CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 



103 



iiy broke out, which was quelled by the severity of 

 the governor, lord Camden. It blazed forth again, 

 however, in 1798, and Ireland became the theatre of 

 a new civil war. By this rebellion, judicious men, 

 both hi England and Ireland, were convinced that, 

 as long as the two kingdoms had separate legis- 

 latures, and that of the weaker was dependent on 

 that of the stronger, and the inhabitants of the 

 two kingdoms thought their interests inconsistent, 

 jealousy and distrust would continue. The An- 



flo-Irish, also, who had previously desired the in- 

 ependence of Ireland, and, at first, supported the 

 rebellion, perceived that the superior numbers of the 

 Catholics, and their bitter enmity to the Protestants, 

 would make the separation of Ireland from Britain 

 a great misfortune for them. It was resolved, then, 

 to unite Ireland with Britain ; and, three years after 

 the last rebellion, the union was effected, and the 

 united parliament was opened, Jan. 22, 1801. In 

 regard to ecclesiastical affairs, nothing further was 

 provided in the act of union, than that the Episcopal 

 church in Ireland should remain the established 

 church, and should constitute, with the English, one 

 church. Respecting the condition of the Catholics 

 nothing was done, and Pitt observed that it would 

 be well to reserve this business for future delibera- 

 tion. The united parliament had been in session 

 but a few days, when reports were spread, which 

 cast a dark shade over the union, and gave occasion 

 for much anxiety. The Catholics in Ireland, it was 

 said, complained of the nonfulfilment of expectations 

 which had been held out to them, to make them 

 favourable to the union. Full emancipation had 

 been promised them, as a certain consequence of it. 

 Pitt, the author of the union, had pledged himself, 

 with his colleagues, to promote the fulfilment of this 

 wish of the Catholics. After the union was com- 

 pleted, invincible obstructions were found in the way 

 of the accomplishment of their promise. Pitt and 

 his colleagues had encouraged these hopes with the 

 expectation of being able to fulfill them. For this 

 reason, they endeavoured, after the union was com- 

 pleted, to obtain an act of parliament, by which ad- 

 mission to parliament and to offices of state, from 

 which the Catholics were still excluded, should be 

 made possible for a certain number of them, by dis- 

 pensing with the test-oath. But the king set him- 

 self against this measure, as being inconsistent with 

 his coronation-oath. Pitt and his colleagues, there- 

 fore, in 1801, resigned their places. Pitt foresaw 

 that, if both houses agreed to this measure, the king 

 would still withhold his permission; and thus the 

 discontent of the Catholics would be directed against 

 the person of the king himself. This, like a wise 

 statesman, he wished by all means to avert ; and, on 

 this ground, in 1805, he spoke against the emancipa- 

 tion, when the opposition proposed anew to grant 

 the Catholic a seat and a voice in parliament, and 

 admissibility to all offices of state. During later 

 years, the petition for complete emancipation was 

 several times renewed in vain. In 1822, on the 

 motion of Mr Canning, a bill was passed, in the 

 house of commons, by a majority of twenty-one 

 voices, enabling Roman Catholic peers to sit in par- 

 liament ; but, in the house of lords, the bill was re- 

 jected. The same happened in 1825, when the duke 

 of York, who died in 1827, solemnly opposed it. In 

 1827, under Canning's administration, the motion for 

 emancipation was lost, in the house of commons, by 

 a majority of three. The measure was, at last, 

 effected, under the administration of the duke of 

 Wellington. The disturbances in Ireland were as- 

 suming continually a more organized character, under 

 the influence of the Catholic association, which was 

 spread through the country, and directed by men of 



great abilities such as O'Connell and Shiel so tliat 

 his grace was, at last, driven to support the cause of 

 emancipation. Mr Peel, who had formerly spoken 

 warmly against emancipation, now moved it in the 

 house of commons. One of the chief opposers of the 

 measure was lord Eldon, the former lord chancellor ; 

 one of the royal family the duke of Cumberland 

 also took part with the opponents. 



The emancipation of the Catholics is so interesting 

 an event, that the following abstract of the fate of 

 various motions respecting it may not be unaccept- 

 able to our readers. In the year 1805, a majority of 

 129 in the house of .lords, and of 212 in the house of 

 commons, refused to act on the petition of the Catho- 

 lics, moved severally by lord Grenville and Mr Fox. 

 In 1807, lord Grenville withdrew his motion in 

 favour of emancipation, it being understood tliat his 

 majesty was averse to it. In 1808, Mr Grattan's 

 motion was rejected, in the house of commons, by a 

 majority of 153, and lord Donoughmore's, in the 

 house of lords, by a majority of eighty-seven. In 

 1810, a motion to the same effect, by the same mem- 

 bers, was again lost, by a majority of 112 in the 

 commons, and 86 in the lords. In 1812, there 

 was a majority of 72 in the lords, and 85 in the 

 commons, against the movers. Mr Canning's mo- 

 tion was lost, in the same year, by a majority of 

 129 in the commons, and that of the marquis of Wel- 

 lesly, by a majority of 113 in the lords. In 1813, 

 the motions of Mr Grattan, Sir John Cox Hippesley, 

 and doctor Duigenan, drew forth majorities against 

 the Catholics of forty, forty-eight, and forty-two, 

 and, on the 24th of May, the bill was given up. In 



1821, Mr Plunkett carried the bill through the house 

 of commons by a majority of nineteen ; but it was 

 lost hi the lords by a majority of thirty-nine. In 



1822, Mr Canning carried it, in the commons, by a 

 majority of twenty-one ; but it was thrown out, in 

 the lords, by a majority of forty-two. In 1825, Sir 

 Francis Burdett carried it, in the commons, by a 

 majority of twenty-seven ; but it was again thrown 

 oat, hi the lords, by a majority of forty-eight. la 



1827, Sir Francis Burdett's motion for a committee 

 was lost, hi the commons, by a majority of three. In 



1828, the motion for a conference with the lords was 

 carried, hi the commons, by a majority of six ; but 

 thrown out, hi the lords, by a majority of forty-five. 

 And, in 1829 (April 10), a relief bill, abolishing the 

 civil disabilities on Roman Catholics, by repealing the 

 oaths of supremacy, &c., was carried through the 

 commons by Mr Peel, with a majority of 180 on the 

 second reading, and 178 on the third ; and through 

 the lords, by the duke of Wellington, with a majority 

 of 105 en the second reading, and 104 on the third. 

 By this bill, Catholics are eligible to all offices of 

 state, excepting the lord-chancellorships of England 

 and Ireland, the lord-lieutenancy of Ireland, the 

 office of regent or guardian of the United Kingdom, 

 and that of high commissioner to the church of Scot- 

 land. They are still excluded from the right of pre- 

 sentation to livings, and all places connected with 

 the ecclesiastical courts and establishment. The 

 church patronage attached to any office hi the hands 

 of a Catholic is vested hi the archbishop of Canter- 

 bury. Attached to the bill is a clause for the gra- 

 dual suppression of the Jesuits and monastic orders 

 (religious establishments of females excepted). At 

 the same tune, the duke carried a disfranchisement 

 bill, by which the forty shilling freeholders of Ireland 

 were disfranchised, and the income of real estate ne- 

 cessary to entitle to a vote hi elections hi that 

 country raised to ten pounds sterling. There has 

 been published a History of the late Catholic Asso- 

 ciation of Ireland, from its Institution, in 1760, to its 

 final Dissolution in 1829; by Thomas Wyse, junior, 



