payment of fees to the Protestant clergymen. 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 illegiti mate, were chargeable upon the parishes in which they were born. 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 a member of the church of England; ignored all religious differences; and imposed, with rigorous uniformity, upon all communions alike, the altar, the ritual, the ceremonies, and the priesthood of the state. And under what penalties ? — celibacy, or concubinage and sin! Unitarian marriages, 1827. Three years later, Mr. W. Smith renewed his measure, in a new form. It permitted Unitarian dissenters, after the publication of bans, to be married before a magistrate, thus reviving the principle of a civil contract, which had existed before Lord Hardwicke's Act of 1752. This bill passed the Commons; but failed in the Lords, by reason of the approaching prorogation. And the revision of the law of marriage was left to await a more favorable opportunity. In 1824, Lord Lansdowne vainly endeavored to obtain for English Catholics the elective franchise, the right to serve as justices of the peace, and to hold offices in the revenue. But in the same year Parliament agreed to one act of courtly acknowledgment to a distinguished Catholic peer. An Act was passed, not without opposition, to enable the Duke Lord Lans- Office of Earl 1824. 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, 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 408. 2 Ibid., xvii. 1343. 8 Ibid., 1407, 1426; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 520. 4 Infra, p. 392. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 842; Twiss's Life of Eldon, îi. 518. 1823-25. of Norfolk to execute his hereditary office of Earl Marshal, without taking the oath of supremacy, or subscribing the decla rations against transubstantiation and the invocation of saints.1 Meanwhile, the repeated failures of the Catholic cause had aroused a dangerous spirit of discontent in Ireland. Agitation in The Catholic leaders, despairing of success over Ireland, majorities unconvinced and unyielding, were appealing to the excited passions of the people; and threatened to extort from the fears of Parliament what they had vainly sought from its justice. To secure the peace of Ireland, the legislature was called upon, in 1825, to dissolve the Catholic Association: but it was too late to check the progress of the Catholic cause itself, by measures of repression; and ministers disclaimed any such intention. 8 Burdett's While this measure was still before Parliament, the discussion of the Catholic question was. revived, on Sir Francis the motion of Sir Francis Burdett, with unusual motion, Feb. spirit and effect. After debates of extraordinary 28th, 1825. interest, in which many members avowed their conversion to the Catholic cause, a bill was passed by the Commons, framing a new oath in lieu of the oath of supremacy, as a qualification for office; and regulating the intercourse of Roman Catholic subjects, in Ireland, with the see of Rome. On reaching the House of Lords, however, this bill met the same fate as its predecessors; the second reading being refused by a majority of forty-eight." With a view to make the Catholic Relief Bill more acceptable, and at the same time to remove a great elec- Irish 40s. toral abuse, Mr. Littleton had introduced a meas- 1825. freeholders, 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xi. 1455, 1470, 1482; 5 Geo. IV. c. 109; Lord Colchester's Diary, iii. 326; Twiss's Life of Eldon, ii. 521. 2 Supra, p. 206. 8 Feb. 28th, April 19th and 21st, May 10th, 1825. 4 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xii. 764, 1151; Ibid., xiii. 21, 71, 486. The sec ond reading was carried by a majority of twenty-seven, and the third reading by twenty-one. 6 May 17th. Contents, 130; Non-contents, 178. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xiii. 662. ure for regulating the elective franchise in Ireland. Re specting vested interests, he proposed to raise the qualification of 40s. freeholders; and to restrain the creation of fictitious voters, who were entirely in the power of their landlords. By some this bill was regarded as an obnoxious measure of disfranchisement; but being supported by several of the steadiest friends of Ireland, and of constitutional rights, its second reading was agreed to. When the Catholic Relief Bill, however, was lost in the House of Lords, this bill was at once abandoned.1 eson Gower's motion April In April of this year, Lord Francis Leveson Gower carLord F. Lev- ried a resolution, far more startling to the Protestant party than any measure of enfranchisement. 29th, 1825. He prevailed upon the Commons to declare the expediency of making provision for the secular Roman Catholic clergy, exercising religious functions in Ireland. It was one of those capricious and incon-equent decisions, into which the Commons were occasionally drawn in this protracted controversy, and was barren of results. In 1827, the hopes of the Catholics, raised for a time by Mr. Canning's the accession of Mr. Canning to the head of death. affairs, were suddenly cast down by his untimely death. adminis At the meeting of Parliament in 1828, the Duke of The Duke of Wellington's administration had been formed. Wellington's Catholic emancipation was still an open question ;ʻ tration. but the cabinet, represented in one House by the Duke and in the other by Mr. Peel, promised little for the cause of religious liberty. If compliance was not to be expected, still less was such a government likely to be coerced by fear. The great soldier at its head retained, for a time, the command of the army; and no minister knew so well as 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xiii. 126, 176, &c., 902. 2 Ayes, 205; Noes, 162. Ibid., 308. 8 Lord Goderich's ministry had been formed and dissolved during the recess. 4 Peel's Mem., i. 12, 16. he, how to encounter turbulence or revolt. In politics he had been associated with the old Tory school; and unbending firmness was characteristic of his temper and profession. Yet was this government on the very eve of accomplishing more for religious liberty, than all the efforts of its champions had effected in half a century. Acts, 1828. 1828. The dissenters were the first to assault the Duke's strong citadel. The question of the repeal of the Corporation Corporation nd Test Acts had slumbered for nearly forty and Test years, when Lord John Russell worthily succeeded to the advocacy of a cause, which had been illustrated by the genius of Mr. Fox. In moving for a com- Feb. 26th, mittee to consider these Acts, he ably recapitulated their history, and advanced conclusive arguments for their repeal. The annual indemnity acts, though offering no more than a partial relief to dissenters, left scarcely an argument against the repeal of laws, which had been so long virtually suspended. It could not be contended that these laws were necessary for the security of the church; for they extended neither to Scotland nor to Ireland. Absurd were the number and variety of offices embraced by the Test Act; noncommissioned officers as well as officers, excisemen, tidewaiters, and even pedlers. The penalties incurred by these different classes of men were sufficiently alarming, forfeiture of the office, disqualification for another, incapacity to maintain a suit at law, to act as guardian or executor, or to inherit a legacy; and, lastly, a pecuniary penalty of 5001. Even if such penalties were never enforced, the law which mposed them was wholly indefensible. Nor was it forgotten gain to condemn the profanation of the holy sacrament y reducing it to a mere civil form, imposed upon persons who either renounced its sacred character, or might be spirit ually unfit to receive it. Was it decent, it was asked, "To make the symbols of atoning grace 1 Supra, p. 324. 2 Cowper's Expostulation, Works, i. p. 80, Pickering. Nor was this objection satisfactorily answered by citing Bishop Sherlock's version, that receiving the sacrament was not the qualification for office, but the evidence of qualification. The existing law was defended on the grounds so often repeated: that the state had a right to disqualify persons on the ground of their religious opinions, if it were deemed expedient; that there was an established church inseparable from the state, and entitled to its protection; and that the admission of dissenters would endanger the security of that church. Mr. Peel,- always moderate in his opposition to measures for the extension of religious liberty,- acknowledged that the maintenance of the Corporation and Test Acts was not necessary for the protection of the church; and opposed their repeal mainly on the ground that they were no practical grievance to the dissenters. After a judicious and temperate discussion on both sides, the motion was affirmed by a majority of forty-four. The bill was afterwards brought in, and read a second time without discussion.2 The government, not being prepared to resign office in Concurrence consequence of the adverse vote of the Commons, endeavored to avoid a conflict between the two Houses. The majority had comprised many of their own supporters, and attached friends of the established church; and Mr. Peel undertook to communicate with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other prelates, in order to persuade them to act in concert with that party, and share in the grace of a necessary concession. These enlightened churchmen met him with singular liberality, and agreed to Cup to do the substitution of a declaration for the sacramental test.' Lord John Russell and his friends, though satisfied that no 1 Ayes, 237; Noes, 193. Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xviii. 676. Peel's Mem., i. 69, 79. 4 Ibid., 70-98. |