1828] THE CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION 1405 days after the establishment of the pledges (Aug. 2), Mr. Dawson, Peel's brother-in-law, and himself in the Administration, after a lively picture of the enormous power of the Association, concluded with the unexpected assertion, that as this power could not be crushed it ought to be conciliated. Coming from such a source the assertion was received as a certain proof that the cause of the Catholics was winning its way. Consequently the efforts of the Association were pressed forward with redoubled zeal. Parochial clubs were established, and great aggregate meetings held in various parts of Ireland. Mr. Shiel, one of its most ardent supporters, thus describes the condition of Ireland under its influence:-"Does not a tremendous organization extend over the whole island? Have not all the natural bonds by which men are tied together been broken and burst asunder? Are not all the relations of society which exist elsewhere gone? Has not property lost its influence? Has not rank been stripped of the respect which should belong to it? Has not an internal government grown up, which, gradually superseding the legitimate authorities, has armed itself with a complete domination? Is it nothing that the whole body of the clergy are alienated from the State, and that the Catholic gentry and peasantry and priesthood are all combined in one vast confederacy?" His description was true; the Association was omnipotent, and in nothing did it show its power so much as in the complete restraint it held over the excitable people. Faction and faction fights disappeared; crime of a graver sort almost vanished; and though the people were drilled and brought into something resembling military organization, although they were eager to know against whom they were to fight, the influence of the Association restrained them from all demonstrations likely to provoke hostilities, and on one occasion a few words from O'Connell at once broke up and dispersed a body of 50,000 men. This was the more admirable as the temper of the Protestants had naturally been roused, and Brunswick clubs had sprung up, to take the place of the Orange organization, which do not seem to have been as self-restrained as the Catholics. During the whole of this time the Duke was painfully making up his mind to his retreat. The peculiarity of his action was that he became absolutely silent; so complete was his silence, that Mr. Shiel thus describes the situation : "The minister folds his arms as if he were a mere indifferent observer, and the terrific contest between Protestant and Catholic only afforded him a spectacle for the amusement of his official leisure; he sits as if two gladiators were crossing their swords for his gratification: the Cabinet seems to be little better than a box in a theatre from which his Majesty's ministers may survey the Resignation of business of blood." Indeed, so strangely reticent was the Duke, that he ceased to correspond at all with his Lord Lieutenant, the Marquis of Anglesey. Uninstructed from home, Lord Anglesey, who was a Liberal, and inclined to the emancipation, naturally followed the dictates of his own opinions, and rendered the conduct of the Government almost treacherous from the indirect support he gave to the Liberals, while his chief in London was supporting the opposite party. The inevitable consequence was that he shortly committed an indiscretion which necessitated his recall. His place was taken by the Duke of Northumberland, a strong Tory. Peel and Wellington see the urgency of the Catholic question. Peel, the most influential member of the ministry next to the Premier, had already, since the Clare election, arrived at the conclusion that the solution of the question could no longer be postponed, and that only one form of solution was possible. The election of Catholics, while still unable to sit in Parliament, would deprive Ireland of its representation. So important an event as O'Connell's election could not possibly pass unnoticed and the question be left unmoved. With the present House a high-handed repression of the Association was impossible; were it attempted by a new House a civil war was inevitable: there remained but a third course-to give way. Early in August 1828, Peel had stated this opinion forcibly to the Duke, and told him that he considered that an attempt to settle the Catholic question was a lesser evil than to continue to leave it open; at the same time he wished himself to resign, and to leave the bringing in of the measure to other hands. Although aware of the penalty he should be called upon to pay for this change of opinion, the attacks to which he should be subject, and the loss of friends, he was at length persuaded by Wellington, who felt it impossible to carry on the Government without him, to retain his place. Peel's representations had had their effect upon the Duke's mind, and he was by degrees becoming convinced that further obstruction was impossible. During the autumn he learned to see that his choice lay between the reconquest of Ireland, the repeal of the Union, or the emancipation of the Catholics. He could not hesitate which of the three to choose. But though his own mind and that of his colleague were made up, great difficulties lay in the way of the execution of their plans, the chief of which was the temper of the King, who had now begun to 1829] CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION 1407 declare that he, like his father, was troubled with conscientious scruples. At length, in January, the King consented that the question should be brought before the Cabinet. The two ministers found little or no opposition, and it was determined to take in hand the final settlement of the question. Accordingly, in the royal speech at the opening of Parliament (Feb. 5), it was stated that measures must first of all be taken to establish authority by the destruction of the Association, and that then the whole condition of Ireland should be taken into consideration, with a view to altering the laws so as to remove civil disabilities from his Majesty's Catholic subjects. The speech came as an unexpected blow to the high Tories, but immediate discussion was postponed at the request of the ministry till the actual Bill could be introduced in its completed form. Meanwhile the preliminary measure for the destruction of the Association was brought in. Its necessity was however forestalled by the clever tactics of the Irish, who dissolved their Association before the Bill obtained the force of law. Having declared his change of opinion, Peel, who throughout acted as honourably as circumstances would allow, thought it incumbent on him to resign his seat for Oxford, which he no doubt owed chiefly to his supposed anti-Catholic views. The events of the election proved that he was right, the seat was contested by Sir Robert Inglis, who was elected by a considerable majority. Peel found a seat at Westbury. Opposition of The coast seemed now clear for the great measure, but the King made a final stand. The very day before the Bill was to be introduced (March 4), he sent unexpectedly for Wel- the King. lington, Lyndhurst, and Peel, declared he had been misunderstood, withdrew his sanction, and asked what they now intended to do about Ireland. In fact he had been incessantly worked on by the Tory Lords who had access to him; and, weak and miserable, apparently thought that the fear of offending him might even yet postpone the measure. Peel at once declared that nothing remained for him but to resign. The Duke and the Chancellor expressed the same intention, and they left the presence of the King, who bade them a most friendly farewell, in the belief that the ministry was at an end. Late at night Wellington received a letter, in which the King said that he was convinced of the impossibility of forming another ministry, and begged them to remain. Knowing his weak character, it was only on receiving express leave to declare that the measure was brought in with his consent that they agreed to remain, and it was with the assertion that he was acting in full accordance Introduction of with the King's wishes that Peel began his speech. The proposed Bill was of a sweeping but simple character. It substituted a new form of oath for the old oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration; thus, if a Catholic bound himself to support the State and not injure the Church, he could sit in either House of Parliament, had a perfect equality with his Protestant neighbours, and was eligible for all offices, civil, military, or municipal, with the exception of the office of Regent, of Lord Chancellor, of Viceroy of Ireland, or royal commissioner of the General Assembly of Scotland. From offices connected with the Church, or participation in Church patronage, he was naturally excluded. The second point of the Bill was the position to be occupied by the Roman Church. It was to be left as a dissenting community, unendowed and unrestricted, but the use of episcopal titles, the increase of monks, and the introduction of more Jesuits, were forbidden. This Bill for the remission of all restrictions was to be coupled with another for the establishment of certain securities, the chief of which consisted in the raising of the franchise to £10. In long and careful speech Peel explained his views, and vindicated his change of policy. The same course was pursued by Wellington in the Upper House, where he alleged that the chief grounds for his present conduct was his horror of civil war, which he regarded as inevitable. "I am one of those who have probably passed a longer period of my life engaged in war than most men, and principally, I may say, in civil war, and I must say this, that if I could avoid by any sacrifice whatever even one month of civil war in the country to which I am attached, I would sacrifice my life in order to do it. There is nothing which disturbs property and wellbeing so much, which so deteriorates character as civil war, and that, my Lords, would have been the event to which we must have looked, that the means to which we must have had recourse." As was natural, there was a strong opposition, but in both Houses Canningites, Whigs, and Ministerialists combined to swell the majority; on the first reading it numbered 188, on the second 180. Not one amendment was carried in Committee, and the Bill finally passed by a majority of 178 in a House of 452. In the The Bill passed. House of Lords it was as favourably received, and on the 10th of April it was passed on the third reading by 213 to 209. There was yet one more struggle, in which the King played a pitiful part. Lord Eldon relates two interviews he had with him, in which George seemed inclined to deny that he had ever April 1829. [829] O'CONNELL'S AGITATIONS 1409 authorized his ministers to bring in the Bill, and to represent himself as forced to consent by repeated threats of resignation. Lord Eldon was honest enough to say, after he had seen written evidence of the fact, that the King's consent had been given, and that it could not now be withdrawn, and the interview closed in the midst of petulant and childish exclamations of anger on the part of the King. Lord Eldon probably hoped that in spite of what he had said there might be still some delay, but the royal assent was at once given, and the Bill became law on the 14th of April. agitates for the repeal of The Bill for the disfranchisement of the forty shilling freeholders passed at the same time as the Catholic Emancipation Bill, and received the royal assent with it. The conduct of O'Connell, who O'Connell quietly allowed the passing of this Bill, caused much surprise. "The forties" had been his best supporters, he the Union. had pledged himself in the strongest language to support their claims, but he quietly allowed them to be disfranchised. It was strange how little commotion so sweeping a measure produced. A few of the more advanced reformers of England regarded it as an enormous price paid for a still greater advantage. But in fact the quarrel had been rapidly assuming the form of a division of races, and the English Catholics, without whom the measure could not have been carried, were far more anxious for the equality of their Church than for the enlargement of Irish liberty. To O'Connell the question assumed a different shape. Although he repeatedly declared that the passing of the Bill would quiet Ireland, he by no means intended that such should be the case. With him the question was far more Irish than Catholic, as was soon made evident by his conduct. He presented himself to take his seat in Parliament (May 15), and offered to take the new oath, but as he had been elected while the old law was in force, it was held that he was still under its requirements. With excellent temper and ability he argued his case, which was however given against him, and a new writ for Clare was issued. His return was unopposed (July 30), yet he allowed himself the utmost freedom of language, abused with all the powers of his invective the English Government, and gave it clearly to be understood that he meant to continue the struggle till it should end in the repeal of the Union. These preliminary operations took so much time that it was not till the next session that he could take his seat. From this time onwards it is impossible to regard him as the champion of a good cause; he sank into the position of a demagogue, exciting the people for an impracticable object, which he must have |