Jan. 31st.

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 Jan. 23d, 1799. consequences, was frequently alluded to. Mr. Canning argued that the Union "would satisfy the friends of the Protestant ascendency, without passing laws against the Catholics, and without maintaining those which are yet in force." 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 favorable 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 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 clergy, without affecting the security of the Protestant establishment.

....

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

2 Parl. Hist., xxxiv., 272.

8 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.

"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." — Ibid., iii. 326.

-

executive

In securing the support of different parties in Ireland te the Union, the question of Catholic disabilities was The Irish one of great delicacy. Distinct promises, which and the might have secured the hearty support of the Catholics. 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 expecta tions of relief from the Irish Parliament.1 Lord Cornwallis alive to these difficulties, appears to have met them with con summate address. Careful not to commit him-elf or the gov ernment to any specific engagements, he succeeded in en couraging the hopes of the Catholics, without alarming the Protestant party. The sentiments of the government were known to be generally favorable 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,

3

1 Cornwallis's Corr., iii. 51.

2 Jan. 2d, 1799, he writes: "I shall endeavor to give them (the Catholics) the most favorable 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.

-

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." — Ibid., 55. See also ibid., 63, 149, 327, 344, 347.

2 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, 1799, having seen in a letter from Lord Castlereagh แ 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.

4 Mr. Pitt wrote to Lord Cornwallis, Nov. 17th, 1798:-"Mr. Elliot,

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; but he admitted that they had formed strong expectations of remedial measures after the Union; of which indeed there is abundant testimony.

to Catholics

These expectations Mr. Pitt and his colleagues were preConcessions pared to satisfy. When the Union had been acproposed, af- complished, they agreed that the altered relations ter the Union. 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. It was a measure of high and prescient statesmanship, worthy of the genius of the great minister who had achieved the Union. But toleration, which had formerly been resisted by Par

Concessions

the king.

liament and the people, now encountered the inforbidden by vincible opposition of the king, who refused his assent to further measures of concession, as inconwhen 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 favor 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.

1 March 25th, 1801; Parl. Hist., xxxv. 1124; and see Cornwallis's Corr., iii. 343-350.

2 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's Corr., ii. 436; Butler's Hist. Mem., iv. 70; see also Edinb. Rev., Jan. 1858.

8 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. 112–134.

Ireland

sistent with the obligations of his coronation oath. To his unfounded scruples were sacrificed the rights of millions and the peace of Ireland. The measure was arrested at its inception. The minister fell; and, in deference to the king's feelings, was constrained to renounce his own wise and liberal policy.1 But the question of Catholic disabilities, in connection with the government of Ireland, was too moment- Critical ous to be set at rest by the religious scruples of condition of the king, and the respectful forbearance of statesmen. In the rebellion of 1798, the savage hatred of Prot estants and Catholics had aggravated the dangers of that critical period. Nor were the difficulties of administering the government overcome by the Union. The abortive rebellion of Robert Emmett, in 1803, again exposed the alarming condition of Ireland; and suggested that the social dislocation of that unhappy country needed a more statesmanlike treatment than that of Protestant ascendency The and irritating disabilities. For the present, however, the general question was in abeyance in abeyance. Parliament. Mr. Pitt had been silenced by the king; and Mr. Addington's administration was avowedly anti-Catholic. Yet in 1803, Catholics obtained a further instalment of relief, - being exempted from certain penalties and disabilities, on taking the oath and subscribing the declaration prescribed by the Act of 1791.2

Catholic

question in

In 1804, a serious agitation for Catholic relief commenced in Ireland: but as yet the cause was without hope. Mr. Pitt, On Mr. Pitt's restoration to power, he was still re- 1804-5. strained by his engagement to the king from proposing any measure for the relief of Catholics himself; and was con strained to resist their claims when advocated by others. In 1805, the discussion of the general question Catholic was resumed in Parliament. Lord Grenville petition, presented a petition from the Roman Catholics of 1805.

alarch 25th,

2 43 Geo. III. c. 30.

Ireland, recounting the disabilities under which they still suffered.1

Lord Grenville's motion, May 10th, 1805.

On the 10th May, his lordship moved for a committee of the whole House to consider this petition. He urged that three fourths of the people of Ireland were Roman Catholics, whose existence the state could not ignore. At the time of the Revolution they had been excluded from civil privileges, not on account of their religion, but for their political adhesion to the exiled sovereign. In the present reign they had received toleration in the exercise of their religion, power to acquire land, the en joyment of the elective franchise, and the right to fill many offices from which they had previously been excluded. Whatever objections might have existed to the admission of Roman Catholics to the Parliament of Ireland, had been removed by the Union; as in the Parliament of the United Kingdom there was a vast preponderance of Protestants. This argument had been used by those who had promoted the Union. It had encouraged the hopes of the Roman Catholics; and now, for the first time since the Union, that body had appealed to Parliament. His lordship dwelt upon their loyalty, as frequently declared by the Irish Parliament; exonerated them from participation, as a body, in the Rebellion; combated the prejudice raised against them on account of the recent coronation of Napoleon by the pope; and illustrated the feelings which their exclusion from lawful objects of ambition naturally excited in their minds. He desired to unite all classes of the people in the common benefits and common interests of the state.

This speech, which ably presented the entire case of the Roman Catholics, opened a succession of debates, in which all the arguments relating to their claims were elicited.2 As regards the high offices of state, it was urged by Lord Hawkesbury, that while the law excluded a Roman Catholic

1 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., iv. 97.

2 Ibid., iv. 651-729, 742.