The legislation, during the present period, for the relief of the dissenters was completed in the next session by the passing of an act (the 53 Geo. III. c. 160) removing certain penalties imposed by an act of 1698 (the 9 and 10 Will. III. c. 32) upon persons impugning the doctrine of the Trinity. By the law thus repealed the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity was punishable, for the first offence, by incapacity to hold any office or place of trust; and, for the second, by incapacity to bring any action, or to be guardian, executor, or legatee, or purchaser of lands, together with imprisonment for three years without bail. The repealing bill originated with Mr. William Smith, who moved for, and obtained, leave to bring it in on the 5th of May, 1813, the government offering no objection; and, having gone through all its previous stages, it was read a third time and passed in the Lords on the 22nd of July. "It should seem now, therefore," observes Mr. Justice Coleridge, in noticing the effect of this act, "that the temporal courts have no jurisdiction directly in cases of heresy, but they may still have to determine collaterally what falls within that description; as, in a quare impedit, if the bishop pleads that he refused the clerk for heresy, it is said that he must set forth the particular point; for the court, having cognisance of the original cause, must, by consequence, have a power as to all collateral and incidental matters which are necessary for its determination, though in themselves they belong to another jurisdiction."

Almost the only names of general literary celebrity among the dissenting clergy of this period are those of the late Reverend Robert Hall, of Leicester, and John Foster, of Bristol, the author of

REV. ROBERT HALL.

the well-knownEssays on the Formation of Character; the former distinguished for his flowing and finished eloquence, the latter for originality of thought and force of style. The Baptist connexion, we believe, claims both these writers. Of popular preachers and active controversial pamphleteers

*Note on Blackstone, 4 Com. 50. Mr. Justice Coleridge refers to Hawkins, Pl. C. B. i. c. 2.

almost every sect could boast;the Methodists of Rowland Hill, and William Huntingdon, and Matthew Wilks; the Independents of John Clayton, Sen. and William Bengo Collyer; the Unitarians of Theophilus Lindsey and Thomas Belsham, &c. &c.; but no name eminent for theological learning graces this portion of the annals of any of the dissenting churches.

No other subject was so fully or so frequently discussed in parliament during this period as that of the removal of the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics, or what was now commonly styled the question of Catholic Emancipation. Anything like a detailed account of the crowded succession of debates and other proceedings which make up the history of this question from the Union with Ireland till the death of George III. would fill several large volumes. We can here, therefore, only attempt the merest outline or index of the course of the long controversy.

It is a curious fact, little adverted to or remembered in the present day, that the Union, when proposed by Mr. Pitt, received the general approbation and support of the Irish Catholics, and that their aid materially contributed to the carrying of the measure. The Irish parliament, before its extinction, had incurred the hostility of the Roman Catholics by obstinately refusing to admit them to seats in it. Mr. Pitt, on the other hand, had long been the friend and supporter of their claims, which both he and they expected to be able to carry in the imperial parliament. The cordiality which subsisted between the two parties was evinced by the result of the deliberations of "a meeting of the Roman Catholic prelates held at Dublin on the 17th, 18th, and 19th of January, 1799, to deliberate on a proposal from government of an independent provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, under certain regulations, not incompatible with their doctrines, discipline, or just influence;" when it was resolved "That a provision, through government, for the Roman Catholic clergy of this kingdom [of Ireland], competent and secured, ought to be thankfully accepted;" and "That, in the appointment of the prelates of the Roman Catholic religion to the vacant sees within the kingdom, such interference of government as may enable it to be satisfied of the loyalty of the person appointed is just, and ought to be agreed to." All the four Roman Catholic archbishops were present, and signed these resolutions.

Mr. Pitt, finding that he could not move the king to consent to the concession of the Roman Catholic claims, resigned a few days after the meeting of the first imperial parliament, in the end of January 1801. Mainly by his influence, however, the discussion of the question in parliament was kept back throughout Mr. Addington's administration; nor was it mentioned during so much of the current session as elapsed after Mr. Pitt's resumption of office in May 1804.

But on the 21st of January, 1805, within a week

after the commencement of the next session, the Earl of Suffolk, in the House of Lords, gave notice of a motion on the subject, if it should not be taken up by some other peer, or if nothing should be done in regard to it by ministers. On the 19th of March thereafter Lord Grenville intimated that he should on the 25th present to the House a petition on the part of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland. This he did accordingly, and the petition, after having been read by the clerk, was, in terms of Lord Grenville's motion, ordered to lie on the table; but the motion of the Duke of Norfolk that it should be printed was negatived. On the same day a similar petition was presented in the Commons by Mr. Fox. On Friday, the 10th of May, Lord Grenville moved in the Lords that the petition should be then taken into consideration in a committee of the whole House. In the course of his speech, referring to the hopes excited in the minds of the Catholics of Ireland at the time of the Union, Lord Grenville said, "No authorised assurance was ever given; no promise was ever made to the Catholics that such a measure would be the consequence of the Union; but it is no less true that, by the arguments of those who supported the Union, by the course of reasoning in doors and out of doors, hopes were given that the subject of Catholic Emancipation would be more favourably considered here than it was ever likely to be in the parliament of Ireland. Those who wished well to the Union could not so far betray their trust as not to state that one of the recommendations of the measure was that it did seem to afford the only practicable mode of preventing the renewal of the disputes which had produced such calamities in Ireland. It was not, therefore, either from persons authorised or not authorised to make assurances as to the effect of the Union that the hopes of the Catholics were raised; it was from the nature of the subject itself that they entertained, and were justified in entertaining, great and sanguine expectations that the measure would lead to the consequences anxiously desired." The opposition to the motion was led by Lord Hawkesbury (afterwards Earl of Liverpool), secretary of state for the home department. His lordship said, "I have great satisfaction in feeling, that, differing as I do on part of the subject from some persons whose vote this night will be dictated by the same general principles as my own, no efforts have been omitted by me to prevent this question from being agitated under the present circumstances. Similar exertions for the same purpose have been made by my noble friend who is at the head of the government of Ireland (the Earl of Hardwicke): but, as all our exertions have proved ineffectual, as the Catholics have been advised to press forward their claims on the attention of parliament at this particular period, contrary to their own interests, and, as I think, to a just consideration of what is due to the tranquillity of the empire, I feel it to be a duty to have no reserve on the subject." He then

stated that, though he thought the circumstances of the time furnished alone a sufficient ground of opposition to the motion, yet his own objections applied to any time and to any circumstances in which the subject could be brought forward. In the debate that followed the motion was supported by Lords Spencer and Holland, and opposed by the Duke of Cumberland, Lord Sidmouth, Lord Mulgrave (chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster), Earl Camden (secretary of state for the colonies), the Bishop of Durham (Barrington), Lord Redesdale (Irish chancellor), and the Earl of Limerick; at four o'clock on Saturday morning the discussion was adjourned till Monday; when it was resumed on that evening, the motion was supported by the Earl of Suffolk, the Earl of Oxford, Lord Hutchinson, the Earl of Ormond, the Earl of Albemarle, the Duke of Norfolk, the Earl of Moira, Earl Darnley, Lord King, and the Earl of Longford; it was opposed by the Earl of Buckinghamshire, Lord Carleton, Lord Boringdon, the Archbishop of Canterbury (Sutton), the lord chancellor (Eldon), Lord Harrowby (foreign secretary), the Earl of Westmoreland (lord privy seal), the Bishop of St. Asaph (Horsley), Lord Ellenborough, Lord Auckland, and Lord Bolton; and, after Lord Grenville had replied, the House divided at near six o'clock on Tuesday morning, when the numbers were found to be, for the motion 49 (including 12 proxies), against it 178 (including 45 proxies). Auckland, who was in office under Pitt when the Union with Ireland was arranged, in the course of his speech said; "It will ever be a consideration of just pride to me that I have borne no small share in adjusting all the details of that transaction; and I do not hesitate to declare that, if the concessions now proposed were in the contemplation of those with whom I acted at that time, their views were industriously concealed from me, and from others of their associates. It is indeed true that, soon after the Union, there was, apparently, a sudden change in the opinions of some leading persons respecting the subject now in discussion. I do not impute any blame to that change, or doubt its sincerity, though I must deplore it. That change has given an irreparable shock to the confidence of public men in each other; and to it perhaps are owing many of the distractions and difficulties under which the empire has since laboured." On this same evening, the 13th, a motion to the same effect with that of Lord Grenville was made in the Commons by Mr. Fox: here the opposition to it was led by one of the most furious and extreme enemies of concession, the famous Dr. Duigenan, member for the city of Armagh ;* he was followed on the same side by the attorneygeneral (Perceval) and Mr. Alexander; the only other speech delivered in support of the motion

Lord

The report of Dr. Duigenan's speech fills fifty-two long columns of the Parliamentary Debates.' Grattan, who rose immediately after him, described it as consisting of four parts; 1st, invective against the religion of the Catholics; 2ndly, invective against the present generation; 3rdly, invective against the past; and 4thly, invective against the future. "Here," said Grattan, "the limits of creation interposed, and stopped the learned member."

that night was a brilliant oration by Grattan, who spoke on this occasion for the first time in the imperial parliament; at three o'clock on Tuesday morning the debate was adjourned; when the House re-assembled that evening the motion was supported by Mr. William Smith, Mr. Lee, Dr. Lawrence, Mr. George Ponsonby, Mr. Windham, Sir John Newport, Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald, the Hon. H. A. Dillon, Mr. John Latouche, Sir John Coxe Hippesley, Colonel Hiley Hutchinson, and Mr. Hawthorn; it was opposed by Sir William Scott, Mr. Foster, the chancellor of the exchequer (Pitt), Mr. Archdale, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Hiley Addington, Lord De Blaquiere, Sir George Hill, and Sir William Dolben; Fox replied at considerable length; and then the House divided a little before five o'clock on Wednesday morning, when the motion was negatived by a majority of 336 against 124. Pitt, whose speech was not a long one, of course took his ground in resisting the motion upon the time and circumstances in which it had been brought forward. The considerations, he stated, which made it impossible for him to urge emancipation while he was in office before made it equally impossible for him to urge it now. "Seeing, sir," he concluded, "what are the opinions of the times, what is the situation of men's minds, and the sentiments of all descriptions and classes, of the other branch of the legislature, and even the prevailing opinion of this House, I feel that I should act contrary to a sense of my duty, and even inconsistently with the original grounds upon which I thought the measure ought to be brought forward, if I countenanced it under the present circumstances, or if I hesitated in giving my decided negative to the House going into a committee."

The majorities on this occasion, in both Houses, were swelled by all those friends of the principle of concession who had taken office with or attached themselves to Pitt, and who felt, or professed to feel, with him that the measure ought not to have been brought forward at that moment. Mr. Pitt died in January 1806, and then Mr. Fox and Lord Grenville came into power. Nothing was done for the Catholics in the premiership of Fox, any more than had been done for them in that of Pitt. On the 11th of March, immediately after the formation of the new administration, when the Hon. H. A. Dillon, in the House of Commons, requested to be informed what were the intentions of the government with regard to emancipation, remarking that rumours had gone abroad of a very extraordinary change of sentiments having taken place in certain quarters on that subject, Fox, with something of pettishness, declined answering the question. "So far," he said,

am concerned in this question, whenever it comes under discussion I shall be perfectly ready to state my opinion; and all I think it necessary to say as to my future conduct is to refer to a consideration of my past. I cannot, however, hesitate to state, that, if any gentleman were to ask my advice as to the propriety of bringing forward the Catholic

VOL. IV.-GEO. 11I.

claims at present, I should recommend him to take into consideration the prospect of success, and the greater probability of succeeding this year or the next; at the same time to bear in mind the issue of last year's discussion." This almost amounted to an admission, upon Pitt's own grounds, that the late premier had judged rightly in opposing the attempt then made. At all events Fox, now that he was himself premier, pursued the very same

course.

On

Fox died in September 1806, leaving Lord Grenville at the head of affairs; and then, on the 5th of March, 1807, the first day of the next session, with a new parliament, Lord Howick, secretary for foreign affairs, moved for and obtained leave in the Commons to bring in, not a measure for giving the Catholics seats in parliament, but only a bill for enabling them to hold the higher commissions in the army and navy. The fate of this proposition, involving, as it did, that of the ministry which brought it forward, forms a memorable part of the general history of the country." the 18th of March the second reading of the bill, which had been already twice postponed, was, on the motion of Lord Howick, postponed a third time, under circumstances stated not at that moment to admit of explanation. In point of fact, the ministers, finding that the king would not give his consent to the bill, agreed to withdraw it; but his majesty, not satisfied with this, required them to sign an engagement that they would propose no further concessions to the Roman Catholics; and the day after their refusal to comply with that demand he sent them an intimation that he must look out for other servants.

After this Catholic emancipation became almost an annual question in parliament. In 1808 the immediate consideration of the subject by a committee of the whole House was moved on the 25th of May by Mr. Grattan in the Commons, and on the 27th by Lord Grenville in the Lords. In the Commons the motion was negatived, on a division at six o'clock on the morning of the 26th, by a majority of 281 against 128; in the Lords it was negatived by 161 to 74. All the ministers, including Mr. Canning, Lord Castlereagh, and the other members of the government who professed themselves favourable to the abstract principle of emancipation, still, after the example of Mr. Pitt, voted against the proposition in the circumstances in which it had been brought forward.

Grattan's speech on this occasion is memorable, as having contained the first mention of the famous project of the Veto, which he announced as a proposition that the Catholics had authorised him to make the proposition, he said, is this; "That in the future nomination of bishops his majesty may interfere and exercise his royal privilege, by putting a negative upon such nomination; that is, in other words, to say, that no Catholic bishop shall be appointed without the entire approbation of his majesty." It turned out afterwards that Grattan's

See ante, pp. 259, 263.

4 K

representation could be suffered to take place, nor could any person, "without a gross violation of the law, be a representative or delegate, or act, under any name, as a representative or delegate. At the same time it was clearly intimated, though not expressly stated, that the county managers were all to be members of the great Dublin committee in those cases in which there were any persons connected with the county among the survivors of the delegates of 1793, it was directed that, as these persons were already constituted members of the committee, only so many additional managers should be appointed as would make up the number to ten; and in conclusion the letter said:" In appointing those managers, the committee respectfully solicit your particular attention to the many advantages to be derived from naming managers whose avocations require or leisure permits their permanent or occasional residence in Dublin, where the ultimate arrangements as to the petition can best be made." This letter, signed "Edward Ray, Secretary to the General Committee of the Catholics in Ireland sitting in Dublin," was dated from the committee's place of meeting, No. 4, Capel Street, 1st January, 1811. It appears, however, that, having no doubt been prepared by a sub-committee, it was kept a profound secret from all except the confidential persons to whom it was sent, and escaped even the vigilance of the government, for about three weeks: it is affirmed to have been not till the 23rd of January that the Irish government became possessed of the fact that such a letter had been written, and not till the 10th or 12th of February that they obtained a copy of it. It is acknowledged, however, which seems somewhat extraordinary, that they "at the same time received private information of the most secret nature that several thousand copies of that letter were circulating in Ireland; that many members of the augmented committee had been returned; that some of them had actually arrived in Dublin; and that the whole of them were expected to arrive time enough for the meeting of the 16th of February, or, at latest, for that of the 23rd." Such was the statement afterwards made in the House of Commons in his own defence by Mr. W. Wellesley Pole, the Irish Secretary.* "We were also informed," he farther said, "that the letter had been penned by the lawyers belonging to the Catholic Committee, and that great pains had been taken to keep within the letter of the law, and to avoid incurring its penalties, the object being to obtain a complete representative body from all the counties of Ireland, under the pretext of assisting in managing the petition. It was also stated that, when all the members had arrived, and the Catholic Convention had assembled, it would be kept sitting for the purpose of diffusing throughout Ireland the flame. which the committee had raised in Dublin. Irish government also received information of the mode in which the elections had been and were to In debate of 7th March, 1811.

The

be conducted. One main object, it appeared, was to secure secrecy; and names were sent down from Dublin of particular persons resident in that city whom the committee recommended to be returned as delegates from certain places; and by this contrivance it was expected that a full attendance would always be secured." It may be noted that of this Catholic Committee Mr. O'Connell was already a leading member.

Whatever may be thought of the supineness of the government up to this time, it seemed to be now determined to wipe off that imputation at least. On the 13th of February Mr. Wellesley Pole addressed from the Castle a circular letter to the sheriffs and chief magistrates in all the Irish counties calling upon them to cause to be arrested and committed to prison, or only set at large upon bail, all persons in any way concerned in sending up the so-called managers to the Catholic committee, which body was expressly designated in the letter "an unlawful assembly." The law upon which the secretary for Ireland grounded this order was an act passed by the Irish parliament in 1793 (the 33 Geo. III. c. 29) entitled "An Act to prevent the election or appointment of unlawful assemblies, under pretence of preparing or presenting public petitions or other addresses to his majesty or the parliament:" it had been passed to put down the Catholic Convention of that year, and was commonly known by the name of the Convention Act. On the 18th of February, as soon as the letter was heard of in England, the subject was mentioned in the House of Lords by the Earl of Moira, and in the Commons by Mr. Ponsonby; ministers stated that the proceeding had been taken without their knowledge; but the intimation of it which they had received from the authorities at Dublin Castle " was," Lord Liverpool declared, “ accompanied with reasons founded on various sources of information, some of them of a secret nature, which proved that a systematic attempt was making for the violation of the law, which the government of Ireland felt to be such as to justify it in having recourse to this means of prevention.' On the 22nd the subject was again brought forward in both Houses: a motion for an address to the prince regent, requesting that he would direct copies to be laid before the House of all dispatches addressed to or received from the lord-lieutenant of Ireland respecting Mr. Secretary Pole's letter, was made by the Marquess of Lansdowne in the Lords, where it was negatived without a division, and by the Hon. J. W. Ward in the Commons, where it was rejected by a majority of 80 to 43. On the 7th of March, after Mr. Wellesley Pole had come over to England, the same motion, somewhat varied, was again made in the Commons by Mr. Ponsonby, and was negatived by a majority of 133 to 48. Finally, on the 4th of April Earl Stanhope in the Lords moved a resolution declaring the letter to be a violation of the law, which was supported only by 6 votes against 21. Meanwhile, Mr. Wellesley Pole's