicable to Scotland, in the ensuing session. But in the meantime, the violent fanatics of a country which had nothing to fear from Catholics, were alarmed at the projected measure. They had vainly endeavoured to oppose the English bill, and were now resolved that, at least, no relief should be granted to their own fellow-countrymen. They banded together in 'Protestant Associations;'3 and by inflammatory language incited the people to dangerous outrages. In Edinburgh, the mob .11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4. 2 Parl. Hist., xix. 1137-1145; 18 Geo. III. c. 60; Butler's Hist. Mem., iii. 286-297. destroyed two Roman Catholic chapels, and several houses of reputed Papists. In Glasgow, there were no chapels to destroy: but the mob were able to show their zeal for religion, by sacking the factory of a Papist. The Roman Catholics trembled for their property and their lives. Few in numbers, they found little protection from Presbyterian magistrates; and were at the mercy of the rioters. Preferring indemnity for their losses, and immediate protection for their persons, to a prospective relief from penal statutes, they concurred with the government in the postponement of the contemplated measure, till a more favourable occasion.1 In an admirable petition to the House of Commons, they described the outrages which had been committed against them, and expressed their loyalty and attachment to the constitution. While they readily forbore to press for a revision of the penal statutes, they claimed a present compensation for the damages inflicted upon their property. Such compensation was at once promised by the government.2 March 18th, 1779. London, 1780. The success of the fanatical rioters in Scotland, Riots in who had accomplished an easy triumph over the Roman Catholics and the government, encouraged the anti-Catholic bigotry in England. If it was wrong to favour Papists in Scotland, the recent English Act was also an error, of which Parliament must now repent. The fanatics found a congenial leader in Lord George Gordon; and the 1 March 15th, 1779; Parl. Hist., xx. 280; Ann. Reg., 1780, p. 26. 2 Parl. Hist., xx. 322. |