TORY DISSENSION AND CATHOLIC RELIEF.
The sudden illness of Liverpool in February, 1827, disclosed the dualism
and mutual jealousies which had enfeebled his cabinet. One section,
represented by Canning, advocated catholic emancipation, encouraged the
practical application of free trade doctrines, and was prepared to
support the principle of national independence, not only in South
America, but in Greece and Portugal. This section was dominant in the
house of commons. The other section, led by Wellington and Peel, which
was dominant in the house of lords, was strictly conservative on all
these questions, though Peel was beginning to show an open mind on one,
at least, of them. The king's known distrust of Canning, largely shared
by his own party, naturally suggested the hope of rallying it under the
leadership of some politician with the moderate and conciliatory temper
of Lord Liverpool. But no such politician could be found, nor was there
any prospect of Canning accepting a subordinate position in a new
ministry. For nearly six weeks the premiership was in abeyance, while
Liverpool's recovery was treated as a possible event. Canning himself
was in broken health, but, ill as he was, he proposed and carried in the
house of commons a sliding scale of import duties upon corn, variable
with its market price. He also made a fierce attack on Sir John Copley,
then master of the rolls, who had vigorously opposed a motion of Burdett
for catholic relief. At last the king, having consulted others, made up
his mind to send for Canning, who had been suffering from a relapse. It
was in vain that Canning advised him, unless he were prepared for
concession on the catholic question, to summon a body of ministers
sharing his own convictions. There was, in fact, no alternative to
Canning's succession, except that of Wellington or Peel. The former
declared that he would be worse than mad to accept the premiership; the
latter was still young for the office and deprecated as hopeless the
formation of any exclusively "protestant" cabinet. The selection of
Canning became inevitable, and on April 10 the king determined upon it,
irritated by what he regarded as an attempt to force his hand in the
choice of a minister.
[Pageheading: _CANNING ACCEPTS OFFICE._]
From that moment, during the short remainder of his life Canning had to
undergo the same bitter experience as Pitt in 1804, and to suffer a
cruel retribution for his aggressive petulance. All his strongest
colleagues, except Huskisson, deserted him. The resignation of Lord
Eldon, since 1821 Earl of Eldon, must have been expected, terminating,
as it did, the longest chancellorship since the Norman conquest. But
Canning seems to have really hoped that he might secure the support of
Wellington by the assurance of his desire to carry out the principles of
Liverpool's government. The duke, however, repelled his overtures with
something less than courtesy, and even retired from the command of the
army. Peel had already intimated privately that a transfer of the
premiership from an opponent to a champion of emancipation would make it
impossible for him to retain office. Three peers, Bathurst, Melville,
and Westmorland, followed his example. Canning had no resource but to
enlist colleagues from the ranks of the whigs. In this he was at first
unsuccessful. Sturges Bourne was appointed to the home office, Viscount
Dudley became foreign secretary, and Robinson, who was raised to the
peerage as Viscount Goderich, became secretary for war and the colonies.
Canning himself united the offices of first lord of the treasury and
chancellor of the exchequer. The Duke of Portland became lord privy
seal. Palmerston, the secretary at war, was given a seat in the cabinet.
Harrowby, Huskisson, Wynn, and Bexley, retained their former posts, and
Sidmouth, hitherto an unofficial member of the cabinet, finally retired.
One important office outside the cabinet, that of chief secretary for
Ireland, was given to a whig, William Lamb, afterwards Lord Melbourne.
It was a happy idea to make the Duke of Clarence lord high admiral
without a seat in the cabinet, and without any power of acting
independently of his council, while Copley (as Lord Lyndhurst) proved a
good successor to Eldon.
In May some of the whigs were induced to join the ministry. Tierney
entered the cabinet as master of the mint and the Earl of Carlisle as
first commissioner of woods and forests. The Marquis of Lansdowne, the
former Lord Henry Petty, joined the cabinet without taking office. Other
minor posts were assigned to whigs, and several whig chiefs, such as
Holland and Brougham, while they remained outside the government,
tendered it a friendly support. In July Lansdowne became home secretary,
Bourne was transferred to the woods and forests department, Carlisle
became lord privy seal, and Portland remained in the cabinet without
office.
The new cabinet was therefore still in an unsettled state when it met
parliament at the beginning of May. It there encountered a storm of
unsparing criticism even in the house of commons, but still more in the
house of lords. Lord Stewart, who had succeeded his brother as Marquis
of Londonderry, and the Duke of Newcastle denounced Canning in the most
intemperate language; and the veteran whig, Lord Grey, who had not been
consulted, delivered an elaborate oration against him not the less
virulent because it was carefully studied and measured. This attack was
so keenly felt by Canning that he was supposed to meditate the
acceptance of a peerage, that he might reply to it in person. The climax
of his vexations was reached when a corn bill, prepared by the late
cabinet, and passed by the house of commons, was finally wrecked in the
house of lords through an amendment introduced by Wellington. There was
some excuse for the duke's action in letters which had passed between
him and Huskisson, but Canning naturally resented his mischievous
interposition, and unwisely declared that he must "have been made an
instrument in the hands of others". So ended the session on July 2,
amidst discords and divisions which boded ill for the future, but threw
a retrospective light on the rare merits of Liverpool.
[Pageheading: _THE DEATH OF CANNING._]
The days of Canning were already numbered. Before the end of July he was
unable to attend a council, and retired for rest to the Duke of
Devonshire's villa at Chiswick. As in the case of Castlereagh, the king
had noticed the symptoms of serious illness, and on August 5 the public
was informed of his danger. On the 8th he died of internal inflammation
in the room which had witnessed the death of Fox. His loss was deeply
felt, not only by the king who never showed him confidence, but also by
the best part of the nation, and his funeral was attended by a great
concourse of mourners, both whigs and tories. No one doubted that he was
a patriot, and his noble gifts commanded the admiration of his bitterest
opponents. He belonged to an age of transition, and it must ever be
deplored that he missed the opportunity of showing whether his mind was
capable of further growth in the highest office of state; for the
inconsistencies of his opinions, obstinately maintained for years, would
have demanded many changes of conviction or policy. He was as stout an
enemy of reform at home as he was a resolute friend of constitutional
liberty abroad. He detested the system of repression consecrated by the
holy alliance, but he defended the necessity of such measures as the six
acts and arbitrary imprisonment for a limited period. He never swerved
in his advocacy of Roman catholic relief, but he was unmoved by
arguments in favour of repealing the test and corporation acts.
Probably, at the head of a coalition, embracing the ablest of the
moderate tories and reformers, and loyally supported by his colleagues,
he might have proved the foremost British statesman of the nineteenth
century. But it is more than doubtful whether his proud and sensitive
nature would have enabled him so to cancel past memories as to
consolidate such a coalition, or to inspire such loyalty in its members.
The death of Canning involved for the moment far less political change
than might have been expected. The king at once sent for Sturges Bourne
and Goderich, as the most intimate adherents of Canning. He then
commanded Goderich to form, or rather to continue, a ministry of
compromise, and this was done with little shifting of places. Wellington
resumed the command of the army, thereby revealing his motive in giving
it up so abruptly. But a very unwise choice was made in the appointment
of John Charles Herries, rather than Palmerston, as chancellor of the
exchequer, and it carried with it the seeds of an early disruption.
Palmerston had originally been proposed for the office, but the king
strongly favoured Herries, though he showed good sense in deferring to
public opinion, and desiring Huskisson to take the post himself.
Unfortunately, Huskisson preferred the colonial office, and, as neither
Sturges Bourne nor Tierney would accept the position, royal influence
prevailed, and Herries found himself at the exchequer. Meanwhile
Portland succeeded Harrowby as lord president, Charles Grant succeeded
Huskisson at the board of trade, and Lord Uxbridge, who had been created
Marquis of Anglesey after the battle of Waterloo, and who was now
master-general of the ordnance, was given a seat in the cabinet.
In the course of November it was decided by Goderich, in concert with
Huskisson and Tierney, that a finance committee should be appointed
early in the next session to consider the state of the revenue. Lord
Althorp, the son of Earl Spencer, was designated as chairman, and
provisionally undertook to act, but the chancellor of the exchequer,
who, contrary to all precedent, had not been taken into counsel,
strongly protested against the nomination, as soon as he was informed of
it. Out of this dispute arose the ignoble fall of the Goderich
administration, though it was preceded by more serious dissensions on
foreign policy. The king, whose activity revived with the increasing
weakness of his ministers, committed himself, without asking their
opinion, to a hearty approval of Codrington's action at Navarino, in
which, as will be recorded hereafter, that admiral had co-operated in
the destruction of the Turkish navy, though the British government
professed to be at peace with the Porte. The king was also adverse to a
proposal for the admission of Holland and Wellesley into the cabinet.
Goderich in consequence resigned, but had withdrawn his resignation when
the quarrel between Huskisson and Herries broke out afresh. Driven to
distraction by difficulties to which he was utterly unequal, Goderich
once more abandoned his post. The king gladly dispensed with his
services, and after some negotiation with Harrowby sent for Wellington
on January 9, 1828, giving him a free hand to invite any co-operation
except that of Grey. It was stipulated, however, "that the Roman
Catholic question was not to be made a cabinet question," and that both
the lord chancellors, as well as the lord lieutenant of Ireland, were to
be "protestants".[83]
[Pageheading: _WELLINGTON PRIME MINISTER._]
It must ever be regretted, for the sake of the country not less than of
his own fame, that Wellington undertook the premiership. He was beyond
all dispute the greatest man in England, and exercised up to the end of
his life a more powerful influence in emergencies than any other
subject. But he had judged himself rightly when he declared that he was
wholly unfit to be prime minister, and his administration was among the
weakest of modern times. The firmness which had sustained him in so many
campaigns, the political sagacity which had enabled him to grapple with
the complications of Spanish affairs, and with the great settlement of
Europe, equally failed him in party management and in the estimation of
public opinion at home. He understood better than any man how to deal
with the king, and overbore not only the king's own prejudices but the
machinations of the Duke of Cumberland with masterly resolution. He set
a good example in declining to regard himself as a mere party leader and
in refusing to study the arts of popularity hunting, but he never
grasped the principle that constitutional government ultimately rests on
the will of the people. Still he was too good a general not to see when
facts were too strong for him. His chief manoeuvres on the field of
politics consisted in somewhat inglorious though not unskilful retreats;
when he afterwards carried boldness to the point of rashness, he
encountered a signal defeat. Nevertheless, while he utterly lost his
political hold on the masses, and even the confidence of shrewd
politicians, he never ceased to retain the profound respect of his
countrymen, not only as the first of English generals, but as the most
honest of public servants.
Wellington naturally applied first to Peel, and, by his advice, attempted
a reconstruction of the Goderich cabinet, but with the addition of certain
new elements. Five of Canning's followers--Lyndhurst, Dudley, who had been
created an earl, Huskisson, Grant, and Palmerston retained their old
offices, and Palmerston gave an extraordinary proof of patience by
cheerfully remaining secretary at war after eighteen years' service in
that capacity. These cabinet ministers were now joined or rejoined by Peel
as home secretary, Earl Bathurst as lord president, Henry Goulburn as
chancellor of the exchequer, Melville as president of the board of
control, Lord Aberdeen as chancellor of the duchy, and Lord Ellenborough,
son of the former chief justice, as lord privy seal. Herries was
transferred from the exchequer to the mastership of the mint. Outside the
cabinet Anglesey became lord lieutenant of Ireland, where Lamb remained
chief secretary. It was understood that Eldon, now in his seventy-seventh
year, would have willingly accepted the presidency of the council, and
felt hurt that no offer or communication was made to him. On the other
hand, the whigs were by no means satisfied, while the inclusion of
Huskisson equally offended extreme tories and the widow of Canning, who
spoke of him as having become an associate of her husband's murderers.
This association was not destined to be long lived. The formation of the
ministry was not completed until the end of January, and very soon after
parliament met on the 29th of that month a rupture between Huskisson and
Wellington became imminent. For this Huskisson was mainly responsible.
Having to seek re-election at Liverpool, and irritated by the attacks made
upon his consistency, he delivered a very imprudent speech, in which he
implied, if he did not state, that he had obtained from his chief pledges
of adhesion to Canning's policy. Such a declaration from such a man was
inevitably understood as applying at least to free trade and the conduct
of foreign affairs. Both Huskisson and the duke in parliamentary speeches
disclaimed the imputation of any bargain; still the rift was not closed,
and it was speedily widened by events on which harmony between tories and
friends of Canning was impossible.
For six years the so-called war of Greek independence had been carried
on with the utmost barbarity on both sides. The sympathies of Canning,
as foreign secretary, had been entirely with the Greeks, as they had
been with the South American insurgents, but he was equally on his guard
against the armed "mediation" of Russia and her claim to be the supreme
protector of the Greek Christians. We have seen how at last, in 1825,
hopeless discord between the great continental powers led to overtures
for the peaceful intervention of Great Britain, and how at this juncture
the Tsar Alexander died on December 1, 1825. Wellington, at Canning's
request, undertook a special embassy to St. Petersburg for the
ostensible purpose of congratulating the new tsar, Nicholas, on his
accession, and succeeded, during April, 1826, in concluding an
arrangement for joint action by Russia and Great Britain with a view to
establishing the autonomy of Greece under the sovereignty of Turkey.
Meanwhile the impulsive enthusiasm which has so often seized the English
people on behalf of "oppressed nationalities" had been fanned into a
flame by the cause of Greek independence. Byron had already sacrificed
his life to it in April, 1824; Cochrane now devoted to it an energy and
a naval reputation only second to Nelson's; volunteers joined the Greek
levies, and subscriptions came in freely. In the course of 1826 Canning
succeeded in procuring the adhesion of the French government to the
Anglo-Russian agreement. Early in 1827 the three powers demanded an
armistice from Turkey, and, on the refusal of the Porte, signed the
treaty of London for the settlement of the Greek question. This treaty,
dated July 6, 1827, was almost the last public act of Canning. It was
moderate in its terms, embodying the conditions laid down in the
previous year at St. Petersburg, and making the self-government of
Greece subject to a payment of tribute to the Porte. It provided for a
combination of the British, French, and Russian fleets in the event of a
second refusal from Turkey; but Canning died in the hope that
hostilities might be avoided.
[Pageheading: _NAVARINO._]
This hope was not likely, nor was it destined, to be realised. The Porte
remained inflexible, and would grant no armistice; indeed, it had
summoned a contingent of ships from Egypt, and a fleet of twenty-eight
sail under Ibrahim Pasha was lying in the Bay of Navarino awaiting
further reinforcements. Admiral Codrington, who commanded the allied
fleet, now before Navarino, showed much forbearance. In concert with the
French admiral, he warned Ibrahim Pasha not to leave the harbour, and
obtained assurances which were speedily broken. Futile negotiations went
on during the early part of October, ending in a massacre among the
inhabitants of the coast by the direction of Ibrahim. The admirals of
the allied fleet no longer hesitated. On the 20th the fleet entered the
harbour. The first shots were fired by the Turco-Egyptian fleet, which
was skilfully ranged in three lines, and in the form of a horseshoe. An
action ensued, which lasted four hours, and resulted in the almost
complete destruction of the Ottoman armament. Had the allied fleet at
once proceeded to Constantinople, the Greek question might perhaps have
been settled promptly, instead of being left to perplex cabinets for two
years longer.
The news of Navarino reached England when the ministry of Lord Goderich
was already tottering, and caused its members far more anxiety than
satisfaction. Probably the wisest of them foresaw that, unless
immediate action were taken, Russia would declare war single-handed
against Turkey and enforce her own terms, but nothing in fact was done,
and Wellington, on coming into power, found the question of our
relations with Turkey and Greece still open. In spite of his own share
in bringing about the co-operation of Russia with Great Britain, he was
by no means prepared for a crusade on behalf of Greek independence, or
for a definite rupture with Turkey. Hence the memorable phrases inserted
in the king's speech of January 29, 1828, which described the battle of
Navarino as "a collision wholly unexpected by His Majesty" and as "an
untoward event," which His Majesty hoped would not be followed by
further hostilities. These expressions, however much in accord with the
pacific tone of the treaty of London, provoked an outburst of
indignation from the friends of Greece in both houses. Lords Holland and
Althorp, Lord John Russell, and Brougham recorded earnest protests
against any disparagement of Admiral Codrington's action. The
infatuation of the Porte, and the consequent war with Russia, checked
further agitation on the subject, and Wellington's government was able
to fall back on the policy of non-intervention proposed, though not
always practised, by Canning. But the reactionary tendency of
Wellington's foreign policy betrayed in the king's speech had its effect
in alienating the more liberal of his colleagues. Nor was his position
strengthened by his irresolute home policy. During the session of 1828
issues were raised which inevitably divided and ultimately broke up the
cabinet.
[Pageheading: _TEST ACTS REPEALED._]
The first of these difficulties was caused by the success of Lord John
Russell's motion for the repeal of the test and corporation acts, under
which dissenters were precluded from holding municipal and other
offices. It was, indeed, a grave blot on the consistency of reformers
that, while the claims of Roman catholics, and especially of Irish Roman
catholics, had been vehemently urged for nearly thirty years, those of
protestant nonconformists had been coldly neglected. Their legal
disabilities, it is true, had gradually become almost nominal, and an
indemnity act was passed yearly to cover the constant breaches of the
obnoxious law. Still, the law was maintained, and was stoutly defended
by such tories as Eldon on the principle that it was an important
outwork of the union between Church and State. Even the Canningite
members of the government supported it against Russell's attack, but on
the very opposite ground--that it had become a dead letter. However, the
measure for its repeal was carried in the house of commons by a majority
of forty-four, including some well-known Churchmen. This measure would
assuredly have been rejected in the house of lords had not Peel
judiciously procured the insertion of a clause substituting for the
sacramental test a declaration binding the office-holder to do nothing
hostile to the Church. Thus modified, it passed the house of lords, with
the assent of several bishops, in spite of the implacable opposition of
Lords Eldon and Redesdale, and the Duke of Cumberland. But the
declaration was amended by the addition of the words "upon the true
faith of a Christian," which incidentally continued the statutable
exclusion of Jews.
The enforced acceptance of this enactment was equivalent to a decisive
reverse, and could not but injure the prestige of the government, but it
did not actually cause a schism in the cabinet. It was otherwise when
the duke proposed a corn bill in lieu of that rejected at his instance
in the previous year. The difference between these measures was not very
material, but the duke insisted upon certain regulations of detail,
which Huskisson persistently opposed. Peel suggested a compromise which,
after long altercation and some threats of resignation, was adopted. But
the effect was to weaken the government still further in the eyes of the
public, inasmuch as the principle of duties on a graduated scale had
prevailed at last against the declared opinions of the duke. The
inevitable rupture was only deferred for a few weeks, and arose out of
motions for disfranchising East Retford and Penryn--a premonitory
symptom of the great reform bill. These were among the most corrupt of
the old "rotten boroughs," and the scandalous practices which flourished
in both of them had more than once shocked even the unreformed
parliament. In 1827 a bill for disfranchising Penryn had actually been
carried by the house of commons in spite of Canning's dissent, and one
for disfranchising East Retford would probably have been carried, but
that it was introduced too late.
The motions now introduced by Lord John Russell and Charles Tennyson
respectively could scarcely have been thrown out by the same house, but
squabbles arose in the cabinet, partly on the comparative guiltiness of
the two venal constituencies, but chiefly on the disposal of the seats
to be vacated. It was agreed at last that Penryn should be merged in the
adjacent hundred, and the majority of the cabinet, represented by Peel,
were for dealing in like manner with East Retford. The liberal section,
however, represented by Huskisson, was bent on transferring its
representation to Birmingham, and voted against Peel in the house of
commons. Having thus vindicated his independence, Huskisson, somewhat
too hastily, placed his resignation in the hands of the premier on May
20. The duke, having fairly lost patience with his insubordinate
colleagues, was equally prompt in accepting it, and declined to receive
the explanations offered. In the end, Palmerston, Dudley, Grant, and
Lamb, followed the fortunes of Huskisson, and Wellington's government
was completely purged of Canning's old supporters.
[Pageheading: _THE CLARE ELECTION._]
Two military officers, without political experience, were now imported
into the ministry. Sir George Murray succeeded Huskisson at the colonial
office, and Sir Henry Hardinge replaced Palmerston as secretary at war,
but was not admitted to the cabinet; Lord Aberdeen became foreign
secretary, and Vesey Fitzgerald president of the board of trade, while
Lord Francis Leveson Gower succeeded Lamb as chief secretary for
Ireland. So purely tory an administration had not been formed since the
days of Perceval. Looking back we can see that, for that very reason, it
was doomed; but to politicians of 1828 Wellington's ascendency seemed
assured, and it was not actually broken for above two years. By far the
most important event of domestic history within that period was the
crisis ending in the catholic emancipation act, and this crisis was
immediately precipitated by the almost casual appointment of Vesey
Fitzgerald. He was a popular Irish landlord, who had always supported
catholic relief, and his re-election for the county of Clare was
regarded as perfectly secure. The landlords were known to be entirely in
his favour, and Irish tenants, miscalled "forty shilling freeholders,"
had been used to vote obsequiously for the candidate of their landlords.
Indeed, these counterfeit freeholds had been manufactured recklessly
throughout Ireland for the very purpose of extending landlord influence.
Perhaps the recent defeat of a Beresford at Waterford by a nominee of
Daniel O'Connell, who had made himself the leader of the movement for
Catholic relief, ought to have undeceived the Irish tories, but no one
could have foreseen so daring an act as the candidature of O'Connell
himself, notwithstanding that, as a catholic, he was incapable of
sitting in the house of commons.
The contest began on June 30 and lasted five days. All the gentry and
electors of the higher class supported Fitzgerald, but all the poorer
electors, headed by their priests, flocked to the poll and voted for
O'Connell, who, on Fitzgerald's retirement, was triumphantly elected.
The violence of O'Connell's language was unmeasured, and as was said by
Sheil, "every altar became a tribune," but perfect order was maintained
throughout. The terrorism which has since disgraced Irish elections and
vitiated the whole representation of Ireland had no place in this
startling victory, and the impression produced by it was thereby
infinitely enhanced. Two conclusions were instantly drawn from it: the
one, that electoral power in Ireland could not safely be left in the
hands of the forty-shilling freeholders; the other, that, whether or not
they were disfranchised, nothing short of political equality of the
catholics of Ireland could avert the risk of civil war. It is seldom
that momentous changes can be so clearly traced to a single cause as in
the case of catholic emancipation. The whole interval between July,
1828, and April, 1829, was occupied by the discussion of this question,
or circumstances arising out of it, and it may truly be said to have
filled the whole horizon of domestic politics. The first and final
recognition by a responsible government of emancipation as a political
necessity dates immediately from the Clare election.
The question of catholic emancipation had been the only reason for the
resignation of Pitt in 1801, but we have seen that he resumed office in
1804 under a pledge not to re-open it. It is certain that he never
contemplated a complete emancipation of the catholics without safeguards
for the interests of the established church. Such a safeguard (though
ineffective against a future attack through disestablishment) was
provided by the act of union,[84] which inviolably united the Irish and
English churches. The catholic leaders, on their part, were profuse in
their disavowals of hostility to that establishment and to the
protestant government in Ireland. In their first solemn memorial,
presented by Grenville on March 25, 1805, they expressly declared that
"they do not seek or wish, in the remotest degree, to injure or encroach
upon the rights, privileges, immunities, possessions, and revenues
appertaining to the bishops and clergy of the protestant religion, or to
the churches committed to their charge". They further volunteered an
expression of their belief that no evil act could be justified by the
good of the Church, and that papal infallibility was no article of the
catholic faith. Thenceforward, frequent motions in support of the
"catholic claims" were made in both houses of parliament. In 1810 such a
motion was proposed in a very eloquent speech by Grattan, but
Castlereagh, though a staunch friend of the cause, deprecated it as
inopportune, since the catholics had injured themselves by imprudent
conduct, and fresh declarations inconsistent with their former
assurances. The motion was therefore rejected, and a similar fate befell
motions of the same kind in the two following years, especially in the
house of lords, where Eldon inflexibly resisted any concession, and
always commanded a majority.
[Pageheading: _CATHOLIC RELIEF._]
When Liverpool replaced Perceval as prime minister in 1812, catholic
emancipation became an open question in the cabinet. In that year
Canning succeeded in carrying triumphantly a resolution pledging the
house of commons to consider the question seriously in the next session,
and a like resolution was only lost by one vote in the house of lords.
Accordingly, in 1813, Grattan's motion for a committee of the whole
house on catholic disabilities was accepted, and a bill for their
removal passed its second reading. But it was loaded with vexatious
securities in committee and wrecked by the vigorous opposition of the
speaker, Abbot, who on May 24 carried by a majority of four an amendment
withholding the right to sit and vote in parliament. After this, the
bill was of course abandoned, but another was unanimously passed
exempting from penalties Roman catholics holding certain military and
civil offices, to which, by a harsh construction of law, they were not
eligible. In 1817 the question was debated at great length in the house
of commons, and several leading men took part in it, but the motion for
catholic relief was again defeated by a majority of twenty-four. It was
revived in 1819 by Grattan, who delivered on this occasion one of his
greatest speeches, and succeeded in reducing the majority to two only.
In 1821 a further advance was made by Plunket's success in obtaining a
committee to consider the claims of the catholics. This was carried by a
majority of six, and followed up by two bills, removing all catholic
disabilities with very slight exceptions, but subject to stringent and
somewhat illusory securities for the loyalty of the priesthood.
Ultimately on April 2 a comprehensive measure of catholic relief passed
the house of commons by a majority of nineteen. All the most influential
members of the lower house now voted in its favour, but the attitude of
the upper house remained unchanged. The spirit of Eldon still ruled the
peers, and his speech against Plunket's relief bill contains a complete
armoury of protestant arguments. But the catholics had a still more
doughty opponent in the Duke of York, who delivered on this occasion the
first of his famous declarations, binding himself to life-long
hostility. As Eldon said, "he did more to quiet this matter than
everything else put together".[85]
The year 1821 marks a turning point in the history of the catholic
question, since the protestant cause, no longer safe in the house of
commons, was felt by its champions to depend on the crown and the house
of lords. But it would be an error to suppose that catholic relief was
ever a popular cry in this country, like retrenchment and reform. On the
contrary, the feelings of the masses in Great Britain were never roused
in regard to it, and, if roused at all, would probably have been
enlisted on the other side. It would be too much to say that the
controversy was merely academical, for it was keen enough to split up
parties and produce dualism in cabinets. But it was never a hustings
question. It filled a much larger space in the minds of statesmen than
in the minds of the people, and even among statesmen it was so far
secondary that it could be treated as an open question in Liverpool's
ministry for a period of fifteen years. No doubt the disturbed state of
Ireland, which ultimately supplied the motive power for carrying the
emancipation act, contributed at an earlier stage to damp the zeal of
its advocates. Whatever the merits of the union, it had failed to pacify
the country, thereby verifying the warning of Cornwallis, that, although
Ireland could not be saved without the union, "you must not take it for
granted that it will be saved by it".
In 1800, the very year of the union, the _habeas corpus_ act had been
suspended and another act passed for the suppression of rebellion.
Though repealed in the following year, these coercive measures were
renewed in 1803, after Emmet's abortive rising, and continued in 1804.
In 1805, when they expired, special commissions were appointed for the
repression of crime in the south and west of Ireland. In 1807 the
_habeas corpus_ act was again suspended and a rigorous insurrection act
passed which continued in force until 1810. In that year a Catholic
Committee was formed, anticipating the more notorious Catholic
Association. An essential part of the scheme was the formation of a
representative assembly in Dublin, to discuss and procure redress for
the wrongs of catholics. This project was put down by the Irish
government, which treated it as a breach of the convention act of 1793.
The next ten years seem to have been somewhat quieter in Ireland, and
the disturbances which followed the peace in Great Britain had no
counterpart in that country. Still, it was thought necessary to suppress
another catholic convention in 1814, and to renew the insurrection act,
which remained in force with one interval till 1817. It can well be
imagined that a population so lawless, and so prone to horrible outrages
which shock Englishmen more than a thousand crimes against property,
should have excited little general sympathy by their complaints of
political grievances. These grievances were justly denounced by party
leaders, but in the eyes of ordinary politicians, and still more of
electors, coercion rather than concession was the appropriate remedy for
the ills of Ireland.
[Pageheading: _CATHOLIC RELIEF._]
Canning, however, though suspected of lukewarmness, did not let the
question rest in 1822. On April 30, while still out of office, he
introduced a bill which he could scarcely have expected to become law,
for enabling Roman catholic peers to sit and vote in the house of lords.
This bill was passed in the commons by a majority of five, but rejected
in the lords by a majority of forty-four, in spite of somewhat
transparent assertions that it was not intended to prejudice the main
issue. On April 18, 1823, an angry protest from Burdett against the
"annual farce" of motions leading to nothing was followed by a quarrel
between Canning and Brougham, who accused Canning, then foreign
secretary, of "monstrous truckling for the purpose of obtaining office";
and when Plunket moved, as usual, for the relief of catholics, a
temporary secession of radicals took place, which left him in a
ridiculous minority. In spite of this discomfiture, Lord Nugent
succeeded in carrying through the commons a bill, granting the
parliamentary franchise to Roman catholics in Great Britain. The bill
was lost in the lords, and the question remained dormant in 1824; but in
1825 it received a fresh impulse. This time it was Burdett who, at the
instance of Lansdowne and Brougham, appeared as spokesman of the
catholics. His action was in some respects inopportune, as the "Catholic
Association," founded by O'Connell and Sheil in 1823, was now usurping
the functions of a government, and regularly levying taxes under the
name of "rent". The necessity of suppressing it, though not apparent to
Lord Wellesley, the lord-lieutenant, was strongly felt on both sides of
the house of commons. A bill for this purpose, but applicable to all
similar associations, was rapidly carried by large majorities in both
houses, and the opposition was fain to rely mainly on the declaration
that it would be put in force against catholic associations only, and
not against those of the Orangemen, as the more violent of the Irish
protestants were called. It is needless to say that it was evaded by the
former, but on March 1, while it was still before the house of lords,
Burdett took courage to move another preliminary resolution in favour of
the catholics, and obtained a majority of thirteen. A bill founded on
this resolution was at once introduced.
The debates on this bill were memorable in several respects and opened
the last stage but one in the long history of catholic relief. In the
first place, more than one opponent publicly avowed his conversion to
it; in the second place, now that its "settlement" was actually within
view, the necessity of providing a counterpoise became admitted.
Accordingly, one independent member proposed a state grant of £250,000 a
year for the endowment of the catholic clergy, who might thus be
indirectly bound over to good behaviour, while another proposed the
disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders. Both of these bills were read
a second time, but held over until the fate of the main relief bill
should be determined. That bill passed the house of commons on May 10,
1825, by a majority of twenty-one, and Peel tendered his resignation to
Lord Liverpool.[86] Two days later, the Duke of York, on presenting a
petition against the bill in the house of lords, delivered another
speech which fell like a thunder-clap on the country, and has been
celebrated ever since as an audacious breach of constitutional usage. In
this speech, he justified the inflexible attitude of his father, whose
mental disorder he expressly attributed to the agitation of the catholic
question. He concluded by declaring that his principles were the same,
imbibed in early youth and confirmed by mature reflection, and that he
would maintain them up to the latest moment of his existence, "whatever
might be his situation in life". It is certain that, in thus pledging
himself, he acted without having consulted the king, who somewhat
resented so direct an allusion to his prospect of succession. Still, the
sensation produced by the duke's utterance was prodigious, and he
remained the favourite champion of the protestant cause until his death.
Brougham attacked him with furious sarcasm in the commons, but the lords
threw out Burdett's relief bill by a majority of forty-eight, and the
No-popery cry influenced the general election of 1826. In that year no
further effort was made by the friends of catholic claims, but O'Connell
showed his growing power in Ireland by exciting a political revolt of
the peasantry at Waterford, and procuring the defeat of Lord George
Beresford.
[Pageheading: _CATHOLIC RELIEF._]
In the session of 1827, before Canning succeeded Lord Liverpool, Burdett
renewed his motion of 1825 on the catholic question, but found himself
defeated by four votes. The division had taken place in a full house,
after the fierce encounter, already mentioned, between Copley and
Canning; but it cannot be regarded as a decisive token of contrast
between the old and the new parliament, since relief was now claimed
without any mention of "securities". The subject was in abeyance during
the short administrations of Canning and Goderich, but was raised again
by Burdett in May, 1828, after the repeal of the test and corporation
acts. The number of votes on the catholic side, 272, was the same as in
1827, that on the protestant side, 266, was less by ten, the result
being a majority of six for the motion. A similar resolution was lost in
the house of lords, as a matter of course; but the language held by the
new lord chancellor, Lyndhurst, and by Wellington himself, as prime
minister, prepared observant men for an impending change of policy. Then
followed the Clare election, which revealed nothing which might not have
been foreseen, but which had the same effect in precipitating the
removal of catholic disabilities as the Irish famine afterwards had in
precipitating the repeal of the corn laws.
We now know that Peel had made up his mind to yield shortly after the
Clare election,[87] partly influenced by the alarming reports of
Anglesey, the Irish lord-lieutenant, on the state of Ireland. We also
know that Wellington himself was more than half convinced of the
necessity of concession, and was preparing to strengthen his government
for the coming struggle, in the event of Peel feeling bound to retire.
Meanwhile a vacancy in the ministry had been created by the Duke of
Clarence's resignation of his office of lord high admiral. In spite of
the limitations imposed on his power, he had insisted on hoisting his
flag, and assumed command. For this he was severely reprehended by the
king and Wellington, and was virtually forced to resign office. Melville
now became once more first lord of the admiralty, and was succeeded by
Ellenborough at the board of control. Ellenborough retained his former
office of lord privy seal, which Wellington was holding in reserve with
a view to strengthening the government. But the public of those days
remained in entire ignorance of their intentions until the meeting of
parliament on February 5, 1829.
The speech of George Dawson, Peel's brother-in-law, at Derry, on August
12, had greatly startled protestants. As it was never publicly
disavowed, Brunswick clubs were formed to repel the rising tide of
sympathy with the catholics, but the only tangible indication of
Wellington's personal sentiments favoured the belief that nothing would
be done. The circumstances under which this indication was given were
peculiar. The duke had written a letter to the Roman catholic archbishop
of Dublin, an old correspondent, deprecating agitation on the catholic
question, as likely to prejudice its future settlement, of which,
however, the duke saw "no prospect".[88] This letter was improperly
sent by the archbishop to O'Connell as well as to Anglesey. O'Connell
read it to the Catholic Association as a sign of conciliatory
inclinations; Anglesey's reply suggested, at least, that agitation might
continue. He was promptly recalled, and his recall was rendered the more
significant by the appointment of the Duke of Northumberland, a known
"protestant," as his successor. What the public could not then know was
that behind all other difficulties, political or personal, lay the
almost insuperable difficulty of inducing the king to allow the cabinet
to be even consulted. Indolent and unprincipled as George IV. was, he
was still capable of rousing and asserting himself. Probably no one but
Wellington could have prevailed against his anti-catholic prejudices,
shared, as they were, not only by most of the peers, both spiritual and
temporal, but also by the mass of the English people. At this juncture
Peel informed the duke that, rather than risk the success of the
proposed measure, he would remain at his post. His example was followed
by his "protestant" colleagues.
[Pageheading: _THE INTRODUCTION OF THE RELIEF BILL._]
During the winter of 1828-29 the strongest pressure was brought to bear
on the king by his ministers to procure his consent to a measure of
relief, accompanied by safeguards. Though he afterwards assured Eldon
that he had never explicitly given such a consent, the old chancellor,
on seeing the documents, felt obliged to express a contrary opinion. It
is certain that he gave way most reluctantly, and probable that his
scruples were as sincere as was consistent with his character; but he
knew well that, if he dismissed his ministers, he would be left
isolated, and he bowed to necessity. Indeed even the "protestant"
members of the cabinet had urged him to yield. His assent was, in fact,
only given by degrees; after each member of the cabinet, who had
previously opposed catholic emancipation, had had a separate interview,
the king consented on January 15 to the consideration of the subject by
the cabinet, but reserved the right to reject its advice. After this no
great difficulty was experienced in obtaining the royal assent to the
introduction of a bill.[89] Accordingly the king's speech, delivered by
commission on February 5, 1829, distinctly recommended parliament to
consider whether the civil disabilities of the catholics could not be
removed "consistently with the full and permanent security of our
establishments in Church and State". This recommendation, however, was
preceded by a severe condemnation of the Catholic Association and the
expression of a resolution to put down the disorders caused by it. The
sensation produced by the king's speech was increased by the
simultaneous resignation by Peel of his seat for the university of
Oxford. Considering that he was originally preferred to Canning mainly
on protestant grounds, he could not have honourably acted otherwise.
Many of his old friends stood by him, in spite of differences on the
catholic question, and Eldon's grandson, who had been proposed as a
candidate, was set aside as too weak an opponent. Ultimately Sir Robert
Inglis was put forward by the "protestants," and was returned by 755
votes against 609. Peel obtained a seat for the borough of Westbury,[90]
and moved a preliminary bill for suppressing the Catholic Association.
This passed both houses in February, but was already ineffective when it
became law, since the association had been shrewd enough to dissolve
itself upon the advice of its English well-wishers. The catholic relief
bill was therefore introduced under favourable auspices.
The motives which actuated Wellington and Peel in espousing the cause
which they had so persistently opposed admit of no doubt whatever. In
the memoir which Peel left as embodying his own defence, no less than in
his speech introducing the emancipation bill, he affects no essential
change of conviction. He rests his case entirely on the public danger of
leaving the question "unsettled" after the disclosures of the Clare
election, and argues calmly, as the agitators had been arguing for
nearly thirty years, that no settlement was practicable short of
complete, though not unconditional, surrender. There is no pretence of
consistency. All the constitutional, political, and religious objections
to civil equality between protestants and catholics in Ireland remained
unanswered and unabated. Indeed the increasing power and defiant tone of
the catholic demagogues might well have appeared a crowning reason for
refusing them seats in parliament. Peel, however, had adopted, and
pressed upon Wellington, the delusive opinion of Anglesey that by
"taking them from the Association and placing them in the house of
commons" they might be reduced to comparative impotence. He lamented, it
is true, the premature announcement of a new policy by Dawson, and he
had submitted his own resignation to the duke in the belief, apparently
sincere, that he could render better service in an independent position.
But he seems not to have felt the least scruple in urging the duke to
break all his pledges to his protestant supporters, and conciliate the
followers of O'Connell. Nor did his advice fall on unwilling ears.
Trained in a vocation where private conscience is subordinate to
military duty, where enemies must sometimes be welcomed as allies if it
may further the plan of campaign, and where a masterly retreat is as
honourable as a victory, Wellington did not shrink from undertaking the
part of an opportunist minister. He had always regarded himself as a
servant of the crown and the nation, rather than as a party leader, and
he saw no personal difficulty in adopting any political measure as the
less of two evils. Having once satisfied himself that civil war in
Ireland was the only alternative to emancipation, he abandoned
resistance to it as he would have abandoned a hopeless siege, and called
upon his tory followers to change their front with him.
Notice had been given of a resolution to be moved by Peel on March 5,
preparing the way for the catholic relief bill, when the king raised
fresh obstacles to its progress. As the day drew near, George,
encouraged by the Duke of Cumberland, grew very excited. He had violent
interviews with his ministers, and finally on March 3 he informed
Wellington, Lyndhurst, and Peel that he could not assent to any
alteration in the oath of supremacy. The three ministers accordingly
tendered their resignations, which were accepted. But the king soon
found that no alternative administration was possible, and on the
following day the existing ministers received permission to proceed with
the bill.[91]
[Pageheading: _PROVISIONS OF THE RELIEF BILL._]
Peel's great speech on March 5, in favour of his resolution, contains a
comprehensive review of the Irish question, as well as an elaborate
defence of his own position, resting solely on grounds of expediency. He
advocated the measure itself as the only means of pacifying Ireland,
reducing the undue power of the catholics, and securing the protestant
religion. It was simple in its main outlines, applying to the whole
United Kingdom, and purporting to open all political and civil rights to
catholics, with a very few specified exceptions. It contained, however,
a number of provisions, in the nature of securities against catholic
aggression. By the new oath, to be substituted for the oaths of
allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, a member of parliament, or holder
of an office, was no longer required to renounce transubstantiation, the
invocation of saints, or the sacrifice of the mass. But he was still
obliged not only to swear allegiance, but to profess himself resolved to
maintain the protestant settlement of the crown, to condemn absolutely
all papal jurisdiction within the realm, and to disclaim solemnly any
intention of subverting the existing Church establishment or weakening
the system of protestant government. Moreover, priests were expressly
denied the privilege of sitting in parliament. Catholics were still
excluded from the high positions of sovereign, regent, lord chancellor
of England or Ireland, and lord-lieutenant of Ireland. They were enabled
to become ministers of the crown, but were debarred from the power of
advising the crown on presentations to ecclesiastical dignities or
benefices, nor were they allowed to exercise such patronage in their
personal capacity. They were still to be disabled from holding offices
in the ecclesiastical courts, or in the universities, and their bishops
were forbidden to assume diocesan titles already appropriated by the
establishment. Other clauses were directed against the use of catholic
vestments except in their chapels and private houses, and against the
importation of Jesuits or members of similar religious orders, with a
saving clause for those already resident and duly registered. Two other
safeguards, often proposed, were deliberately omitted from the bill.
There was no provision for a state endowment of catholic priests, or for
a veto of the crown on the appointment of catholic bishops. These
omissions, whether justifiable or not, were pregnant with serious
consequences.
The debates in both houses on Peel's bill, as it was rightly considered,
are chiefly interesting as throwing light on contemporary opinion. The
arguments for and against it had been fairly exhausted in previous
years, and would carry no great weight in a later age. The
constitutional objections to it, which seemed vital to Eldon, and
weighty to every statesman of his time, were at a later date put aside,
when they were pleaded against the dissolution of the Irish church,
directly guaranteed by the act of union. The criticisms on the personal
consistency of Wellington and Peel belong to biography rather than to
history. But no one can read the speeches of leading men on either side
without recognising the superior foresight, at least, of those who
opposed the bill, and distrusted the efficacy of the safeguards embodied
in it. Two assumptions underlay the whole discussion, and were treated
as axioms by nearly all the speakers. The one was that catholic
emancipation must be judged by its effect on the future peace of
Ireland; the other, that it could not be justified, unless it would
strengthen, rather than weaken, protestant ascendency, then regarded as
a bulwark of the constitution. Posterity may contemplate it from a
different and perhaps higher point of view; but it is certain that, if
its consequences had been foreseen by those who voted upon it, the bill
would have been rejected. It is no less certain that its adoption was a
victory of the educated classes, represented by nomination-boroughs,
over the unrepresented masses of the people.
The actual result in the division lists was all that its promoters could
have desired. Though the secret had been so well kept by the government
that few of its supporters knew what to expect, and though piles of
petitions showed the preponderance of protestant sentiment outside
parliament, that sentiment was not reflected in the division lists. The
first reading of the bill in the house of commons was carried by a
majority of 348 to 160; the second reading by a majority of 353 to 180;
the third reading by a majority of 320 to 142. The debates were
enlivened on the protestant side by a brilliant speech from Michael
Sadler, a tory friend of the working classes, returned by the Duke of
Newcastle for Newark, and a violent invective from Sir Charles
Wetherell, the attorney-general, who was thereupon dismissed from
office. Peel, who had borne the brunt of these attacks, replied on March
30, when the bill was sent up to the lords, and on April 2, the second
reading of it in the upper house was moved by Wellington. His candid
admission that he was driven to concession by the fear of civil war has
since become historical, and served as the watchword of many a lawless
agitation in Ireland. It was natural that most of the peers, and
especially of the spiritual peers, who took part in the discussion
should be opponents of the measure, but Lloyd, Bishop of Oxford, severed
himself from the rest of his order, and vigorous speeches were made in
support of it by Anglesey and Grey, neither of whom could be regarded as
friendly to Wellington's government.
[Pageheading: _ROYAL ASSENT TO THE BILL._]
Anglesey, who had been recently dismissed from the lord-lieutenancy of
Ireland, went beyond the duke in the use of purely military arguments;
Grey ventured to prophesy not only a future reign of peace in Ireland,
but an extension of protestantism, as the consequence of catholic
emancipation. The hopeless attempt of Lyndhurst to vindicate his own
consistency, and a forensic duel between Eldon and Plunket, who had been
raised to the peerage in 1827, relieved the monotony of the debate, but
probably did not influence a single vote. The old guard of the
anti-catholic party remained firm, but the mass of tory peers followed
their leader in his new policy, as they had followed him in his old, and
the relief bill was read a third time in the house of lords on the 10th,
by a majority of 104. Three days later it received the royal assent.
Lord Eldon had virtually encouraged the king to refuse this, at the last
moment, though he was too honest to accept the assurance of George IV.
that the bill was introduced without his authority. But the son of
George III. had not inherited his father's resolute character. After a
few childish threats of retiring to Hanover and leaving the Duke of
Clarence to make terms with the ministry, he abandoned further
resistance and capitulated to Wellington, as Wellington had capitulated
to O'Connell.
The disfranchisement of the forty-shilling freeholders and the
substitution of a ten-pound suffrage was the price to be paid for
catholic emancipation, and no time was lost in completing the bargain.
In days when it is assumed that every change in the electoral franchise
must needs be in a downward direction, it may well appear amazing that
so wholesale a destruction of privileges enjoyed for thirty-six years
should have provoked so feeble an opposition. It is still more amazing
that it should have passed without a protest from O'Connell himself, who
had solemnly vowed to perish on the field or on the scaffold rather than
submit to it. Yet so it was. These ignorant voters, it is true, had
never ventured to call their souls their own, and had only ceased to be
the servile creatures of their landlords in order to become the servile
creatures of their priests. Still, it was they who, by their action in
the Waterford and Clare elections, had forced the hand of the
government, and achieved catholic emancipation. It may safely be said
that after the reform act of 1832 it would have been politically
impossible to disfranchise them; and even in the unreformed parliament
it would have been scarcely possible if gratitude were a trustworthy
motive in politics. On the other hand, the government could never have
secured a majority for catholic emancipation, unless it had been
distinctly understood to carry with it the extinction of democracy in
Ireland. This, rather than declarations and restrictions of doubtful
efficacy, was the real "security" on which the legislature relied for
disarming the disloyalty of Irish catholics. For some time it answered
its purpose so far as to keep the representation of that disloyalty
within safe limits in the house of commons. But it naturally produced a
contrary effect in Ireland itself, and was destined to be swept away
before a fresh wave of agitation.
A few days before the relief bill passed the house of commons an episode
occurred which is chiefly interesting for the light which it throws on
the ideas then prevalent in the highest society. In 1828 Wellington had
presided at a meeting for the establishment of King's College, London,
an institution which was to be entirely under the influence of the
established church, and which was intended as a counterpoise to the
purely secular institution which had been recently founded under the
title of the "London University". The Earl of Winchilsea, a peer of no
personal importance, but a stalwart upholder of Church and State,
published in the _Standard_ newspaper of March 16, 1829, a virulent
letter, describing the whole transaction "as a blind to the protestant
and high church party," and accusing the prime minister of insidious
designs for the introduction of popery in every department of the state.
The duke at once sent Hardinge with a note couched in moderate language,
demanding an apology. Winchilsea made no apology, but offered to express
regret for having mistaken the duke's motives, if the duke would declare
that when he presided at the meeting in question he was not
contemplating any measure of catholic relief. Whereupon the duke
demanded "that satisfaction which a gentleman has a right to require,
and which a gentleman never refuses to give". A hostile meeting took
place on March 21 in Battersea fields. The duke intentionally fired
wide, and Winchilsea, after discharging his weapon in the air, tendered
a written apology, in conformity with the so-called rules of honour. The
duke was conscious that his conduct must have "shocked many good men,"
but he always maintained that it was the only way, and proved an
effectual way, of dispelling the atmosphere of calumny in which he was
surrounded. It is probable that he judged rightly of his contemporaries,
and that he gained rather than lost in reputation by an act which, apart
from its moral aspect, risked the success of a great measure largely
depending on the continuance of his own life. It may be noticed that he
afterwards became not only the personal friend of his antagonist, but
the most influential member of the Anti-Duelling Association.[92]
[Pageheading: _EXCLUSION OF O'CONNELL._]
Another episode, or rather sequel, of the great contest on catholic
relief had more serious political consequences. Though O'Connell was the
undoubted leader of the movement, and might almost have claimed to be
the father of the act, he was most unwisely but deliberately excluded
from its benefits. His exclusion was effected by a clause which rendered
its operation strictly prospective, for the very purpose of shutting out
the one catholic who had been elected under the old law. It had been
decided by a committee of the house of commons that he was duly
returned, the only question being whether he could take his seat without
subscribing the oath now abolished. This question was brought to a test
by the appearance of O'Connell in person in the house itself. The
speaker, Charles Manners-Sutton, declared that he could not properly be
admitted to be sworn under the new law, upon which O'Connell claimed a
hearing. A long and futile discussion followed as to whether he should
be heard at the table or at the bar. In the end he was heard at the bar,
and produced a very favourable impression upon his opponents as well as
his friends by the ingenuity of his arguments and the studied moderation
of his tone. His case, however, was manifestly untenable from a legal
point of view, and a new writ was ordered to be issued for the county of
Clare.
Then was shown both the folly of stirring up so needlessly the
inflammable materials of Irish sedition and the futility of imagining
that catholic emancipation, right or wrong, would prove a healing
measure. Having exhibited the better side of his character in his speech
before the house of commons, O'Connell exhibited its worst side without
stint or shame in his addresses to the Irish peasantry. Skilfully
avoiding the language of sheer treason, he set no bounds to his coarse
and outrageous vituperation of the nation which had sacrificed even its
conscience to appease Ireland; nor did he shrink from denouncing
Wellington and Peel as "those men who, false to their own party, can
never be true to us". The note which he struck has never ceased to
vibrate in the hearts of the excitable people which he might have
educated into loyal citizenship, and the spirit which he evoked has been
the evil genius of Ireland from his day to our own. He openly unfurled
the standard of repeal, but the repeal he demanded did not involve the
creation of an Irish republic. Ireland was still to be connected with
Great Britain by "the golden link of the crown," and though agitation
was carried to the verge of rebellion, the great agitator never actually
advised his dupes to rise in arms for a war of independence. Short of
this he did all in his power, and with too much success, to inflame them
with a malignant hatred of the sister country. If the promoters of
catholic emancipation had ever looked for any reward beyond the inward
satisfaction of having done a righteous act, they were speedily and
wofully undeceived.
FOOTNOTES:
[83] Wellington to Peel, January 9, 1828, in Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_,
ii., 27.
[84] Lecky, _History of Ireland_, v., 358-60, _n._; Stapleton, _Life of
Canning_, ii., 131-34.
[85] Eldon to Sir William Scott, Twiss, _Life of Eldon_, ii., 416. For
Eldon's Speech, see Twiss, iii., 498-512.
[86] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, i., 372-75.
[87] Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii., 54-60.
[88] Wellington to Curtis, December 11, 1828, Wellington, _Despatches,
etc._, v., 326.
[89] For the king's qualified assent see Parker, _Sir Robert Peel_, ii.,
82-85; Peel's _Memoirs_, i., 297, 298, 310.
[90] See Peel's _Memoirs_, i., 3, for his unpopularity at Westbury.
[91] Peel's _Memoirs_, i., 343-49; Greville, _Memoirs_, i., 189, 190,
201, 202.
[92] See Maxwell, _Life of Wellington_, ii., 231-36, for the incident.