without further remonstrance. The time had passed, when the word of a king could overrule his ministers and Parliament.

The third measure of the government still remains to be noticed, the regulation of the elective franchise Elective

Ireland.

in Ireland. The abuses of the 40s. freehold fran- franchise in chise had already been exposed; and were closely connected with Catholic emancipation.2 The Protestant landlords had encouraged the multiplication of small freeholds, — being, in fact, leases held of middlemen, - in order to increase the number of dependent voters, and extend their own political influence. Such an abuse would, at any time, have demanded correction; but now these voters had transferred their allegiance from the landlord to the Catholic priest. "That weapon," said Mr. Peel," which the landlord has forged with so much care, and has heretofore wielded with such success, has broke short in his hand." To leave such a franchise without regulation, was to place the county representation at the mercy of priests and agitators. It was therefore proposed to raise the qualification of a freeholder from 40s. to 102., to require due proof of such qualification, and to introduce a system of registration.

So large a measure of disfranchisement was, in itself, open to many objections. It swept away existing rights without proof of misconduct or corruption, on the part of the voters. So long as they had served the purposes of Protestant landlords, they were encouraged and protected; but when they asserted their independence, they were to be deprived of their franchise. Strong opinions were pronounced that the measure should not be retrospective; and that the bona fide 40s. freeholders, at least, should be protected; but the con1 Twiss's Life of Eldon, iii. 84, et seq.

2 Supra, p. 365; and Reports of Committees in Lords and Commons, 1825.

8 See especially the Speeches of Mr. Huskisson, Viscount Palmerston, and the Marquess of Lansdowne, Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xx. 1373, 1468; xxi. 407, 574.

nection between this and the greater measure, then in progress, saved it from any effective opposition; and it was passed rapidly through both Houses. By one party, it was hailed as a necessary protection against the Catholic priests and leaders; and by the other, it was reluctantly accepted as the price of Catholic emancipation.

olic peers take the

oaths, April 28th, May 1st, 1829.

peers,

On the 28th April, the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Clifford, Roman Cath- and Lord Dormer came to the House of Lords, and claimed their hereditary seats among their from which they had been so long excluded and were followed, a few days afterwards, by Lord Stafford, Lord Petre, and Lord Stourton.2 Respectable in the antiquity of their titles and their own character, they were an honorable addition to the Upper House; and no one could affirm that their number was such as to impair the Protestant character of that assembly.

nell and the

Clare election.

Mr. O'Connell, as already stated, had been returned in the Mr. O'Con- previous year for the county of Clare; but the privilege of taking the new oath was restricted to members returned after the passing of the Act. That Mr. O'Connell would be excluded from its immediate benefit, had been noticed while the bill was in progress; and there can be little doubt that its language had been framed for that express purpose. So personal an exclusion was a petty accompaniment of this great remedial measure. By Mr. O'Connell it was termed "an outlawry" against himself. He contended ably, at the bar, for his right of adMay 15th, 18th. mission: but the Act was too distinct to allow of an interpretation in his favor. Not being permitted to take the new oath, and refusing, of course, to take the oath of supremacy, a new writ was issued for the county of Clare. Though returned again without opposition, Mr. O'Connell made his exclusion the subject of unmeas

May 19th, 21st.

1 Hans. Deb., 2d. Ser., xx. 1329.

2 Lords' Journ., lxi. 402, 408.

3 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xxi. 1395, 1459, 151.

ured invective; and he entered the House of Commons, imbittered against those by whom he had been enfranchised.

deferred.

At length this great measure of toleration and justice was accomplished. But the concession came too late. Emancipa Accompanied by one measure of repression and tion too long another of disfranchisement, it was wrung by violence from reluctant and unfriendly rulers. Had the counsels of wiser statesmen prevailed, their political foresight would have averted the dangers before which the government, at length, had quailed. By rendering timely justice, in a spirit of conciliation and equity, they would have spared their country the bitterness, the evil passions, and turbulence of this protracted struggle. But thirty years of hope deferred, of rights withheld, of discontents and agitation, had exasperated the Catholic population of Ireland against the English government. They had overcome their rulers; and owing them no gratitude, were ripe for new disorders.1

Catholic emancipation, like other great measures, fell short of the anticipations, alike of supporters and oppo- Sequel of nents. The former were disappointed to observe emancipation. the continued distractions of Ireland, the fierce contentions between Catholics and Orangemen, the coarse and truculent agitation by which the ill-will of the people was excited against their rulers, the perverse spirit in which every effort for the improvement of Ireland was received, and the unmanageable elements of Irish representation. But a just and wise policy had been initiated; and henceforth statesmen strove to correct those social ills, which had arrested the prosperity of that hopeful country. With the Catholic Relief Act commenced the regeneration of Ireland.

Number of

On the other hand, the fears of the anti-Catholic party for the safety of the church and constitution, have been faintly realized. They dreaded the introduc- Catholic tion of a dangerous proportion of Catholic mem- the House bers into the House of Commons. The results, however, have fairly corresponded with the natural repre

1 See supra, p. 209.

members in

of Commons.

sentation of the three countries. No more than six Catholics have sat, in any parliament, for English constituencies. Not one has ever been returned for Scotland. The largest number representing Catholic Ireland, in any parliament, amounted to fifty-one, or less than one half the representation of that country,- and the average, in the last seven parliaments, to no more than thirty-seven.1 In these parliaments again, the total number of Roman Catholic members may be computed at about one sixteenth of the House of Commons. The Protestant character of that assembly is unchanged.

Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists.

To complete the civil enfranchisement of dissenters, a few supplementary measures were still required. They could only claim their rights on taking an oath; and some sects entertained conscientious objections to an oath, in any form. Numerous statutes had been passed to enable Quakers to make affirmations instead of oaths; and in 1833, the House of Commons, giving a wide interpretation to these statutes, permitted Mr. Pease,the first Quaker who had been elected for 140 years, take his seat on making an affirmation. In the same year, Acts were passed to enable Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, in all cases, to substitute an affirmation for an

to

1 Number of Roman Catholic Members returned for England and Ireland since the year 1835: from the Test Rolls of the House of Commons; the earlier Test Rolls having been destroyed by fire, in 1834.

These numbers, including members returned for vacancies, are sometimes slightly in excess of the Catholics sitting at the same time.

2 6 Anne, c. 23; I Geo. I. st. 2, c. 6 and 13; 8 Geo. I. c. 6; 22 Geo. II. c. 46 See Report of the Select Committee on his Case, Sess. 1833, No. 6.

oath. The same privilege was conceded, a few years later, to dissenters of more dubious denomination, who, having been Quakers or Moravians, had severed their connection with those sects, but had retained their scruples concerning the taking of an oath. Nor have these been barren concessions; for several members of these sects have since been admitted to Parliament; and one, at least, has taken a distinguished part in its debates.

Grant's

Relief to dissenters and Roman Catholics had been claimed on the broad ground that, as British subjects, Jewish they were entitled to their civil rights, without the disabilities condition of professing the religion of the state. And in 1830, Mr. Robert Grant endeavored to extend Mr R. this principle to the Jews. The cruel persecu- motion, Aprla tions of that race form a popular episode in the 5th, 1830. early history of this country; but at this time they merely suffered, in an aggravated form, the disabilities from which Christians had recently been liberated. They were unable to take the oath of allegiance, as it was required to be sworn upon the Evangelists. Neither could they take the oath of abjuration, which contained the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." Before the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, they had been admitted to corporate offices, in common with dissenters, under cover of the annual indemnity acts; but that measure, in setting dissenters free, had forged new bonds for the Jew. The new declaration was required to be made "on the true faith of a Christian." The oaths of allegiance and abjuration had not been designed, directly or indirectly, to affect the legal position of the Jews. The declaration had, indeed, been sanctioned with a forecast of its consequences; but was one of several amendments which the Commons were constrained to accept from the Lords, to secure the passing of an important measure. The operation of the law was fatal to nearly all the 2 1 & 2 Vict. c. 77

1 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 49, 82.

8 See supra, p. 369.