Parliament resumed its sittings on the 8th of February. One of its earliest measures was to vote an address of condolence to the king on the death of his royal brother, on which occasion all political asperity was forgotten in an unanimous expression of respect for the private character and official conduct of the deceased. Men of all parties, as Mr. Peel, Sir R. Wilson, Mr. Brougham, and others, paid the tribute of high respect to his memory. Mr. Brougham considered it no small praise to the Duke of York that, in his office of commander-in-chief, he never allowed his political principles to interfere in the discharge of the duties of his office; and Sir R. Wilson remarked, that it was worthy of observation that the improvement which he had effected in the discipline of the army was maintained without undue severity. On these improvements Mr. Peel dwelt at great length, clearly showing that the high state of discipline now existing in the British army was chiefly owing to the exertions of the deceased prince.
By the death of the Duke of York his next brother, the Duke of Clarence, became heir presumptive to the crown. Ministers embraced this opportunity of proposing an increase of £6,000 per annum to his income, as well as £3,000 as a jointure to his consort. This motion was strongly opposed by Lord Althorpe, and by Messrs. Hume, Brougham, and Abercromby. Mr. Hume contended that it was ungracious and inconsistent to be proposing an additional burden of £9,000 a year, so soon after a royal letter to the bishops had exhorted them to use all their influence in promoting charitable contributions for the relief of the starving population. He had himself recently presented a petition from the weavers of Blackburn, praying that something might be done which would provide them with food; and the answer given to their prayers was a vote for adding to their burdens. Unwilling, however, to do anything which might look like a reproach to the crown, he would not oppose the motion by a direct negative; but, in order to give ministers an opportunity of withdrawing it, he would move that the chairman should report progress, and sit again for the further consideration of the proposed grant. The principal plea of the opponents of the grant was, that no additional expenses were entailed on his royal highness; but it was finally voted by a majority of ninety-nine against fifteen.
CATHOLIC QUESTION.
At this period circumstances seemed peculiarly favourable to the claims of the Roman Catholics. The Duke of York was dead, Lord Liverpool was seriously ill, and the influence of Mr. Canning was all potent in the cabinet. Public attention had been fixed on this subject, from the opening of the session, more eagerly than any other which promised to occupy the attention of parliament; and petitions against their claims nightly covered the tables of both houses from the Protestant community. On the other hand, the Catholics were equally active; and at length, on the 5th of March, after having presented their general petition, Sir Francis Burdett brought the question before the house of commons. He moved—“That this house is deeply impressed with the necessity of taking into immediate consideration the laws inflicting penalties on his majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects, with the view of removing them.” The speech which Sir Francis Burdett delivered on this occasion gave rise to a debate that lasted two nights. In the course of his speech, he remarked, that the claims of the Catholics rested on more undeniable grounds than were supplied by general justice, or by historical deductions—they had been secured to them by treaty. “Every hour,” he said, “that the disqualifications were allowed to continue, was a new violation of our solemn engagements, and a breach of public faith. What, the Catholics asked, had been secured to them by the treaty of Limerick? The first article of that treaty was the following:—‘The loyal Catholics of this kingdom shall enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion as are consistent with the laws of Ireland, or as they did enjoy in the reign of King Charles II.; and their majesties, so soon as their affairs will permit them to summon a parliament in this kingdom, will endeavour to procure the said Roman Catholics such further security in that particular as may preserve them from any disturbance upon the account of their said religion,’ Now he apprehended that Catholic peers sat in parliament in the reign of Charles II., so that here was an express stipulation for the benefit of Catholics generally. It was impossible to admit the interpretation put upon this provision by the opponents of the Catholic claims, as if its benefits had been limited to the persons besieged in Limerick; for strange, indeed, would it be, if those who held out longest in arms, and therefore did the greatest extent of mischief to the ruling powers, should yet be held to have been entitled to public favour. It was monstrous to suppose that this treaty related solely to the garrison of Limerick; for what said the 9th article?—‘The oath to be administered to such Roman Catholics as submit to their majesties’ government shall be the oath aforesaid and no other.’ The oath referred to was the ‘oath of allegiance,’ and no other; and the article comprehended all submitting Catholics generally. But how had faith been kept with them? when it was by the exaction of new oaths, and nothing else, that they had ever since been excluded from the enjoyment of their proper privileges? But even if the interpretation that the men in arms alone were included were conceded, then their descendants (and they must have some) were, though Catholics, invested with these privileges. There necessarily must be some Catholics in the kingdom who were not excluded with the rest of their brethren: and where were they? But such a construction was trifling, contrary to all rules of logic, and all fair modes of reasoning. So far as the treaty of Limerick went, the case was conclusive: faith had been pledged, and faith had been broken.” The treaty of Limerick thus brought forward by Sir Francis Burdett became the grand argument in the debate; and it was relied on both by those who favoured and those who opposed emancipation. In supporting the motion, Mr. Plunkett, the attorney-general for Ireland, said that it certainly did appear to him that at the time of signing the articles of the treaty of Limerick, the Roman Catholics of Ireland possessed certain important privileges; and amongst others the right of admission into parliament. The first article fully recognised their privileges, for it did not refer merely to the exercise of religious rights, but also to the enjoyment of such political privileges as they had exercised in the reign of Charles II., one of which was eligibility to sit in the Irish parliament. It was argued, he said, that this provision extended only to persons who were in the garrison; but the words of the article, which mentioned generally, and without reservation, “the Roman Catholics of this kingdom,” sufficiently proved that it was meant to include the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics. One of the most powerful pleaders on the other side of the question was Mr. Peel, whose speech made a deep impression on the house. “If I could be satisfied that any of the privileges withheld from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, were so withheld in violation of the treaty of Limerick, it would very materially influence my judgment in deciding on the present question. But after having examined into this matter with the greatest attention, I feel a more perfect conviction that that treaty afforded the Catholics no claims to have their disabilities removed. There were various articles in the treaty of Limerick, the first referring to the Roman Catholic gentry and the others to the inhabitants of Limerick generally. Now what he meant to contend was, that political privileges were never in the contemplation of either of the parties to the treaty. It had been contended that the passage in the first article, which stated that the Roman Catholics should be allowed the free exercise of their religion without disturbance or molestation, in the same manner as they had been allowed it in the reign of Charles II., meant that they were not to be subjected to any disabilities on account of their religion. Now, with regard to the construction which was to be put on these terms, it appeared from every writer of that age, that, by the free exercise of their religion, was merely meant toleration instead of political power. That such was the meaning of the expression was clearly proved from the mouth of King William, one of the parties to that treaty, who, shortly after the making of it, stated that he was willing to grant to the Catholics the undisturbed exercise of their religion, but not political power: that they should enjoy freedom with respect to their persons and estates, and the exercise of their religion; that with that they ought to be satisfied; and that he could not comprehend how, when they enjoyed this, they could feel themselves justified in disturbing the quiet of the kingdom. The true construction of the treaty, as proved at the very time of making it, was not that which was now put upon it by the friends of Catholic emancipation.” With regard to the general question Mr. Peel confessed that he distrusted the Roman Catholics. He remarked:—“I do not find fault with the faith of any man, and I think quite as highly of a Catholic as of a Protestant; but if on a man’s faith there be founded a scheme of political influence, then we have a right to inquire in to that scheme. And I cannot contemplate the doctrines of absolution, of confession, and of indulgences, without having a strong suspicion that these doctrines are maintained for the purpose of confirming the authority and influence which man exercises over man. What is it to me, whether that authority be called spiritual, or otherwise, if practically it influence man in his conduct in society? Is it because religious doctrines are made subservient to worldly and political purposes, that they are therefore to be excluded from the consideration of the legislature in the discussion of the present question? On the contrary, if the authority derived from these doctrines be only the stronger on account of their being borrowed from religion, and misapplied to worldly purposes, that, in my opinion, furnishes an additional motive for closely investigating the doctrines themselves. When I find the pope issuing bulls to the Irish Catholic bishops, and such documents sent forth to four or five millions of people who possessed not the advantages of education, I must say that they are very likely to influence their practice in life. When I hear, too, such doctrines ascribed to a desire to support the pure faith of Christianity, I cannot help having a lurking suspicion that they are rather intended to maintain a spiritual authority capable of being applied to temporal purposes, which has been said to be extinct, but which I contend, is still existing. In 1807 Pope Pius VII. sent to the Catholic bishops of Ireland a bull, which granted an indulgence of three hundred days to all those persons who should with devout purpose repeat a certain ejaculatory address; and by the same instrument another indulgence of one hundred days was granted, for the repeating of a certain other formula, both of them applicable to souls in purgatory. It is painful to think that such a mockery should be made of religion, in order to press the authority of man; it is disgusting to find such things sent by rational men to rational men, to be disseminated amongst an illiterate and fanatical populace. The friends of emancipation may ridicule, if they choose, the indications of a new reformation which now show themselves in Ireland; but so long as free discussion is allowed, and such means as these are used as means of influence over the ignorant multitude, nothing will deter pious persons from doing all in their power to counteract and undermine such influence. The gentlemen of the Catholic Association will soon find that their political discussions have reacted on the public mind; that a spirit of inquiry has gone forth on the subject of their religion. I have no objection to the professors of the Catholic religion as individuals; I quarrel not with their religious tenets as a system of faith; but I am jealous of the political system which is ingrafted on those tenets, and I think I have a perfect right on the present occasion to consider what has been the influence of that political system in different countries. I do not desire to look at this point as it is to be found illustrated in ancient councils, or in times when bigotry and superstition were prevalent throughout the world; but, viewing the effect of the Catholic religion as it exists in the present day in various countries, in some where it luxuriates in undisputed growth, in those where it is only struggling for supremacy, and in others where it is subordinate to another and a purer system, contemplating it under those different aspects, the result of my observation is, that it is expedient to maintain in this kingdom the mild, mitigated, and temperate predominance of the Protestant church.” With regard to the question as to whether the concessions demanded would restore tranquillity to Ireland, Mr. Peel said that he could not make up his mind to believe that the removal of the disabilities of the Roman Catholics would be attended by such a consummation. If they gained power, he said, they would naturally wish to better the condition of their religious system, to extend its influence over the country, and to draw it into closer connexion with government. The consequence of the change would be to bring the Catholic and Protestant religions into collision in such a manner, as might prove the destruction of the latter. And what greater evil, he asked, could be conceived than the confusion which must prevail for ages during the conflict? If, indeed, he could be persuaded that by concession tranquillity would be restored in Ireland, although he believed that the admission of their claims would endanger our constitution, he would sacrifice his apprehensions of the ultimate result to the attainment of the present benefit. But he could not make up his mind to believe that it would have any such effect. If the friends of emancipation proposed, after having carried their point, to make the religion of the great majority, the religion of the state of Ireland, and open to them all its high offices, he could understand how such a line of policy might appease and tranquillize the Catholics. But this they disavowed. Yet if they proposed to maintain the Protestant establishment as that of the state, there would still be a barrier which the Catholics would endeavour to remove. After passing a censure on the Catholic priesthood for the undue interference exercised at the late elections, and making some observations on the neglect shown by their prelates in restraining such interference, and on the extraordinary asperity of Dr. Doyle’s publications, Mr. Peel concluded thus:—“I have now discharged a most painful duty, the opposing the resolution before the house. I have felt that I had no choice but to state with firmness, but I trust without asperity, the principles which my reason dictates, and which honour and conscience compel me to maintain. The influence or some great names, of some great men, has lately been lost to the cause which I support; but I never adopted my opinions upon it from deference either to high station or to high ability. Keen as the feelings of regret must be, with which the loss of these associates is recollected, it is still a matter of consolation to me, that, in the absence of these individuals I have now an opportunity of showing my adherence to those tenets which I formerly espoused; of showing that, if my opinions be unpopular, I stand by them still, when the influence and authority that may have given them currency are gone; and when it is impossible, I believe, that, in the mind of any human being, I can stand suspected of pursuing them with any view to favour or personal aggrandisement.” The motion was also opposed by Sir John Copley, master of the rolls, in a long, learned, eloquent, and argumentative speech. In his opinion the whole question was one of expediency, and if the concessions demanded could be granted with safety to the civil liberties and to the religious faith of the Protestant community, he admitted that the Catholics were intitled to them. He denied, however, that any such securities had been or could be offered, A blank and bare proposal of concession, he remarked, which neither acknowledged the necessity, nor contained even the elements of such securities, could not be entertained by the house, if it did its duty to the constitution, the religion, and the feelings of the country. Several departed statesmen, he said, had declared in the most decisive terms their determination not to grant Catholic emancipation without special and efficient securities; and the present secretary for foreign affairs himself, and the Irish attorney-general had uttered sentiments to the effect, that it could not be granted unless adequate securities were given to protect the country against the dangers of foreign interference. It became the house, also, he said, to consider well if the concessions are made, what are the feelings of that body of men who should be returned as members of parliament towards the Protestant church for which they would be called upon to legislate. He thought those feelings could not be learned more correctly than from the language of Dr. Doyle, who thus described the church of Ireland:—“She is looked up to, not as the spouse of the Redeemer, but as the handmaid of the ascendancy. The latter, whenever she becomes insolent or forgets her rank, if rank it may be called, rebuke her into a deportment more becoming her situation. They extend their protection to her for their own advantage only; and she, working alternately on their hopes and fears, continues to hold her place as a necessary appendage of the family to which she owes her existence. When indulged, she is indolent; when rebuked, she becomes attentive; she draws tight or relaxes her discipline as it may please, or be determined by her masters. Her eye is ever fixed upon her own interests, and she deems nothing forbidden or unhallowed which may serve to promote them. As those who do an injury can never forgive, she is implacable in her hostility to the church which she supplanted; and at this day, she seems indifferent to all things else, but to the concealment of her riches, and the persecution of popery. She occasionally revolts against her fellow-servants, who lay bare her spoils, who tell of her frauds and oppressions, who remind her of her origin, and upbraid her with the profligacy of her misspent life. But she is much more frequently employed in forming offensive and defensive leagues with her fellows in the corporations, showing the advantages of injustice and oppression, in confounding the charter of her servitude with the title-deeds of her employers, in asserting her claim to a tithe of the land and labour of the kingdom, and proving to the satisfaction of the Christian community that, though she receive the patrimony of the poor, she is not bound to exercise towards them a single act of mercy.” Such language as this, said Sir J. Copley, is not confined to the individual who used it; the same sentiments are avowed by some of the leading men of the Catholic body, and proclaimed aloud in the Catholic Association. He asked, therefore, when such are the sentiments of a Roman Catholic bishop when speaking of that establishment for which Catholics, elected probably by his influence, would be called to legislate, whether the house would consent that such men, returned by such influence, should have the power of legislating for a church thus described by one of their own communion, without insisting upon securities by which all danger might be averted? The debate was closed by Mr. Canning, who had been pointedly alluded to throughout the whole of Sir J. Copley’s speech, and, after disposing of its argument, he ironically vindicated himself for not having concerted measures of security with the Pope of Rome. Government had not the same facilities, he said, with the court of Rome as was possessed by several foreign courts, as those of Prussia, Saxony, and the Netherlands. He had seen in some popular tracts, that to correspond with the pope was high-treason; and, therefore, when his holiness addressed a complimentary note to our present gracious sovereign, he, as secretary of state, took the opinion of the great law-officers on the subject of a reply; and they declared that if he did answer the pope’s letter, he would incur the penalties of a premunire. Now the law-officers who gave this opinion were R. Gifford and Sir John Copley himself. I, being an ignorant person, next looked into Burn’s Justice, and there I found that the penalties attached to a premunire, were attainder, forfeiture of goods, incapacity to bring an action, and liability to be slain by any one with impunity. As this was a matter touching life and fortune, therefore he could not be expected, after having acquired such knowledge, to go to the Pope of Rome; and yet to the pope they must go if they would have any security. Mr. Canning declared that it was the intention of Mr. Pitt to cany this question, to the truth of which assertion he was ready to depose before any tribunal. He avowed his opinion that the cause had lost ground in the house as well as in the country; but he was convinced that all unfavourable impressions must give way to the effect of repeated discussions; that which right reason, humanity, and justice demanded could not fail to find an echo in the breasts of Englishmen. On a division the motion was lost by two hundred and seventy-six against two hundred and seventy-four. In consequence of this result, the order of the day in the house of lords, for taking into consideration the Catholic petition, was discharged on the motion of Lord Lansdowne, “who feared to increase, in the present state of feeling in Ireland, the disastrous conviction that a majority of both houses in parliament was opposed to a consideration of the claims of their Catholic brethren.”
THE CORN-LAWS.
Ministers had pledged themselves to bring the corn-law question before the house this session; and great anxiety was felt throughout the nation on this subject. It had been originally intended to introduce the subject simultaneously in both houses; but the illness of Lord Liverpool prevented it being brought forward in the upper house. Mr. Canning introduced the subject in the commons on the 1st of March, when he expressed his surprise that so much of hostile feeling should have been allowed to enter into the consideration of a question where none ought to have been found, and that this asperity should arise where there was no necessity to fly to extremes, and where the difficulties, in point of fact, were less than they were stated in argument. Every body admitted, he said, the necessity of protecting the agricultural interests; the only question was the mode and degree in which the protection should be administered. Of late years three modes of protection, without prohibition, had been proposed: the first, that of Mr. Ricardo, which imposed a duty of 20s. per quarter, to be diminished every year till it should have reached a minimum of about 10s.; the second proposed to begin with a duty of 16s., to be gradually lowered to 10s.; and the third was to impose a duty of 15s, or 16s. once for all, without any reference to the price. All these plans he been devised by persons generally favourable to a free trade in corn; but to all of them there lay the objection that when a pressure came it would bring with it distress to the agriculturists. Experience, he said, proved, that to impose a fixed duty without any reference to the variation of prices was objectionable and insufficient, because it was inevitably sometimes too high, and at other times too low with reference to the state of the country. It was therefore more advisable to adopt a scale of duties, which should vary in a relative proportion to the state of the country. He moved that—“Whenever the average price of wheat made up and published in manner required by law, shall be 60s., and under 61s. per quarter, the duty shall be for one quarter £1. And in respect of every integral shilling, by which such price shall be above 60s., such duty shall be decreased by 2s., until such price shall be 70s. Whenever such price shall be at or above 70s., the duty shall be for every quarter Is. Whenever such price shall be under 60s., and not under 59s., the duty shall be for every quarter £. 2s. And in respect of each integral shilling, or any part of each integral shilling, by which such price shall be tinder 59s., such duty shall be increased by 2s.” Mr. Canning moved resolutions similar to the above on barley, oats, rye, peas, beans, wheat-meal, and flour, oatmeal, maize, &c. If the produce of, and imported from any British possession in North America, or elsewhere out of Europe, he moved that wheat should be admitted at 5s. per quarter, until the price of British wheat should be 65s. per quarter; and that whenever such price should be at or above 65s., the duty should be for every quarter only 6d. Similar resolutions were also moved on other grains coming from the same parts of the world. Mr. Canning’s last resolution on this subject was, “That it is the opinion of this committee, that all the said duties shall be regulated and determined from week to week by the average prices of corn, made up in the manner required by law; which prices shall, at the several ports of the United Kingdom, determine the several rates of the said duties for and during the week next after the receipt of the proper certificates of such average prices at such ports respectively.” The debate on these resolutions was postponed for a week, that every appearance of precipitancy in such an important measure might be avoided. When the discussion was resumed, the motion for the house going into committee was opposed by Lord Clive, Sir E. Knatchbull, and other leading members of the landed interest. Their opposition rested on the grounds that domestic agriculture was entitled to all the protection which parliament could give it, even in the shape of a prohibition; that it was unjust to expose the home-grown, oppressed with taxes, and obliged to purchase costly labour, to a competition with the farmers of foreign countries, where taxation was light and labour cheap; that the plan was only experimental in its nature, in a matter where all experiment was mischief; that its effect would be to reduce prices much below what could be considered a fair remunerating price to the grower; and that, while it thus deprived the agriculturist even of the imperfect protection which he at present enjoyed, it would ultimately prove injurious to the public welfare, by throwing poor lands out of cultivation, thus leaving the country at every moment dependent for its food on foreigners. The chancellor of the exchequer and Mr. Peel replied, and the opposition to the speaker’s leaving the chair was not pressed to a division. In the committee, however, an amendment was moved to the effect of raising the medium price by taking 64s. instead of 60s. as the point at which what might be considered the prohibitory duty of 20s. should attach, on which the house divided. But this was lost; and an amendment, proposed by Mr. Whitmore, for an exactly opposite purpose, namely, to reduce the medium price at which the duty of 20s. should attach, shared the same fate. During the progress of the bill through the committee other alterations were likewise proposed, almost all tending to the benefit of the home grower. Thus it was proposed to raise the medium price of rye, peas, and beans, from 35s. to 40s.; to lower the quantity of oatmeal, on which, as being equivalent to a quarter of oats, a given duty should be paid from one hundred and ninety lbs. to one hundred and seventy-six lbs.; and a similar attempt was made to raise the duty on wheat-flour. All these amendments were lost; but ministers themselves, from the representations of county meetings both in England and Scotland, raised the medium price of barley to 32s., and the duty to 12s.; and the medium price of oats from 21s. to 25s., and the duty to 8s. This concession to the agriculturists gave great offence to those who advocated free trade. Mr. Wood told ministers that they had allowed themselves to be bullied by them; to which Mr. Peel calmly answered, that he did not see how a proper and justifiable addition of 2s. to the price of barley could require such an extravagant expenditure of indignation and abuse. The report was brought up on the 27th of March; and the resolutions were carried, after a division on an amendment moved by Mr. Hume. A bill founded on them was brought in; and on the second reading the opposition to it on the part of the landed interest was renewed with undiminished hostility. Sir Thomas Lethbridge described the bill as one which ought to be entitled, “An act for the more effectual encouragement of speculation in the corn-trade, the more rapid diminution of the growth of grain in Great Britain, and the better encouragement of the growth of grain in other countries for the supply of the British market.” He moved as an amendment, that the bill should be read a second time on that day six months; and its supporters gave ministers to understand that the success of the bill would deprive them, in regard to certain other questions connected with expenditure, of the customary support of their most valued friends. If the price of corn was reduced, they said, everything else ought equally to be reduced. Were ministers then ready, they asked, to reduce the taxes? The defence of the bill was chiefly undertaken by Mr. Grant, the vice-president of the board of trade, who entered into an elaborate view of the whole question. Possessing, as the landowners did, the law of 1815, it was necessary, he said, to show some good reason for the change proposed; and he found a most satisfactory reason in the fact that the law had failed in every one of the objects which had been contemplated in its enactment. The intention of that law had been to effect three objects; namely, uniformity of price, protection to the farmer, and independence of foreign supplies; but it was notorious that the law had not answered any one of these purposes. The amendment was pressed to a division; and the second reading of the bill was carried by a majority of two hundred and forty-three to seventy-eight. It subsequently passed a committee with no other alteration than a clause, authorizing the king to prohibit, by an order in council, the importation of grain from any country where British vessels should be subject to a higher duty than was imposed on the vessels of such country coming to British ports. The bill was finally read a third time, and passed on the 12th of April, on which day the house adjourned for the Easter holidays.