' /'«<;

/'¦ t^^

VOL. I.

THE HISTORY OF
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION

THE nfsTORY

OF

CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION

AND

THE PROGRESS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
IN THE BRITISH ISLES {CHIEFLY IN ENGLAND)
FROM 1771 TO 1820

W. J. AMHERST, S.J.

** The ways of Providence are incomprehensible, and we know not in what times, or by
what methods, God will restore His Church in England, or what farther tryalls and afflic
tions we are yet to undergo. Onely this we know, that if a Religion be of God, it can never
fail, but the acceptable time we must patiently expect, and endeavour by our Uves not to
undeserve." — From Dryden's Dedication of ihe Life of Si. Francis Xavier to the Queen.

IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. L

LONDON
KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., i, PATERNOSTER SQUARE
1886

{The rights of translation and of reproduction a^e reserved^

THE CATHOLIC YOUNG MEN OF ENGLAND
I DEDICATE THIS WORK,
IN THE HOPE,
THAT FROM ITS PERUSAL THEY MAY
THANK GOD FOR THE BLESSINGS HE HAS SHOWERED UPON US,
AND MAY LEARN WHAT TO AVOID AND WHAT TO DO,
AS FAITHFUL MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH,
AS LOYAL SUBJECTS OF THE QUEEN,
AND AS TRUE MEN,
RESOLVED TO USE THEIR LIBERTIES AS ENGLISHMEN
IN DEFENCE OF THEIR RELIGION AS CATHOLICS.

PREFACE.

Eleven years ago I accidentally discovered that the year
1874 was the centenary of the first Act of Parliament
which relaxed the penal code against Catholics. It was
an Act of the Irish Parliament, and therefore did not
affect the English. But it was the beginning of a better
order of things. It was the prelude to the Act of 1778,
which passed unanimously at Westminster, and was the
first Relief Act in favour of English Catholics. The cir
cumstance of this Act of 1774 having been brought to
my notice, suggested to me the idea of collecting, as far
as my limited opportunities would permit, all the facts
which should come under my notice connected with the
progress of Emancipation and of the Catholic Church in
England during the last hundred years. I had then no
intention of publishing the result of my note-taking. I
thought that I might perhaps collect matter which would
be useful to some future historian. But I was strongly
advised by a friend to take notes only with the view of
working them into a history myself, as no one else, he
said, would be likely to do so. I took the advice ; and
when, five years afterwards, the year 1879 brought us to
the fiftieth year since the passing of the great act of 1829,
a good opportunity was afforded of beginning the history.

viii Preface.
It was accordingly commenced as a serial in Cathohc
Progress, and the greater part of this first volume has
already appeared in that magazine ; many of the first
chapters being written under the heading of " The Jubilee
of Emancipation." I am quite sensible that this history is very imperfect
and very incomplete. No history of Catholic Emancipa-
- tion has as yet been written. The only full and connected
account of any portion of the great contest which has been
published is Mr. Wyse's most valuable and interesting
" History of the Catholic Association." ^ If my attempt
should have no other value, I hope that at least it may
induce some one of more ability, and of greater powers
and opportunities of research, to enter more fully into the
details of one of the most remarkable events of modern
times. For if Lord Beaconsfield could speak of the
" Clare Election '' alone as " not the least memorable of
historical events," the whole agitation and the victory
which followed must, taken together, occupy a high place
amongst those great things which God has brought about
through the instrumentality of willing men.
This history will, I fear, be found to be most incom
plete precisely where a history of Emancipation ought to
be least defective. I mean in the details of the agitation
in Ireland. The introduction of Ireland into this history
was, of course, absolutely necessary in more respects than
one. It is true that an account of the proceedings for
redress in England, from the year 1791 to the year 1826,
' A great deal of some of the most interesting portions of the history is
related in the various lives of Bishop Milner and O'ConneU, and in Sir
Robert Peel's "Memoirs," ia Mr. Butler's "Historical Memoirs," and Dr.
Milner's "Supplementary Memoirs;" but no continued history has yet
appeared of the whole period which I propose to embrace.

Preface. ix
might have been written with Bishop Milner as the principal
figure ; but a history of Emancipation without O'ConneU
would give a much more absurd result than the represen
tation of Hamlet with the omission of the character of the
Prince of Denmark.
The object of an historian should be to state the facts
correctly, and to draw his conclusions with as impartial a
judgment as possible. I have endeavoured to write with
as much accuracy as can be obtained, when not unfre
quently conflicting accounts make the task somewhat
difficult. For instance, it is not always easy to decide
between Charles Butler and Bishop Milner. And with
regard to the reflections which are frequently introduced
to point the moral of the history, many of them have
required a good deal of consideration. But I may say
with the orator Cicero, " Dicam tamen quod sentio, et
dicam brevius, quam res tanta dici possit : " ^ and with the
Psalmist King David, " Credidi, propter quod locutus
sum." 2
W. J. AMHERST, S.J.
St. Mary's Hall, Stonyhurst,
Michaelmas Day, 1885.
' Paradoxa, sc. 2. ^ Ps. cxv.

CONTENTS.

PAGE
Introduction ... ... ... ... ., ... ... i
CHAPTER I.
THE ACTS OF 177I AND I774.
The Act of 1771 — The unsuccessful bills of 1774 — The Act of 1774 intro
duced — Prejudice against CathoUcs — Preamble of Act of 1774 —
Address of the Irish Catholics to the King — Relief granted by the
Act of 1774 — Tom Moore, Mr. Fagan, Charles Butler, and George
Canning on the Act of 1774 — Suggestions of disloyalty in the Act of
1774 — The power and influence of Ireland — Fear the great motive of
relief — Combination amongst Catholics ... ... ... 50
CHAPTER II.
state of catholics previous to act of 1778.
State of Catholics previous to the Act of 1778 — and Lord Mansfield's
charge to the jury at the trial of Mr. Webb ... ... ... 76
CHAPTER III.
the act of 1778.
Edmund Burke on the Act of William III. — Address of English Catholics
to George III. — Remarks on the address — Debates on the bill of
1778 — Sir George Savile, Mr. Dunning, Attorney- General Thurlow,
Lord Beauchamp, and Henry Dundas on the bill — Second reading of
the bill — A specimen of bigotry — A liberal speaker — The bill passes
the Commons — Second reading of the bill in the Lords — Speech of a
bishop — and of two future prime ministers — Lord Shelburne on the
trial of Mr. Malony— The bill of 1778 passes the Lords— Relief given
by the Act ... ... ... ... ... ... ••• 91

xii Contents.

CHAPTER IV.
REMARKS suggested BY THE ACT OF 1 778 
CHAPTER V.
THE IRISH RELIEF ACT AND THE GORDON RIOTS.
The Irish Act — The riots in Scotland — Scotch and English bigotry —
Compensation to the Scotch Catholics — Petition for compensation —
Debate on the petition — Lord George Gordon — The Gordon riots —
Services of Catholic priests not appreciated — Human respect and bad
manners — Inconsistency of statesmen — Conduct of Dissenters — The
Wesleyan Methodists CHAPTER VI.
THE ACT OF 1791.
The Committee of Five — Letters of the Committee to the Catholics of
England and to the Vicars Apostolic — The Committee and Milner —
The Committee of Ten — The Protestation — The oath proposed by
the Committee — The bishops condemn the oath — The schismatical
protest — Milner attacks the Committee — Milner defeats the Committee
— The passing of the bill of 1791 — Relief given by the bill of 1791 —
Religious Orders under the Act of 1791 — Further relief given by
the Act CHAPTER VII.
THE ACT OF 179I, AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.
Why the committee failed — Meetir.g at the Crown and Anchor — The
Cisalpine Club— The Mediation— The " Buff-book "—Father Charles
Plowden — The " Roman Catholic Meeting " ... ... ... 187
CHAPTER VIII.
THE RECEPTION OF THE FRENCH CLERGY AND OF THE ENGLISH
COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND.
The French clergy— Letter of the Bishop of Sl. Pol de L^on— English
Communities abroad— Douay and St.Omer's— The Benedictine dames
of Brussels— The providence of God over the Church in England 
Mean action of some Cisalpines— Kindness of the Royal Family to the
religious— George III. and the Taunton nuns— The Prince Regent
and the Princethorpe nuns ... ... ... ... 207
CHAPTER IX.
REV. MR. WILKS AND THE "STAFFORDSHIRE CLERGY" ... 238

149

Contents. xiii

CHAPTER X.
I'ROGRESS OF EMANCl TATION IN IRELAND. PAGE
The influence of Ireland — Duty of English Catholics towards Ireland —
Catholic associations in Ireland — ^John Keogh — Keogh and fJ'Connell
— O'ConneU — Union is strength ... ... ... 245
CHAPTER XI,
FIRST hCuriJII RELIEF ACT.
English and Scotch bigotry — The Church in Scotland — The Act nf 1793 274
CHAPTER XII.
THE RESIGNATION OF PITT IN 180I— TIIE VF.in.
The resignation of Pitt— Lord .Stanhope on J'itt's resignation — The Veto-
Gregory XVI. and Lonl Melbourne ... ... ... ... 286
CHAPTER XIII.
THE VETO QUESTION.
Origin of the veto question in the United Kingdom — Burke on the veto
— Resolutions of the Irish bishops in 1799 — First public mention of
the veto -Milner's interview with Ponsonby — Debate in the
Commons — Milner and Ponsonby — Indignation in Ireland— Milner's
" Letter to a Parish Priest " ... ... .. •.¦ ... 306

THE HISTORY OF
CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.
INTRODUCTION.
BossUET begins his treatise on universal history by
observing, that if the time should ever come when the
study of history would be useless to other people, it would
still be necessary that princes should read it. It may be
said with as much truth that if no others should take an
interest in the progress of the Church in England during
the last hundred years. Catholics at least should be well
acquainted with the course of events. From a want of
knowledge, there follows as a matter of course an absence
of reflection. A Catholic who does not think of the past
is uninfluenced by those strong motives which exist for
gratitude to God, and for a desire to do his duty as a
loyal member of the Church.
Some five and forty years ago, as two young Catholics
were talking together on the 'duties of English Catholic
laymen, the elder of the two observed to the younger, that
he could not conceive a grander position for a young man
than that in which the Catholic youth of England then
stood. The fact is that the young men of that time were
the firstfruits of the season of emancipation. They had
'^ VOL. I. B

2 Introduction.
gone to school about the time when the great Act was
passing through Parliament ; they had no personal
experience of the times when their elders were living
deprived of the liberties of British subjects. They had
of course heard a great deal about the penal laws, and the
dark days, and the hard times through which their fore
fathers had passed. Their grandfathers had lived in the
deep gloom of the night, but had been spared to see at
least the advancing dawn ; their fathers had witnessed the
aurora breaking into daylight, but the young men them
selves had lived only under the risen sun. It was, no doubt,
an interesting time when the generation which had never
felt the pressure of the penal laws first stepped upon the
stage of life. But it was not merely their freedom that
gave them cause for joy and an eager desire for action.
Their minds and hearts had been prepared by Kenelm
Digby's famous works, the " Broad-stone of Honour," and
the "Mores Catholici." Some narrow-minded uiien-
thusiastic people, and, it may be added, some envious and
jealous people, discouraged the reading of those most
Christian books. But they did their good work, and
infused into hundreds of young Catholics a spirit which,
at the time those books were first published, breathed
nowhere else but in them. When the Catholic young men
of those days had been thus prepared and were ready to
act, they found older men ready to receive them and to
welcome them to manly life. There was the loyal, the
vigilant and practical Langdale, to show in its greatest
perfection how clergy and laity could work together ; there
was the large-hearted Wiseman, whose abiding thought was
not, " How can I alone, discharging every one else, conduct
English-Catholic affairs .' " but, on the contrary, " Whose
services can be engaged to-day in the grand work, to
forward which the services of all who can give help are

Introduction. 3
needed?" there was the enthusiastic and energetic Pugin,
who was enlisting all whom he could in a crusade to revive
Christian taste, and banish the spirit of paganism which
was threatening to destroy the beauty of God's house ;
there was Father Ignatius Spencer, rallying all together in
a holy league to pray for the conversion of our country
men ; there was Frederick Lucas, arguing, beseeching, and
upbraiding in the pages of his Journal, and gradually
forming a school of spirited action which evil counsels
broke up, and whose place is known no more ; there was
increasing emigration from Ireland to great Britain, adding
to the number of Catholics in England, and adding stone
upon stone to the newly rising Church ; there was the
movement at Oxford, to which the eyes of all were directed,
of which every one was speaking, and which filled the
Catholics of England with joy and hope. The movement
at Oxford, and other things which grew out of it, like the
" Cambridge Camden Society," besides the substantial
good which they contained within themselves, made the
study of everything relating to the Catholic Church
fashionable for the time, and the general aspect of things
was very bright and very cheering. On the Continent, too,
there were many signs of a Christian revival ; and Donoso
Cortes in Spain and Montalembert in France were speak
ing orations fit to rouse whatever remains of Catholic
chivalry might be slumbering in the world.
If God in His mercy should prosper His English
Church, those days, now nearly half a century gone by, will
be looked upon as the early spring of the new life. And
certainly the effect which the events of those days pro
duced upon thousands of Catholics in England, was like
the eiTect of the first fine days of spring after a long and
dreary winter. There were hundreds of young laymen
whose first thought was, " How can I best do my duty to

4 Introduction.
the Church.'" Besides enthusiasm, there was a perse
vering determination which certainly promised well for
the future. This state of mind was produced not merely
by the almost sudden change for the better which un
doubtedly began to show itself about the year 1840, but
by the recollection of what young Catholics had heard of
the days which had passed away. The patience and
fidelity of their forefathers under suffering, the long struggle
which their grandfathers and fathers had maintained to
regain their rights, were such glorious memories that those
who lived in the times I am speaking of looked upon
their peaceful and happy days as the fruit of victory.
Though the number is fast diminishing, there are, I hope,
still many amongst us who will bear me out in saying that
there was a large number of young Catholic men then in
England who would not have been content to incur the
reproach that they did not know how to use the victory
which their parents had gained. If the memory of the
contest for emancipation added vigour to youthful minds
and hearts forty-five years ago, it ought to produce some
effect even now. The fruit of victory may be lost by the
men who gained it, or it may be lost by their sons and
their grandsons. The fresh enthusiasm of the conquerors
may wear away ; but, at least, duty should prevent the
descendants of the conquerors from throwing away the
advantages gained.
I am well aware that there is a tendency in human
nature to depreciate the present as compared with the past
in which a man has lived ; and this tendency is more in
the direction of unfavourably criticizing the actions of men
than in that of complaining of material changes. But
times do change, and the changes are either for a state of
things as good, under the circumstances, as the former
things, or they are changes for the better, or changes for

Introduction. 5
the worse. But notwithstanding the tendency I have just
now alluded to, it is not generally supposed that those who
have lived in the past are the worst judges of the pre
sent. Experience teaches wisdom and prudence ; and it is
only those who have lived long who can be personally
acquainted with the contrasts which the lapse of time
produces. With every desire to make that allowance for
the prejudice which naturally exists in the mind of one
who has laboured in a cause to think lightly of the labours
of his successors, I must deliberately say that the action
of the young Catholic men of England in Catholic affairs
at the present day, is mere idleness and sloth as compared
with the energetic action of their fathers : it is as the
indolent working of the men who used to be employed in
excavating amongst the ruins of the Roman Forum, com
pared with the stout and vigorous labour of an English,
or Irish navvy earning his bread on a railway embankment.
And I say this advisedly. A layman in every way emi
nently qualified to judge has made the remark, that "it is
not now the law or Acts of Parliament that prevent us
taking our proper position, but our own apathy ; " that, as
f^r as he can judge, " the Catholic youth of this day is as
worldly as his Protestant neighbour," as shown particularly
in his disinclination " to giving up any of his time beyond
his own personal enjoyment." If such be the case, perhaps
the perusal of what has been done in the past may help
to fan into a flame the spark that no doubt still remains
in some who love their religion and have the hearts of
Englishmen. In the dedication of this volume, it has been noticed
that history teaches us what to avoid as well as what to
do. Many of the things done, as related in the first part
of the history of emancipation, are more to be regretted
than imitated. By far the greater number of Catholics

6 Introduction.
in these days would no doubt condemn the actions of the
English-Catholic committees, boards, and clubs, in the
question of the Veto, and would at the same time loudly
extol the stern orthodoxy and the manly spirit of the
doughty champion Milner, who, almost single-handed, kept
the lists against all comers. But the most enthusiastic
admirer of the great bishop may be well advised to be
cautious, and to restrain a little his thoughts and measure
his words, lest he should find himself including bishops
and priests in the terms of condemnation. The reader will
also have to remember that the very exceptional circum
stances under which the opponents of Milner acted, give
them a title to be at least heard in mitigation of punish
ment. And there is one thing which we must always bear
in mind, namely, that the sons and grandsons of those men
who formed the early English-Catholic associations were,
and some who remain still are, amongst the most faithful
and devoted lovers and supporters of the Holy See. This
seems to show that the Cisalpine spirit was only a
temporary aberration caused by passing events.
If we count from the beginning of the struggle for
emancipation, the two great heroes on the Catholic side
were undoubtedly Milner and O'ConneU. In Milner we
see all that a loyal priest could do, and in O'ConneU all
that a loyal layman could do, to place their Catholic
fellow-countrymen in the position which was their right,
both as members of the Church and as British subjects.
We see these two men, by the grace and favour of Almighty
God, both victorious. We see them in the fight, opposed
not only by Protestants, but in many battles by sections
and sometimes by large divisions of their own people.
They both of them had to be on the watch against open
attacks and sneaking underhand advances. They were
both roundly abused, not only by those from whom abuse

Int7'oduction. 7
might be expected, but by those who ought to have been
ashamed of their words. Milner was spoken of sometimes
as a blockhead and sometimes as a blackguard, and no
foul and insulting word was spared when the actions of
O'ConneU were criticized.* When Milner was fighting
for the rights of the Holy See, he was covertly reported
to Rome as a mere turbulent priest ; when O'ConneU was
agitating, well within the lines of the constitution, he was
fiercely denounced as a rebel. And yet the actions for
which these two men were so foully traduced are the very
actions the memory of which surrounds their names with
a halo of glory. But their conduct was not merely glorious ;
it was exemplary. They are models for all Catholics who
have rights to obtain from State authorities. They teach
us that when God designs to make man the instrument for
attaining an end, an unflinching determination to give to
God what belongs to God will often make Csesar retire
within his proper domain. They teach us also that detrac
tion and calumny and unfair opposition are but the penalties
which we must pay for doing our duty. All that they had
to endure from the tongues of their enemies were mere
sufferings which ended with time. We may notice in the
lives of great men, men who have conferred some signal
benefits on their fellow-men, what is always observed in the
history of the Church. Almighty God seems sometimes
to say to the evil spirits, " Now is your hour, and power
of darkness." These evil spirits may inflict great and
intense suffering, but they cannot prevent a glorious
resurrection. It is, in fact, rather a good sign when a
Catholic is abused for his political acts. The abuse is
pretty sure to be occasioned by something very Christian
and very Catholic in what he does. The political position
¦* O'ConneU used often to say that he was " the best abused man in the
world."

8 Introduction.
of an English Catholic is such that to some extent he
must always be in opposition. In many, and perhaps in all,
questions of mere civil policy, he may take his side in party
warfare. But so long as Catholics are not in every respect
on a perfect equality with Protestants, there must be
questions on which we are at variance with one party or
the other, and sometimes with both. In political action in
the United Kingdom everything depends on the power
of fighting. In our constitutional system, the redress of
a grievance is obtained in a manner completely different
from that in which it is obtained under an absolute
monarchy. In a monarchy, and even in a limited monarchy,
but one in which the sovereign has much more power than
is possessed by the sovereign in England, the object of
a class of persons suffering under a grievance is to con
ciliate the head of the State, or the minister to whom the
direction of affairs is left. Hence it is the best policy of
the aggrieved to consult the feelings and wishes of the
authorities as much as possible, and to abstain from every
thing which might annoy, embarrass, and irritate them.
For the redress of a wrong where there is absolute authority ¦
is not a party, but a personal aff'air ; if they who are asking
for justice can secure the favour of one man, they will soon
get what they want. But in our parliamentary government
it is a totally different thing. A wrong is not remedied
by a person, but by a party. Whenever there is a refusal
or a reluctance to do right, or an unreasonable delay in
doing right, it is not by conciliating an individual that
justice is obtained, but by making justice the interest of
a party. A good example of what is here meant was the
conduct of Lord John Russell in 1847, when he refused
to include Catholics in the grant for education. Lord John
cared nothing for the past services and the present con
ciliatory letters and speeches of all the Catholic Whigs in

Introduction. 9
both Lords and Commons. The threat of the Wesleyan
Methodists to oppose the grant if Catholics were included
made, in the mind of a Russell, all the conciliatory conduct
of the Catholics kick the beam. But no sooner did Sir
William Molesworth get up in the House, and threaten the
party leader with a serious defection from his ranks if
Catholics were not included, than the minister immediately
promised that Catholics should share in the grant. Political
life and political action under the English constitution are
certainly a warfare ; and a wrong which affects religion
must be remedied by the same means as are employed
to put an Englishman into a better position as to his
franchise, or his house, or his food, or anything else.'
Those who never look threatening, who never organize,
who are always saying, "We don't want to fight," are looked
on by Englishmen as soldiers are looked upon who shun
the combat. All the world knows what great things may
be done by a small but well-disciplined force. And yet
we CathoUcs of England but too often neglect to learn
wisdom by experience. The consequence is, that our
position is something like that of the Chinese people when
they have a quarrel with a European state and a disciplined
army. When men stand up boldly for some demand in
which the bulk of the people do not sympathize, or which
has a large party of opponents, they are sure to meet with
abuse. In the heat of the contest nothing may be heard
but hooting and yells ; but " when the battle's lost and
won," the hooting and the yells cease, and we hear nothing
but praise of the bravery and, as we say, " thorough English
conduct " of those who have been most hooted and yelled
at. It is true that in the case of O'ConneU the English
people never completely forgave him. He had done what
> By " pohtical action " is here meant the use of any civil right to promote
an object, whether civil or religious.

I o Introduction.
no other man ever did do : he, an Irishman and a Catholic,
had fought and beaten the British nation. But still, the
vexation caused by that one great crime did not destroy
admiration for his boldness and persevering determination
to use every liberty he possessed, to obtain other liberties
of which he was unjustly deprived. Who does not now
admire in Milner and O'ConneU all that which is summed
up in the expressive word pluck ? They ¦must be admired,
because, having to fight the English on English ground,
they fought not as Chinese would fight, but as Englishmen
are accustomed to fight and to conquer. The abuse they
got was only the harmless cries of an exasperated and re
tiring enemy. But irritating as those discordant cries may
have been, they were sweet and harmonious compared with
the groans of contempt which would have followed them
if they had chosen un-English weapons and un-English
tactics in a fight with Britons to obtain British rights ;
if, in a word, they had foolishly relied on personal influ
ence with the minister, or on secret underhand diplomacy,
instead of on the only kind of political warfare which finds
favour with the English people. Milner has taught us
what one man alone can do by open and plain speech and
a determined will ; O'ConneU gives us the brightest ex
ample in Christian times of what one leader can accomplish
without breaking a tittle of the law, but with a united
people at his back to support his public but peaceful
demand. It will be necessary to introduce a good deal of what
has been done in Ireland. ¦ The Irish portion of the Church
and the English portion of the Church stand in two very
different positions. In both countries, it is true. Catholics
were persecuted and kept down : but in England they
were well-nigh exterminated ; whereas in Ireland, while
the political influence of Catholics was destroyed, the faith

Introduction. 1 1
increased as the English tried to stamp it out, and the
green blade sprang up in luxuriance beneath the feet of
the oppressors. A hundred years ago, in England, Catholics
had everything to gain; in Ireland they had religion to
preserve, and political influence to acquire. It was a
consequence of this state of things that, as soon as the
legislature began to relax the penal laws, and the Irish
Catholics could act with greater freedom, their numbers,
their larger middle class, their more numerous gentry,
began to exercise their legitimate influence in public
affairs. This influence increased, and became at last an
overwhelming power, when, under the command of the
great O'ConneU, it forced the power of England to yield,
and to grant the emancipation of 1829. This power of
the Irish Catholics had its effect in Great Britain. Here
we had no force, physical or moral, to use ; but what had
been granted to the Irish could hardly have been refused
to the English Catholics. It may be said that the Irish
were relieved because they became too strong to be any
longer ill-treated ; we English were relieved because we
were too weak to be feared. As the great Catholic power
in the United Kingdom during the last hundred years had
been, and still is, in Ireland, that power has, under good
Providence, been exerted in many ways to improve the
position of Catholics in England. It is impossible, therefore,
to tell the history of British Catholics, and to recount the
progress we have made, without frequently alluding to this
great motive-power which our good God has made use of
to bring about the happy result.
There are one or two matters which are always thrown
upon the carpet whenever there is a difference between
Catholics and Protestants in this country, and which it will
be well to notice before beginning the history of the contest
for emancipation. One of these matters is the expression.

1 2 Introduction.
"Catholic before everything." This phrase is quoted
against us sometimes by well-intentioned persons who do
not understand its meaning, and at other times by men
who know its meaning well, who know that there is no
harm in it, but who want to exasperate their Protestant
fellow-subjects against us by charging us with being
disloyal and un-English.
The origin of the expression, " Catholique avant tout,"
or "Catholic before everything," is its use by the great
Christian orator of our time, Montalembert. He found
himself almost alone in the House of Peers, and afterwards
in the National Assembly, opposed to the liberal spirit of
the time, in its constant attacks upon the Church. If in
the House of Peers, and in the Assembly, Montalembert
was supported by others, it was chiefly by men whom his
eloquence roused to exertion. The liberty of the Church
was attacked on all sides. Those who are old enough to
remember it, will recall to mind that manly energy and
those glorious bursts of eloquence with which the great
champion defended the liberty of parents to bring up their
children CathoUcs, the liberty of Religious Orders, and the
liberty of the Holy Father.
Montalembert was the spokesman of Catholics in a
Catholic country. But France had in his time, and has
now, many wayward children. The infidel principles
which burst forth at the commencement of the great
Revolution have, in greater or less degree, dominated in
the government of the country down to our own time.
In spite of so much that is greatest and best in France, she
was gradually becoming an un-Christian country. In this
state of things, the Christian champion rushed to the front,
and loudly proclaimed, " Remember, we are Catholic
before everything." What did he mean ? He meant that
nothing that was un-Christian could be for the good of

Introduction. 1 3
France.^ He meant that un-Christian principles disgraced
his country, and that Christian principles honoured her ;
and it was necessary in France then, and over the whole of
Europe it is now necessary, to raise the cry of " Catholic
before everything,'' if they who wish to give to God what
belongs to God are to be rallied to stand the shock of the
enemy, who would give everything to Csesar. We might,
indeed, express the meaning of Montalembert, in the
words used by Mr. Gladstone. When speaking of the
words, "A Catholic first, an Englishman afterwards," he
says, they " properly convey no more than a truism ; for
every Christian must seek to place his religion even before
his country in his inner heart." Yes, the thought of Mon-
talembert's inner heart was that, being a Christian, he must
seek to place his religion even before his country. But he
was not the man to be content to preserve Christian
thoughts in his inner heart, and by word and by deed to
flatter and help on the un-Christian principles of those
around him. He was no gigantic hypocrite, pandering
to tastes which in his heart he detested ; he was no coward,
" letting I dare not wait upon T would!' He was a man
whose mouth spoke out of the abundance of his inner
heart. He was a man who could and did raise his voice
when necessary, to proclaim what his heart believed. And
herein was his great offence in the opinion of such men
as Mr. Gladstone. Let a Catholic keep his Christian
principles in his inner heart, while with voice or with pen
he denies them, and he is well pleasing in the eyes of the
Liberal party. But let a Catholic give utterance to his
principles ; let him, as becomes a man, act upon them,
and the chief men of the Liberal party will denounce him
' Those who are not Catholics should know that the words " Christian "
and "CathoUc" are practically, and in a Catholic country are understood to
be, synonymous.

1 4 Introduction,
as incapable of being loyal, and of discharging his civil
duty. It is no sin in England to be a Christian ; but to
act, under all circumstances, as a Christian should act, is
treason. Having said thus much about the words "Catholic
before everything," I wish now to draw the reader's
attention to the free translation of those words which
Mr. Gladstone gave in one of his Vatican pamphlets.
This is Mr. Gladstone's version : " A Catholic first, an
Englishman afterwards." Mr. Gladstone puts these words
into inverted commas, and says they "have become
notorious." Being in inverted commas, Mr. Gladstone
meant them for a quotation. Where did he take them
from ? Who has ever written them ? Who ever spoke
them .¦* He has taken them from newspapers. Many
Protestants have written, and many Protestants have said,
that these words were said and written by Catholics.
What Catholic ever said them ? What Catholic ever
wrote them ? The impression intended to be conveyed by
Mr. Gladstone is the same as the impression intended to
be conveyed by the newspapers, which published the words
as if spoken by a Catholic. The fact is that the words,
"A Catholic first, an Englishman afterwards," have not
a Catholic origin : they have been invented by Protestants
to fix odium upon Catholics. Being invented, they have
been quoted over and over again, and even by Mr. Glad
stone, as having been uttered by a Catholic, and all
England believes it, and, in believing it, believes what is
false. But why should we be so anxious to deny the
Catholic origin of the words, seeing that Mr. Gladstone
himself thinks them capable of a very good interpretation ?
And we ourselves must admit that they contain an
exceUent meaning. We object to the phrase for this
reason. It has been invented and put into our mouths in

Introduction. 1 5
order to create a wrong impression. Two impressions
may be created by the words, " A Catholic first, an
Englishman afterwards." One, the impression which, as
Mr. Gladstone says, they " properly convey," and the
other, the impression which persons ill-disposed to the
Catholic religion take from them ; as when Mr. Gladstone
says, " We take them to mean that the ' convert ' intends,
in case of any conflict between the Queen and the Pope, to
follow the Pope, and let the Queen shift for herself" Of
the first and the true impression I have spoken above, in
what has been said of the words " Catholic before every
thing." Of the false impression it will be necessary to say
a few words, in order to explain what I have called the
free translation into English of Montalembert 's motto,
" Catholique avant tout." When Mr. Gladstone spoke
of a conflict between the Queen and the Pope, he did not,
of course, speak of a conflict in spiritual matters. If a
Catholic in spiritual matters speaks and acts as "a Catholic
first," he is simply faithful in his conduct to what Mr.
Gladstone calls a truism : that " every Christian must seek
to place his religion even before his country in his inner
heart." By a conflict between the Queen and the Pope,
Mr. Gladstone meant, therefore, a conflict in civil matters ;
and the wrong impression he meant to convey is that, in
a conflict between the Queen and the Pope in civil matters,
Catholics who adopt the expression, " Catholic before every
thing" — for we won't accept his distinction of "converts" —
would "follow the Pope, and let the Queen shift for
herself" Now, if the words " Catholic before everything "
are changed into "A Catholic first, an Englishman after
wards," an antithesis is created which fixes the attention
on the words " an Englishman afterwards," and so seems
to place the interests of our country in a lower and
secondary place. Our fellow-countrymen have been, and

i6 Introduction.
StiU are, so persistent in charging us, against all historical
facts, with not being loyal, that they will not stop to make
a distinction between spiritual matters and civil matters.
When, therefore, they are told that we are Catholic first
and English afterwards, they immediately take the words
to mean that in civil matters we give our country the
second place ; which we do not. Those amongst our
countrymen who know better, know also how easy it is to
pervert the judgment of Englishmen in any Catholic
question, by exciting their prejudices against us. A word
can do it ; a word has often done it.
The history of the expression, "A CathoUc first, an
Englishman afterwards," is therefore this. The great and
noble utterance of Montalembert had its echo in England.
It was calculated to rouse the spirit of Catholics, who had
just shaken off" the chains of persecution, and were think
ing how they could, by all legal means, use their liberties
as Englishmen in defence of their religion as Catholics.
" Catholic before everything " is a cry too inspiriting to be
left by our enemies to work upon us, without their attempt
ing to destroy its effect by a discord. Montalembert never
said, " A Catholic first, a Frenchman afterwards." Though
he would not have hesitated to use the words in the sense
in which Mr. Gladstone says they are a truism, yet he
was too wise to give a handle to his enemies, by an ex
pression which would enable them to fix, though unjustly,
odium even on a truism. No English Catholic ever
attempted to improve on the great motto. We did not
give the free translation of which Mr. Gladstone has made
so evil a use. It was not in France that an addition was
made. The motto, as used now in England, was not a
translation made by an English Protestant from a French
infidel. The free translation was made in England by
some English Protestant, and the words were attributed to

Introduction. 1 7
Catholics to produce the effect above explained. The
translation was, in fact, "an ingenious device" of our
enemies. Montalembert's words were freely translated, or
rather developed, in such a way as to be perfectly unob
jectionable, in the sense in which a Catholic would use
them, and at the same time contain what is called a sug-
gestio falsi — a suggestion of the falsehood that, in civil
matters, a Catholic would not give the laws of his country
the first place. By whomsoever the device was invented,
it has been adopted by Mr. Gladstone ; he is responsible for
it, and has never rejected it.
Before concluding these observations on the words,
"A Catholic first, an Englishman afterwards," I must
allude to one or two remarks of Mr. Gladstone, where he
notices those words in his pamphlet. Having said that
in one sense those words are a truism, he goes on to say,
" but very far from a truism in the sense in which we have
been led to construe them." By whom led to construe
them } Certainly not by any Catholic. The words were
not invented by a Catholic, as I have said. But as the
words are in themselves, and properly understood, most
unobjectionable, we need not at this moment uncere
moniously discard them. Let them stand while we give
our answer. No Catholic, either by word or by action,
has ever led any one to suppose that we construe them
in any other sense than that in which they are a truism.
Then by whom led to construe them, we again ask ? By
those who have invented or adopted the phrase, in order
to suggest a sense in which they are not true. How
then stands the question } A grand motto of which any
Christian might be proud has been put by our enemies
into a special form, for the express purpose of suggesting
what is false ; and then we are told that it is we who have
led our countrymen to construe the motto in the evil sense
VOL. I. C

1 8 Introduction.
which by that special form is conveyed. Mr. Gladstone,
continuing his comments on the free translation of Mon
talembert's motto, observes, " We take them to mean that
the ' convert ' intends, in case of any conflict between the
Queen and the Pope, to follow the Pope, and let the
Queen shift for herself; which, happily, she can well do."
What right has Mr. Gladstone to take the words to mean
anything but what a Catholic would mean by them } If
he will put words into our mouths, at least he should give
us the privilege of interpreting them. But he will not
allow us even this. He interprets them himself, charges
us with the interpretation, and founds on the interpretation
a charge of intending to follow the Pope rather than the
Queen in purely civil matters. If such conduct were pur
sued towards any other class of Englishmen than Catholics
what would not be said of it ? How true are the words
which the author of " Norton Broadland " puts into the
mouth of Lord Hillsworth ! — " I must confess I am astonished
at the way in which even people who know how to behave
in every other relation of life, seem to forget that they are
ladies and gentlemen the moment that they come in con
tact with Catholicity.''
Is it possible that Mr. Gladstone can really imagine
it is likely that there will be any conflict between the
Queen and the Pope ; and Mr. Gladstone must, as I said,
mean a conflict in civil matters. He cannot mean in
spiritual matters, for he knows that it exists, and must
unfortunately exist, so long as the Queen shall remain a
Protestant. And besides, Mr. Gladstone will give both the
Queen and the Pope credit for placing their religion before
their country in their inner hearts. He therefore means
a conflict in civil matters. If Mr. Gladstone uses the word
" Queen " to denominate our gracious Queen Victoria —
and we hope he has not used her name in vain — then we

Introduction. i g
do say that, of all the improbable things which by possi
bility might happen, the most improbable is any conflict
between the Queen and the Pope in a civil matter. Mr.
Gladstone would perhaps be delighted to catch a Catholic
tripping in such a conflict, but he has not the remotest
chance of catching one of us. He may as well give up
his delusion, and relegate his ideal sport of catching
Catholics in treason, to those queer days in future, when
larks also will be caught easily, because the sky will have
fallen. But it is possible that Mr. Gladstone may have used
the Queen's name only typically, to signify the laws and
institutions of England, and he may think it is likely that
the Pope may be in conflict with them. There is, he may
be assured, nothing more unlikely. That there may be
some laws on the statute-book which the Pope would like
to see repealed, I think very probable ; for example, the
penal laws enacted by the Emancipation Act. And there
may be laws which the Pope would like to see on the
statute-book ; for example, a law that in all public institu
tions Catholics shall have the same advantages for the
practice of their religion as the members of the Church
of England possess. But matters of this sort have not
caused, and will not cause, any civil complication between
England and the Pope. It is useless, therefore, to anticipate
the time.
But is it possible that, by the words " conflict between
the Queen and the Pope," Mr. Gladstone meant a conflict
between Catholic principles and those liberal principles
of the day which are opposed to Christianity.' Is it in
his mind that a Catholic does not discharge the duties of
civil loyalty, if he opposes bills brought into Parliament
for creating civil marriage, legalizing sinful divorce, and
establishing a system of Godless education ? Is it possible

20 Introduction.
that a Catholic is in Mr. Gladstone's opinion disloyal to
his country who is not loyal to him ? I strongly suspect
that Catholics are charged with disloyalty in these days,
whenever they stand in the way of those liberal ideas
which have no element of Christianity in them. English
Liberalism is in these days imbibing too much of Con
tinental Liberalism, and to this the conscience of every
Catholic is and must be opposed. But I would ask,
would Mr. Gladstone dare to charge a Protestant country
squire with disloyalty, because he might oppose a Divorce
Bill, or the Education Bill of 1870? He would not. Then
he should not dare to charge us with disloyalty, because
we may think proper, in the exercise of our English
liberties, to oppose any bill whatever that he may choose
to introduce into Parliament. Will any one dare to fetter
our liberties, because the head of our Church is the
Bishop of Rome? If Mr. Gladstone had any idea of
frightening English Catholics into subserviency to him
by holding over us the charge of disloyalty, he found him
self mistaken. We have not sunk to so low a state as to
quail before such a threat. But either it is true that his
pamphlet meant such a threat, or his charge of disloyalty
was as ridiculous a charge as one man ever made against
another. Though ten years have passed since Mr. Glad
stone charged us with disloyalty, we ought' not to forget
that the charge was made ; for we may depend upon it
that some one or another will repeat it whenever it may
suit a party purpose. But in the midst of any persecution
of public opinion excited against us by misrepresentation,
we shall, with the help of God, pursue our old course. We
have a glorious history to look back to. Our fathers were
Catholics before everything ; they fought a good fight, and
kept the faith for us their children. We, let us hope, shall
follow their example. " Catholics before everything " is

Introduction. 2 1
our cry; and many hearts beat quicker at the sound.
The mustering numbers increase. Fidelity and perse
verance are strong powers ; and, with God on our side,
England may one day be as Catholic in the future as she
was in the past.
One great means which the enemy of mankind has
used to delude the English people has been to make them
believe that CathoUcs are not and cannot be loyal subjects.
Catholics meet this by saying that we are, to say the very
least, as loyal to Queen and country as any other class of
her Majesty's subjects. We are more loyal than most of
those who say we are not loyal.
In the history of the English Catholics since the Refor
mation, one of the facts which force themselves upon the
notice of the reader, is their persevering loyalty to the
throne and constitution of this realm. This loyalty is
proved by a continual series of acts reaching down to our
own time. It is difficult to understand how any one
perusing English history can fail to be struck by the
prominence of Catholic loyalty. It is still more difficult to
comprehend how any one, with the proof before him, can
refuse to the fact its legitimate conclusion, and draw
another conclusion from some fanciful theory of his own.
Our love for our country and our loyalty to the Crown
have been faithful through good report and through evil
report. They have been tried by fire and sword. They
have been stretched to the utmost ; but they have, not been
broken. They have stood all the severest tests to which
loyalty could be subjected, but they have never shown the
smallest symptom of a flaw. Exclusion, confiscation, and
death have done their worst, and the loyalty of English
Catholics is as sound as ever.
I say, at starting, we are loyal because we are Catholics.
Our reUgion has taught us to be loyal ; our religion has

2 2 Introduction.
made us loyal ; our religion keeps us loyal. To be
English and to be Catholic are the two surest marks of
a loyal subject. These two qualities seem in their com
bination to produce the strength which is attributed to the
triple cord, which is not easily broken. The word of an
EngUsh Catholic that he is loyal to his sovereign and that
he loves his country, is a pledge worth having. The day
may not be so far off" when our traducers will, by their own
acts, exhibit to the world the tinsel of their own boasted
loyalty in contrast to the pure gold of ours.
When we come to the proof of English Catholic loyalty,
the field is so large, and the historical facts so numerous,
that it becomes impossible in a short work to treat the
subject as could be wished. I will, however, remind the
reader of some passages in English history. Charles II.
summoned his loyal subjects to meet him on the 2 ist of
August, 165 1, in the meadows which lie under the walls of
Worcester. Amongst the gentlemen who met him with
their troops of horse were Sir Walter Blount, Mr. Ralph
Sheldon, Mr. Thomas Acton, and Mr. Hornyold of Black-
more Park. I would ask Mr. Gladstone, as head of the
Liberal party in England, were those gentlemen loyal
men ? I hope he would answer. Yes. And yet all these
men had suffered most grievously at the hands of the
Stuarts only because they were Catholics, and through a
bloody persecution had preserved both their loyalty and
their faith.
When the battle of Worcester had been lost and won,
Mr. Whitgreave of Moseley, Father Huddlestone, and the
Penderells took good care of the beaten King. I would
again ask Mr. Gladstone : Were they loyal men } We may
presume that not even the head of the Liberal party will
think less of the loyalty of the Catholics who lived at the
end of the seventeenth and beginning of the eighteenth

Introduction, 23
centuries, because their sympathies were not strongly en
listed on the side of William III. Without entering into
any question, which is needless here as to rights de jure
and rights de facto to the Crown of England, the certain
fact is, that no Catholic of any note or interest did any
thing which WiUiam III. judged to be disloyal. And yet
in William's reign some grievous penal laws were passed.
Nor can we be reproached by any one if our ancestors
were not enthusiastic admirers of Queen Anne, the daughter
of a Catholic, and who consented to the persecution of her
Catholic subjects. But, nevertheless. Catholics were loyal
to her, though neither they nor we have been able to waste
much love upon her.
During the reigns of the early Georges the Jacobite
sympathies of the Catholics of England were shared by
them in common with the whole Tory party, and in those
days there was no disloyalty in being a Jacobite. If any
accusation of disloyalty is to be made against any English
men for their conduct in 171 5 and 174S, it must be made
against all who would have preferred the House of Stuart
to the House of Brunsv/ick. Now, there was a large party
in England who had such a preference, and Catholics were
only a small portion of that party. It would be a shabby
thing to point to one section of the then Tory party, and
say, " You were not loyal." It would look as if the point
was not at their politics, but at their reUgion. And, indeed,
to any one who should think that in the reigns of George I.
and George II. it was treason to love a Stuart more than
a Hanoverian, we may answer that the overt acts in these
reigns implicated the whole Tory party, and that the
Catholics as a body were not represented to the extent
which is sometimes supposed. Goldsmith, who was seven
teen years old in I745> says, in his History of England,
when speaking of Charles Edward's attempt, that " he was

24 Introduction.
joined at Manchester by two hundred English." And
Berington, writing in 1780, says, "Very few Catholics, I
have observed, were engaged in the rebellion." The number
must indeed have been small. And the latter author,
writing about the rebeUion of 1715, says of the CathoUcs,
" The number of real insurgents was inconsiderable." But
in reality the sympathy shown by English Catholics to the
House of Stuart was no sign of disloyalty. The conduct
of our ancestors in relation to the crown and country from
the battle of Worcester to the accession of George IIL
was a proof of their love of both.
We may easily imagine, from what we have seen in
other countries, that complications may arise which may
make it difficult for a conscientious man to know what
side he should take in a dynastic quarrel. A knowledge
of facts and a knowledge of rights are required in the first
instance. A judgment unclouded by prejudices, and a will
directed by conscience and duty, are necessary for decision
between conflicting claims. No bigoted admirer of William
III. shall be the judge of the loyalty of Catholics during
the reign of that monarch. No man whose first principle
even in politics is to hate the Catholic Church, shall dictate
to us what the feelings of our ancestors should have been
with regard to Queen Anne and the first two of the Georges.
But if any unbiassed person would learn how admirably
and with what delicate regard to duty and the claims of
others, a Catholic can conduct himself in political complica
tions, let him study the history of Catholics in the times
to which we have aUuded.
Whatever differences of opinion, however, may be
allowed as to our conduct during the events which followed
close on the Revolution, this we assert, and challenge
denial: as soon as the title of the House of Brunswick
became undoubtedly a title de jure as well as de facto, the

Introduction. 2 5
English Catholics, following the dictates of that religion
which is said to make them disloyal subjects, one and aU
transferred their hearts and their hands to the present
reigning House. In giving the names of some of those
who fought at Worcester, I have mentioned that of Ralph
Sheldon. The Sheldons were then Catholics, and they
remained so even into this century. In illustration of
what has been said above, it is a curious fact that when,
in 1778, the English Catholics presented to George III. an
obsequiously loyal address, the secretary to the committee
which drew it up was William Sheldon, a descendant of
the gentleman who met Charles in the Worcester meadows.
Thus this "religious, honourable, and straightforward
gentleman," as Milner calls him, proved what indeed he
only shared with all other Catholics, that he was then
as loyal to the Protestant House of Brunswick as his
fathers had been to the CathoUcs of the House of Stuart.
What King or Queen of England is there who would not
value the loyalty of such a man as that, rather than the
loyalty of one who would think it expedient to support
his sovereign's title to the throne, so long only as he or she
should remain a Protestant ? And again we ask, how is it
that through such fearful trials as were inflicted by the penal
laws we have preserved our allegiance to our sovereign
and to our country ? And again we answer, it is because
we have been Catholics. It is on account of the faith
which is in us that our loyalty, when weighed in the balance,
has not been found wanting. Our loyalty is not a loyalty
of expediency, but one of justice and of right. It is not
a matter of opinion ; it is founded on those laws of faith
and morals by which the Church, guided by the Holy
Spirit, has bound us. We do not say that we have not
reasons as Englishmen, as well as reasons as Catholics,
for being faithful to our country. But we say that our

26 Introduction.
fidelity has its special value, from the fact that it is
strengthened by the doctrines which we hold. For it
cannot be denied that there is such a thing in England,
and widely spread too, as a loyalty of expediency. A
loyalty which is founded on the opinion that a monarchy
is for us the best form of government, is a loyalty of ex
pediency. If public opinion were to set in strongly against
the throne, the throne would not stand the shock. Public
opinion varies ; it is " a reed shaken by the wind." It can
bear no weight and strain ; it cannot be trusted. It cannot
hand down from father to son a principle which, however
sound in its nature, is inconvenient in its practice.
In the year 1 701, loyalty founded on public opinion
could not stand the test of allowing a Catholic to inherit
the crown of England. The Act of Settlement was passed,
excluding Catholics from the throne. But loyalty founded
on conscience stood every test that was applied to it.
In the year 1778, the English Catholics signed an
address to the King, of which the following was the first
paragraph : —
Most gracious Sovereign : we, your Majesty's dutiful and loyal
subjects, the Roman Catholic peers and commoners of your
Kingdom of Great Britain, most humbly hope that it cannot be
offensive to the clemency of your Majesty's nature, or to the
maxims of your just and vnse government, that any part of your
subjects should approach your royal presence, to assure your
Majesty of the respectful affection which they bear to your person,
and their true attachment to the civil constitution of their country ;
which, having been perpetuated through all changes of religious
opinions and establishments, has been, at length, perfected by
that revolution which has placed your Majesty's illustrious House
on the throne of these kingdoms, and inseparably united your
title to the crown with the laws and liberties of your people.
Such were the words of English Catholics to a Protestant

Introduction. 2 7
King, whose predecessors had shown but little mercy to
us. Such was the first utterance of loyalty, when our great
grandfathers dared for the first time to hope that they
would be even listened to by their sovereign. Such was
the speech of a loyalty founded upon conscience, loyalty
which remained sound and true after generations of persecu
tion. That address was even excessive in the eagerness
of those- who presented it. Loyalty to the King and con
stitution might have been fully expressed without going
to the extreme length of saying that the civil constitution
of the country had been perfected by the revolution.
Perhaps our respected ancestors overlooked the fact that
they were attributing perfection to an Act by which any
one of their own religion was excluded from the throne.
Let us look at another contrast. If there be one
principle in the English constitution more vaunted than
another, it is that of civil and religious liberty. And yet
loyalty to that principle would appear to be founded only
on public opinion for the time being, for in 1851 it could
not stand the test it was put to. The Holy Father exer
cised a purely spiritual act in the appointment of bishops
in England. There was no law against it ; the right of
the Pope to act as he did had been acknowledged, and
religious liberty entitled Catholics to be left in peace. But
public opinion was roused by Earl Russell and the Times
newspaper against his Holiness. Public opinion set in
furiously for persecution ; down fell the principle of civil and
religious liberty, and a new penal law was enacted. How
different on that occasion was the conduct of those whose
loyalty was founded not on opinion, but on conscience
informed by right and justice. The leader of the English
Catholics at that time — would that, for our own sake, he
could come again amongst us — would not consent to an
address to Cardinal Wiseman, unless it contained an

28 Introduction.
unmistakable assertion of our loyalty to the Crown.
Those who heard him speak on the subject will not forget
his words ; they expressed towards her Majesty as enthu
siastic a loyalty as might have been felt by the staunchest
Jacobite to the House of Stuart. And this assertion of
loyalty was sincerely made by those against whom their
Queen was about to attach her sign manual to a penal law.
Mr. Gladstone once drew a distinction between those
who have been Catholics from their infancy and those
who embraced the faith in after life. He wrote in the
Cotitemporary Review that " no one can become a convert
without renouncing his moral and mental freedom, and
placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of another."
And in his pamphlet he said, " that Rome requires a co'nvert
to forfeit his moral and mental freedom," etc. And the
newspapers, especially the Times, have understood his
meaning to be that, while he relies upon the loyalty of the
old Catholic famUies, he suspects that of " a convert." All
English Catholics repudiate the distinction. If a convert
has to forfeit any principles, it is because those principles
are not held by the members of the communion into
which he enters. There are not, and there cannot be,
two sets of principles, one for those born of Catholic
parents, and another for those who joined the Church
when they came to man's estate. If a convert has to
forfeit his freedom, it must be because he goes amongst
those who are not free ; if he places his loyalty and civil
duty at the mercy of another, it is because he joins a body
which teaches its members to do so. And therefore no
distinction can be drawn between the principles of converts
and the principles of other Catholics. That a Catholic has
less freedom than others, except the freedom of thinking
what he likes in religious matters independent of all
authority, is strictly opposed to the real truth. He has

Introduction. 29
more freedom than others, and in matters of thought can
wander more where he pleases, for the simple reason that
he goes to sea with a rudder to his boat. Whereas others
who have not that guide are driven about at the mercy of
all the absurd notions of the age in which they happen to
Uve. The charge that Catholics place their loyalty and
civil duty at the mercy of another is simply a charge that
we are members of a Church which has from the time of
our Saviour taught its members to "give to Csesar what
belongs to Cssar, and to God what belongs to God." So,
let this be understood : a charge that a convert cannot
be loyal, is a charge that a Catholic cannot be loyal.
Mr. Gladstone and all others may spare their compli
ments to the old CathoUc families. Mr. Gladstone may
perhaps tell us that the facts here noticed as showing
the loyalty of Catholics, prove nothing to him. Ralph
Sheldon, who fought at Worcester, and William Sheldon,
who wrote the loyal address to King George, he may say,
lived before the Vatican Decrees, and this makes all the
difference. It makes no difiference at all. The Vatican
Decrees have only defined what has always been the belief
of the Church. Mr. Gladstone, who is famous for the fine
logical distinctions which he can draw and clearly set forth,
ought to be able to see the distinction between a matter of
faith and a defined article of faith. He ought to understand
how the faith of the Church in the first century may not be
a defined article of faith until the nineteenth century. And
therefore he ought to know that the Vatican Decrees have
not changed, because they cannot change, the belief of the
Church. Our relations with the State are precisely the
same as they were before the Vatican Decrees. If Mr.
Gladstone is satisfied with the loyalty and civil duty of
Lord Howard of Effingham, Ralph Sheldon of Worcester,
Mr. Whitgreave of Moseley, Richard Penderell, William

30 Introduction.
Sheldon, who wrote the loyal address to George IIL, and
Mr. Langdale, who would not compliment the cardinal
without proclaiming his loyalty to the Queen, he ought
to be satisfied with ours. It is the same as theirs ; the
Vatican Decrees have made no difference. We do not see
the difference ; we say there is no difiference to be seen ;
we are ready to show by our conduct that no difiference
really exists.
But if a serious doubt could have arisen in the mind of
Mr. Gladstone, as to whether the Vatican Decrees had in
any way changed the relations of English Catholics towards
their sovereign and their country, why did he not go for
the solution of that doubt to those who were the best able
to solve it ? The Catholic families of England, if not a
numerous class, stand in the very first rank of English
society, and some of them bear names which, amongst
those which are known and honoured in our land, are the
most honoured and the best known. As Mr. Gladstone
tells us that he has many Catholic friends, why did he
not go to them before making an assertion which before
the whole country impeached their loyalty and their
honour } Why did he not ask the descendants of those
whose names are identified with the first beginnings of our
liberties .' Why did he not question those men in whose
families from time immemorial, love of country and love of
their religion have never been separated t Why did he
not go to the present representatives of one of those long
genealogies, in which even the acute eye of Mr. Gladstone
would not detect either a rebel or an apostate ? Why did
he not question those in whose families loyalty has been
proved as gold is tried by the fire .? Well indeed may
English Catholics feel slighted and insulted and wronged
when they are charged with disloyalty by a prominent
statesman ; when they are accused before the whole

Introduction. 3 y
country by the foremost man in it. We were accused in
a matter peculiarly within our own knowledge. We are
the accused, but we are the best witnesses. But Mr.
Gladstone did not give us the benefit of his hearing what
we had to say, before he made his public expostulation.
He passed us over, and went for his evidence to a Ger
man professor, who gave it as his opinion that Catholics
cannot be loyal. And the opinion of this man is to out
weigh the evidence of history and of facts. We may
exclaim with indignation that the opinion of this man is
not to be taken at all. We spurn the notion that evidence
of our feelings as Englishmen and as Catholics is to be
taken from an apostate German priest. The idea of taking
evidence of this sort would be ridiculous, and might be
treated as such if it came from some men. It might be
laughed at as an " ingenious device." ^ But when we see
a man like Mr. Gladstone adopting the tactics of Exeter
Hall, we are forced to cry out against the mischief
done. Therefore, let no Englishman delude himself with the
notion that a state of things will ever be brought about
when the Catholics of England will give up either their
loyalty or their faith. In spite of the irreligious and
revolutionary tendencies of the day, we intend, by the
grace of God, to keep both.
Before beginning the history, it may be well to give
a rapid sketch of the ground it will cover, when, God
willing, it shall have been brought to a conclusion. Look
ing back to the year 1774, what a mighty change presents
itself to an EngUsh Catholic! We can, perhaps, best
' Some years ago, one of the speakers in Exeter Hall — I believe he was
a Protestant clergyman — in order to prove one of the usual false charges against
US, read out a forged bull of one of the Popes. When he was detected, admit
ting the forgery, he gave himself credit for having practised an "ingenious
device."

3 2 Introduction.
realize the change by imagining what some one dying
just before 1774 would have thought if he could have seen,
through the vista of years, all that has happened up to our
own days. Alban Butler died in the year 1773. He was
not permitted to hear even the first sound which tolled the
knell of the old penal laws, and signalized the first step in
the steady march of emancipation. He must have died
almost without a hope for his country. He had seen the
number of English Catholics gradually diminishing through
the reigns of the early Georges, and to his last day on
earth that number was continuing to lessen. In the year
1 780, according to Berington, the number of English Catho
lics was not more than sixty thousand, and many missions
were vacant and not likely to be filled up. When Alban
Butler died, the prospect looked sad indeed. If he looked
to the Catholics themselves, he could not have discerned
the smallest power amongst them to obtain redress ; if he
looked to the Government, he could not have seen any
ground for hope. Mr. Fagan, in his " Life and Times of
Daniel O'ConneU," remarks that the Act of 1774 was
passed without any agitation whatever on the part of
the Catholics themselves. It was forced upon the Parlia
ment of Ireland in order to conciliate, in some degree at
least, the Catholics of that country when the colonies were
about to revolt. But it was not until 1774 that the
English Government was threatened by the combined
action of those colonies which afterwards formed the
United States. No one, therefore, in the year 1773 could
have supposed that the action of American rebels might
lead, through the pressure it would exercise, to the relief
of the Catholics. Standing, therefore, over the death-bed
of Alban Butler, we may imagine what he would have
thought had God presented to his failing eyes a vision of
a hundred succeeding years. What would he have seen .'

Introduction, 3 3
He would have seen the venerable Bishop Challoner, then
in the eighty-third year of his age, living to witness this
first gleam of hope afiforded by the passing of the Act of
1774; and he would have seen him stUl living to thank
God that in his extreme old age He had aUowed him to
see the day on which, by the Act of 1778, Catholic bishops,
priests, and schoolmasters were no longer subject to per
petual imprisonment; and the old Catholic gentry could
inherit the estates of their forefathers, and purchase new
lands, without fear of their properties being seized by some
apostate relation. He would have seen the great French
Revolution bursting upon affrighted Europe, and causing
the English Government again to send a message of peace
to the Catholics, and give them the further relief afforded
by the Acts of 1791 and 1793. Next he would have seen
a sight which must have riveted his attention. His own
College of St. Omer's,^ the other colleges of the English
seculars and regulars, all the convents of EngUsh ladies in
France and Belgium were breaking up, and their com
munities were pouring into the old country amidst the
sympathy and applause of their countrymen, and with the
hearty welcome of a Prince Regent. He himself was
liable at that moment, had he been in England, to per
petual imprisonment for being a priest ; and he now sees
thousands of the French clergy hospitably received, even
invited to the shores of England, pensioned by the Govern
ment, and many of them scattering themselves over the
country, exercising the holy ministry, loved and respected
by all, and leaving a name which to this day is revered.
And all this was within twenty years after the dark days
on the last of which he died. At the time of Alban
' After the expulsion of the Jesuits from France in 1762, the Parliament
of Paris gave the presidency of the English College of the Society at St. Omer's
to the Rev. Mr. Talbot, and to him succeeded Alban Butler.
VOL. I. D

34 Introduction.
Butler's death, Milner was just twenty-one years of age.
Almost in the foreground of the picture we have imagined
him to behold, Butler would have seen the young man,
with a mitre on his head, boldly withstanding a double foe,
enemies within and enemies without the fold, a doughty
champion of the Church, laying down the terms of
emancipation, and, in face of statesmen who claimed a veto
on the election of bishops, making it impossible to pa.ss
any act of relief which had his veto upon it. A marvellous
sight this to one who knew that bishops were especially
marked out for perpetual imprisonment, and who could
himself remember a priest who underwent the punishment.
For Alban Butler was nineteen years of age when the
Franciscan Father Atkinson died in Hurst Castle after
many years in prison, his sole offence being that he was
a priest.^ He would next see the whole career of the
great O'ConneU, the man who taught the Catholics to
hold up their heads and assert their rights ; who, standing
at the head of millions who had been downtrodden by
their oppressors until he raised the wand which made them
start to their feet, fought for years a battle which ended in
so glorious a victory that his name will be handed down to
the end of time as the greatest champion of moral force.
And then the vision would begin to expand, and the
prospect would begin to brighten. For the year 1829 was
a great epoch. The Emancipation Bill having passed into
law, CathoUcs found themselves comparatively free. The
freer action of the Church began — controversial meetings
were held ; schools were multiplied ; chapels which before
were hidden in back lanes were abandoned, and new ones
built facing the main street ; religious orders of men and
women were establishing themselves ; the old orders
' It is, perhaps, worthy of note that the passing of the Emancipation Act in
1829 was just one hundred years after the death of the last priest in prison.

Introduction. 3 5
forming larger communities, and the new ones spreading
themselves over the whole land.
In contemplating this joyful scene, we may easily
imagine that the eyes of that worthy servant of God,
Alban Butler, would have been quick to notice the
reappearance of that order of which he might well have
supposed that he had seen the last. The Society of Jesus
was suppressed in the year 1773, two months after Alban
Butler died. But now he sees its re-establishment, he
sees it in England once again ; and, glancing at its
progress up to our day, he sees it opening its many
houses and colleges, proclaiming aloud, faithful to its old
traditions, the Immaculate Conception of the great Mother
of God in the very midst of the capital, taking a lead in
scientific discoveries, and raising to an English virgin one
of the highest and most beautiful spires that has ever been
built upon British ground. And next, as the prospect
widens, he sees the emigration of hundreds of thousands
from Ireland into England, bringing with them the faith
which had stood the test under which Englishmen had
failed. He sees the necessities of this great multitude
taxing the energy of both clergy and laity to supply their
wants, thus bringing into full play all the vigorous life of
the Church, and putting her offices in all their splendour
before the English people in every large town. And
distinct from this, yet harmonizing with it, he sees that
great movement from the Church of England itself, which,
beginning in the University of Oxford, quickly spread,
bringing hundreds into the Church, affecting thousands
with the Church's truths, and exerting its influence far
beyond the time which he was permitted to see. Nor
would he fail to discern, in this portion of the view, that it
was a member of the Church who, contrasting the modern
style of church buildings with the old, revived the ancient

36 Introduction.
architecture of England, and with it much of the old
spirit of faith. And he would see many noble edifices,
representing at once all that was Roman in doctrine and
all that was English in taste, standing witnesses that there
is nothing antagonistic between country and religion. And
he would see, too, the development of Church government
keeping pace with the progress of everything else. The
four vicariates are doubled, and far in the background he
sees the greatest event in our history of late years — the
establishment of a new hierarchy by the same authority
which sent Austin into England. And a grand figure
would here arrest his attention. It is that of the first
Archbishop of Westminster. It is that of a cardinal too,
who comes to be the first prince of the Church resident in
England since the days of Pole. Butler sees this prelate
arrive upon our shores in the midst of a storm of indig
nation. But he sees him gallantly braving the storm,
vindicating his right to stand on English ground ; and at
length so winning his way to English hearts, that when
called to his reward, well-nigh a whole city is following
him to his grave. He sees the new life and vigour infused
into the Church in England in consequence of the new
order of things. He sees a Catholic literature rapidly
forming, and the number of Catholics who distinguish
themselves in the various occupations of life daily in
creasing ; he sees many old prejudices wearing away ;
he sees a Catholic lord chancellor in Ireland, and CathoUcs
wearing the ermine in Westminster Hall. We who are
accustomed to pilgrimages and conversions and grand
churches, we who are living in the midst of the great
revival, may not notice with such intense interest the signs
of the times ; but to a man in 1773 what we now see
would have appeared to be leading rapidly to the con
version of England.

Introduction. 3 7
But there is still another sight in the far background of
his view. That Church of England which Alban Butler
left without a sign of decay has been likened to a break
water ; and it has no doubt acted as such to the waves of
infidelity. But stretching his vision up to these our days,
he would have seen that work on which Englishmen have
taken so much pride as the work of their own hands,
gradually giving way, showing unmistakable signs of break
ing up, and its condition causing great alarm to those who
were trusting in it. And if a thought had crossed his
mind that that work of man had in God's providence
served any good purpose, he would have been amply
consoled when looking to the last sight which he could
behold up to our times ; for he would have seen, rising
above the waters, behind that crumbling barrier of human
hands, the strong work of God built upon the old founda
tions, surely and even quickly advancing, and if not actually
ready to withstand the shock, showing in its progress to
completion that it would surely be ready to resist all the
force that might be brought against it, when the wild
waves should have completed their work on the breakwater
of human hands and swept it for ever away. All this, and
still more, filUng up the picture, is what a man might have
seen in 1773 had God pleased in His mercy to show him
the future. What would he have thought had he seen it
aU ? What he would have thought, we should think. If
intense gratitude would have found vent in acts of thanks,
those acts of thanks should be on our lips.
We need not disguise from ourselves that in our actual
view of the state of things there is shadow as well as light ;
there is much to lament as well as much to rejoice at.
There is a vast amount of prejudice to be yet overcome ;
there is even much of that persecution of public opinion
against us which our Holy Father' has spoken of as one of
¦ Pope Pius IX.

38 Introduction.
the chief sources of suffering to the Church in these days.
The evil spirit has kept alive in the minds of Englishmen
that mischievous falsehood, that to become a member of
the Church a man must renounce his moral and mental
freedom, and place his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy
of another. If the laws are equal, the administration of
them is not so. Worldly interest and human respect still
keep multitudes from us. But we may ask. What could
God have done for us that He has not done >. He might
have converted England. Undoubtedly He might have
done so ; but if He had converted England, it would have
been by a stupendous miracle, or by a succession of great
miracles. If it had pleased God so to act, our gratitude to
Him would have been great indeed. But it should be
greater now ; for if we should thank God for what He has
done for our country, we owe Him double thanks for
aUowing our fathers and ourselves to co-operate with Him
in the work. But, short of converting England by miracle,
what could God have done more for us than He has done ?
We have seen what our state was at the beginning of the
year 1774. The prospect had been gradually darkening ;
there was no sign of light. Unexpectedly a bright speck
appears, the light increases, and gradually brightness and
even splendour divide the view with shadow. We have
not seen the conversion of England, but we see the Church
in England brought by the hand of God to that state in
which it is rapidly becoming the one strong, compact
Church, with the old faith and its young life, strengthen
ing itself daily for the new combat it will have to
sustain. Looking, therefore, back to the year 1774, as we have
supposed some one to look forward from that date to our
time, what more could we desire ? " He hath not done in
like manner to every nation."

Introduction, 39
The year 1829 will undoubtedly remain for ever a great
epoch in our history. The admission of Catholics into the
Legislature was the first great blow which Protestant ascen
dency received. England has indeed been since called
an essentially Protestant country, and no doubt there are
many who would still so call it. But when Catholics were
admitted to an equality in the making of laws, the principle
of a purely Protestant State was surrendered. In theory
the majority of law-makers may be Catholics, and this is
not consistent with a purely Protestant State. There is
nothing in the English law to prevent the majority of the
Cabinet ministers from being Catholics. Without breaking
any Act of Parliament, and without violating their con
sciences, the fifteen judges and the vice-chancellors might
all be Catholics. The making of laws and the administra
tion of laws might be entirely in the hands of Catholics.
This could not be in a State essentially Protestant. The
sovereign, it is true, must be a Protestant ; but Belgium was
not the less a Catholic State when it had a Protestant
King ; nor is Saxony the less a Protestant State because
it has a Catholic King. If the chancellor (the keeper of
the Queen's conscience) cannot be a Catholic, the reason
is not that a Catholic could not administer equity or
preside over the House of Lords, but that he could not
administer the ecclesiastical patronage in the hands of the
Crown. The Act which enabled Lord O'Hagan to be
Chancellor of Ireland is a proof of this. The general
commanding-in-chief may be a Catholic. The disestablish
ment of the Church in Ireland was logically grounded upon
this principle— that the State in the British Isles is not
essentially Protestant. The disestablishment of the Church
in England will, at perhaps no very distant day, be merely
a corollary to the Act of 1829.
It is important that this matter should be clearly under-

40 Introduction.
stood. It is most important that all Catholics should be
thoroughly imbued with the full meaning of this principle,
that England is not a purely Protestant State. What a
mighty change has, under the blessing of God, taken place
in the position of the Catholic Church in England during
the last fifty years ! This change has been effected because
fifty years ago England ceased to be a Protestant State.
We Catholics should never lose sight of this. It is the
principle on which we demand complete equaUty in the
administration of the law, as well as equality under the
provisions of the law. It is the principle on which in these
days our liberties as free men are based. The Act of 1829
was most appropriately called " the New Magna Charta."
It is the sheet-anchor of our position in the British Isles.
Not only by toleration, but on admitted principle, our status
now is as dififerent from what it was at the beginning of
this century as it is possible for one thing to be dififerent
from another. The old Protestant principle, not merely of
ascendency, but of the exclusion of Catholics from the
framework of the State, has been exploded. In the year
1805, Mr. Pitt, speaking on Fox's motion, "That the
(Catholic) petition be referred to a Committee of the whole
House," said, " I cannot allow that at any time, under any
circumstances, or under any possible situation of aff"airs, it
(the reUef petitioned for) ought to be discussed or enter
tained as a claim or question of right." And he says,
immediately before these words, that " the question ought
to be discussed on the ground of expediency alone."'
Whatever we claim now, we claim as a right. Since the
Act of Emancipation we are entitled to retort upon the
words of the great minister, that at no time, nor under any
possible situation of afifairs, can we ever go back to the old
principle that Catholics are not in every respect equal
'"Pitt's Speeches," vol. iii. p. 421.

Introduction. 4 1
before the law to their Protestant fellow-subjects. It is the
more necessary to insist upon this, as some of the older
ones amongst us, who can remember the passing of the
Emancipation Act, may still retain some slight remnant of
the old idea that we Catholics are a proscribed race. It is
true the notion has been fast fading away ; but no tinge
should now remain. And it is especially important that
our youth should be completely free from all suspicion that
they are not on an exact equality before the law with
their Protestant fellow-countrymen. For it was this sense
of inequality which weakened the energy, overbore the
strength, and destroyed the ambition of so many who might
have used their talents to rise to the level of any others
in the land. And even down to our own day, it may be
the retiring shadow of the oppressor who has gone, which
has kept many a young man of promise from feeling that
sense of freedom which is necessary for action. For it
cannot be doubted that there has been and still is, amongst
the Catholics of England, a fearful waste of talent and of
strength, which might be of essential service both to the
Church and to the State.
Another reason why we should be anxious to instil a
correct idea of our legal status into those whom we may
have to teach is, that otherwise they may mistake the
position we hold in public opinion for the position we hold
before the law. By public opinion we are still a proscribed
and grievously persecuted race. Our Holy Father, of
happy memory. Pope Pius IX., once spoke of the persecu
tion by public opinion as the great and continual perse
cution which the Church is suffering from in these days.
We have our full share of this in the United Kingdom.
The prejudice against us exists in as many minds, and is
as much diffused as it was more than fifty years ago. And
as to the virulence of the prejudice, it is perhaps as great

42 Introduction.
as it was a hundred years ago, though it does not show
itself in the same lawless and outrageous way. We had
no reason to expect in the year 1880 the same violent
proceedings against us as were taken in Scotland in 1779
and in England in 1780; but the Protestant mind and
temper is such that what Lord John Russell effected in 1850
and Lord Derby in 1852 might be repeated to serve the
turn of some other minister. Public opinion is as stupid
and perverse as ever in misrepresenting the doctrines of
Catholics, and in misrepresenting them in such a way
as to excite against us the worst of passions. Hatred of
the priesthood, hatred of religious, especially shown in
attacks upon the vow of chastity, hatred of our spiritual
obedience to the See of Peter, — so falsely asserted to be
inconsistent with our allegiance, — all this most unjustifiable
hatred is constantly spread abroad by the lovers of mis
chief This prejudice against us is continually kept alive.
I have said that prejudice against us is stupid and perverse.
An instance may be given to show how prejudice afflicts,
with almost judicial blindness, those of whom it has taken
possession. At the general election of 1874, a man who used
to defile two newspapers with every lying paragraph against
the Catholic Church which he could collect, put up in the
Liberal interest for an English borough. He was anxious
to obtain Catholic support, and wrote a letter canvassing
for votes. To excuse himself somewhat for his vile con
duct, he expressed himself to this efifect : " Protestants
sometimes say very hard things about Catholics, and
Catholics in turn say very hard things about Protestants."
When Catholics write in newspapers or pamphlets or books,
when they speak from a platform or in private conversa
tion, it is a very rare thing indeed to read or hear any
thing beyond a temperate attack upon doctrine, or a plain
statement of some historical fact. The habitual tone of

Introduction. 43
our writers, the habitual tone of our speakers, is as far
removed from scurrility as it can well be. The man to
whom we allude must have known this well, and yet he
could compare the fair and temperate remarks of Catholics
upon Protestants and their religion with the foul and
slanderous falsehoods which he cut in slips from foreign
and home low literature, and inserted in the journals of
his native city. He could class the two styles together,
and hypocritically say, "Protestants sometimes say hard
things about Catholics, and so do Catholics about Protes
tants." And Catholics are expected by the public to
consider this all very fair.^ Prejudice is also shown in
the evident dislike to see Catholics appointed to some of
the more important offices in the State, and those
connected with royalty.^ It is shown also in the inter
pretation of the law. Even where the intention of the
Legislature is known to create equal advantages, if a
loophole be left in the clause through which Protestant
administrators of the law can escape from the duty of
treating Catholics with equality, they will too frequently
take advantage of it. As an example of this, a case may
be mentioned which actually occurred in an English town.
The Act of Parliament authorizes a priest to instruct in
their religion Catholics in workhouses ; but the Act does
not expressly provide that he- shall have any place to do
it in. A Protestant clergyman, who was chairman of the
board of guardians, decided that the priest should not
be allowed the use of a separate room in which he might
' The reader will have some satisfaction in knowing that this man was not
on this occasion retumed to Parliament, though he would have been if the
Catholics who voted for his opponent had voted for him.
' When Lord Ripon was appointed Viceroy of India, there was a general
howl of disapprobation amongst Protestants, which the Times systemati
cally kept up. Whatever his lordship did was, in the opinion of that journal,
wrong ; and when success followed, it was not the result of wise and prudent
measures, but of chance.

44 Introduction.
instruct his people ; but that he must content himself with
seeing each one of his people separately, in whatever part
of the house the person might be, provided his so doing
did not interfere with any regulation of the place. And
he based his decision on this principle, that the Established
Church alone had the right to assemble the people together,
and that a CathoUc priest had only the right of what he
called "cottage visitation" — that is, the right of visiting
their people separately wherever they might be, as at their
own homes.'
The administration of the law according to the prejudice
of those who have to administer it, is the cause of great
practical persecution. We have seen enough of this in the
case of prison chaplains ; we see it in the workhouses,
where, from the governor to the porter, the poor are often
practically at the mercy of one who may be a fair-minded
man or an unfair bigot. And oftentimes where the ofificer
of the law may be inclined to carry out its letter, no equity
is admitted in its application ; and so it happens that the
old saying is verified, and summtim jus administered by a
beadle may be summa i-njuria to a poor Catholic dying
without the sacraments. As there is a hesitation in
appointing CathoUcs to high offices, and a positive refusal
to return them to Parliament, so, and throughout the whole
land, the vast majority of Protestants will not, if they can
with any sort of convenience avoid it, employ a Catholic
tradesman.^ This persecution by public opinion, this
universal prejudice against us, is so rife and so vigorous

' This case is mentioned merely to illustrate the action of prejudice. But
it may be noted that, as the Catholic Union of Great Britain was established
not merely to present addresses to the Holy Father at appropriate times, but
to attend to the general interests of British Catholics, such unfairness in the
administration of the law as that mentioned in the text, and which no doubt
frequently occurs, might very properly be taken up.
^ This prejudice may be slightly diminishing.

Introduction. 45
that Cardinal Newman, in his " Lectures on the present
position of Catholics in England," calls it " the life of the
Protestant view of the Catholic Church." But still, great
as are the efifects of this prejudice, we must never forget
that in almost every case it is by prejudice only, and not
by the law, that we are made to sufifer.
V\^hen we consider our history since the Reformation ;
when we remember the great and persevering efiforts which
were m.ade with all the determination of the English
character to root out our religion from the land, down
to the reign of George III., and even in the beginning
of his reign ; when we reflect on the still abiding hatred of
our religion, and the prejudice against us ; — we cannot but
wonder at that marvellous blessing from Heaven which
during the last fifty years has made our new life, under
the clauses of the Emancipation Act, fructify with a rapid
growth into the grand revival of the Church which we
now witness in our native land. To stand on anything
approaching to an equality before the law with our
Protestant fellow-subjects, would itself alone have been
thought by our grandfathers too much to be hoped for.
What, then, should be our thanks to God when we think
of what has been done for England ? The English
Catholic must indeed have a cold temperament who,
looking "on this picture and on that," cannot "out of the
abundance of his heart " exclaim, " My heart and my flesh
have rejoiced in the living God." '
In taking a rapid view of the progress of the Church
since the year 1829, the first effect of the great Act was
the greater sense of security, superadded to that which
had been caused by the Relief Acts of 1778 ^ and 1791.
' Psalm Ixxxiii. 2.
' I do not remember to have seen in the year 1878, in any Catholic
periodical, even a notice that that year was the centenary of the first Act
passed for the relief of English Catholics.

46 Introduction.
In consequence of this, Catholics ventured in many ways
upon a much more open display of their religion. It was
felt, too, that Protestants held out the hand of fellowship
to them, much more freely and cordially than they had ever
done before. The spirit of liberality entered the door
which the Emancipation Act had opened. The period
between 1829 and 1846' was probably the time when
public opinion yielded most to the spirit of toleration,
and when English Catholics felt most at ease with their
Protestant fellow-subjects. The next great benefit was
that we had defenders of our own religion in the House
of Commons, and this was shown at first in a remarkable
way. Down to this time the tone of many members of
Parliament, in speaking of Catholics and their religion,
had been ofifensive and oftentimes grossly insulting.
" Papists " were considered fair game for any honourable
gentleman who was naturally inclined to indulge in abuse,
and very few spoke of us with respect. Our great emanci
pator completely put this down, and the manner of speaking
of us became entirely changed.^ Though the inveterate
hatred against us still caused the spirit of exclusion to
operate, and prevented for some time the appointment
of Catholics to ofifices which they were entitled to hold,
prejudice at last gave way, and practice began to assimilate
itself to theory.
It was not until the year 1834 that O'Loghlen was
appointed Solicitor-General of Ireland, and, as M'CuUogh
Torrens says, " for the first time since the Revolution the
Catholics saw one of their communion recognized as worthy
' In the year 1846 the Bill for the Endowment of Maynooth College raised
a storm of bigotry.
'' The author has often heard testimony to what O'ConneU did in this
respect, from a Catholic who well remembered the times long before the
Emancipation Bill passed, and who was in general not well afifected to
O'ConneU himself.

Introduction. 47
of public trust and honour, as a law adviser of the Crown." '
In 1836, O'Loghlen was appointed a baron of the Irish
Exchequer. This was the first appointment of a CathoUc
judge since the Revolution. But this appointment once
made, others, as we know, followed, and in this matter
there is now little or nothing to complain of
Since Emancipation and in consequence of it, many
Acts of Parliament have passed in favour of CathoUcs ;
some to repeal old penal laws, and others of more
practical use, to place us in several important matters on
an equality with our Protestant fellow-countrymen.
Besides the improvement in our position, which has
been caused by Acts of Parliament, and by the appoint
ments and orders of the Executive, there is that wonder
ful change which the providence of God has wrought
in the Church in England, by making use of so many
active agencies in our own body, and in persons external
to it. These active agencies may be classed under three
heads. The first may include aU that has been done to
assert and insist upon our rights ; to perfect Church
government ; to provide Christian education ; to multiply
churches, building them worthy of the God who is adored
in them ; to add splendour to the services of Religion ; to
increase the numbers of Religious Orders and Houses ;
and to give to our people all those incentives to devotion,
contained in so many Catholic practices which were un
known to us in the days of the penal laws. I propose to
treat of all these matters in detail ; for the present, it
will be sufficient to say that I may class under this
head all those delightful memories which will for ever
hang around the names of O'ConneU, Wiseman, Newman,
Gentili, Faber, Spencer, Pugin, Lucas, and Langdale.
The two other heads under which may be included the
' " Memoirs of Lord Melbourne," vol. ii. p. 26.

48 Introdtiction.
great active agencies which have been at work in advancing
the progress of the Church in England are — first, the
great movement which began at Oxford in the year 1833,
for then was thrown the stone which caused the ripple
whose ever-widening circles are still moving onward to
the far-distant shore — and secondly, the providential influx
to England of the faithful Irish, whose numbers and
whose faith have enabled us to put the Church on a footing
which otherwise it could never have held.
Every movement in the Church in England which
has begun during the last fifty years has progressed, except
one. That one is the organization of the laity for the
defence of Catholic rights and the promotion of CatboUc
interests. There has been more than one organization
of the kind, and they did good work in their day. But
for many years past there has been no permanent associa
tion which has efifectually advocated the Catholic cause.
There should be such an institution. There should be
an association to do now what the Catholic Institute did
in years gone by, an association well known by its good
service to all Catholics of the empire ; an association to
which we could all refer for advice and assistance, and
which from its head-quarters in London could bring to
bear upon ministers and members of Parliament that
influence which can only be exerted by a representative
body, whose members, from their numbers and station,
can make themselves respectfully and oftentimes effica
ciously heard. Let us hope for better days.
For the rest, after fifty years, we find ourselves in one
other important matter in a far dififerent position to that
in which we were. We English CathoUcs are fast becoming
a greater power in the State. The last few years have
produced very clear evidence of this. We are much more
thought of and spoken of ; Catholic affair's are much more

Introduction. 49
noticed, and made known through the newspapers ; our
political action is brought more into calculation ; — in fact,
everything concerning us attracts more attention, and we
are looked upon more as of the State, and as exercising
influence over its destinies. The sense of our obligation
to discharge every duty, both civil and religious, should
be augmenting in proportion.
In conclusion, there is no English Catholic who can
remember the passing of the Emancipation Act who will
not, when his days are numbered, thank God that he
has been allowed to see all that great and increasing mercy
has done for England during the last fifty years.

VOL. I.

( 50 )

CHAPTER I.
the ACTS OF 1 77 1 AND 1 774.
The Acts of 1771— The unsuccessful bills of 1774— The Act of 1774 intro
duced—Prejudice against Catholics— Preamble of Act of 1774— Address
of the Irish Catholics to the King— Relief granted by the Act of 1774—
Tom Moore, Mr. Fagan, Charles Butler, and George Canning on the
Act of 1774 — Suggestions of disloyalty in the Act of 1774 — The power
and influence of Ireland — Fear the great motive of relief — Combination
amongst Catholics.
The first indication of any kind of desire on the part
of the Legislature to relax the tyranny which Govern
ment exercised over Catholics, occurred in the year 1771.
I will give the short account of it in the words of Mr.
Sheil. After mentioning that the Speaker of the Irish
House of Commons had received an address from the
Catholics for transmission to the lord lieutenant, he
says, "This was -the first instance in which the political
existence of the Irish Catholics was acknowledged, through
the medium of their Committee. This recognition, how
ever, was not followed by any immediate relaxation of
the penal code. Twelve years elapsed before any legis
lative measure was introduced which indicated a more
favourable disposition towards the Catholic community,
if, indeed, the 11 and 12 George III. (1771) can be con
sidered as having conferred any boon upon that people.
The statute was entitled, 'An Act for the reclaiming
of unprofitable bogs,' and it enabled ' Papists ' to take

1774.] Act ^/ 1774. 51
fifty acres of unprofitable bog for sixty-one years, with
half an acre of arable land adjoining, provided that it
should not be within one mile of a town."
" The first step," continues Mr. Sheil, " had been taken
in the progress of concession, and every day the might of
numbers, even destitute of all territorial possession, pressed
more and more upon the Government." '
In the year 1774, an Act was passed in the Irish
Parliament which served as an immediate prelude to the
Acts which began the repeal of the penal laws. This Act
permitted the Irish Catholics to testify their loyalty to
George III. by taking a prescribed oath. The Rev.
Thomas England, in his " Life of Father Arthur O'Leary,"
writes that the Act was said to have had its origin in the
following occurrence. The Earl of Bristol, Bishop of
Derry, was travelling in France ; and being at Toulouse,
he was invited to dinner by the superiors of the Irish
coUege in that city. At this dinner the earl bishop
expressed his regret that his kind and learned hosts should
be obliged to spend the best part of their lives in a foreign
land. But to this expression of regret he added, that he
could not understand why his countrymen should refuse
to the sovereign of their native country that allegiance
which they gave to the monarch in whose dominions they
were living. This observation drew forth from the hosts a
denial of its truth. A long talk ensued, the result of which
was that when the Bishop of Derry left the college, he was
convinced of the loyalty of the Irish Catholics, and of
the falsehood of the many gross charges that were made
against them. On his return to Ireland, the bishop spread
as widely as he could the statement that the Catholics
were ready to testify in any reasonable way their loyalty
to King George ; and he did this with such efifect that it
' Sheil, "Legal and Pohtical Sketches," vol. ii. p. 161.

5^ UttsNtcrssfitl Bills of 1774. IOjim*. i-
was the origin of the bill which terrauiated in tho Act of
1774. The friendly conduct of the bishop ma>- have helped
towards a more willing acceptance b)- the Protestants, of
the smaU favour that was given to the Catliolics by the
Act wc are speaking of. But there can be no doubt that
the real origin of this first overture to the Catholics was
the same that caused all further concessions to us, namely,
fear on the part of the F.ngUsh Government. The
Americans were beginning to show in a most decided
manner their determination to resist, even by physical
force, the imposition of taxes upon them by tlic British
ParUament. The. Government at home hail determined
to levy by force what the colonists would not peaceably
yield. A great conflict was foreseen. It became, therefore,
a matter of policy to conciliate Ireland, in order to promote
union at home, draw off" the sj-nipathy of the Irish from
the Americans, and make the Irish raore inclined to enlist
in the regiments which it would be necessary to send
across the Atlantic. Sir Robert Peel once said in the
House of Commons, that when foreign affairs showed a
menacing aspect, and England was likely to be involved
in questions threatening war, he was always glad to bo
able to send a message of peace to Ireland. And so
thought the English Governraent when the Americans
commenced their revolt. They sent a message of peace
to Ireland. But it was not without some difficulty that the Govern
ment procured the passing of the Act of 1 774 through the
Irish Parliament. It is well known tiiat down to the year
1782, the Irish Parliament was, in practice at least, entirely
dependent on the English Government. The luiglish
minister could generally pass what bills he liked in Ireland.
Two bills of small relief were introduced into tlic Irish
Parliament in the beginning of the session of 1774, but

17T-1.] The Act of 1774 Introduced.

^o

the}- did not proceed. Their introduction was in con
sequence of instructions received b\- the lord lieutenant.
Lord Harcourt, from Lord North. Lord North was
anxious to conciliate the Irish Catholics, in order to unite
tlie subjects of the King in Great Britain and Ireland,
and because he saw that some of tlie maxims of go\ern-
ment, especially the one which was loudly proclaimed in
Araerica, " no representation, no taxation," appUed rather
awkwardl}- to tlie state of tilings on the otiier side of
St. George's Channel. These bills were given up on the
ad\-ice of Lord Harcourt At length, however, the British
minister, sa}s Mr. Plowden, sent positive orders that some
Act of tlie Legislature should be passed in that session of
conciliator}- tendency to the Catliolics. Accordingh- a
bill was brought in. and passed both Houses \\-ithout
opposition. This was tlie bill of 1774, remarkable as
being tire first conciliatory measure since the Revolution.
When passed into an Act, it was entituled, "An Act to
enable his Majest}-'s subjects, of whatever persuasion, to
testify tiieir allegiance to him."'
It will be well worth tlie reader's while to stud}- tliis
Act, and especialh- its preamble. The wording of tlie Act
is well calculated to show us tlie thoughts and sentiments
of Protestants about Catholics, and particularly of English
Protestants about the Irish Catholics. We shall also
ver\- clearly see the reckless manner in whicli assertions
and insinuations can be made, when tiiose who go\em
tyrannicall}- wish to blind themsehes or others to the real
motives whicli prompt their actions. Considering the
subject in tliis wa}- will not be a useless reminder of old
grievances. It will not be the mere act ,to use a common
expression") of ripping up old sores. We shall learn a
useful lesson for tlie present, by analyzing the thoughts
' 13 and 14 Gcvirgje III. c. Ji; (Irish SiatutesV

54 Prejudice against CatJtolics. [Chap. I.
and motives of those who have preceded us. The difference
of our position before the law, and before public opinion,
was noticed in the introduction. The Legislature has done
a great deal to relieve us from persecution by the law,
but in consequence of the prejudice against us in the
m.inds of a large majority of Englishmen, we are still
grievously oppressed by public opinion. This prejudice
against us, existing at the present day, is the prejudice
which has been handed down from father to son, since the
time when, in the sixteenth century, the first reformers
succeeded in poisoning the minds of the English. In the
reign of Elizabeth and the three first Stuarts this prejudice
produced a bloody persecution. In the reigns of William
IIL, Anne, and the early Georges, this prejudice, though
it did not prompt the shedding of blood, yet it led to the
most searching and grinding laws, enacted for the express
purpose of destroying, if possible, the very existence of the
Church in the British Isles. In the reign of George III.,
the necessity of uniting the people against the common
enemy, and the milder views of our religion taken by
several influential statesmen, caused a relaxation of the
penal laws. But still the prejudice against us was so great
that we Catholics were not even acknowledged as forming
part of the State. We were looked upon as strangers,
and as dangerous strangers. The Acts passed in our
favour were regarded both by those who enacted them and
those who benefited by them, as gratuitous acts of cautious
mercy. A hundred and six years ago, a priest had only been a
few months safe from arrest, and the property of a Catholic
gentleman had only been a few months safe in his own
hands. It is only fifty-six years since that same prejudice
gave way to the extent, and a great extent, no doubt, of
establishing our right to be considered as a portion of the

1774.] Prejudice against Catholics. 55
State. But was prejudice extinct .'' Far from it. Even
Lord Grey, who was always " our friend," who had, along
with Lord Grenville, broken up a Ministry because he
could not pass a Relief Act, Lord Grey, the Reformer of
1832, the champion of "civil and religious Uberty," even
Lord Grey, to the last hour of his days of ofifice, could not
be prevailed upon to appoint a Catholic to a legal ofifice
in Ireland. Down to the first administration of Lord
Melbourne in the year 1834, "Catholic emancipation"
had been, to use the phrase of M'CuUagh Torrens, " an
empty name and mocking unreality." ' In other words,
the prejudice against us had prevented the carrying out of
that law for which two great parties in the State had
fought for many years. And so down to our own days
prejudice prevents the impartial administration of the law,
and the practical application to Catholics of several
admitted principles of the British Constitution. In the
introduction were given some instances to illustrate the
action of prejudice. Many more in dififerent matters might
have been added. But its influence is well known to all.^
It lives and acts. It is an heirloom of evil in thousands
of English families ; and it is kept with the greatest care.
It is an evil plant which is constantly cropping up. It
cannot be eradicated. Its existence cannot be ignored, for
' "Memoirs of Lord Melbourne," vol. vii. pp. i, 2.
' When Lord Bury became a Catholic, the following paragraph appeared in
a provincial newspaper: — "Lord Bury's secession to the Church of Rome
disposes altogether of his chance of becoming Lord Redesdale's successor as
Chairman of Committee, a post on which Lord Bury is said to have set his
heart." How far the facts stated in this paragraph are true, I do not know.
But it shows only too well the action of prejudice. A man becomes a Catholic,
and it is immediately concluded that, however well he may be fitted for an
office, all chance of obtaining it is for ever gone. This may not be quite so true
as it was five or six years ago. There are now two Catholics judges on the
English bench, and there has been a Catholic Viceroy of India. But the
question of religion still enters unfairly into consideration when an appointment
has to be made.

56 Preamble of tJie Act of 1774. [Chap. L
it poisons the air. We should know its properties, in order
to be on our guard against its influence. We must judge
of it by its fruits. We must not be content with looking at
the fruits it now bears. We must look back to its history,
and see what it has borne. The venom is still in the root,
its produce is always bad ; and sometimes it fructifies to
the injury, and even the ruin, of many.
It is, therefore, worth while to consider attentively the
Irish Act of 1774. The oath prescribed by this Act was,
I believe, the first proposed to CathoUcs which was not
condemned at Rome ; it could be conscientiously taken
without explaining the words in such a way as to explain
away their meaning, and it was the model on which the
oaths to be taken under future Relief Acts were formed.
The preamble of the Act was as follows : ' — " Whereas
many of his Majesty's subjects in this kingdom " (that is,
Ireland) " are desirous to testify their loyalty and aUegiance
to his Majesty, and their abhorrence of certain doctrines
imputed to them, and to remove jealousies which hereby
have for a length of time subsisted between them and
others his Majesty's loyal subjects ; but on account of their
religious tenets are, by the laws now in being, prevented
from giving public assurances of such allegiance, and of
their real principles, and good will, and affection towards
their fellow-subjects : in order, therefore, to give such
persons an opportunity of testifying their allegiance to his
Majesty, and good will towards the present constitution of
this kingdom, and to promote peace and industry among
the inhabitants thereof, be it enacted," etc. I must digress
for a moment to observe, that shortly after the passing of
this Act the Irish Catholics determined to address the
King, in order that they might be assured that their
grievances were personally known to his Majesty. The
' This Act may be found in the " Pamphleteer," vol. xx. p. 454.

1774.] IrisJi Address to the King. 57
address was written for them by Edmund Burke, the
staunch friend of the Catholics ; and probably as great a
friend as it was possible for a Protestant to be, and whose
wisdom, experience, and exertions in the management of
our afifairs have been handed down to posterity in the
grateful testimony of the illustrious Milner.'
This address was intrusted by Lord Fingall, Mr.
Preston, and Mr. Dermott, to Lord Buckinghamshire;
and through him it was presented to the King. This first
address of the Irish to the King is a more dignified and
less timorous production than the first address of the
English Catholics to his Majesty in the year 1778. It
puts the state of the Irish Catholics before the King in a
forcible way, reminds him of the breach of the treaty made
with William III. ; and though the tone of the whole is
submissive, there are indications of a latent spirit which
might remind a sovereign that submission has its bounds.
There is one unfortunate expression in it. If the address
is correctly printed in Sir H. Parnell's pamphlet on the
penal laws, Mr. Burke puts into the mouths of the
Catholics the following words : — " We respect from the bot
tom of our hearts that legislation under which we suflfer."
It may be supposed that the idea intended to be conveyed
was, that the Irish Catholics respected the authority of the
King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. That they could
have any respect for the actual legislation, that is, for the
penal laws themselves, is quite impossible. As the address
of the English Catholics in 1778 will be given to the
reader in the course of this history, it will be sufficient
to say here that if it is a little too obsequious, it must be
remembered that those who presented the English address
spoke for only between fifty and sixty thousand people,
" enough," as Mr. Burke said, " to torment, but not enough
' "Letters to a Prebendary," end of Letter vii.

58 Preamble of the Act of 1774. [Chap. r.
to fear;"' but the representatives of the Irish Catholics
had at their backs a number which was rapidly ai)i)i-oacli-
ing two millions.
As this address of the Irish Catholics was presented
to the King after the passing of the Act of 1774, it was
not from the address that the Lci;islature learned, as the
preamble to this Act recites, that the Irish C.ilholics were
desirous of testifying their loyalty to the King, and their
abhorrence of the false doctrines imputed to them. That
there was such a desire, if the object of it would obtain
them justice, we may easily believe ; and no doubt many
men in Ireland had openly expressed such a desire. But
it must be kept in mind that the real meaning of the words
of the preamble is, that the Government were desirous that
in the fast-approaching crisis they should have an ex
pression of loyalty from Ireland, in order that they might
deal with the Americans without being troubled with more
than ordinary anxiety about home affairs.
Another thing well worthy of remark in the preamble
of the Act, is the distinct acknowledgment, made in the
most authentic and solemn manner — that is, in an Act of
Parliament — that Catholics were suffering solely on account
of their religion. Tlie words arc, "on account of their
religious tenets, they are, by the laws now in being, pre
vented from giving public assurances of their allegiance."
The defence which was universally set up to justify the
penal laws was, that Catholics were not loyal subjects, and
therefore it was necessary to bind them in fetters. This
is the defence still urged by our fcUow-subjccts to justify
the past. We have heard it all our lives. Wc arc told
that it is not on account of our doctrines, but on account
of our politics, because we are always for giving to the
Pope what belongs to Cassar. But in that Act wc have
' Speech at Bristol iii 1780.

1774.] Preamble of the A.et of 1774. 59
it clearly told us, that we suff"er on account of our reUgious
tenets. Wliat a refinement of tyrann}- do those words of
tlie Act express ! We were persecuted because they said
we were not lo}'al ; and then they forbade us, on account
of our "religious tenets," to open our mouths to disprove
tlie charge. In the year 1759, an Irish judge told a
Catholic gentleman, from the bench, that "a Catliolic
could not breathe without the command of Government."
We could not breathe a word even to declare our allegiance,
while we were persecuted for being disloyal. Tyranny,
with its cruelty and proverbial inconsistenc}-, sureh- never
went beyond tliis mark.
Another portion of the preamble worth}- of notice is
that in which it is said that tlie Irish are desirous "to
remove jealousies, which hereby have for a length of time
subsisted between tliem and others his ilajest}-'s faithful
subjects.'' The word "hereby" refers to the eff"ect which
certjun doctrines imputed to Catholics had upon others.
That is, the Irish Catholics are made to sa}- that they desire
to remove the jealousies of the Irish Protestants and of the
English by testihing their allegiance and abjuring certain
doctrines. Thus the preamble of the Act makes the
CathoUcs acknowledge that the jealous}- of tlie Protestants
was caused b}- a suspicion of Catholic lo}-alt}-, and a fear
that certain doctrines held b}- Catholics might pro\-e in
jurious to the State. So far as the English and Irish
Protestants entertained suspicions of Catliolic lovalt}-,
it must never be forgotten that that jealousy was not the
suspicion which a good Govemment might have cause to
feel of the loj^lt}- of ungrateful and rebellious people ; but
it was the suspicion which must always haunt a t}'rant,
that his victim may one da}- tum upon his tormentor.
The Irish Protestants dreaded any development of Catholic
strength ; they suspected that a desire of revenge on the

6o Preamble of the Act of 1774. IOuap. 1.
part of the Catholics would be, at least for the lime,
the predominant passion. This was the susiiicion. Tiie
jealousy was not caused by any well-grouiuIcd fear that
the Irish Catholics were disloyal to Die reigning House or
to the British Constitution. It was caused by the fear
with which the tyrant noticed the smallest accession of
strength to the arm of his victim. Nor was there on the
part of those luiglishmen wlio knew Ireland well, any
suspicion of the loyalty of the Irish. But tiicrc was in
England then, as there is in England now, a rooted jealousy
of Ireland, lest she should become free and pros)icroiis.
There are two things in Ireland which are hateful to the
great bulk of the English — its religion, and its ca[)al)ility
for prosperity arising from its internal resources, and from
the fitness which, on account of its po.sition with regard
to America, it possesses of being the (tipfit of the western
trade. Ireland free and prosperous implied an increase of
the influence of the Catholic religion, and a diminution
of wealth in England. It is true that ICngland could
easily afford to let Ireland take sonic portion of her trade ;
but the love of money amongst the JMiglisli merchants has
always been greater than their love of fair ])1,i}^. The
luiglish are, however, very sensitive of their reputation for
liberality ; it was therefore necessary to malce it believed
on the Continent that there was some honest gnniiul
for doubting the loyalty of the Catholics, ilcncc liyjio-
critical words were [lut into the mouths of the Irish, who
were made to jiaradc before the worltl their desire to
remove excusable jealousy by testifying their loyalty.
1 lence, too, the poinpous words of a prt;amble are employed
to proclaim to every one, what every one knew, that there
was nothing in the Catholic religion ()p[)osed to fidelity to
the powers that be,
The last words of the preamble must not be Inst sight

1774.] The Act of \']']\. 6 1
of. In these words it is asserted that one object of the bill
was to promote peace and industry amongst the inhabi
tants of Ireland. This was the great boast of the English
statesmen. These were the words that, trumpet-tongued,
were to send forth the praise of English and of Protestant
liberality on the four winds of heaven. But what was
the truth ? The peace and prosperity of Ireland had been
ruined by the grinding power of the penal laws ; and by
this Act not one of those penal laws was to be repealed.
We now come to consider the material clause of the
Act, which is as follows : — " Be it enacted by the King's
most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and
consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons,
in tlie present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, that from and after the ist day of June, 1774,
it shall and may be lawful for any person professing the
Popish religion to go before the Judges of his Majesty's
Court of King's Bench, any Justice of the Peace for the
county in which he does or shall reside, or before any
magistrate of any city or town corporate, wherein he does
or shall reside, and there take and subscribe the oath of
allegiance and declaration hereinafter mentioned ; which
oath and declaration such Judges of the King's Bench,
Justices of the Peace, and magistrates are required to
administer." Such was the Act of 1774. The oath which it
prescribed was similar to the oaths prescribed in all
subsequent Relief Acts, the only important diff"erence
being that it contained a special abjuration of allegiance
" unto the person taking unto himself the style and title
of Prince of Wales, in the lifetime of his father, and who,
since his death, is said to have assumed the style and title
of King of Great Britain and Ireland, by the name of
Charles III."

b2 Rclif gmtUcd by ihe Act. [Ch.m\ I.
What, then, was tlie relief granted b\' this Act ? AU the
penal laws remaining still in foree, an Irish CathoUc was to
be considercil a good subject if he took tho oath. Looking
from our point of view, the relaxation looks small indeed.
But still, though not a single law was re[>oalcd, the Act
afforded practical relief, aud opened tho door to subsequent
Acts of Emancipation. It gave relief because it meant
that many of the penal laws against the Catholics,
especiaUy those laws which most gallod thctn in private
Ufe, should not bo enforced against those who, by taking
the oath, entitled themselves to be considered as good
subjects. The Act was a sort of charter of broathing-tinie
to those who had boon "groaning in fetters j" it mleased
from apprehension "the children of the slain," I'^or three
or four years previous to 1774, Catholics had not been pur
sued with the unrelenting cruelty of forraer years. The
word of tlod had gone forth to the persecutors of His
Church : " Thus far shall you go, and no farther." Before the
passing of this Act, the waters hat! readied their higliest
mark ; when it had passed, the ebb-tide of persecution set
in. This Act was, therefore, most important in its con
sequences. It was followed bythe ICnglish Acts of 1778,
1791, and 1803, and by the Irish Acts of 1778, and the most
important Act up to that time of 1793.''
It will be interesting, and it will tend to illustrate the
state of Catholics previous to tho year 1774, to give the
remarks which have been made by some well-known men
on the Irish Act of that year.
The poet Moore, after having alluded to the great boon
which the Irish Catholics received in being allowed to
> The immenaa im]iorlance of tlie Irish Act of 1793 consisted In this, that
it gave Iho fmnchiao to the Irish, It was (ho possession of lliU right which
enabled O'ConneU to curry the Clare election. Wo liiiglisli Catholics did not
obtain the franchiso until tho Act of iSag.

i'i4.] ThoHtas Moore and Faca/i on the Act. 6x
cultivate a few acres of bog, writes as follows : — " The next
great benefit bestowed upon the Catholics was the allowing
them to take the oath of allegiance ; and this kind per
mission to the \-ictim to come and swear eternal fidelitv to
his tormentor, though as insulting a piece of mockery as
can well be imagined, was received \rith the warmest
gratitude by the Catholics, because it, at least, acknow
ledged their existence as subjects, and put an end to that
lively fiction of the law which would have retumed noa
est ifnvnius of two million of people." ^ Mr. Fagan, in his
" Life and Times of Daniel O'Connell, ' saj-s —
" Up to 1774. the lavFS, to use the expression of a zealous Lord
Chancellor of fonner days, ' did not presume a Papist to exist in
the kingdom; nor could they breathe without the command of
Government' * At that time the American colooies \rere b^in-
ning to proclaim their wrongs, and were straggling successfully
against tiie arbitrary dictation of England. The British Govern
ment, conscious they had no hold on the affections or gratitude
of the people of Ireland, deemed it prudent to recognize the Irish
Catholics as subjects, without at the same time admitting them to
the slightest privil^ie under the laws. They wiere then for the
first time permitted, forsooth, to swear aU^jiance to the sovereign
and become subjects of the Crown ; and yet even this paltry-
enactment, which was deemed an act of grace by the helot
Catholics of that dar. was not passed without the positive demand
of the English Government, so deepdy prejudiced at that time were
the Irish Parliament and the Protestant party agaiast the great
ma^ of the community. This Act of condescension was passed
from dread of American contagion and without Catholic agitation."
Mr. Charles Butler observes that the Act "did not
enjoin them" (the Catholics) " to take the oath under any
» " Memoiis rf Captain Rodt."
* The "former dajs," mentioned by Mr. Fagsm, were not so very fer
leamoved &om the year 1771. That alKoidly ^franoical Si.-.'itm rf the chan-
cdloT was ddireied in the year 1750L JlJc Ei^^md's "Life rf O'Leary,"
p. 50, qnotii^ Plowdai's " Histodcal Reriew," toL i. p. 322.

64 Butler, Plowden, and Canning on the Act. [Chap. I.
penalties, or accompany the taking of it with any
advantages." ^
Mr. Plowden, as cited by Mitchell, says of the Act, that
it^ gratified the Catholics, inasmuch as it was a formal
recognition that they were subjects, and to this recognition
they looked up as to the corner-stone of their future
emancipation.^ One of the most interesting passages relating to the
Act of 1774, occurs in a speech made by Mr. Canning in
the House of Commons on the 22nd of June, 1812 :
" Let us look," he says, "at the state of the Catholic in the year
1760, at the accession of his present Majesty, when the system in
Ireland had received the finishing hand, and before any remedial
or alleviating measures had been applied to it. We find him cut off
from all the relations of social life : we find the law interfering
between the parent and child, between the husband and the wife,
stimulating the wife to treachery against her husband, and the son
to disobedience towards his parent ; establishing a line of sepa
ration in the nuptial bed, and offering an individual inheritance
as the tempting prize for filial disobedience. I am sure that
no man will now venture to say that this is a state in which,
consistently with the spirit of British legislation, any class of his
Majesty's subjects ought to be placed; yet this is the state to
which those who admire the penal code in its perfection must
refer ; and it is to this state that we should return, if we were to
reject as innovation every amelioration that has been made in
that code since the period of its maturity. But it belongs to
this system, in a degree beyond other systems of unnatural
violence, that no sooner had it arrived at its maturity, than it
' " Historical Memoirs,'' vol. iii. p. 486.
^ Mitctiell's "History of Ireland," vol. i. p. 188. It was in defence of
the oath prescribed by this Act that Father Arthur O'Leary wrote one of his
celebrated "Tracts." The defence was, as all Father O'Leary's writings
were, exceedingly clever. Of its literary merits I need not speak, as they are
well known. But the tract contained a somewhat forced display of learning,
some very objectionable propositions, and some flippant and disrespectful
remarks against Cardinal Bellarmine.

^''"4-] Suggestions of Disloyalty. 65
began to decay ; other systems have had a period during which
they grew, a period during which they flourished, and in which
they flourished for some time before their vigour began to decline ;
but in this, ripeness and decay were nearly coincident. After
the greater part of two centuries had been spent in bringing it to
maturity, this code existed in perfection only about fourtfeen years.
From the beginning of his, present Majesty's reign, to the year
1774, when the first relaxing statute was enacted, is the short
period at which it was at once complete and stationary. That,
therefore, is the period af which those must look who would
admire it in all the fulness of its glory. Every step taken in
respect to it since 1774 has been in the spirit, so much depre
cated, of irreverent innovation."^
In the history of this Act, and from the perusal of the
Act itself,- we distinctly see the spirit which animated the
lawgivers, and which can be traced down to our own days,
in every Act of Relief, and in all the dealings of our
Protestant fellow-countrymen with us as Catholics. The
reason given for passing the Act is stated to be, that
Catholics were desirous of testifying their loyalty. The
real reason which prompted the introduction of the Act
at that time was, that the Government were anxious that
Catholics should profess their loyalty at that particular
juncture of affairs. The object of the Act, as professed in
the preamble, was to promote peace and industry amongst
the Irish ; the real object was, that soldiers might be more
easily enlisted to recruit the British ranks. There is a
certain tone of condescension to weakness, and a selfr
complacent air of doing a favour to inferiors which pervades
the whole. There is an insinuation of disloyalty, and,
what is more insulting, an insinuation that Catholics were
conscious themselves that there was something in their
religion which might excuse a suspicion of disloyalty.
The Act seems to say, which in fact it practically did say
• Vide " Canning's Speeches," Therry's edition, vol. iii. p. 293.
VOL. I. F

66 TJte Power and influence [Chap. I.
to the Catholics, "Though you cannot be admitted to
citizenship, you may as strangers be allowed to say that
you love your rulers." False insinuations, patronizing in
solence, hypocritical assertion of benevolent motives, are
not these the very pest which is too often so revolting to
Catholics even to this day, when, in pursuance of our rights,
we are brought into contact with the governing powers
and with public opinion .'
Peace and industry amongst the Irish ! Peace and
industry lead to prosperity. Prosperity creates power.
Power in Ireland means power in the Catholic portion of
the inhabitants of the United Kingdom ; an increase of
power means an increase of influence to the principles
of the Catholic religion, and in the action of the Catholic
Church. Is this what the English wish to bring about?
No ! But it is what every English Catholic should desire.
One of the greatest misfortunes of the Catholics of the
United Kingdom, one of the defects in our state which
we have most to lament, is that the legitimate influence
of our religion in State affairs is not what it might be.
We do not covet, nor do we want, the influence which a
wealthy Church can exercise. God forbid I We are poor,
and we are blessed in our poverty. But we do feel the
want of, and desire to have, that influence which always
has weight in afifairs, when any special interest is backed
by the numbers, the wealth, and the social position of the
laity. We Catholics, who have the Deposit of Faith, know
well that secret which others will not be told of, or will
refuse to understand — that the 'better Catholics we are the
better subjects we are ; that an increase of devotion to God
means an increase of devotion to Queen and country.
We, therefore, cannot for a moment excuse the faintest
suspicion that an increase of power amongst us would be
a source of danger to the common country, or should

1774.] of Ireland. 67
be a cause of the smallest anxiety to our rulers. On the
contrary, seeing what power, properly managed, has done
for us, seeing what the legitimate action of wholesome
fear has effected, the influence of the Catholic Church as a
strong power, would be a great and most useful safeguard
to the liberties of all. If all our just demands were sup
ported by that power which forced emancipation in 1829,
they would be obtained, and obtained by lawful means,
and within the constitution. It is a narrow-minded, short
sighted policy which fosters dissensions, and keeps up
divisions amongst the Catholics of the British Isles. Such
dissensions and divisions produce a weakness which make
a weak point in the State. It is neither wise nor prudent
to lessen a power which, when exercised, forces the Legisla
ture to remove the causes of reasonable discontent. Divide
et impera may be a very good principle when we have an
enemy to conquer, but it is the very worst principle of
household government. A united Catholic people in the
British Isles would support the throne, and would be a
security against that bad government which leaves a people
with something to resent.
But whatever course may be followed by the majority
of Englishmen, it is clearly the duty of English Catholics,
not only to keep up a good understanding with our Irish
fellow-subjects, but to interest ourselves in their afifairs,
and to value the power and influence of Ireland. For the
power and influence of Ireland is the power and influence
of the Catholic Church in the United Kingdom. What
should we have been had it not been for the Irish } In
what state before the law should we now be if it had not
been for the power and influence of Ireland .'' Should we
have been emancipated at all } And if emancipated, should
we have had those chains struck ofif which kept us out of
Parliament, and out of ofifice, without being weighted

68 The Power of O'Connell. [Chap. I.
with other newly forged chains, which would have fettered
the action of the Church ? Some concessions, some con
cordat, would no doubt have accompanied the Act which
gave relief We might perhaps have been safe from
"securities" and vetoes during the life of the illustrious
Milner ; but even he could not have obtained us emanci
pation. Every new light that is thrown on the history of
the great Act by memoirs and biographies and the publica
tion of correspondence, shows that emancipation could not
have been obtained by any other means than it was — by
the moral force of the Irish people, led by O'Connell.
The orator Grattan, alluding in the House of Commons to
Lord Avonmore's irresistible argument in favour of emanci
pation, said of it, in one of his daring flights of imagery,
that " it was the march of an elephant, it was the wave of
the Atlantic, a column of water three thousand miles
deep." ^ How grandly these words apply to the triumphant
progress of O'Connell, at the head of the Irish people !
" It was the march of an elephant, it was the wave of the
Atlantic, a column of water three thousand miles deep."
" Securities," concordats, vetoes, were trampled down and
crushed beneath the heavy tread ; the reluctance, the
delays, the doubts and hesitations of King, Lords, and
Commons were overwhelmed in the advance. Canning
once said in the House, "Are we to give everything to
the Catholics, and are they to give us nothing in return ? "
But now there was not even a whisper of concessions which
had been publicly advocated for years. The public looked
on with amazement. The conquering power was pressing
on so near and with such force that there was no time for
delay. The discussions in the Cabinet had to be cut short.
The final instructions for the framing of the bill became
a question of hours and almost minutes, and it was
• "Grattan's Speeches," edited by Madden, p. 319.

1774. J Fear the Great Motive of Relief. 69
immediately drawn by one vigorous hand, which left
nothing in the draft on which Catholics would be likely to
make a stand.^ And so emancipation passed.
The world may never again see another O'Connell,
but the Catholics of the United Kingdom possess the same
elements of power which O'Connell wielded. Were we to
use that power, as all others in the State would if they had
special interests to protect, we should be in a far better
position than we are. We should be a united people,
exercising a legitimate influence, and that influence would
be one of good, both to the altar and the throne.
As it is desirable that Catholics should thoroughly
understand their position in the United Kingdom, and,
amongst other things, the motives from which concessions
to them have sprung, it may be well, at the very outset,
to fix steadily in the mind the truth that fear has been the
prevaihng motive of all Acts of Relief.^ The chief motive
for the reception of the address from the Irish Catholics
• Lord Lyndhurst. The above account of the precipitance with which
the final draught of the Emancipation Act was written, was often told to me
by the late Mr. George Eyston, who was living in London at the time, and
who always had an accurate knowledge of matters which concerned Catholics.
He told me that the law-stationer who made the fair copy of the draught
told him that the bill came into his office, in Lord Lyndhurst's handwriting.
Sir Robert Peel's account of the last days of the bill before its introduction
into Parliament (" Memoirs," vol. i. p. 351) does not give an impression of the
same precipitance. But still, I do not think that there is a positive discrepancy
in the two accounts.
'^ It is, unfortunately, necessary in these days to add a note to this sentence.
It is a shameful thing that an author should be obliged to do so. The sentence
was written before certain miscreants, whose acts would increase the disgrace
of the most cruel monsters who have been a curse to the world, began, in the
sacred name of liberty, to use means diabolically wicked to create fear in the
minds of their rulers. The fear alluded to in the text is that fear which is caused
either by acts done within constitutional rights or, as in the cases of the revolt
of the States and the French Revolution, by the political acts of other people,
which bring about a state of things which alters circumstances and which
naturally causes a pressure upon those who have to govern. Fear caused in
this way is a very different thing from that which is caused by the grossest
vio lation of the laws of God and man.

70 Fear the Great Motive of Relief, [Chap. I.
by the Speaker of the Irish House of Commons above
alluded to was, that it was a loyal address upon the alarm
of the invasion of Conflans in the year 1759. The
threatening attitude of the colonists produced, as we have
seen, the Irish Act of 1774. In the month of February,
1778, the French solemnly acknowledged the independence
of the United States, and concluded with them a defensive
treaty, which England treated as a declaration of war. In
the following month of May, the first Act relieving the
English Catholics was brought into Parliament, and passed
without opposition ; and the first Act which repealed any
of the penal laws against the Catholics of Ireland was
passed about the same time in College Green. The next
Relief Act was that passed in Ireland, 1782, to conciliate
the Catholics in presence of the armed volunteers, and
a threatened invasion from France. In the year 1790, the
alarm of the French Revolution sounding through Europe,
an Act was passed to explain and amend a previous Relief
Act, which had not produced the effect intended ; but, as
Sir Henry Parnell observes, "This common act of justice
was not, in any degree, the result of an inclination on the
part of the Government to treat the Catholics with more
than customary liberality." ^ The state of afifairs in France
threatening still more to involve other European nations,
naturally caused a desire on the part of the English
Government to promote as far as possible the union of
all Englishmen ; and an Act giving substantial relief to
English Catholics was passed at Westminster in the year
1791. On the 2ist of January, 1793, Louis XVI. was
executed, and on the following ist of February, the
National Convention declared war against England. Irish
soldiers were immediately wanted. In addition to this,
a conspiracy with republican tendencies was known to
' Sir Henry Parnell on the penal laws.

1774. J Fear tJie Great Motive of Relief. yi
be forming, which professed to embrace all Irishmen, but
in reality was confined to the Protestants and Presbyterians
of the North. It was most important, therefore, to con
ciliate the Catholics ; accordingly, to use the words of
Moore, the very same Parliament which in 1792 rejected
with scorn the whole petition of the Catholics, in the
very next year precipitately granted more than they asked
for; and the Relief Act of 1793 was passed.^ Finally, all
the world knows that the Emancipation Act of 1829 was
passed, as Wellington and Peel both avowed, to prevent a
civil war in Ireland.
It cannot be denied that other causes besides fear
operated in a certain degree to produce concessions to
Catholic claims. The spirit of animosity against us had
lessened in the breasts of many ; the principle of religious
liberty, as it is called, had taken deep root in some master
minds, as in those of Burke, Fox, and Canning ; and party
feeling found the Catholic question a convenient one to
bring to the front. But all these motives only brought the
Protestant feeling of the country up to a certain point.
The history of the Relief Bills clearly shows, that not one
of them would have been passed at the time it was passed,
if fear of something worse than concessions to Catholics
had not driven our oppressors to action. Since the passing
of the Emancipation Act, it cannot be said that any one of
the many Acts for our relief has been caused by the fear
of French invasion, or of a revolution in Ireland. But the
most substantial of those Acts which have passed of late
years, have been promoted for reasons which may be'
resolved into fear of another kind, namely, in order to gain
or in order not to lose the Catholic vote. Public opinion
in England in regard to the concessions enumerated above,
and the actual force of the dififerent motives which brought
' " Memoirs of Captain Rock," pp. 330, 336.

72 Fear the Great Motive of Relief. [Chap. I.
about those concessions, may be well illustrated by the
present state of public opinion, and the motives which now
operate, to incline our countrymen to act justly to us.
There is no county and only one borough in England
which returns a Catholic member to Parhament. It would
be almost universally admitted that in theory a candidate
should not be rejected on account of his religious opinions;
but in practice, no matter how much more eligible a
Catholic might be than his Protestant rival, he would poll
but few votes, simply on account of his religion. If it were
possible that some great evil to the county or borough
might ensue from the rejection of the better man, the fear
of that evil, and that fear alone, would ensure his return.^
There is no doubt something discouraging in the
thought that fear is the chief motive which urges the
majority to do us justice. But as we have so many things
to encourage us, we must not allow too much influence
to that discouraging thought. And even in this very
motive of fear, which sometimes forces justice to be done,
we can bring good out of evil. For we learn from it that
we Catholics have a power which, if prudently used, is good
both for defence and for attack. When fear operates as
a motive to give us what is our due, it is because there is
something in us to be afraid of It is a good thing for
us to know this ; and it is a still better thing for us to
understand it, and the use we can make of the knowledge.
If we were governed by a mob, if a succession of pamphlets
like those which Mr. Gladstone wrote against us a few
years ago, had succeeded in renewing in the year 1880
the No-Popery riots of 1780, then indeed fear would be
all on our side, and we should be overborne and trodden
• It is thought by some that there are certain towns and divisions of
counties which would return a Catholic, if those who could offer themselves
as candidates under favourable circumstances would do so. There is perhaps
some truth in this with regard to a very limited number of places.

1774.] Combination amongst Catholics. 73
down by numbers. But so long as opposition to the
Catholic Church is to be kept within the bounds of the
Englishman's favourite axiom, "civil and religious liberty;"
so long as we can act with the same freedom as others act,
and receive the same fair play as is given to all others ; —
we have a right to expect that the same motives will
operate in the dealings of our countrymen with us, as
would operate in their dealings with any other body of
the same number and importance as ourselves. Due weight
is always given to numbers and importance ; and the effect
which that weight has is often nothing more than that
wholesome fear, which prevents a majority from becoming
tyrannical, and a minister from being a tyrant. If the
Catholics of the United Kingdom had been a united body
from the time that a common interest should have bound
them together, their numbers and importance would not
have been, by fits and starts, a motive for fear ; but they
would have been continually in action, and our position
in the State would have answered much more accurately
to the great principles of English liberty than at present
it can be said to do.
Any one who has read the details of that history of
which, in the first part of this chapter, I have only given
a sketch, must be struck with the great power which the
Catholics of the United Kingdom can exercise when they
choose to do so. When the Catholics of Ireland are united,
their power is simply overwhelming. This was proved in
the year 1829. And even Enghsh Catholics have within
themselves the means of exerting a much greater influence
than we do. If we were to act as others who have a special
interest to attend to, we should in reality be a very con
siderable power in the State. When political parties wish
to preserve their traditions, or to carry a certain measure,
and to keep their followers together; when particular trades

74 Combination amongst Catholics, [Chap. I.
wish to protect some special interest (like the Licensed
Victuallers at the general election of 1874) ; — they form what
is called an organization. They know well that without
this they will be weak, but that with it they will be strong.
How is it that we do not act in the same way 1 We have
special interests to protect, and interests, too, of greater
importance than an enlargement of the county franchise,
or the selling of beer. Yet we have no systematic organi
zation ; and this organization is absolutely necessary in
order that our interests may be attended to, and that the
power we have within us may, as far as possible, be pro
perly directed. I will conclude this chapter by alluding
to one matter in which want of organization causes us a
great loss of power. There can hardly be any doubt that
the first duty which any body of Catholics, banded together
for the general good, should turn their attention to at the
present moment, would be the registration of voters ; for
one great element of our power is in the votes of Catho
lics in many of the cities and boroughs of Great Britain.
Registration cannot be effectually carried out, in many
places, unless there be some central motive power to excite
action and watch the progress of the work. The Catholic
Union a few years ago began this work gallantly. But of
late years I understand that its efforts have relaxed. It
patronizes the work, I believe, but it does not superintend
it and push it, as it began by doing. This is a great pity,
from whatsoever cause it may arise.-^
The fact is that, in the use of political power, most
emphatically we want " educating." Who will educate us .?
Who will lead us .' Who will begin by teaching us how to
' English Catholics ought not to be too squeamish about the way in which
the Irish may vote in our large towns. In any matters vitally affecting the
interests of our religion, the overwhelming majority of the Catholics in Eng
land, whatever may be their nationaUty, will always be found on the right
side.

1774.] The Ditty of Registration. 75
learn and put in practice a great and most useful lesson
taught by the late Sir Robert Peel. It was either during
the administration of Lord Grey, immediately after the
passing of the Reform Bill, or at the second advent of
Lord Melbourne to power, that Sir Robert, anxious above
everything to restore the fallen fortunes of the Tory party,
had one word only for his followers : " Register, register,
register." And so we should say to the Catholics of Great
Britain now, " Register, register, register." There is indeed
plenty of work for an organization of Catholics to attend
to, but the most pressing duty is to attend to the registra
tion. It should be a boast of British Catholics, that to the
best of our power we use our liberties as Britons in defence
of our religion as Catholics. Are there no young men fired
with the desire to serve their religion and their country .''
Are there none who, under the advice and approving eye
of their clergy and their elders, will give themselves to the
work ? Let them not think that by increasing the power
of the Catholics in England they will create a giant who
will do them any mischief; such an idea is merely " a thing
devised by the enemy." On the contrary, they will do a
great service both to religion and to the land they love so
well. They can act without fear, for they will have the
blessing of God on their labours, and under that blessing,
the guardian angels of England will bring their work to a
prosperous end.

( 76 )

CHAPTER II.
STATE OF CATHOLICS PREVIOUS TO ACT OF 1 778.
State of Catholics previous to the Act of 1778 — and Lord Mansfield's charge
to the jury at the trial of Mr. Webb.
Before giving the reader the history of the English
Relief Act of 1778, it will be well to recall, as far as we
can, the state in which English Catholics were at that
period. It must be remembered that only three and thirty
years had then passed since the last attempt of the Stuart
family to regain the throne. Many Catholic families, as
well as many Protestant families of the Tory party, were
known to have sympathized with Charles Edward Stuart
in 1745. But although there were many Catholics in the
Highland army which invaded England, a very few of the
English made any attempt to assist the Prince. Charles
Edward was still alive in 1778 ; and although, during the
thirty years which followed his gallant enterprise, the
British Catholics had gradually, but efifectually and for
ever, transferred their allegiance to the House of Hanover,
yet strong political motives, as well as religious hatred,
prompted our Protestant fellow-countrymen to keep us
down. But as years went by, it became evident that the
dynasty which began its career from the Revolution of
1688 had nothing to fear from internal enemies.
It is difificult for us to realize the state in which our

1760-1778.] State of Catholics. jj
ancestors lived up to the year 1778. There were then very
few Catholics in England except the English Catholics.
Burke, in his celebrated speech at Bristol, previous to the
election of 1780, estimated the number of Irish at that
time in London to be four or five thousand. Supposing
that there were half that number in Liverpool (though it
is not probable that there was half), the rest scattered over
England would not have reached anything approaching to
one thousand. The English Catholics consisted of several,
in almost every county, of what we call the old English
Catholic families ; of a large number of Catholics of the
middle and poorer classes in Lancashire and the north of
Staffordshire ; and of here and there over the rest of
England some few in the humbler walks of life, whose
families, like their Lancashire brethren, had never lost the
faith. There were not very many converts in those days.
Conversion had always to be done secretly, and in many
cases it was accompanied with considerable danger to all
who engaged in it. Later on in the century ridiculous
stories were told by malicious fanatics of the great number
of converts. "Two thousand of the common people," it
was said, "chiefly servant-maids, were converted by the
French clergy in one part of London in the space of two
years." " That is to say," writes Father O'Leary, in his
address to the Lords spiritual and temporal of the
Parliament of Great Britain, " more than all the Catholic
clergy of England have converted since the reign of
Elizabeth."^ If this be true, the number of converts at
the time we are writing about must have been very small.^
The total number of Catholics in England in the year
' " Life and Writings of the Rev. Arthur O'Leary," by the Rev. M. B.
Buckley, p. 383.
" Dr. England, however, in his " Life of Father O'Leary," p. 295, says
that ' ' some very distinguished individuals were led by his doctrinal instructions
to embrace the Catholic creed."

78 State of Catholics [Chap. II.
1778 was probably about sixty thousand. Joseph Bering-
ton, writing in 1780, says, " From the best information
I can procure, their number does not at this day exceed
sixty thousand, and this even I suspect to be far beyond
the mark." Burke, in his speech at Bristol in 1780, says,
"The Catholics of England are but a handful of people,
enough to torment, but not enough to fear, perhaps not so
many of both sexes and of all ages as fifty thousand."
Sheridan, in his speech against Sir H. Mildmay's Convent
Bill in the year 1800, says, " It had been said that in the
time of James II. there was but one Catholic in this
country to a hundred Protestants, and that the number
was the same or nearly the same now." This proportion
would give over seventy thousand in the year 1778.
The English Catholic county gentlemen lived for the
most part in great retirement, taking little or no part in
county matters. Those who wished to mix in general
society kept their religion as much in the background as
possible, and many endeavoured to conceal it altogether.
An instance may be given of a country squire and a most
sincere Catholic, who when in London used to associate
with Fox and Sheridan, but who, being anxious when he
came into his property to make his appearance at the
county assizes, went into court, and hearing the grand
jury, when they had finished their work, announce to the
judge that they had made all due search for Papists, left
the court, and could not be induced to attend again during
a long life. The Catholic gentlemen of that day had been
almost all educated in one of the English colleges
established abroad, and they were sent chiefly to St. Omer's
and Douay. The education at those places, so dear to
English Catholics, was of a very superior kind ; Douay
and St. Omer's will be lasting evidence of what English
Catholics can do to educate themselves. To pass over the

1760-1778.] previoits to the Act <?/ 1778. 79
long list of accomplished divines and scholars which those
colleges produced long before the time we are writing
about, we may fairly say that schools which gave to the
world such men as Alban Butler, Challoner, O'Connell,
and Milner have made their mark in the history of the
Church. Those who can remember to have met in their
boyhood many of the Catholic gentlemen who had been
brought up at St. Omer's and Douay, must remember
also their polished and courtly manners, their taste for
literature, and that patriotic and independent tone of mind
which they preserved, while living in their country seats
under the ban of their own country. The English-Catholic
ladies of that period had been chiefly educated in those
convents abroad, the establishment of which began in the
days of Elizabeth. Those who have seen the lists of
names preserved in any of those communities which
returned to England at the time of the French Revolution,
have observed how many young ladies of old English
families remained in the houses they were brought up in,
to serve God in the religious state. And many Catholic
families still remaining, scattered over England, have to
thank God that those revered communities sent back
to England every year, young maidens who in after life
formed as grand a class of Christian mothers as the world
has ever seen. We can remember some of them still.
What strong faith, what matronly bearing, what a deep
sense of the responsibility they felt was upon them, to be
the guardians of religion and morals in the Catholic
families of England, and that with them rested in great
measure the charge of handing down truth and virtue to
their posterity. When we daily thank God for the great
increase He has given to our English Church in the
numerous conversions of later years and our own days, let
us not omit the acts of a grateful heart, when we remember

8o State of Catholics [Chap. ii.
the days of old ; when we think of the preservation of our
religion in times' when there were few conversions ; when
we see the efifects of continuous mercy in those many old
families still remaining, the chief support of religion in our
native land.^
Nor must we forget the steadfast faith and the sterling
worth of those whose names are not so well known, though
as much honoured, who in Lancashire and other parts
handed down the truth to their children. Though in 1778
the English Catholics were but a handful, it was proved in
after years that the few were enough to be the foundation
of the new Church when the better days began. As we
pursue our history we shall see how the old stock prepared
the way for the great increase which arose, when con
verts by hundreds returned to the fold, and the Irish by
thousands came to help us in the work of restoration.
The Catholic families, for the most part, lived a quiet
and unmolested life in the country. But there were
exceptions. The author was told by the late Charles
Thomas Clififord that his grandfather. Lord Arundell,
had four horses taken out of his carriage by a Protestant,
who offered him ;^5 each for them.^ Mr. Butler tells us
that "during the first part of the reign of George III.,
Catholics suffered a considerable degree of persecution.
So lately as in the year 1782, two very poor Catholic
labourers and their wives were summoned before one of
his Majesty's justices of the peace in the county of York,
and fined one shilling each, for not repairing to church,
' There were only two convents in England at this time : one at York,
and which is still there, and another of the same order in the neighbourhood
of London. They had great difficulties to contend with, and a hard struggle
for existence. ^ Such was the law. It was not that a Catholic could not have a horse
worth ;^5, but any one could take the horse at the price of ;^5. An Irish
gentleman about this time, on being offered £tj each for his carriage horses,
went up to them as they were being harnessed and shot them all.

1760-1778.] previous to the Act of 1778. 81
and the constable raised it by distraining, in the house
of one of them, an oak table and a plate-shelf; in the
house of the other, a shelf and two dozen of delf plates,
one pewter dish, with some pewter plates, one oak table, and
an armchain The sale was publicly called at the market
day, and the goods were sold by auction at their respective
houses."^ Young men were cautioned, when travelling,
not to let their religion be known, for fear of personal
abuse. If a more tolerant Protestant ventured to ask a
Catholic to his house, he privately apologized to his guests
for introducing " a Papist " among them. It is often
remarked amongst Catholics, that what would be con
sidered as ungentlemanly if said or done to a Protestant,
is not so in regard to a Catholic in any matter connected
with religion. Instances of this conduct occasionally
happen even now ; at the time of which we are writing,
it was the normal standard of Protestant manners.
We will again quote Mr. Butler on this subject ; and it
may be remembered that Butler was not at all inchned
to take an unfavourable view of the conduct of Protestants
towards Catholics. He says, "No person, who was not
alive in those times, can imagine the depression and
humiliation under which the general body of Roman
Catholics then laboured. Often in early life has the
writer heard the ancestors of the Catholic youth of that
period tell them, that they could form no idea of the
sufiferings of the Catholics in the beginning of the last
century. He, in his turn, can now aver, that the present
Catholic youth can form no idea of the lamentable state
of the Catholics, so lately as in the reign of George II.
and the first years of George III. They cannot picture
to themselves the harsh, the contemptuous, and the
' "Historical Memoirs," vol. iii. p. 277. At this time Mr. Butler was
thirty-two years of age.
VOL. I. G

82 State of Catholics [Chap. ii.
distressing expressions which at that time a Catholic
daily heard, even from persons of humanity and good
breeding." Mr. Butler then gives an instance which shows
to what an extent Protestant bigotry could change the
courtesy of a gentleman into the rudeness of a churl.
" At a court ball," continues Butler, " a Roman Catholic
young lady of very high rank, distinguished by character,
by beauty, and by the misfortunes of her family, was
treated with marked slight by the lord chamberlain. ' It is
very hard,' she exclaimed, ' to be so treated ; after all, I was
invited I' and burst into tears. They were noticed by Queen
Caroline ; and, when her Majesty learnt the cause, there
was not a kind, a generous, or a soothing excuse which
she did not make to her. While this compassionate
gentleness showed the amiable mind of the Queen, the
unfeeling rudeness of the chamberlain as strongly showed
the temper of the times." ^
The eastern counties of England are well known for
their bigotry in matters of religion. A manuscript at Bury
St. Edmund's, written between 1830 and 1840, says that
a man was still living who could bear witness to the fact
that it was only by stealth they could attend the chapel,
which was a room in a house ; and that CathoHcs dared
not to appear in public, and, indeed, to practise their
religion at all. A Catholic gentleman, who was born in
the middle of the last century, making his will in the
present century, in leaving money to the poor, gave it to
the Protestant rector for distribution in order that the
lawyer who drew up the will might not know that he was
a Catholic. ' "Historical Memoirs," vol. iii. pp. 277, 278. It may be remarked that
there are several instances which show that when George III. and his two
sons, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, were brought into personal
relations with Catholics, they always behaved with great consideration and
kindness.

1760-1778.] previous to the Act of 1778. 83
The instances I have given will give the reader some
idea of the state in which the grandfathers lived of men
now living who would not like to be called very old. It
is a pity that there is not more in print to throw light on
the state in which Catholics were living about the time at
which the Relief Act of 1778 passed. There exist, no
doubt, in most old Catholic families many manuscripts and
documents, a compilation from which would be a most
interesting volume. In concluding this mention of the
state of the Catholic laity, it must be noticed that many
Catholics had been successful in trade. There is a some
what curious passage touching this subject in Edmund
Burke's celebrated speech at Bristol in the year 1780.
Speaking of the desire of some fanatics to repeal the Act
of 1778, he says, " Had we listened to the counsels of
fanaticism and folly, we might have wounded ourselves
very deeply. You are apprised that the Catholics of
England consist mostly of your best manufacturers. Had
the Legislature chosen, instead of returning their declara
tions of duty with correspondent good-will, to drive them
to despair, there is a country at their very door to which
they would be invited. . . . And thus bigotry would have
repeopled the cities of Flanders. . . . But I trust we shall
be saved this last of disgraces." ^
The clergy in many parts of England lived in continual
fear. About the year 1760, the year of the accession of
George IIL, an infamous scoundrel, named Payne, sought
to obtain, and in some instances succeeded in obtaining, the
fine of one hundred pounds on the conviction of priests for
saying Mass, and against whom he had informed. The
Rev. Mr. Malony was tried and condemned at Croydon
' The author has frequently tried to ascertain who and what manufacturers
these were to whom Mr. Burke refers, but he has never met with any satis
factory explanation.

84 State of Catholics [Chap. II.
in the year 1767, for the exercise of his priestly functions.
Burke, in his speech at Bristol, from which I have already
quoted, says of this trial, " It is but six or seven years since
a clergyman of the name of Malony, a man of morals,
neither guilty nor accused of anything noxious to the
State, was condemned to perpetual imprisonment for
exercising the functions of his religion, and after lying
in gaol two or three years, was relieved by the mercy of
Government from perpetual imprisonment on condition of
perpetual banishment." In 1768, the Rev. James Webb was
tried in the Court of Queen's Bench for saying Mass, but
was acquitted. He owed his acquittal to Lord Mansfield,
as we shall see later on. In 1769, the Honourable James
Talbot was tried for his life at the Old Bailey, and, as Mr.
Butler tells us, only escaped conviction from the want of
evidence. Other priests were prosecuted. Mr. Butler
made inquiries "in 1780 respecting the execution of the
penal laws against the Catholics, and found that the single
house of Dynely and Ashmall in Gray's Inn had defended
more than twenty priests under such prosecutions, and
that, greatly to their honour, they had generally defended
them gratuitously." Mr. Talbot was tried more than once.
I believe the last time was in the year 1771. From the
accounts I have seen, it does not seem clear whether the
last of his trials was for saying Mass or for exercising his
functions as a bishop.-^ However this may be, Bishop
James Talbot was the last ecclesiastic tried under the
penal laws for the exercise of his ofifice, and, I believe, the
last priest tried for saying Mass — an honour of which I
have no doubt his collateral descendants are justly proud.^
' Mr., or, as we should now say. Dr. James Talbot, was coadjutor bishop to
the venerable Challoner.
' Bishop Talbot was the great uncle of Earl John of Shrewsbury, whom
many still remember, and whose name will be inseparably connected with the
revival of religion in England, and the returning beauty of God's House.

1760-1778.] previous to the Act of 1778. 85
Dr. Oliver narrates how two Fathers of the Society of
Jesus were, in the year 1767, dogged from Ostend by a
Protestant clergyman, and put to trouble at custom
houses and other places, and how one of these fathers
was afterwards threatened with the penal laws by another
Protestant clergyman for having instructed a young
woman who applied to him, desiring to be received into
the Catholic Church.'- It was a common thing for priests
to adopt feigned names, in order to escape detection.
When living at Norwich, Alban Butler went by the name
of Mr. Cross. There is an interesting story connected
with this. Alban Butler lived in the palace of the Duke
of Norfolk, to whom he was at that time chaplain. A
large case of books arrived at the palace of the Protestant
Bishop of Norwich, addressed, " The Rev. Mr. Cross, the
Palace, Norwich." The bishop opened the case. Butler
was told of its arrival, and applied to the bishop for his
goods. His lordship refused, on the ground that they
were popish books. Butler, however, had an influential
friend where the bishop would have least imagined that
a friend of a popish priest could be found. After the
battle of Fontenoy, a large number of English prisoners of
war were sent to Douay, where Butler then resided. The
learned author of the " Lives of the Saints '' devoted all
his time to the care, temporal as well as spiritual, of the
British soldiers. For this service he received the personal
thanks of the Duke of Cumberland, who told Alban
Butler that he should be most happy, if he should ever be
able, to make some return in England for what Butler had
done for his soldiers in France. When the Bishop of
Norwich refused to give up the case of books, Butler wrote
to the Duke of Cumberland. The duke kept his word. A
short time after, the books were forwarded to " Mr. Cross."
• Collectanea S.J,, p. 79, under the head of " Forrester."

86 State of Catholics [Chap. ll.
The doors of Catholic chapels were in those days
bolted and secured before Mass began, in order to keep
out spies. About the year 1835, a man was still alive who
remembered having been refused admission to the chapel
at Old Oscott, which was then only a small country
mission, on Christmas Day, because they did not know
who he was. All manner of precaution was taken to
conceal the existence, if possible, of Catholics. At the
beginning of the baptismal register kept at the Church of
the Holy Apostles in Norwich there is written on a flyleaf
as follows : — " A Register of Baptisms copied from Mr.
Angier, beginning from September 1775, no one being
kept before by reason of the Penal Laws." " The Laity's
Directory" for the year 1777 has no name of publisher or
printer, or place where printed or sold. It has not the
name of any one priest or chapel or school. There is no
advertisement in it — nothing, in short, which could identify
a single priest or chapel, or even any one lay Catholic.^
The short account I have given of the state of Catholics
in England about the time of the first Relief Act, the
reader will find but a poor description. It will have
produced some efifect, however, if it shall have induced a
few people to put in writing, for the use of some future
historian, those interesting traditions which are handed
down in many Catholic families about "the days of the
penal laws."
For a few years preceding the first Relief Act, there
were several indications of a desire on the part of some
Protestants to relax the severity with which Catholics had
been treated. Though George III. obstinately opposed
' An interesting account of the state of English Catholics about the year
1775, and of the reception of a gentleman and his wife into the Catholic
Church by Dr. Challoner, may be seen in a little book well worth reading,
entitled "A Hundred Years Ago," published by Washbourne in the year
1877.

1760-1778.] previous to the Act of 1778. 87
the final emancipation, yet it must be remembered that
the Act of 1778, which gave some little relief, and the Act
of 1 79 1, which gave great relief, were both passed in the
King's reign. And he himself showed personal kindness
to Catholics. Butler attributes this disposition on the
part of the King to the kindness which had been shown
to his father Prince Frederick of Wales, by the Duke of
Norfolk, at whose house, in St. James's Square, George III.
was born. Indeed, Butler looks upon the friendly relations
which existed between the royal and the Norfolk families
as the first symptom of the return of brighter days.
About this time, also, the Protestant relative of a
wealthy Catholic lady having commenced proceedings to
enforce the infamous Act which gave power to the nearest
Protestant relative to seize the property of a Catholic,
an Act of Parliament was passed to prevent his taking
the mean advantage, and to secure the lady in the posses
sion of her land.'
Lord Mansfield, when lord chief justice, put every
obstacle he could in the way of the conviction of priests
who were tried for saying Mass on the information of the
infamous Payne. An Act of William III., as we shall see
later on, punished with perpetual imprisonment any priest
convicted of saying Mass. Payne and his associates used
to go in disguise to where they knew Mass was being said,
and then swear at the trial that they had seen the priest
say Mass. The only evidence, therefore, that the accused
was really a priest was that it was sworn he had said
Mass. Two things, however, had to be proved — one, that
the accused was a priest ; the other, that he had said Mass,
The counsel for the prosecution argued that it was only
necessary to prove that he had said Mass, for if he had
' Lord Camden, in the House of Lords, had the honour of introducing this
bill into Parliament.

88 Lord Mansfield's Charge to tJie Jury [Chap. II.
said Mass he must be a priest, for no one but a priest
could say Mass. Lord Mansfield laid it down in his
charge to the jury, that each of the two facts — namely, that
the accused was a priest, and that he had said Mass — must
be supported by independent proof; that the jury must be
first satisfied that he was a priest without regarding the
fact that he had said Mass. His lordship further observed,
that if the jury were to convict a man of being a priest on
the ground that it had been sworn he had said Mass, they
would run a great risk of convicting an innocent person.
He said a man must be better acquainted with the
ceremonies of the Mass than most Protestants were, in
order to be able to swear that what he had seen was the
Mass, and not any other ceremony. And supposing the
ceremony to have been correctly performed, even that
would not prove the man going through it to be a priest,
as it was well known (and Lord Mansfield mentioned a
particular case which had actually occurred) that the Mass
had been so well imitated by an impostor, that even
Catholics themselves had been taken in. His lordship
concluded by repeating to the jury that they must have
some positive proof that the accused was a priest, such as
his ordination papers, or something equally authentic ;
that that proof neither he, the lord chief justice, nor the
jury would ever be able to get. In this way Lord Mans
field obtained the acquittal of Mr. Webb, whose trial we
have mentioned above. For this justice to Catholics,
Lord Mansfield had his house pillaged, and his own life
endangered two years afterwards during the Gordon riots.
The degree of persecution varied in dififerent parts of
England, according, to the cupidity or spite of the in
formers : in London it was rife, in some parts of the
country there was little or none. The present chapel at
Mawley was opened by Dr. Thomas Talbot, vicar-

1760-1778. at the Trial of Mr. Webb. 89
apostolic of the Midland District, only three or four years
after his brother, Dr. James Talbot, had been tried for his
life in London.'
In the introduction it was observed that the present
state of the Church in Great Britain has arisen from three
sources — from the descendants of those who had never
lost the faith, from the converts of later days, and from the
providential arrival of large numbers of our Irish fellow-
Catholics. It is not a little remarkable that all these three
sources sprang from suffering and sorrow. It was in ex
treme suffering that our Catholic ancestors kept the faith.
When their chains were struck off, it was from suffering
they arose, to begin again that glorious work of the Church
in England, which will one day, let us hope, join a glorious
future to a glorious past. It was in sufifering and sorrow
that the converts of the last fifty years broke through their
own trammels and entered the Catholic Church. The
loss of friends, the loss of wealth, the loss of position in
life, the snapping of the dearest ties, the blighting of the
fondest hopes, — these were the sufferings and sorrow which
followed hundreds — perhaps thousands — who were ready
to make any sacrifice to obey the call of God. It was
sufifering and sorrow that compelled thousands and tens
of thousands to leave the land of their birth, and in
• The centenary of the opening of this chapel was celebrated a few years
ago, during the lifetime of that fine old English baronet, the late Sir Edward
Blount. A descendant of Lord Mansfield told my informant that it was a tradition
in the Mansfield family, that on one of the occasions when Bishop James
Talbot was tried for saying Mass, the following dialogue occurred:— Lord
Mansfield: "You say this man is a priest?" Informer: "Yes; I saw him
say Mass. He had vestments on." Lord Mansfield :" Do not the CathoHcs
say that the Mass essentially consists in certain words ? " Informer: "Yes."
Lord Mansfield : "Did you hear those words ? " Informer : " No ; they are
said secretly." Lord Mansfield : " How, then, can you swear he said them ? "
Informer : "Oh, he had vestments on." Lord Mansfield : " If I were to put
vestments on, would you say I was a priest ? "

QO Sufferings and Sorrow. [Chap. ll.
suffering and sorrow they came to repeople our land with
the children of God. The seed of the early spring was
sown in tears. Without doubt it seems to have had the
blessing of God upon it. If the Catholics of England
prove faithful to their stewardship, the older ones amongst
us may go to rest in firmest hope, that ere long an
abundant harvest will be reaped in joy.

{ 91 )

CHAPTER III.
THE ACT OF 1 778.
Edmund Burke on the Act of William III.— Address of English Catholics to
George III. — Remarks on the address — Debates on the bill of 1778 — Sir
George Savile, Mr. Dunning, Attorney-General Thurlow, Lord Beau
champ, and Henry Dundas on the bill — Second reading of the bill — A
specimen of bigotry — A hberal speaker — The bill passes the Commons —
Second reading of the bill in the Lords — Speech of a bishop — and of two
future prime ministers — Lord Shelbourne on the trial of Mr. Malony —
The bill of 1778 passes the Lords — Rehef given by the Act.
In the last chapter I endeavoured to give the reader some
idea of the state in which our Catholic ancestors were
living at the time of the first Relief Act, in the year 1778.
I will now give an account of the Act itself^ It was
intituled, "An Act for relieving his Majesty's subjects
professing the Popish religion from certain penalties and
disabilities, imposed on them by an Act made in the
eleventh and twelfth years of the reign of King William
IIL, intituled 'An Act for the further preventing the
growth of Popery.'" This Act of WiUiam III. deserves
the same epithet of " ferocious " which Edmund Burke
gave to the Acts passed against the Irish Catholics in the
reign of Queen Anne. It enacted that whoever after March
25, 1700, should " apprehend a Popish bishop, priest, or
Jesuit, and convict him of saying Mass, or exercising his
functions within the realm," should " receive of the sherifif
' 18 Geo. III. cap. 60.

92 The Act of William III. [Chap. iii.
of the county for every such conviction the sum of .^loo, to
to be paid within four months, upon tendering the judge's
certificate of the conviction." If the sherifif made default
in payment, he was to forfeit .^200. It further enacted
that " every Popish bishop, priest, or Jesuit who should
say Mas.s, or exercise his function ; every Papist keeping
school, educating or boarding youth for that purpose,"
should sufifer perpetual imprisonment. It enacted that
"persons educated in,' or professing the Popish religion
who " should " not within six months after they attained
the age of eighteen, take the oaths of allegiance and
supremacy, and make the Declaration in 30 Car. 11."^
should "be disabled (but not their heirs or posterity) to
inherit or take any lands, tenements, or hereditaments
within this kingdom. And during such persons' lives, until
they should take the said oath, the next of kin being a
Protestant," should "enjoy his lands," etc., without being
accountable for the profits, but should not commit waste.
It further enacted that after April 10, 1700, "every Papist"
should be disabled " to purchase lands in this kingdom, or
any profits out of the same." Whoever should convict a
person of sending his child or ward " beyond the sea to be
educated in Papacy," was to receive as a reward the whole
penalty of i^ 1 00, inflicted bythe Statute III. of James I.
Finally, if the " Popish parents '' of Protestant children
should refuse them a fitting maintenance, in order to
compel them to change their religion, the Act gave the
lord chancellor power to order as he should think proper.
We saw in the last chapter that two clauses of this Act
had been recently acted on : the clause against ecclesiastics
exercising their functions, and the clause giving power to
' This was the declaration commonly called the ' ' Declaration against
Popery." The Act 30 Charles II. cap 2, was the Act which disabled
Catholic peers from sitting and voting in the House of Lords.

1778.] Edmund Buriie on Act of William III. 93
the next of kin, being a Protestant, to seize the lands of
his Catholic relation. The Act had therefore been by no
means a dead letter, and the Act of 1778, which repealed a
portion of it, was a substantial relief
Before proceeding to the Relief Act itself, it will be
interesting and instructive to mention the circumstances
under which the Act of William was introduced into
Parliament and passed the Legislature. These circum
stances may be best described in the words of Edmund
Burke. Addressing the electors of Bristol, after having
alluded to the very penal nature of the Act, he proceeded
as follows : — " Does any one who hears me, approve this
scheme of things, or think there is common justice, common
sense, or common honesty in any part of it ? If any does,
let him say it, and I am ready to discuss the point with
temper and candour. But instead of approving, I perceive
a virtuous indignation beginning to rise in your minds on
the mere cold stating of the statute. But what will you
feel when you know from history how this statute passed,
and what were the motives, and what the mode of making
it? A party in this nation, enemies to the system of
revolution, were in opposition to the Government of King
William. They knew that our glorious deliverer was an
enemy to all persecution.^ They knew that he came . . .
out of a country where a third of the people are contented
Catholics under a Protestant Government. He came with
a part of his army, composed of those very Catholics, to
overset the power of a popish prince.
"The party I speak of (like some amongst us who
' The reader will remember that, in speaking of Burke in a former page, it
was said that he was perhaps as great a friend of Catholics as a Protestant
could well be. He was a Protestant Whig of the old school. For his signal
services to the Catholic cause, we must excuse the epithet "glorious " which
he applies to William the usurper, and allow the great orator to indulge in
the delusion that the object of his admiration was an enemy to all persecution.

94 Edmund Burke on Act of William III, [Chap. ill.
would disparage the best friends of their country), resolved
to make the King either violate his principles of toleration,
or incur the odium of protecting Papists. They therefore
brought in this bill, and made it purposely wicked and
absurd, that it might be rejected. The then Court party,
discovering their game, turned the tables on them, and
returned their bill to them stuffed with still greater
absurdities, that its loss might lie upon its original authors.
They, finding their own ball thrown back to them,
kicked it back again to their adversaries. And thus this
Act, loaded with the double injustice of two parties, neither
of whom intended to pass what they hoped the other would
be persuaded to reject, went through the Legislature, con
trary to the real wish of all parts of it, and of all the parties
that composed it. In this manner these insolent and pro
fligate factions, as if they were playing with balls and
counters, made a sport of the fortunes and the liberties of
their fellow-creatures. Other acts of persecution have been
acts of malice. This was a subversion of justice from
wantonness and petulance. Look into the history of
Bishop Burnet. He is a witness without exception." ^
It ought to be a matter of surprise how such a
" ferocious " Act as this, brought into Parliament from
such unworthy motives, and so recklessly passed into a
law, could ever have been allowed to be enforced. The
account I have given in the words of Burke clearly shows
the supreme contempt which the Protestants had for the
Catholics in England. We were in so degraded a position,
that it was looked upon as good political sport to use us as
any one pleased, and put us to the torture to gain the ends
of Whigs and Tories. This contempt was the efifect of the
intense hatred which the English had for the Catholic
Church, acting on the small minority of the faithful, which
' Speech to the electors of Bristol in 1780 {.-vide Burke's works).

1778.] English Catholics address the Throne, 95
gross oppression had left in the land. This hatred and
contempt continued, and permitted the execution of a
savage law, which had its origin in the jealousies of
Protestant parties.
In 1778, there was a disposition to relax the more
ferocious parts of the penal law. It was also expedient to
gain the good-will of Catholics, at a time when America
and France were banded together against England. The
expediency of conciliation operated more in regard to the
Irish Catholics, though it was not without its efifects in
regard also to the Catholics of England. The opportune
moment was seized by the English Catholics, and they
determined to address the Throne. A committee was
formed, of which Lord Petre, Sir John Throckmorton, and
Mr. William Sheldon were the most active members,
Sheldon was appointed secretary to the committee ; he
was the principal actor on the part of the Catholics, and
managed the affair with great prudence and success. We
shall see later, on the authority of Dr. Milner, in what
his prudence chiefly consisted, and to what he owed his
great success. The reader will be interested in reading
the address which was drawn up by the committee, and
presented to George III. It was as follows : —
"To the King's most excellent Majesty. The humble address
of the Roman Catholic Peers and Commoners of Great
Britain.
" Most Gracious Sovereign,
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the
Roman Catholic Peers and Commoners of your kingdom of
Great Britain, most humbly hope that it cannot be offensive to
the clemency of your Majesty's nature, or to the maxims of your
just and wise Government, that any part of your subjects should
approach your royal presence, to assure your Majesty of the
respectful affection which they bear to your person, and their
true attachment to the civil constitution of their country, which,

96 Address of the English Catholics, [Chap. hi.
having been perpetuated through all changes of religious opinions
and establishments, has been at length perfected by that revo
lution which has placed your Majesty's illustrious house on the
throne of these kingdoms, and inseparately united your title to
the crown, with the law and liberties of your people.
"Our exclusion from many of the benefits of that Consti
tution has not diminished our reverence to it. We behold with
satisfaction the felicity of our fellow-subjects, and we partake of
the general prosperity which results from an institution so full
of wisdom. We have patiently submitted to such restrictions and
discouragements as the Legislature thought expedient. We have
thankfully received such relaxations of the rigour of the laws as
the mildness of an enlightened age and the benignity of your
Majesty's Government have gradually produced, and we sub
missively wait, without presuming to suggest either time or
measure, for such other indulgence as those happy causes cannot
fail in their own season to effect.
"We beg to assure your Majesty that our dissent from the
legal establishment in matters of religion, is purely conscientious ;
that we hold no opinions adverse to your Majesty's Government
or repugnant to the duties of good citizens. And we trust that
this has been shown more decisively, by our irreproachable
conduct for many years past, under circumstances of discounte
nance and displeasure, than it can be manifested by any declaration
whatever. " In a time of public danger, when your Majesty's subjects
can have but one interest, and ought to have but one wish and
one sentiment, we humbly hope it will not be deemed improper
to assure your Majesty of our unalterable attachment to the
cause and welfare of this our common country, and our utter
detestation of the designs and views of any foreign power against
the dignity of your Majesty's crown, the safety and tranquility
of your Majesty's subjects.^
" The delicacy of our situation is such, that we do not presume
to point out the particular means by which we may be allowed
to testify our zeal to your Majesty, and our wishes to serve our
' In February of this year, 1778, an offensive and defensive alliance was
formed between France and the United States.

1778.] Address of tite Englisli Catholics. 97
country ; but we entreat leave faithfully to assure your Majesty,
that we shall be perfectly ready, on every occasion, to give such
proofs of our fidelity and the purity of our intentions as your
Majesty's wisdom and the sense of the nation shall at any time
deem expedient.''
This address was signed by the Duke of Norfolk, the
Earls of Surrey and Shrewsbury, by Lord Linton for
the Scotch, by Lords Stourton, Petre, Arundell, Dormer,
Teynham, and Clififord, and by one hundred and sixty-
three commoners.
There is a timidity, not to say obsequiousness, about
this address which cannot fail to strike the reader. No
fault, however, can on this account be found with those
who composed or with those who signed it. English
Catholics had been beaten down by brute force into a
condition in which no language but that of submission
would have been prudent and useful. We were not con
sidered as belonging to the State at all. Anything like a
claim on our part to equality with our Protestant fellow-
subjects would have caused us to be laughed at or rejected
with indignation. Any such demand from us would have
been looked upon much the same as a claim of some
unwelcome stranger in a house to share in the rents of
his host. After a hundred years of gradual relief, and
with the liberty we now enjoy, he would be a foolish man
amongst us who should complain of the too-submissive
style of the address. Still, it is open to some remark. In
the first paragraph there is unnecessary praise of the
revolution which placed William III. on the throne. In
the second paragraph, the word " expedient " is rather
suggestive of the idea that we thought the Legislature
had some excuse for the ferocious laws which were enacted
against the members of the Catholic Church. No Catholic,
under any circumstances, should ever admit that Protestants
VOL. I. H

98 Expediency of Relief. [Chap. hi.
have the smallest reason for asserting that our loyalty is
to be suspected because we are Catholics. And yet
Protestants do assert this, even to this day. We know
that our religion, so far from tempting us to be disloyal,
is a strong motive to the staunch loyalty of which we
boast. And yet we have frequently to listen to the
charge of at least a tendency to be disloyal, from Pro
testants of all parties, and sometimes even from men
whose own loyalty is evidently of so superficial a kind that
we should think it a disgrace that our loyalty should be
compared with theirs. The allusion in the second
paragraph to " relaxation in the rigour of the laws,"
merely referred to a relaxation in the administration and
execution of existing laws, and not to any repeal of
the penal laws. This Act of 1778 was the first legislative
relaxation. The time had at length arrived when in the decrees
of Providence the chains were to be loosened which had
bound our fathers in fetters. The seed of the martyrs,
which had been trodden underfoot, was now to spring
up and blossom and bear fruit. A disposition to treat us
with less severity existed in the minds of many. It was
advisable to unite the people, in face of an American and
European war. It was, therefore, to use the words of the
preamble of the Act, " expedient to repeal certain pro
visions," made in the Act of William III., " for further pre
venting the growth of Papacy." Mark the word " expedient."
Catholics were relieved in 1778, as they have been relieved
at various times since that year, not because our right to
redress was admitted, but because it was expedient. As it
was expedient to relieve us in 1778, so it was expedient
in 1791 ; and it was expedient, it was most expedient, to
prevent a civil war in 1829. It was expedient in 1846 to
include Catholics in the education grant, lest the House

1778.] The Relief Bill of 1778. 99
of Commons should otherwise have rejected the whole
grant. Lord John Russell felt that it was very expedient
then to put Catholics on an equality with others. When
the Irish Church was to be disestablished, it was expedient
to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Act ; otherwise the Irish
Protestant Bishops would have fallen under penalties
which had been enacted to scourge only Catholics. I
will not now multiply instances, though many might be
cited. For the present, it is sufficient to say that when
the united action of Catholics shall make it expedient
to grant to the Irish what they want and what they
reasonably demand, then, but not till then, will their
undoubted rights be obtained.
The bill for our relief was introduced into the House
of Commons on the 14th of May, 1778, ^ by Sir George
Savile, and the motion for leave to bring in the bill was
seconded by Mr. Dunning.
A short account of the debates on this bill in the two
Houses of Parliament cannot fail to interest the reader.
Sir George Savile, on moving for leave to bring in the bill,
began by saying that " one of his principal views in
proposing this repeal was to vindicate the honour and to
assert the principles of the Protestant religion, to which all
persecution was, or ought to be, wholly adverse." As we
Catholics ought to have a great respect for the memory of
Sir George, on account of his having been the very first
member of Parliament to propose a repeal of penal laws,
it is with great satisfaction that we must notice in the
above sentence the words, "or ought to be." If he had
not uttered them, we should have had to accuse him of a
ridiculous paradox. Sir George Savile also said that " the
Act " (that is, the Act of William) " had not been regularly
put in execution, but sometimes it had ; and he understood
' 18 Geo. III. cap. 60.

loo Sir George Savile. [Chap. hi.
that several lived under great terror, and some under
actual contribution, in consequence of the powers given by
it. As an inducement to the repeal of those penalties,
which were directed with such a violence of severity against
Papists, he stated the peaceable and loyal behaviour of
that part of the people under a government which, though
not rigorous in enforcing, yet suffered such intolerable
penalties and disqualifications to stand against them on
the statutes. A late loyal and excellent address, which
they had presented to the Throne, stood high among the
instances which Sir George pointed out, of the safety and
the good consequences which were likely to attend this
liberal procedure of Parliament."
"Mr. Dunning," the solicitor-general, "seconded the
motion." Speaking of the clauses of the Act of William,
he said, " Some of them had now ceased to be necessary,
and others were at all times a disgrace to humanity. The
imprisonment of a popish priest for life, only for officiating
in the services of his religion, was horrible in its nature,
and must, to an Englishman, be ever held as infinitely
worse than death. Such a law, in times of so great
liberality as the present, and when so little was to be
apprehended from these people, called loudly for repeal ;
and he begged to remind the House, that even then they
would not be left at liberty to exercise their functions, but
would still, under the restriction of former laws, be liable
to a year's imprisonment, and to the punishment of a heavy
fine." Mr. Dunning concluded, according to the report, by
saying, " With respect to the encouragement held out by
it " (that is, by the Act) " to those children who were base
enough to lay their hands on the estates of their parents,
or which debarred a man from the honest acquisition of
property, it needed only to be mentioned in order to
excite the indignation of the House." " Mr. Attorney-

1778.] Mr. Dunning and Lord Beauchamp. loi
General Thurlow declared he had no intention of opposing
the bill." He spoke very strongly against that part of the
Act of William which punished a parent for sending his
child to be educated abroad : " To remedy so glaring an
evil required," he said, " little hesitation ; but to repeal the
penalties against popish priests exercising their functions
freely, required some consideration. The House was first
to determine how far they thought it safe to allow the free
preaching and teaching of that religion. When this point
had been settled. Acts would be framed accordingly." This
last sentence of Thurlow's helps us to understand the
difiference in the position of Catholics in England between
the times when the Queen's grandfather had been reigning
for eighteen years, and the days of her present Majesty,
whom may God long preserve.
Lord Beauchamp next spoke, and made some observa
tions which it is half cheering, half sad to read even after
the lapse of a hundred and seven years. He " expressed his
satisfaction that the motion was not likely to meet one
dissentient voice ; and it gave him the more pleasure at
this time, as he thought the commercial advantages that
Parliament now meant to bestow on Ireland, would be of
very little use to that country unless they were accompanied
by a repeal of their penal laws, which so long depressed
three-fourths of the people there ; and this bill, he hoped,
would, when passed, be an example to the Irish Parliament,
in whose power it was to give that relief to their brethren ;
and he was sorry to say he thought, though their faith was
in some degree pledged for the efifect of some such measure,
that nothing had yet been done for that people. They
had begged to have a test of loyalty and obedience to the
Government given them — that test was made and taken
by a large and respectable number of Roman Catholics,
yet nothing had yet been granted them in return for

I02 Lord Beauchamp. [Chap. ill.
that test : ' nay, more ; when a bill had been brought into
the Irish Parliament to allow Papists to take building
leases in corporate towns, that most reasonable indulgence
was ungenerously refused them. Something," he said,
"might be suggested in excuse with relation to the late
disturbance in the south-west part of Ireland, but he
assured the House he never knew a Roman Catholic of
property in that country who did not express the greatest
abhorrence of those violences ; and he was convinced that
it was want of employment, want of industry, and want of
reward for labour, that caused them : and he concluded
with a declaration that he did not think the little indulgence
which was now proposed to be given the Roman Catholics
of this kingdom should be accompanied by any test, as he
was sure that any member who read over the Act of King
William, would think that in repealing it he was not so
much employed in conferring favours on the Catholics
as in rescuing the statutes from disgrace." If the states
men who have governed Ireland since the year 1778
had possessed the sense and wisdom implied in Lord
Beauchamp's speech, and had acted accordingly, no two
people in the world would have been more united than
the English and Irish. Mr. Henry Dundas, who was then
lord advocate, and afterwards became Lord Melville,
" informed the House that the Acts intended to be repealed
were made before the union of England and Scotland, and
therefore the repeal would not extend to Scotland, as a
statute had taken place in their own Parliament, nearly
in the same terms, and which he would bring in a motion
to repeal." These few words of Mr. Dundas are worthy of
being recorded, as the announcement which he then made,
that he contemplated the repeal of the Scotch Act, was
' This test was the one provided by the Irish Act of 1774, as recorded in
the first chapter.

1778.] Mr. Ambler and Mr. Turner. 103
the origin of the riots in Scotland in the following year,
1779, and of the celebrated Gordon riots in London in the
year 1780.
After Mr. Serjeant Adair had said a few words in
support of the motion, it was agreed to nem. con}
"On the I Sth of May, the bill being brought in and
read a first time. Sir G. Savile moved the second reading."
Only two speeches are reported in Hansard. They are
both characteristic as showing how differently men looked
upon the penal laws, and in what opposite views Catholics
were regarded. They are, therefore, well worthy of the
reader's attention.
" Mr. Ambler thought that the whole system of our
penal laws should be revised : infinite and well-grounded
were the objections against them, and whatever might
have been the cause for which they had been enacted, he
was satisfied that none existed now. A committee ought
to be appointed to examine into the penal code, and see
what parts of it ought to be repealed ; but as that must
necessarily take up a great deal of time, being a business
of very great importance, and the session being so far
advanced, he thought it would be proper to defer the
further consideration of the bill to next year. He insinu
ated, however, that some restraint should be laid on the
Catholics. He had no objection to giving them security
for the quiet possession of their estates — those who now
enjoyed any might be confirmed in them, and their heirs,
as Catholics, declared capable of succeeding to them
without being obliged to conform, in order to secure
themselves from informations, or against the mean attacks
of Protestant relations on their property — but he wished
' The report of the debates in both Houses is taken from Hansard's
" Parliamentary History," vol. 19, pp. 1137-44. The expression " a statute
had taken place" in Mr. Dundas' speech shows the loose style of reporting in
those days.

I04 The Bill passes the Commons. [Chap. ill.
that the bar which Parliament had formerly thought
proper to lay in the way of any future acquisition of
landed property might not be removed : let them enjoy
what they have, but let them not increase their possessions."
These bigoted and tyrannical words called up a Mr. Turner,
who said that "he detested the cruel policy that reduced
men, by nature free, to a state of slavery. Religion," he
said, " had always been an engine in the hands of power
to enslave mankind ; he wished to see all his fellow-
subjects free. Catholics and Dissenters alike, and a
universal toleration established by law. The Catholics
of this country were amiable, worthy citizens ; they lived
on their estates, improved them, spent the produce of
them at home, and daily exercised the most voluntary
and generous acts of charity among those who resided
on or near their estates. Their charities knew no bounds ;
and by all their actions he declared they had manifested
a behaviour highly worthy both of good citizens and good
Christians." "The bill was read a second time, and afterwards
passed the Commons without opposition."
On the 25th of May the bill came on for the second
reading in the House of Lords. The Bishop of Peter
borough (Dr. John Hinchclifife) said, "As a friend to civil
and religious liberty, I am free, my lords, to own that
I think there ought to be neither penalty nor restraint
on the intercourse between God and a man's own con
science. I cannot, therefore, but disapprove of all laws
which are calculated to oppress men for their religious
persuasion ; and to tempt any one with views of interest
to trespass on his duty and natural affection, by depriving
his father of his estate or supplanting his brethren, is
a policy, in my opinion, inconsistent with reason, justice,
and humanity. At the same time, my lords, permit me

1778.] The Bill in the Lords, 105
to say, I am not so ignorant of the genius of popery as
not to know it is a very difificult matter to consider its
religious principles altogether distinct from that political
superstructure which has been raised upon them, and to
the support of which, I cannot but fear, that should
occasion ofifer, they might still be made too subservient."
What the political superstructure was in the mind of
the bishop I cannot pretend to say. His lordship could
not have meant the sympathies of any Catholics with the
House of Stuart, for, in the first place, thirty-two years
after the battle of Culloden, the title of George III., dejure
aswell as de facto, was admitted by all ; and, in the second
place, Jacobite tendencies had shown themselves quite as
strongly amongst Protestant Tories as amongst Catholic
Tories, and the Anglican religion quite as much as the
Catholic Church would have been open to the charge
of bearing an objectionable superstructure. Perhaps the
good bishop did not know exactly what he meant. In
the course of his speech the Bishop of Peterborough said
he wished the bill "had been brought in sooner in the
session, that it might not appear to be hurried through
both Houses ; but," he added, " there might be particular
circumstances which might make delay inconvenient."
These particular circumstances were the alliance, ofifensive
and defensive, between France and the United States,
which, as we have seen, England regarded as a declaration
of war. After the Bishop of Peterborough, " the Marquis
of Rockingham, who was afterwards prime minister, said
a few words, to show that the repeal of these clauses would
but relieve a very dutiful and loyal part of the King's
subjects from hardships which it was disgraceful for any
government to inflict."^ The Earl of Shelburne, who
' Four years afterwards, that is, in 1782, Lord Rockingham became prime
minister on the resignation of Lord North.

io6 Lord Shelburne, [Chap. III.
also became a prime minister on the death of Lord
Rockingham, made an interesting speech. According to
Hansard, he "followed the noble marquis" (that is,
Rockingham) "upon the same grounds, wishing that
restraints similar fo those now about to be repealed had
not reduced three-fourths of the people of Ireland to a
state of wretchedness, tending equally to alienate their
affections from this Government, and to prevent an influx
of wealth from that country to this. He wished that, with
a hberal toleration of religion, there should be given to a
people who had demeaned themselves so well, a security
and free disposal of their property. Further than this he
would not venture to hint at or approve ; and as the
present bill did not go beyond that, or indeed so far,
he wished it should neither meet with opposition or delay.
He went a little into the history of the penal clauses,
which the Act was intended to repeal, and observed, that
when they were first proposed in Parliament nobody
approved of them, yet nobody had spirit enough to oppose
them. He adverted to the case of a Mr. Malony, a priest
of the Roman Catholic persuasion, who had been appre
hended and brought to trial by the lowest and most
despicable of mankind, a common informing constable of
the city of London.^ He was convicted of being a popish
priest, and the court were reluctantly obliged to condemn
him (shocking as the idea was) to perpetual imprisonment.
His lordship was then in ofifice, and although every
method was taken by the privy council to give a legal
discharge to the prisoner, neither, the laws then in force
would allow of it, nor dared the King himself to grant
him a pardon. He, however, with his colleagues in office,
were so perfectly persuaded of the impolicy and inhumanity
' This was the Mr. Malony whose trial and conviction at Croydon was
alluded to in Chapter II.

1778.] The Relief given by the Act. 107
of the law, that they ventured to give him his liberty at
every hazard."
"The bill was read a second time, and afterwards
passed without opposition."
Lord North, who was prime minister at this time, either
did not speak in this debate, or, having spoken, his speech
is not reported in Hansard. His mind was perhaps too
full of the American war to give much attention to the
rights, as British subjects, of a few English Catholics.
The bill having passed into an Act, it is time to give
the reader a short account of its details. It repealed only
those clauses of the Act of William which related to the
prosecution of Catholic "bishops, priests, and Jesuits;"
which subjected any Catholic keeping a school to per
petual imprisonment ; and which disabled any Catholic
from taking real property by descent or purchase, and
gave such property to the nearest Protestant next of kin.
It will be observed that the relief given by these clauses
was precisely the relief which was most necessary at the
time : the clauses of the Act of William which were
repealed were those under which Catholics had lately
suffered. And if it be said that there were still left on the
statute-book other laws which made it criminal to exercise
ecclesiastical functions and to keep Catholic schools, the
answer is, that those unrepealed statutes did not work
the same grievance as did the Act of William ; for under
the latter any informer could prosecute, whereas under the
former, either the informer was not entitled to a reward,
or the prosecution could only be by the attorney-general.
It will also be noticed that the Act of 1778 did not repeal
the whole of the Act of William III. It left untouched
the clause which forbade a parent or guardian to send a
child beyond the sea to be educated in the Catholic
religion, and which, on conviction, gave to the informer

io8 Relief given by the Act, [Chap. HI.
a reward of .^loo. To this penalty, therefore, all Catholics
subjected themselves who continued to send their sons and
daughters to Douay, St. Omer's, Liege, Bruges, and the
other English colleges and convents which were not
dissolved until the time of the French Revolution. The
Act of 1778 also left unrepealed the clause which enabled
the lord chancellor to order a maintenance for the
Protestant child of a Catholic parent. As Mr. Butler
remarks, every pain, penalty, and disability inflicted by
other Acts remained, after the passing of this Act, in all
their force against us. But, as Butler continues to observe,
"though the legal benefits which the Catholics derived
from this Act were limited, the advantages which they
derived from it in other respects were both substantial and
extensive. It shook the general prejudice against them
to its centre ; it disposed their neighbours to think of them
with kindness ; it led the public to view the pretensions to
further relief with a favourable eye ; and it restored to
them a thousand indescribable charities in the ordinary
intercourse of social life, which they had seldom ex
perienced. No Catholic, who recollects the passing of the
bill, "will ever forget the general anxiety of the body,
while it was in its progress through the Parliament, or
the smile and friendly greeting with which his Protestant
neighbour met him the day after it had passed into a
law."^ The same author also says that "in consequence
of this Act, Catholics mixed more with their Protestant
brethren, and, becoming better known to them, dissipated
their anti-Catholic prejudices. Still, to a certain extent,
' Manserunt veteris vestigia ruris.'
The efifect of a defamation of two centuries could not be
undone in a moment."^ Many moments have passed
' "Historical Memoirs,'' vol. iii. p. 294, edition of 1822. ^ Ibid., p. 353.

1778.] Reception of the Act by Catholics. 109
since 1778 ; several Relief Acts have been passed ; many
things have been done to restore our rights to us ; still the
efifects of a defamation of now three centuries is continually
checking complete justice, and is for ever drowning the
voice of the Holy Spirit calling upon the English people
to return to the Church.
The manner in which this Act was received by our
ancestors will perhaps best appear in the two following
pastorals of the English Vicars Apostolic, which cannot
fail to be interesting to the reader : — ¦
" To all the Catholic clergy, both secular and regular, residing
in the Southern District of England.
" Dear Brethren, — The great Apostle St. Paul, writing to
his beloved disciple Timothy,' and in him instructing all Christian
pastors of souls, desires first of all, that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and thanksgivings (Eucharists) should be made for
all men, for kings and all diat are in high station and authority ;
that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all goodness and
chastity. For this is good, saith the Apostle, and acceptable in
the sight of God our Saviour. It is a duty we owe to our princes
by His Divine ordinance, and the very principal part of that
honour, which we are to give them, which is so much insisted upon
in the Word of God.^ Wherefore, dear brethren, that both you
and we may religiously comply with the most indisputable precept
of God's own law, we take this occasion of addressing these lines
to you in this public manner, requiring that all and every one of
you should offer up your most ardent prayers to the Almighty,
for our most gracious Sovereign King George III. and his Royal
Consort Queen Charlotte, and all their royal family, and also
that in your respective congregations (when you shall be able to
meet, without danger to yourselves or your flocks from the many
grievous penal laws which stand out against the Catholics of this
kingdom) you shall recommend the rest of the faithful to offer
up also their prayers for the same intentions : this being a duty
' I Tim. ii. 2.
2 Romans xiii. ; i St. Peter ii. 13, seq.

IIO Reception of the Bill by Catholics. [Chap. III.
which by the law of God all Christian people owe to their respec
tive sovereigns.
" Given at London this 4th of June, 1778.
-t- Richard Deboren. V.A."
-1- James Birth.^
" Published and signed also for the Midland District.
-I- John Philomel. V.A.'
-|- Thomas Aconen.*
" Published and signed also for the Northern District by
-I- William Trachon. V. A." ^
" To the Catholic clergy, secular and regular, residing in the
Western District of England.
" Dear Brethren, — The duty of praying for sovereign
princes is fully recommended by the two great Apostles SS. Peter
and Paul ; and it has been the constant practice of the Christians
from the first ages of the Church, as all ecclesiastical records
testify. Moreover, the Roman Catholics of this kingdom have
at this present time a further inducement to the same, arising
from the extraordinary favour newly granted to them by the Act
of Parliament On these motives, therefore, we think it necessary
to require that you offer up your fervent prayers to the Almighty
for our most gracious Sovereign King George III., his Royal
Consort Queen Charlotte, and all the royal family, and that you
recommend the same to your respective flocks. We ordain that
on all Sundays to the last Collect be added, Etfamulos tuos, etc.,
as in the London District. Let a memorial of the King by name
be made every day in the Canon. Lastly, after the Divine
Service in the morning on Sundays add Psalm xix., and the
prayer as in the London District. The great humanity of
Government towards us suggests a propriety of behaviour on our
part, in using the present indulgence with caution, prudence, and
moderation. We, therefore, strongly recommend to you that
line of conduct, and to be careful in avoiding what may tend to
raise disputes or give offence. 4- Charles Ramaten.V.A." ^
Bath, July 3, 1778.
' Dr- Challoner. 2 e^. James Talbot.
= Dr. Hornyold. ¦¦ Dr. Thomas Talbot. = j)^ Walton.
« Dr. Walmesley, O.S.B. He was a. learned mathematician, and had a
great reputation both in England and on the Continent. His assistance and
advice were made use of by the English Government, when the change was
made from the old style to the new style.

I II

CHAPTER IV.
REMARKS SUGGESTED BY THE ACT OF 1 778.
It has been noticed that Catholics were relieved not
because relief was an act of justice, but because it was
expedient to pass the Act. We English Catholics, who
love our country at the same time that we love our religion,
are naturally inclined to look favourably on the actions of
our countrymen, and to judge well of their motives. To
attribute bad or inferior motives where it would be rash
judgment to do so, would be as foolish as it would be
wrong. Such conduct on our part would not escape obser
vation, and it would help to defeat one just object we have,
namely, to amalgamate as much as possible with our
fellow-countrymen, whenever we can do so without sacri
ficing religious principle. Our wish is to be thoroughly
English, as well as thoroughly Catholic ; in the same
manner, it is the wish of the Irish to be thoroughly Irish,
as well as thoroughly Catholic. It is our desire, therefore,
to be just to all ; and it is our inclination to look rather at
the bright side than at the dark side of what is said about
us, or done in our regard. Still, we must not ignore the
existence of the dark side. If we Catholics of England
are to act with credit to ourselves, we must understand our
position. We must know what is thought of our religion.

1 1 2 Remarks suggested [Chap. IV.
and of our actions as Catholics. We must not shrink from
admitting those motives which evidently prompt the treat
ment which we receive. When we obtain relief, when we
are given an instalment of our due, is it because those who
favour us love our religion ? is it because they love justice
in the abstract, and, having no very defined faith themselves,
allow equal liberty to all .'' or, on the contrary, when Parlia
ment passes an Act for our benefit, is the chief motive of
action expediency — that it is expedient to grant what we
ask .-" Is there a general desire in the nation to allow no
difiference between Catholics and Protestants, merely on
account of the difference in our religion .¦• When men talk
of wishing to put us in every respect on an equality with
others, do they regard us as forming part of the family,
and therefore as strictly entitled to share in all the rights
of children? or do they not rather look upon us as favoured
strangers admitted to equal rights with the family.? Do
those who are friendly to us still look upon the Church and
Catholics as simply tolerated in England, or do they admit
that the Church has as much right to stand upon English
ground as Protestantism has .? Are we Catholics considered
to be debarred from any civil right whatever because we
are Catholics ? Then, again, what are our relations with
the dififerent parties in the State ? Can any one party be
said to be favourably disposed to us, or at least so well
disposed to us that we can afiford to be ofif our guard?
Can we be as certain of the intention of any one party to
support the principle of perfect equality, as the reformers
in Great Britain were certain of the support of the Whigs
in the year 1832 ? Are we as sure of the advocacy of any
one great statesman as Mr. Cobden was sure of the advo
cacy of Sir Robert Peel in 1846? If we can rely on any
party or on any man, on which party is it, or on which
man ? Is there any large section of the Tory party which

1778.] by the Act of 1778. 113
hates our religion, and would keep us down as much as
possible.? Is there any portion of the Whig party which
has drifted so far down into continental Liberalism that
their detestation of Catholic principles makes them, so far
as they have power, more dangerous to us, and more
opposed to our liberties, than two houses full of Inglises
and Eldons ? On the answer to these questions depends
our position as it is regarded by those who make the laws.
On our position as it is in itself and as it is regarded by
others, depends our attitude in the State, and our course of
action in all political questions.
There can be no doubt that we are not in all matters as
free and as equal to others as we ought to be. The Catho
lic interest and the Protestant interest in Great Britain are
not twin sisters ; they are not related one to the other :
they are opposed to each other. Hence we must always
be expecting an attack, and be ready for defence. It
follows, also, that we must be ready ourselves to attack
whenever an opportunity shall arise. An attack of the
Catholic interest upon the Protestant interest is merely a
use by Catholics of those constitutional means which we
have by law in common with others, in order to obtain
equal rights, many of them being rights which in theory
we possess, but which in practice we do not. If we cannot
obtain our rights because it is just that we should have
them, we must, as far as we can, make it expedient to our
adversaries to grant them. The difiference between giving
us relief because it is just and giving us relief because it is
expedient, is clearly to be noticed at the very commence
ment of the Relief Acts. The word " expedient " in the
preamble to the Act of 1778 was meant in its strict sense.
It implied, and was intended to imply, that we had not a
strict right to relief, but that under the circumstances it
was a proper thing to relieve us. If Parliament considered
VOL. L I

114 Remarks suggested [Chap. IV.
that it was a gross injustice to us that an apostate in a
family should be able to seize the inheritance from his
elder brother, why were those cases excepted from the
operation of the Act in which an acrion had been com
menced, especially as a private Act had lately been passed,
to prevent in one instance the prosecution of the monstrous
claim ? Again, if it was considered unjust that a priest or
a schoolmaster should be imprisoned for exercising their
ofifices, why did the Legislature repeal the Act which sub
jected them to imprisonment for life, and leave unrepealed
the Act under which they might be imprisoned for a year ?
Mr. Dunning used this argument with the House to
induce it to pass the bill — that priests and schoolmasters
would still remain punishable by law. And the reader
will remember, in the report of Mr. Dunning's speech,
the following words : — " He begged to remind the House,
that even then" (that is, after the passing of the Act)
"they" (priests and schoolmasters) "would not be left
at liberty to exercise their functions ; but would still,
under the restriction of former laws, be liable to a year's
imprisonment, and to the punishment of a heavy fine."^
The words of Mr. Pitt in 1805, which have already
been quoted, and which may be taken as expressing the
ideas of a large majority of both Houses, leave no doubt
that the motive for relieving us was because it was expe
dient, and not because it was our right.^ The sentiments
of the members of the Houses of Lords and Commons
towards us no doubt represented the sentiments of the
vast majority of Englishmen. The state of the law and the
state of feeling towards us after the passing of the Act of
' Annual Register for 1778. Butler's "Historical Memoirs," vol. iii.
p. 292, ''¦ Mr. Pitt said that he could not allow that the question of relief should
be discussed as a claim of right, but on the ground of expediency alone.

1778.] by tJie Act of iTj?,. u5
1778, account for the caution and prudence enjoined upon
Catholics in the pastoral letters of the bishops. It is true,
as we have heard from Mr. Butler, that many sincere
friends of the Catholic cause were rejoiced at their relief
But the great majority of the people continued to look
upon Catholics with distrust and disfavour. As it was
then, so it is now. There may be some who, having them
selves an attraction to the Church, regard us with favour.
There may be some of the Liberal party who, from a broad
sense of justice, look upon us as Burke and Fox did. But
making allowance for the modifications in opinion which
a hundred years have produced, hatred of the Church, and
the manner in which Catholics are regarded, are pretty
much the same as they were a hundred years ago. At any
rate, our position is such that we have distinct interests to
be guarded, definite points to be defended, and undoubted
rights to be gained. We should, therefore, be always pre
pared. A thoroughly good understanding between clergy
and laity, and the hearty co-operation of both, are, in the
first place, absolutely necessary in order that we may keep
the ground we have gained, and advance towards the
enjoyment of all our rights. And this brings us to the
next reflection which is suggested by the Act of 1778.
Dr. Milner, speaking of the Act of 1778, says, "What
rendered it more remarkable was, that it took place without
opposition in Parliament, or dissension among the Catholics
themselves. The latter circumstance was chiefly owing
to the proper conduct of the Catholic leaders, in timely
submitting the religious part of the bill to the judgment
of their prelates ; and to the religious, honourable, and
straightforward conduct of William Sheldon, Esq., a gentle
man of ancient family, who acted as secretary on the
occasion." ^ The committee formed at this time to watch
' " Supplementary Memoirs of English Catholics," p. 42.

1 1 6 Remarks suggested [Chap. IV.
for the Catholics the bill of 1778 was, I believe, the first
committee which conducted our afifairs in relation to the
Government. From the few words I have just quoted
from Dr. Milner, it would appear that the action of that
committee was precisely what the action of every Catholic
committee should be. The special interests which we
have arise from the fact that we are a minority of Catholics
living in the midst of a large majority of Protestants, who
possess almost exclusively the legislative and executive
power of the country. Our special interests, therefore, are
always connected with our religion. From this it follows
that our clergy, and especially our bishops, form an
essential part of that council, if I may use the expression,
which has to decide what course of action we should follow
in any matter affecting us as Catholics. When matters of
doctrine are in question, the bishops and clergy are the
sole judges, subject, of course, to the supreme authority
of the Holy Father. The laity have no right to decide
what we can take and what we can give, nor to make any
compromise, nor to effect any arrangement with any party
in the State, nor with Government in any matter in which
doctrine is concerned. As all our Catholic affairs touch
religion in some way, the bishops and clergy must have
a voice not only in those matters in which they are
supreme, but also in all subsidiary questions. There are,
however, some matters which can most properly be left
chiefly, if not entirely, to the laity. This arises from the
fact that matters which we should call matters of religion,
are treated by English statesmen as merely matters of
politics. For example, we should say that it is a matter
of religion that instruction in the Catechism should form
an essential part of education. If we make a claim
grounded on this principle, the Ministry upon whom we
make the claim will look upon it as a question of pohtics.

1778.] by the Act of ijj?,. 117
and consider whether it will be politic to grant what we
ask. We have, therefore, in our relations with the Govern
ment, to manage matters of religion in the same way as
we, in common with others, should manage any other
question of politics. If, for instance, we wished to obtain
a repeal of those clauses of the Emancipation Act which
make it penal for men to take the vows of religion, we
should have to take the same means, or some of them at
least, as Englishmen would take to obtain a repeal of the
corn laws. Bills, motions, and questions in Parliament,
deputations to ministers, the organization of committees,
the calling of public meetings, the preparation of petitions
and declarations and addresses, and all the details of the
ordinary working of what we call an agitation, — all these
things are the proper work of the laity, subject of course
to the approval, in those matters where it is necessary or
advisable, of our bishops and clergy. It is the duty, in
other words, of the Catholic laity, subject to that super
vision which they understand so well, to take advantage
of all the means which English liberty places at their
disposal, to obtain our rights in those matters which
concern our special interests. The Catholic laity should
keep in mind two things : first, that they are the laity ;
secondly, that they are Englishmen. If they remember
that they are laymen, they will not encroach on the
dominion of the clergy, by deciding matters which only
Churchmen should decide ; and they will at the same time
show by their activity that they understand their duties
as laymen, and do not consider religion merely as a matter
of interest to the clergy, but as the most precious gift they
possess, to be kept and guarded as carefully as any of the
liberties which they enjoy as Englishmen. And they must
remember that they are Englishmen, in order that they
may act as Englishmen ; work as Englishmen are wont to

1 1 8 Remarks suggested [Chap. IV.
work when they have an object to obtain ; and show that
energy and perseverance in prosecuting a cause, that open,
straightforward, bold course of action, that rejection of
unnecessary secrecy, and that love of wholesome publicity,
which are so characteristic of our race. An imaginary
instance will show what I mean.^ Let us suppose that
any society or committee which might deal with Catholic
interests were to consider, after due deliberation, that the
time was come when we should try to erasd from the
statute-book that foul blot which stains the great Emanci
pation Act — the clauses against Religious Orders. The
committee, we will suppose, comes to the decision that
the time has come. They send two or three of their
members to the Home Ofifice or to the Premier, or perhaps
one member of the committee offers to go alone, to test
the feeling of the authorities. The deputation (I will
suppose that it consists of two or three persons) seeks and
obtains an interview with the ¦ minister, and opens the
matter to him. "Take care what you are about, gentle
men," he says ; " take care what you are about. For
goodness sake don't moot that question. You'll have
Newdegate up, wi|;h a motion against the nunneries, or
asking for a royal commission to inquire as to the number
of Jesuits in England." The wily minister, who naturally
dislikes anything which will cause an outcry against what
he does, succeeds in dejecting the members of the deputa
tion ; and then, not to alienate them too much from his
party, he adds some words of comfort : " Wait a little,
gentlemen ; wait a little. The time is not ripe yet for
meddling with the Emancipation Act : your best plan is
to be quiet and bide your time ; we shall not be hard on
• A case which has not occurred, and which I am afraid is not likely to
occur, is purposely taken, in order that it may not be supposed I am con
demning a course which may have been taken in any particular matter.

1778.] by the Act of i'/'j?>. 119
your friends in the mean time." The deputation goes back
to the committee, and the word henceforth is, " Hush,
hush ! we must not bring forward this question just yet."
The minister may have said a very true thing when he
said that the country was not prepared for the change
proposed by the deputation. And no doubt, after five
years from that time, he would say the same thing with
equal truth, and again after another lustrum. But whose
fault is it that the country is not prepared to purify the
Emancipation Act, or to allow some other right to us
which might be more easily obtained than a repeal of the
penal laws against Religious Orders ? It is our own fault,
because we have not prepared the country by continually
keeping up our protest and our claim, and letting every
one know that we cannot submit to oppression, when by
energy and perseverance we can get rid of the grievance.
No doubt prudence will sometimes suggest secrecy ; but
secrecy in the prosecution of a claim which an Englishman
demands as a right, must be the secrecy of prudence, and
not that secrecy which is only meant to conceal action,
for fear it should be criticized as not sufficiently energetic.
It must be the secrecy of wisdom, and not the secrecy of
pusillanimity. All that is done to obtain what we want
should be done by a body of men, clergy and laity, well
known to represent the Catholics of England. No one
person, no two or three unauthorized and unknown persons,
should undertake to settle a matter which can only be
settled well when it is conducted as Englishmen are
accustomed to conduct their afifairs.
The committee which managed on the Catholic side
the bill of 1778, acted in the most Catholic and the most
English way. The bishops settled the religious part of
the bill, and then left the laymen to do their work. It is
not a little remarkable that the conduct of Mr. Sheldon

1 20 Remarks suggested [Chap. IV.
in this afifair earned for him the praise of both the two
doughty antagonists. Dr. Milner and Mr. Charles Butler.
And we must remember that at that time Catholics were
obliged to act with the greatest caution. Even after the
passing of the Act, it was not always and in every place
safe to appear publicly either for religious or for civil
purposes. At that time there was a dormant hatred of
us in the country, which only two years afterwards broke
out in the Gordon riots. If Catholics in those days could
act in a religious, straightforward, and manly way, surely
we can do so now. A certain amount of reserve and secrecy
might have been naturally expected of those who could
hardly be said to have emerged from their hiding-places.
But now, after all the liberty we have obtained, we are
expected to act as others act : nothing is looked for in
our conduct which would be the sign of an oppressed
people, or of people who have not a title to every right
which others enjoy.
On the co-operation of clergy and laity depends in great
measure the true spirit of the Church amongst the Catholics
of England. If the laity were to act without the clergy,
they might soon fall into heresy and schism. If the clergy
were to act without the laity, they would be giving Catholic
laymen no opportunity of learning how to use their
liberties as Englishmen in defence of their religion as
Catholics. If laymen were to be excluded, from what we
may call Catholic politics, or not allowed all proper freedom
of action, they would cease to take an interest in Catholic
questions, and would end in ceasing to take an interest in
more vital matters connected with religion. For want of
understanding their position as lay-Catholics in England,
for want of knowledge, for want of practice, they would,
some day, awake to a sense of their exclusion, mistake
their real ofifice in the Church, and, to the scandal of all,

1778.] by the Act of i'jj'6. 121
meddle with matters which they should leave alone.
Whatever faults might now be found in the action of
English Catholic laymen, of this I feel sure — that never
were Catholic men less inclined to interfere with the rights
of the clergy than the English Catholic laity of our day.

122

CHAPTER V.
THE IRISH RELIEF ACT AND THE GORDON RIOTS.
The Irish Act—The riots in Scotland— Scotch and English bigotry— Com
pensation to the Scotch Cathohcs— Petition for compensation — Debate on
the petition— Lord George Gordon — The Gordon riots — Services of
CathoUc priests not appreciated — Human respect and bad manners —
Inconsistency of statesmen — Conduct of Dissenters — The Wesleyan
Methodists.
At the same time that the Act for the Relief of Enghsh
Catholics was passed in 1778, another Act was passed for
the benefit of the Catholics in Ireland. The nature of the
relief given by this latter Act may be stated in the words
of Mr. Butler. It " enabled Roman Catholics who should
take the oath of allegiance prescribed by the former Act,
to hold leases for nine hundred and ninety-nine years, or
determinable upon any lives, not exceeding five. The
lands of Catholics were made devisable and transferable,
and Catholics were rendered capable of holding and
enjoying those which might descend or be devised or
transferred to them." ^
It will be observed that this Act did not extend to
Irish Catholics the same relief which was given to the
clergy under the English Act. But this relief, and more
than this, was given to the Irish by an Act passed in 1782,
in which were contained provisions which discharged from
' " Historical Memoirs," vol. iii. p. 487.

1779.] No-Popery Riots in Glasgow. 123
all penalties such Ecclesiastics as should register their
names and abodes in the manner it prescribed. Another
Act of the same year allowed Catholics to teach schools.^
English Catholic priests and schoolmasters were not
relieved from all penalties until the year 1791.
The Act of 1778 did not extend to Scotland; "and
thereby hangs a tale." It was proposed, as we have seen,
to extend the bill to Scotland ; but the Presbyterians rose
up against the very notion of relief to Papists ; the press
and the pulpit stormed against concession ; the great
majority of the synods passed strong resolutions against
the proposed measure ; a solemn fast was proclaimed in
Glasgow, and on the i8th of October, 1778, the Sunday
following the fast, a mob attacked a small house where
a few Catholics were assembled, and dispersed the
worshippers by pelting them with mud and stones. The
spirit of John Knox, evoked by the modern Pharisees,
stalked the land. The fierce spirit of bigotry gained
strength after the cowardly act of the i8th of October, and
on the 9th of February, 1779, the fanatics plundered and
burnt to the ground the house of a Mr. Bagnal, in which
the Catholics had met occasionally for Mass, after their old
place of refuge had been destroyed. At this point the
magistrates interfered, and order was restored. The Annual
Register for the year 1779 tells us that "the magistrates
and principal inhabitants of Glasgow, being equally
ashamed and concerned that the character and government
of so extensively commercial a city should sufifer under
the imputation and disgrace of such an act of outrage and
persecution, seemed willing, so far as it could be done, to
obliterate every trace of it from the memory. Bagnal
was accordingly speedily acquainted that he should be
reimbursed for every part of his losses to the uttermost
' Butler, ibid.

124 No-Popery Riots in Edinburgh, [Chap. V.
farthing ; and several of the principal inhabitants, in
cluding respectable names among the Protestant clergy,
acquired no small honour by the attention and kindness
which the wife and family of the sufferer experienced from
them, during the immediate pressure of their terror and
distress." ^
But it was not in Glasgow alone that the fanatics
vented their rage against us on account of the proposed
Relief Act. Edinburgh was also the scene of the most
disgraceful proceedings. Bishop Hay had opened a
chapel, which was merely a room in a house in Leith
Wynd. The following circular was scattered about the
city : —
" Men and Brethren,— Whoever shall find this letter, will
take it as a warning to meet at Leith Wynd, on Wednesday
next, in the evening, to pull down that pillar of Popery lately
erected there. A Protestant.
"Edinburgh, yiz^Kary 29, i779-
"P.S. — Please to read this carefully, keep it clean, and drop it
somewhere else." "
The Protestants obeyed the summons, and, in their
eagerness for persecution, anticipated the day and met on
Tuesday evening. They attacked, plundered, and burnt
down the house. On the following day the mob broke
into and plundered another house in Blackfriars' Wynd,
where a priest rented and used a small room as a chapel.
On the evening of the saine day they were proceeding to
execute their vengeance upon Dr. Robertson, the famous
historian, who had supported the cause of the Catholics.
But at this time the Duke of Buccleuch arrived at the head
of the fencibles, who, with the aid of some dragoons,
' Mr. Bagnal had introduced from Staffordshire into Glasgow the manufac
ture of stoneware.
'^ Walsh's " History of the Catholic Church in Scotland," p. 522.

1779.] Scotch and English Bigotry. 125
prevented any further pillage and restored order in the
city. Although the Gordon riots, as the reader will soon see,
were much more serious than the riots in Scotland, yet the
animosity of the Scotch against the Church was, and still
is, much stronger and deeper than that of the English.
By many English Protestants the Church is hated more on
political than on religious grounds, though in the minds of
the majority there is no doubt a great revulsion from the
Church's teaching. But in Scotland the predominating
sentiment is undoubtedly a fierce and, if I may be allowed
the expression, a fiendish hatred of the dogmas of the
Christian Church. Hence the riots in Glasgow and Edin
burgh were purely directed against the Catholics ; it was
the property of Catholics only which was destroyed :
whereas in London the destruction of Catholic property
immediately developed into general licence. Mr. Wilkes,
speaking in the House of Commons in the year 1779, on
the bill for the relief of Protestant Dissenters, said that
"the progress of knowledge in almost every nation had
softened the rigour of their laws respecting religious
worship, or at least had, in a degree, suspended their
execution, Scotland alone excepted." ^
It has been noticed that the magistrates and principal
inhabitants of Glasgow assured Mr. Bagnal that he should
be reimbursed for the losses he had sustained. It would
appear, however, that there was some difficulty in obtain
ing compensation, for on the i8th of March Edmund
Burke said in the House, that he had a petition to present
"from several of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects
of North Britain." Before the petition was brought up,
" Lord North, by his Majesty's command, acquainted the
House that his Majesty, having been informed of the
' " Parliamentary History,'' vol. 20, p. 320.

126 Scotch Petition [Chap. V.
contents of the said petition, recommends it to the
consideration of the House." ^ Then the Perition was
brought up and read : it was a very long one. It is given
at full length in Hansard, and it bears marks which seem
to me to show that Burke himself had a good deal to do
with its composition. The substance of the petition was
a request for compensation, and future protection. The
petitioners approach the House with " the most profound
respect and deference," and they ask for reimbursement
" most humbly, and with the most profound submission."
It gives a graphic account of the way in which the Scotch
people were excited to commit the outrages. It is
extremely humble and forgiving : " We are far, very far,"
they say, " from entertaining a resentment against any one
whatsoever, or from desiring that any person should be
called to account, much less should be punished, for the
injury done to us ; we forgive from the bottom of our
hearts ; and should any person be taken into custody, or
prosecuted on our account, if we were worthy to be heard,
we should presume to petition in the most earnest manner
for his pardon." The petitioners also say that, " consider
ing the present flame which is raised against " them, they
" cheerfully lay aside all thoughts of asking any relaxation
of the severe laws" against them at that time. The
portion of the petition in which they ask for protection is
worth recording, as showing the condition in which we
Catholics of Great Britain, at least in Scotland, were a
hundred years ago. The words of the petition are as
follows : —
" We most humbly beg leave to assure this honourable House
that this our earnest request for protection is not made without
the strongest reason, for the same unprovoked enemies who
have hitherto persecuted us in so cruel a manner, far from being
' "Pari. Hist.," vol. 20, p. 322.

1779.] for Compensation. 127
satisfied with their late success, have made it a ground for further
violence. Those who never threatened us without executing their
menaces, have published and dispersed a sort of manifesto, calling
upon all orders of people strictly to enforce the execution of the
most sanguinary laws upon us, denying the authority of Parlia
ment to repeal those laws, or any other laws made before the
Union, threatening the magistrates with the same violence which
they have employed against your petitioners, if they do not cause
them to be executed ; representing those means of banishing and
putting to death your petitioners as their rights and privileges,
and proposing associations against buying or selling, borrowing
or lending, or having any of the ordinary intercourse of society
with those of our religion, and threatening to proceed against all
who shall refuse to join them in those measures, as if they were
Papists ; and they have, in their late violent attempts against some
of the most respectable characters in the estabhshed Church of
Scotland, shown how far they are capable of acting against such
as discover any degree of moderation in their sentiments : in a
word, nothing can be more deplorable and (without the effectual
aid of the Legislature) more hopeless than our condition."
Such were the terms in which loyal British subjects had
to address their own House of Representatives. Perhaps no
portion of the petition shows more completely the abject
condition of the Scotch Cathohcs than those words in
which they say, " if we were worthy to be heard." This
needs no comment. The reader should notice the recom
mendation to the House from the King to consider the
petition. With only superficial knowledge, a Catholic
might be inclined to look unfavourably upon George III.,
merely because he opposed the final Emancipation Bill ;
but, as a matter of fact, he was the first to begin and to
develop our emancipation, and, up to the point of ad
mitting Catholics into Parliament, he was to us by far the
most liberal sovereign, indeed, the only liberal sovereign,
who had governed England up to that time.
The petirion having been read, Burke proposed that it

128 Scotch Petition. [Chap. V.
should be referred to a committee. He probably made a
long speech ; but as the report of it in Hansard is very
short and contains an amusing incident, I will give it in
full. " He showed the absurdity of the arguments used by the
Scotch in justifying their violent conduct, and exposed the
supineness of Government upon the attacks of the Scotch rioters
on the peace and property of his Majesty's subjects in that part
of the empire. He hoped that Government was not dead, but
only asleep. At this moment he looked directly at Lord North,
who was asleep, and said, in the Scripture phrase, "Brother
Lazarus is not dead, but sleepeth." The laugh upon this occasion
was not more loud on one side of the House than on the other.
Even the noble lord alluded to seemed to enjoy the allusion as
heartily as the rest of the House, as soon as he was sufficiently
awake to understand the cause of the joke." ^
As the remainder of the debate as reported is not long,
and as it possesses some interest, the reader will probably
like to see it.
" Lord Beauchamp was for granting the request of the peti
tioners. " Lord George Gordon spoke against the expediency of giving
toleration to the Roman Catholics of Scotland, equal to that
allowed to the same sect in England and Ireland.
"Mr. Fox said the Roman Catholics of Scotland were not
only entitled to compensation for their losses, but that it became
the honour and humanity, as well as the dignity, of Parliament
to repeal the penal laws against them, and not be deterred by
little insurrections in a small corner of their empire from doing
an act of common justice.
" Lord North declared that he thought compensation should
be made, and would be most ready at any time to give his sup
port to such a measure, if he were not decidedly of opinion that
voluntary compensation was infinitely more eligible than that
which was compulsory. He had been well informed that due
' "Pari. Hist.," vol. 20, pp. 226, 227.

1779.] Lord George Gordon. 129
recompense was intended to be made by the magistrates of the
district in which the mischiefs were committed; he thought it
prudent to defer any further proceeding in the business till the
result of their measures should be known ; he therefore thought
it best to move the previous question."
" The previous question was then put, and carried with
out a division ; after which the petition was ordered to lie
upon the table." ^ The speech of Lord George Gordon on
this occasion was, as far as appears from Hansard, the first
which he made in the House of Commons against con
cessions to Catholics. He made his second speech on the
same subject on the Sth of May. The sentiments and
expressions which he uttered on this occasion ought to
have warned the House that he was a dangerous fanatic.
Some of his phrases were certainly treasonable. He con
cluded his speech with two motions : one, that the petition
presented by Burke on the i8th of March should be
"thrown over the table;'' the other, "that all further pro
ceedings on the said petition be postponed to this day
three months."^ No member could be found to second
the motions, and consequently the Speaker refused to put
the questions.
From a passage in Lord George Gordon's speech, it
would appear that previous to the presentation of the
petition by Burke, the celebrated Dr. George Hay, V.A.,
of the Lowland District of Scotland, and to whom Lord
George gives his proper title of " Lord Bishop of Daulis,"
had circulated two editions of a memorial amongst the
members of the House of Commons.
But the comparatively liberal feelings expressed by
many of the members of Parliament was no index of the
sentiments of the English people. For the flame which
had been kindled in Scotland spread to England. " Then
' " Pari. Hist.," vol. 20, p. 327. '' Ibid., p. 623.
VOL. I. K

130 The Gordon Riots. [Chap. v.
of a sudden," to use the words of Lord Stanhope, " like
a meteor rising from the foulest marshes, appeared those
fearful riots, to which the most rank intolerance gave
origin, and Lord George Gordon a name. Then the mid
night sky of London was reddened with incendiary fires,
and her streets resounded to the cry of an infuriated mob ;
then our best and wisest statesmen had to tremble, not
only for their lives, but for their hearths and homes ; then
for once in our annals the powers of government and
order seemed to quail and succumb before the populace of
the capital in arms." ^
Lord George Gordon gave notice at a public meeting
that on Friday, the 2nd of June, he would present a petition
to the House of Commons against concession, and for a
repeal of the Act of 1778. He invited the petitioners to
meet him on that day in S. George's Fields, which they
accordingly did to the number of over sixty thousand.
They marched to Westminster, and maltreated on their
way to the Houses every member who was not known to
be opposed to the Catholics ; and to such an extent did
they carry their brutal conduct, that many of the peers
appeared in the House of Lords with their clothes torn
and covered with mud and filth. The authorities did not
interfere. A certain madness seems to have seized upon
the mob at the very commencement of the riots, giving
to their conduct the appearance of diabolical possession ;
for they accused of being Catholics several members of
Parliament who were well known to be staunch Protestants.
About nine o'clock in the evening the Foot Guards
appeared upon the scene ; but it was only to enable the
House of Commons to divide. The House adjourned.
The rioters rushed off to the two chapels of Warwick
Street and Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, both of which they burned
' "History of England," a.d. 1780.

1780 ] Tlie Gordon Riots. i x i
to the ground, some soldiers coming up too late to prevent
the mischief. On Saturday evening there was a renewal of
the rioting, but it did not lead to anything serious. But on
Sunday evening, owing to the weak conduct of Kennet, the
lord mayor, the fanatics again assembled and pillaged
Moorfields Chapel and the dwelling-houses of several
Catholics in the neighbourhood, making a bonfire in the
street of all the church and domestic furniture they could
lay their hands on. On Monday afternoon a Privy Council
was held, but nothing further was done to stop the rioting
than to ofifer a reward of ;^5oo for information as to the
men who had fired the chapels of the ambassadors. In
consequence of the little notice taken of the disturbances
by the authorities, the mob determined to continue them.
On Monday evening they destroyed the chapels in Wap
ping and East Smithfield, and pillaged the house of Sir
George Savile, who had, as we have seen, introduced and
carried through the bill which resulted in the first Relief
Act of 1778. At this period of the riots the life of Burke
was threatened, and this great philosopher and orator, than
whom, Mr. Butler says, the Catholics never had a more
able or more sincere advocate, was obliged with his family
to take refuge with his military friend. General Burgoyne.
On Tuesday the two Houses met under the protection
of the Guards ; but the riots were continued in various
parts of the town. Lord North's house was attacked, and
saved by a party of soldiers. Newgate prison was attacked,
taken, and burned to the ground, all the prisoners gaining
their liberty.^ Clerkenwell gaol was also attacked, broken
into, and all its inmates released. The houses of three
magistrates were attacked and gutted. At midnight a
fierce gang broke into the house of Lord Mansfield, in
' Some of the rioters of Friday evening had been committed to Newgate,
hence the fury of the mob against the prison.

132 The Gordon Riots. [Chap. v.
Bloomsbury Square. The lord chief jusrice was pardcu-
larly obnoxious to the rioters, on account of his charge
to the jury at the trial of Mr. Webb. The family had
barely time to escape : pictures, furniture, the books of a
valuable library, manuscripts, and everything else the house
contained, were thrown out of the windows, piled up in the
square, and burned. Several other prisons were attacked
and the prisoners released. The mob had found wine in
Lord Mansfield's house ; and they proceeded to attack a
distillery belonging to Mr. Langdale, who was a Catholic.
The horrors of drunkenness and its effects were now added
to the fury of fanaticism. "It might be said," observes
Lord Stanhope, " with but slight exaggeration, that for two
days the rabble held dominion in the town. It might be
said, in the eloquent words of Gibbon, an eye-witness to
these proceedings, that 'forty thousand Puritans, such as
they might be in the time of Cromwell, have started out of
their graves.' " Thus things went on until Wednesday
evening. One remarkable circumstance of these riots was the
absence of all effectual means to suppress them. The
means, indeed, were present, but they were not used. At
the pillage of Moorfields Chapel, the lord mayor and the
military stood looking on ; the latter, indeed, with loaded
muskets, but joining in the cheers and huzzas of the mob.'
In the same way, at the pillage of Lord Mansfield's house.
Lord Stanhope says, " Strange as it may appear, all these
outrages were committed in the hearing, and almost in the
sight, of a detachment of Foot Guards, which had arrived
at nearly the commencement of the fray. But they had
been restrained by the doubts which then prevailed,
whether the troops had any legal right to fire upon the
' " A Dispassionate Inquiry into the Cause of the Late Riots in London,"
pp. 14, 15.

1780.] The Gordon Riots.

133

mob, unless a magistrate were present first, to read forth at
full length all the provisions of the Riot Act. When a
gentleman, a friend of Lord Mansfield, went to the ofificer
in command, requiring him to enter the house and defend
it, the ofificer replied that the justices of the peace had all
run away, and that consequently he could or would do
nothing. When at length a magistrate was caught and
made to mumble through the clauses, the soldiers did
advance and fire two volleys. It was then too late.'' In
fact, the King, the chief magistrate, was deserted by his
subordinates ; his servants, both civil and military, refused
to act. The members of the House of Brunswick are
remarkable for their personal courage. George III. was
no exception in this respect, and he showed himself
equal to the crisis. Rising from a council, at which
Wedderburn alone supported him, the King exclaimed,
" There shall be, at all events, one magistrate in the king
dom who will do his duty." His Majesty issued a procla
mation, warning all peaceably disposed persons to keep
within doors, and ordering the military to act without
waiting for directions from the civil magistrates. The
rioting was going on ; but on that Wednesday night " two
hundred persons were shot dead in the streets, and two
hundred and fifty were lying wounded in the hospitals, of
whom seventy or eighty within a short time expired."^
The next morning, Thursday, the Sth of June, the Gordon
riots were at an end.
Another circumstance well worthy of the remembrance
of all, and especially interesting to Catholics, was the con
duct of our clergy and laity during those six fearful days.
This matter is so well and chivalrously expressed by Mr.
Burke in the speech to the electors of Bristol, from which
I have in the course of this history so often quoted, that
' Lord Stanhope's " Histoiy of England."

134 Edmund Burke on the [Chap. v.
the reader will willingly pardon a somewhat long extract.
Speaking of the riots, the orator said, " There was one
circumstance (justice will not sufifer me to pass it over)
which, if anything could enforce the reasons I have given,
would fully justify the Act of Relief, and render a repeal,
or anything like a repeal, unnatural, impossible. It was
the behaviour of the persecuted Roman Catholics under
the acts of violence and brutal insolence which they
suffered. I suppose there are not in London less than
four or five thousand of that persuasion from my country,
who do a great deal of the most laborious work in the
metropolis, and they chiefly inhabit those quarters which
were the principal theatre of the fury of the bigoted
multitude. They are known to be men of strong arms
and quick feelings, and more remarkable for a determined
resolution than clear ideas or much foresight. But though
provoked by everything that can stir the blood of men,
their houses and chapels in flames, and with the most
atrocious profanations of everything they hold sacred before
their eyes, not a hand was moved to retaliate, or even to
defend. Had such a conflict once begun, the rage of their
persecutors would have redoubled. Thus, fury increasing
by the reverberation of outrages, house being fired for
house, and church for chapel, I am convinced that no
power under heaven could have prevented a general con
flagration ; and at this day London would have been a
tale. But I am well informed, and the thing speaks it,
that their clergy exerted their whole influence to keep their
people in such a state of forbearance and quiet as, when
I look back, fills me with astonishment ; but not with
astonishment only. Their merits on that occasion ought
not to be forgotten ; nor will they, when Englishmen come
to recollect themselves. I am sure it M'ere far more proper
to have called them forth and given them the thanks of

1780.] Services of the Priests. 135
both Houses of Parliament, than to have suffered those
worthy clergymen and excellent citizens to be hunted
into holes and corners, whilst we are making low-minded
inquisitions into the number of their people ; as if a
tolerating principle was never to prevail, unless we were
very sure that only a few could possibly take advantage of
it. But, indeed, we are not yet well recovered of our fright.
Our reason, I trust, will return with our security ; and this
unfortunate temper will pass over like a cloud."
But the cloud did not completely pass by. It became
less black and dense, and the lightnings which it discharged
were not so destructive. Even to this day the atmosphere
over our heads is not clear. The tolerating principle does
not wholly prevail ; our Protestant fellow-countrymen have
not completely recovered from their fright. Our priests
have never been called up to receive the thanks of both
Houses of Parliament ; but they have been frequently
called up to hear the false witness which is still from time
to time borne against them, that they are not loyal-
During the last hundred years. Catholic priests have
preached nothing but loyalty, when instructing their flocks
in their duty to the State. In the year 1848, the preaching
of the Catholic priests was to some practical purpose, when
it prevented a rebellion in Ireland which might have taken
the whole power of England to quell. Is the teaching of
the Catholic priests in the matter of loyalty of no use even
at the present day? Would any minister of state be
answerable for peace in the British Isles, if he did not feel
assured that Catholic priests are the trustiest guardians of
the loyalty of the people and the truest supporters of the
throne ? And yet we have still to hear from those very
ministers themselves, charges which show that the merits
of our clergy are forgotten as soon as earned. It is only
a few years since a foremost statesman in England wrote

136 The Gordon Riots [Chap. V.
a series of pamphlets for the express purpose of raising a
cry over the whole country, that priests and their flocks
were not loyal. There never was amongst any people a
greater delusion, there never was a greater falsehood
uttered, than that the Catholic clergy and laity of
England are not loyal. If any occasion were to arise
on which the loyalty of the English people would be
tested, her Majesty would find that "popish bishops,
priests, and Jesuits" would be the staunchest supporters
of her throne. They have always been so, and they will
always be so. This we always proclaim. Our voices may
be drowned in the din of those who hate our faith, but we
shall persevere in the cry ; and history will be our witness
to the truth.
The Gordon riots were the most violent and destructive
eruption of a volcano which is not yet extinct. It broke
out with violence in 1807 ; with diminished violence in
1829 ; also when, in 1846, Sir Robert Peel made permanent
the grant to Maynooth ; and again, with somewhat fiercer
energy, when his Holiness Pope Pius IX. replaced us
in the hierarchies of the Church. It may burst forth
again. We can never be secure, so long as the great
mass of the English people entertain the same idea of
the Church, and the same hatred of her doctrines, as they
do at present. The ignorance of the British people of
everything belonging to the Catholic religion, their mis
chievous delusions regarding it, and their intense bigotry
against it, are far too valuable instruments in the power
of the enemy of mankind, not to be made use of when
God shall permit him to do so. What greater enemies
can the Church have than ignorance, delusion, and bigotry ?
And are the enemies of the Church accustomed to let her
rest in peace ? Amongst the few there is more accurate
knowledge, juster views, and less bigotry ; but in the

1780.] an Eruption of a Volcano. 137
mass, covered over with a thin layer of toleration, the
old fire exists. Can we, then, afiford to slumber as if there
were no danger ? Can we exult as if the fire were at last
burned out ? We must thank God for the security we
enjoy ; but we must at the same time resign ourselves to
the thought that, while the disposition of the people
remains as it is, what has happened before may happen
again. The number of Catholics may increase, but
opposition will increase in proportion. England may, in
God's good providence, be again a Catholic country ; but
it will be through many, many tribulations. In the mean
time, we are British subjects, entitled to all the liberties
and rights of Britons. These liberties and rights must
subserve the greatest of causes : they cannot do this
unless we allow ourselves to be the instruments in the
hands of God. We cannot co-operate with Him in the
manner we may and ought, unless we co-operate amongst
ourselves. Union, co-operation, and organization — these
are the means which we must oppose to the union, co
operation, and organization of our enemies. Religion
is a cause common to English, Irish, and Scotch Catholics.
Any one who should contribute, even in a small degree, to
promote union amongst us, would be a benefactor to the
best of causes, and deserve the thanks of all.'
Mr. Burke's praise of the conduct of the Catholic
clergy during the Gordon riots has given occasion to
speak of their loyalty, and the little credit they got for
it. It cannot be doubted that the firm adherence of our
' I am conscious of having given a very meagre account of the Gordon
Riots. The best historical account is, perhaps, that of Lord Stanhope : it is
certainly better than that in the Annual Register. The best impression of the
horrors of the time will be made by the perusal of "Barnaby Rudge." By
reading also Lord Stanhope's history, the reader will be able to separate the
true facts from romance in Mr. Dickens's novel. Since the above was written,
the Rev. A. Mills's veiy interesting "History of the Riots in London in the
year 1780" has appeared, and to which the reader is referred.

138 Services of the Catholic Priests [Chap. V.
clergy to the cause of law and order is a mainstay of
peace, and of the present order of things in the British
Isles. We need not speculate as to what would happen
if the clergy, especially in Ireland, were as disloyal as they
are often said to be. The certain result is so well known,
that the conviction that the result will not happen because
the cause does not exist, must form one of the greatest
consolations of a British minister. Anything which
disturbs the even course of political life : a display
threatening physical force ; a serious riot, especially if
it be occasioned by some question of general interest ;
still more, anything looking like a tendency to rebellion
— any one of these things is what a minister most cordially
dislikes. What he is most inclined to favour is that
which favours law and order, and tends to keep people
quiet. Why, then, are Catholic priests constantly held up
to the public, and spoken of as not being loyal, and as
teaching disloyalty to their people ? Why are they not
acknowledged and treated as promoters of law and order?
Why are they not praised and favoured as the great
supporters of the public peace ? Some years ago a well-
known member of the House of Commons, of great
influence with his party, and who is still alive and in
Parliament, though a very old man, said in private
conversation, that no good would ever be done in Ireland
until the influence of the priests should have been de
stroyed ; the fact being, that the destruction of the influence
of the priests in Ireland would probably lead to the
greatest of England's troubles during the present century.
Why should he have said what he did? When a man is
inclined to do good, he should be allowed freedom to
speak and act. The preaching and teaching of a Catholic
priest is calculated to promote the very, state of things
which a minister likes best. Why, then, should the late

1780.] not Appreciated. 139
Lord Derby, the leader of the Conservatives, have said
in the House of Lords that he was for " keeping the dog
muzzled " ? Why, we may again ask, should Lord John
Russell, in 1850, have spoken and written of the establish
ment of the hierarchy in terms so unnecessarily offensive
as to evoke the warning voice of Dr. Murray, the very man
whom the minister trusted as the great promoter of peace
in Ireland ? Many other instances might without much
trouble be collected, to show how the language of needless
insult is used against the Catholic clergy, by those who in
their hearts know that they are the great supporters of
peace and order. How are we to account for this ? A
motive with some is that intense hatred of the Church
which can only be accounted for when we attribute it to
the same source as that which is constantly tempting men
to heresy and schism. Hatred affects the intelligence, and
destroys the action of sound common sense. Fanaticism
in a man who is half mad produces a Lord George
Gordon ; fanaticism in a sane man impels him to act
against his better judgment, though he may stop short
of burning down Moorfields Chapel, opening the doors of
Newgate, and attacking the Bank of England. We have
no sufficient reason, however, for attributing this diabolical
hatred of the Church to the majority of those ministers
who of late years have had charge of public afifairs. There
is another motive, and one more generally diffused, always
in active operation, and as strong, if not so violent in its
action, as the one to which I have alluded. This motive
is human respect ; the fear of acting against public
opinion. Men who would admit the principle that a
country can be best governed by doing justice to all,
are afraid to do justice to Catholics, for fear of what the
public will say of their acts. Where they would do
nothing opposed to their principles as Protestant ministers

140 Human Respect and Bad Manners. [Chap. V.
by granting relief to Catholics, men will refuse that relief,
lest it should be said they are, to use the cant phrase,
"favouring the growth of Popery." This human respect
is a motive of action amongst Protestants in every class
and station. If a member of the House of Commons,
whether a minister or a private member, has to speak in
favour of some demand for equal government on behalf of
Catholics, he generally thinks it necessary to use some
hard and offensive words against the Church. A Duke of
Argyll, for instance, cannot protest in the House of Lords
that he is in favour of an equal administration of the poor
law without telling their lordships that he hates the
Catholic system. A duke may hate the Catholic Church
without publicly announcing it; and, judging from his
words and actions, no one would suppose the present
Duke of Argyll to be favourably inclined to the Church,
though he should not use the word "^^hate " when speaking
of our religion. But those who know how to measure their
words by the standard of good manners still find it
necessary to guard against all suspicion of a leaning to
the Church, by protesting against any inference of the
kind from the fact that they advocate our claims. An
English Protestant cannot speak well of CathoHcs without
its being supposed that he is going to become one. It is
the knowledge that this conclusion will be drawn which
shuts the mouth of many a man who would utter words of
peace, and not of afifliction. To such an absurd length
is this disposition to judge rashly in this matter carried by
the English people, that a writer cannot treat an historical
subject with truthfulness, if it relates to Catholics, without
laying himself open to grave suspicion, if not to censure.
Many of us can remember, and all may know by reading
Foster's "Life of Dickens," that after the publication of
"Barnaby Rudge,'' it was at once said that the popular

1780.] Human Respect in Ministers. 141
novelist was going to become a Catholic, and this
merely because he had founded an interesting story on
the Gordon riots. It has been already noticed how a
member of Parliament or a tradesman would lose his seat
or his business by becoming a Catholic ; and so, a man
in either of those classes would considerably endanger his
future prospects, only by being a prominent advocate of
our claims. We have not alone to complain that public
opinion is against us, but also of that human respect,
which causes public opinion to produce such an effect on
those who have to make and administer the laws. Against
this we ought loudly and perseveringly to express our
sense of the wrong which it causes us to sufifer. In God's
good time, some minister will perhaps arise who will defy
public opinion in this matter, who will not look unfavour
ably on a man because he is a Catholic, nor on a question
because it is a Catholic question ; and who will not allow
the frown or the clamour of the public to bully him into
partiality and injustice. When such a man of moral
courage and influence shall arise amongst us, we shall
see that the tyranny of the multitude has as much
cowardice in it as the tyranny of a single individual ;
the advance of bigotry will recede before bold action ;
and even the generation in which he shall live will applaud
the conduct of the man who will have united the people
of the British Isles more firmly than they have ever been,
during the last three hundred years. It is sad to look
back upon the last fifty years, and see the efifects of human
respect in the conduct of those who have ruled England
as ministers of the Sovereign. Great good has been
prevented, and great wrong has been done in England
itself But when we look to Ireland, it is lamentable to
see the effects of that policy which yields to public opinion
against the better judgment of legislators, and which has

142 Inconsistency of Statesmen. [Chap. V.
not only been unjust, but foolish and impolitic in the
extreme. We often hear it said that Ireland is a chief
difficulty of an English minister. But why is Ireland
a chief difificulty ? It is because the Irish are not content
under the government of their rulers. And why are they
not content ? Because, being Irish and Catholic, they are
governed by a public opinion which is English and Protes
tant. No statesman has yet had sufificient impartiality
or sufificient moral courage to govern Ireland as a Catholic
nation. Hatred of the Church in some, human respect
in others, has well-nigh spoilt all they have done. Of
what avail is it to be the advocate of equality ; of what
use is it to make, for instance, an " appropriation clause "
a party question, and then write a letter denouncing " the
mummeries of superstition ? " ^ Such a man could never
give peace and content to Catholic Ireland. To have
disestablished the Irish Protestant Church is a great boon
to Ireland, no doubt ; but if that boon is followed by a
series of pamphlets, to prove that Catholics cannot be loyal
to the Queen because they believe the Holy Father to
be infallible in spiritual matters — the man who can do
both these things in succession will never content a
Catholic country. No man, and no set of men, will ever
succeed in governing well the Catholics of the Queen's
dominions, of whom it may be said, " In quorum manibus
iniquitates sunt : dextera eorum repleta est muneribus." ^
If from the year 1829, the year of the Emancipation
Act, our public men had not been under the influence
of English public opinion, if they had governed Ireland
as a Catholic country according to Irish and Cathohc
opinion, instead of English and Protestant opinion, the
' Lord John Russell's Durham Letter.
'^ " In whose hands are iniquities : their right hand is full of gifts "
(Psalm xxv.).

1780.] English Public Opiition. 143
Irish would have been well contented to be ruled by
an Imperial Parliament, and would never have asked for
a separate Government for themselves; the words, "tithe
massacre," " wholesale evictions," " agrarian outrages,"
would never have soiled the pages of England's history ;
the repeal agitation of 1843, the abortive rising in 1848,
the Fenian insurrection of 1868, the Home Rule movement,
and the non-payment of rent scheme, would never have
been heard of Why should a London rabble be able to
compel a chancellor of the exchequer to withdraw a
threatened tax, while the call of a whole nation cannot
obtain its rights in the great question of education ? The
reason is the same in both cases. English public opinion
decides, and has its own way. What would the English
think if they were governed by men wholly under the
influence of what Irish Catholics would say to their
measures ? Would they be content ? Then, how can we
expect the Irish to be content? Let a bold English
minister, in his government of Ireland, brave English
public opinion consistently and perseveringly, and the
result would be the defeat of an unholy and cowardly
tyranny on this side, and peace and content on the other
side, of St. George's Channel.
Nor can we English Catholics acquit ourselves of all
blame in this matter : we must to a certain extent share
reproach. The English public opinion which rules the
destinies of Ireland is not, if I may use the expression,
a simple substance. It is a compound of two ingredients.
It is made up of what is English and what is Protestant.
It is a combination of national prejudice and religious hate.
Of prejudice against Ireland because it is Catholic, of
course we English Catholics have none, and therefore we
are perfectly free from that element of prejudice which
is the most noxious and the most deadly. But are we

144 National Prejudice. [Chap. v.
so free from the other portion of the compound ? Is there
no unreasonable national prejudice in our minds ? Is there
not rather a sufficient quantity of it to prevent us from
steadily opposing as we ought, however small our numbers
may be, the more oppressive influence which religious
combined with national prejudice exercises in the affairs
of Ireland? It ought to be our boast not only that we
never join in any cry against Ireland, but that we con
tinually protest against the Sister Isle being governed
by English opinion. Our voice, though weak in com
parison with that of the majority of the English people,
has still some strength in it ; it is quite strong enough
to be heard ; it is loud enough to prevent complete unison
in the chorus ; it is sufficient to attract attention ;' and will
be accepted as a protest, if overpowered as a vote. It has
been noticed in a former chapter that it is our duty to
value the power and influence of Ireland, for they are the
power and influence of the Church in the United Kingdom.
If we do not sufficiently value our strength in Ireland, let
us consider whether our indifference to so great a power
is not the effect of national prejudice with which we, as
well as our fellow-countrymen, are afifected.
Another reflection suggested by the Gordon riots is
upon the conduct of the Presbyterians and the Dissenters.
Dr. Aikin writes that "the liberal spirit displayed in the
relief granted in the last session" (the session of 1778)
"to the Roman Catholics, encouraged the Dissenters to
apply for a further exemption to their ministers and
schoolmasters, from the penalties to which they still by
law remained liable. A bill for the purpose was moved
in the House of Commons by Sir Henry Hoghton, and
seconded by Mr. Frederic Montague ; and the opposition
\o it was so inconsiderable, that a motion by the repre
sentative of the University of Oxford, for putting it ofif

1780. J Conduct of the Dissenters. 145
for four months, was supported by only sixteen votes
against seventy-seven. It passed without difficulty through
the Lords, and received the royal assent in the course of
the session." ^ And Lord Stanhope, in his account of the
Gordon riots, alluding to this relief granted to the Dis
senters, says, "It had been hoped, in the course of last
year" (1779), "that some indulgence to the Protestant
Dissenters might be the best means to lessen or divert
their rancour against the Roman Catholics, and to con
vince them that no exclusive favour was intended to
these last. With such views, nearly the same measure of
relief from subscription which the Lords had rejected
by a large majority in 1772, and again in 1773, passed
their House in 1779, when transmitted from the Com
mons, and, it is said, without debate. The indulgence
was accepted, but the rancour was not removed. This
plainly appeared from the great popular support with
which even the wildest projects of Lord George Gordon
were received." ^
The rancour which, according to Lord Stanhope, the
British Parliament was anxious to allay, had shown itself
in the riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow ; it had also assumed
a threatening form in the formation of the " Protestant
Association," which had been got up for the express
purpose of opposing any further relief to Catholics, and
of obtaining, if possible, the repeal of the Act of 1778. For
the origin of the Protestant Association, I will quote
Dr. Milner, who was in his twenty-seventh year at the
time it was formed, who received threatening letters
in 1780, and was, as he tells us, indebted for protection
to a strong military guard. Speaking of the Act of 1778,
he says, "Which, however small in itself, was as great
' "Annals of George HI.," vol. i. p. 234.
^ "History of England," A.D. 1780.
VOL. L L

146 The Wesleyan Methodists. [Chap. V.
as the temper of the times would bear. For now the
green-eyed monster of religious jealousy, who had so long
slept over his unresisting prey, at the first appearance
of its escape from his cruel fangs, began to rouse himself
to all his native fury. The pulpits of the lower sort,
particularly those of John Wesley and his associates,
resounded, and the presses of the metropolis groaned,
with hypocritical lamentations on the pretended increase
of Popery, and the fatal consequences to be apprehended
from the late indulgence granted to its professors ; a
religion which, it was asserted, had slain its thousands
by its cruelty, and its tens of thousands by its ignorance.
By these and other inflammatory harangues, a society was
collected together at the beginning of the ensuing year,
1779, under the title of The Protestant Association, pro
fessedly instituted on the plan of similar associations in
the last century, and particularly on that of the ' Solemn
League and Covenant,' which produced the murder of the
King, and the subversion of the Constitution. The pretext
which was held out to the public . . . was the preservation
of the civil constitution and the Protestant religion, by
petitioning Parliament for a repeal of the late Act. ... In
the course of the same year, an appeal from the Protestant
Association to the people of England was published and
dispersed all over the kingdom, inviting the people to
form similar associations in the different counties. . . . At
a general meeting towards the close of that year," 1779,
"it was unanimously resolved, that, 'on account of the
noble zeal for the Protestant interest, which had dis
tinguished the parliamentary conduct of Lord George
Gordon, he should be requested to become the President
of the Association.' The 2nd of June, in the year 1780,
will be ever memorable in the history of this country, for
the presentation of the grand petition of the London

1780.] The Wesleyan Methodists. 147
Associators to the House of Commons by Lord George
Gordon." 1
In the early part of the year 1780, John Wesley wrote
a " Defence of the Protestant Association," an inflammatory
production, in which, amongst other things, he said that
" an open toleration of the popish religion is inconsistent
with the safety of a free people, and a Protestant Govern
ment ; and that every convert to Popery was by principle an
enemy to the Constitution of this country T ^ Wesley, about
the same time, also wrote a letter to one of the newspapers
to prove by a series of ridiculous syllogisms, that "no
Government, not Roman Catholic, ought to tolerate men
of the Roman Catholic persuasion." To prove that the
Act of 1778 meant the toleration of Catholics, he says
that Catholics understood it as such, and that this was
shown by their preaching openly, building chapels at Bath
and elsewhere, raising seminaries, and making converts.
This letter and the defence of the Protestant Association
were so incentive to violence, that Milner calls Wesley
" the chief author of the riots in 1780." ^
We need not wonder, then, that the Wesleyan Methodists
have always been amon st the most bitter enemies of the
Church. Their founder was not only an enthusiast, but
a firebrand. One of his first principles was. No toleration
to Catholics ; he inculcated it in his followers, and he
urged it by actual persecution. Hatred of the Church

1 ttl

' Letters to a Prebendary,'' end of letter vii.
^ The words I have put in italics will remind the reader of Mr. Gladstone's
words in 1874 : " No one can become a convert without renouncing his moral
and mental freedom, and placing his civil loyalty and duty at the mercy of
another." So much progress has Protestant intelligence made in a hundred
years !
3 "Inquiry into certain vulgar opinions about Ireland,'' note at the end
of letter iii. Wesley was ably answered by the witty and eloquent O'Leary ;
but his defence of the Church was no protection against the excited passions
of the multitude.

148 The Wesleyan Methodists. [Chap. V.
may be said to be almost as much of the essence of
Methodism, as hatred of Christianity is of the essence
of Mohammedism. Hence there are very few converts
amongst the Methodists. The anti-Catholic riots of 1779
and 1780 were, as we have seen, the work almost entirely
of Presbyterians and Dissenters ; and Presbyterians and
Dissenters are to this day the most obstinate maintainers
of heresy, and the most determined haters of God's Church.
This is shown in England by an extreme unwillingness
on the part of Dissenters, especially of the Methodists,
to listen to the voice of truth ; and it is shown in Scotland,
amongst the Presbyterians, by the instinctive horror which
they seem to have of everything Catholic, I might almost
say of everything Christian, and the rudeness with which
they show it by word, look, and gesture. In the Church
of England, as a Church, it is impossible, indeed, for a
Catholic to see anything respectable ; but amongst the
members of the Church of England there are many who
not only lead blameless lives, but are gradually preparing
themselves to receive the truth. It would seem as if God
were in these days ofifering a very great grace to thousands
in the Church of England. We should help them by our
prayers.

( H9 )

CHAPTER VI.
THE ACT OF 179I.
The Committee of Five— Letters of the Committee to Ihe Catholics of England
and to the Vicars Apostolic— The Committee and Milner— The Committee
of Ten— The Protestation— The oath proposed by the Committee— The
bishops condemn the oath — The schismatical protest— Milner attacks
the Committee— Milner defeats the Committee— The passing of the bill of
1791— Relief given by the bill of 1791- Religious Orders under the Act
of 1791 — Further relief given by the Act.
The next act which was passed for the relief of English
Catholics was in the year 1791. But during the interval
between the Act of 1778 and that of 1791, questions of
great interest occurred both amongst Catholics themselves
and between Catholics and their parliamentary friends.
The history of these questions presents itself in a double
aspect to the historian. From one point of view, we see
much to regret ; from another, much to be proud of The
great and laudable desire on the part of some amongst us
to share with our fellow-subjects the hberties of Englishmen,
led to imprudent and indiscreet actions, and even in a few
instances to what I am afraid must be called schismatical
conduct. But the policy and the plans of this party were
completely foiled by the vigilance and determination of
others amongst us, at the head of whom stands the
illustrious Milner. It is to the sorrow and regret of their
grandchildren that the ancestors of some of us behaved as
they did ; but it is, and ever will be, the glory of the Church

150 The Committee of Five, [Chap. VL
of England that their action raised up the doughty
champion to whom we owe our unfettered liberties, and
who will share in history, along with O'Connell and the
Irish, the praise of having ensured our complete emancipa
tion. In the proceedings of the Catholic Committee, and
subsequently of the Catholic Board, we have most signal
instances of the way in which good is brought out of evil.
The evil done was transient; and though it kept up
dissensions amongst Catholics for many years, it never
attained its chief object, and completely died away several
years before the great Act of Emancipation passed. But
the good done was far greater in proportion than the evil.
It was substantial and it was triumphant ; it lived on with
increasing strength, and, as we shall see in the course of
this history, it lasts to this day, and is the solid foundation
on which the liberties of the Church stand in the United
Kingdom. I will begin by giving, in the words of Mr.
Charles Butler, an account of the formation and object of
the English Catholic Committee in 1782.
" In the year 1782, Lord Stourton, Lord Petre, Mr.
Throckmorton (afterwards Sir John Throckmorton), Mr.
Thomas Stapleton, and Mr. Henry Hornyold, were
appointed, at a general meeting of the English Catholics,
'to be a committee for five years, to promote and attend to
the afifairs of the Roman Catholic body in England.' " *
Husenbeth, in his " Life of Milner," calls the meeting at
which the committee was appointed "a meeting of certain
Cathohcs."^ Husenbeth no doubt changed the word
" general," in " Butler's Memoirs," into the word "certain,"
in order to throw suspicion on the representative character
of the meeting. How far Mr. Butler was justified in
calling it a general meeting, can only be determined by
' " Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. p. 2.
== "Life of Milner, "p. 21.

1782.] The Committee of Five. \ 5 [
looking at a list of the names of those gentlemen who
attended it ; this list I have never seen. In the manner in
which the committee was formed there was probably nothing
objectionable. As the committee was to deal with Catholic
affairs, the bishops should have been consulted beforehand,
or at least made aware of the intentions of those who called
the meeting, in order that their lordships might give their
opinion on the prudence of the action proposed. There
exists no published document which proves that the bishops
were consulted as to the holding of the meeting, or the
formation of the committee ; at the same time, there is no
published document which proves that the bishops were
not so consulted. Many committees of English Catholics
since that time, and some of them which have had most
important work on hand, and have received the highest
ecclesiastical sanction in England, have been originated
and formed by laymen, and then submitted to ecclesiastical
authority. These committees have often not assumed a
representative character, until after several weeks or months
the adhesion of individual Catholics throughout England,
has at length given that character to them.^ Dr. Milner,
indeed, seems to insinuate that the committee had no
representative character whatever. Alluding to the fact
that in Butler's first edition of his " Memoirs," there is no
reference to the committee of 1782 and their proceedings,
Milner says, " Was it because this pretended committee of
the Catholics had no commission whatever from any one
except themselves ? " ^ It can hardly, however, be supposed
that what Butler calls " a general meeting of the English
Catholics," and Husenbeth " a meeting of certain Catholics,"
1 The committee formed in the year 1850, which drew up the address to
Cardinal Wiseman, called a public meeting, and composed the " declaration,"
which was sent to every member of Parliament, is a case in point.
2 " Supplementary Memoirs of the English Catholics," p. 47.

152 The Committee of Five. [Chap. VL
had no existence ; and if it existed, the committee would
have represented at least those Catholics who were present
at it, and voted for the formation of the Committee. It is,
perhaps, probable that Milner, being under a deep sense of
the very objectionable proceedings of the committee, was
anxious to throw a doubt on its representative character.
The object of this committee as expressed in its appoint
ment was not open to objection. It was " to promote and
attend to the afifairs of the Roman Catholic body in
England." If it had done this in the proper sphere of
laymen, as I have endeavoured to explain that sphere in a
former chapter, it might have been a most useful body of
men. But, unfortunately, they forgot their own duties and
invaded those of others. Hence a soiled page in the history
of English Catholics ; for, to quote the words of Milner,
writing in the year 1820, "Here properly begins that
system of lay interference and domination in the ecclesiasti
cal affairs of English Catholics which . . . has perpetuated
disorder, divisions, and irreligion among too many of them
for nearly the last forty years." ^
I will now proceed to what this Committee of Five
actually did, and will give, in the first place, Mr. Butler's
account. " A variety of circumstances," he says, " pre
vented them making any particular exertions in the cause
entrusted to them ; the only measure of this description
which engaged their attention was a plan for procuring
the Catholic ecclesiastics in this country to be formed into
a regular hierarchy, by the appointment of bishops in
ordinary instead of vicars apostolic. . . . The first step
of the committee was to ascertain the expediency and
practicability of the measure. So far as it was a spiritual
concern, it belonged to the cognisance of the Vicars
Apostolic. The committee therefore addressed a letter
' " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 47.

1783. J Letter to the Vicars Apostolic. 153
to each of the four Vicars Apostolic, most respectfully
stating their own views, and requesting his opinion upon
the subject. It appeared from the answers that their
opinions differed ; the committee upon this account
dropped the measure."^ This letter was dated May 24,
1783, and was signed by all the five members of the
committee. We will now see how Dr. Milner describes this letter.
He says, " The paper in question contains a series of
assertions highly derogatory to the spiritual government of
the vicars apostolic, which rest entirely on the authority
of those few laymen, and on the theological learning of
their juridical secretary.^ These assertions are accom
panied with an ofifer of theirs (the laymen), ' to aid and
support in taking such measures as may be effectual to
constitute them (the VV.A.) with full power of ordinaries,
in order that the frequent recurrence to Rome for dis
pensations and other ecclesiastical matters might cease.'
There is no doubt that the recurrence to Rome each time
a new bishop was to be made, constituted the first head
of our five laymen's projected retrenchment. They may
be excused from the intention of schism, by their igno
rance of theological matters ; but how daringly pre
sumptuous must their scribes and advisers have been ! " ^
Milner wrote these words in the year 1820, thirty-seven
years after the matter occurred upon which they are a
comment. It is impossible, therefore, to suppose that
they were not written with a deep conviction of their
truth. It was his deliberate opinion that the committee
wished to bring about a state of things in England in
which bishops in ordinary would be appointed without
' "Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. pp. 3, 4.
2 The secretary to the committee was Mr. Charles Butler.
' " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 48.

154 Letter to the Vicars Apostolic. [Chap. VI.
any recurrence to Rome. It must be to this that he
alluded when he says in effect, that the intentions of the
committee were at least materially schismatical. The
words of the committee in the short extract quoted above
from Dr. Milner, however presumptuous they may have
been, do not, in the absence of external proof, contain
anything schismatical. The words, " and other ecclesias
tical matters," might be taken to mean matters in which
the ordinary powers of a bishop would exceed the powers
of a Vicar Apostolic, unless there was a reason to suppose
that something else was meant. ^ Had Milner any reason
to believe that more was meant? He wrote, of course,
with the knowledge which subsequent events afiforded.
One member of the committee, as we shall see hereafter,
did, in the year 1790, write several pamphlets, " the object
of which," to use the words of Husenbeth, in his Life of
Milner, " was to persuade the clergy and laity that they
had a right to choose their own bishops, and procure their
consecration by any bishop, without reference to the Pope."
This was clearly schismatical, though, as Husenbeth says,
" it is probable that the layman was not aware at first
of the real character and tendency of his system, and he
little expected the burst of indignation with which it would
be received." ^ This layman was John, afterwards Sir
John, Throckmorton. There was also a priest who had
been writing some most objectionable works ; they con
tained schismatical doctrine, and in one case were heretical.
' I am not aware that the letter of the committee to the Vicars Apostolic, of
May 24, 1783, was ever published, nor even that it was ever in print. It is
not inthe " Blue-books." Milner, writing in 1820, says of this letter, it " now
lies before the present writer." Milner was then Vicar Apostolic of the Mid
land District, and no doubt the letter lying before him, and which indeed he
calls "an original paper," was the copy of the manuscript letter which was
sent by the committee to Bishop Thomas Talbot, Milner's predecessor in the
Midland District.
2 " Life of Milner," p. 28.

1787.] Letter to the Catholics of England. 155
This man was the Rev. Joseph Berington, at one time
chaplain to Sir John Throckmorton, and under whose
influence in this matter Sir John may be supposed to have
been. There were also one or two other members of the
committee whose opinions on the question of the appoint
ment of bishops were open to grave suspicion. It was, no
doubt, from the full knowledge of this that Milner has left
to posterity his deliberate judgment that the words " and
other ecclesiastical matters " included, in the minds of the
lay committee, the election of bishops.
Besides the letter to the Vicars Apostolic, the com
mittee addressed a printed letter to the Catholics of
England, dated London, April 10, 1787. Mr. Butler, in
his " Memoirs," makes no allusion to this letter. Dr.
Milner, however, speaks of it in his " Supplementary
Memoirs," and after the words we have quoted above
respecting the daring presumption of " the scribes and
advisers" of the committee, he says, "The same thing
maybe said of a printed letter of the same committee
dated April 10, 1787." And after giving an extract from
the letter, Milner writes as follows :— " This letter (though
it bears intrinsic evidence of the pen that wrote it) might
certainly pass for a speech of Mirabeau, in the French
National Assembly, particularly where it insinuates that
the people have an equal authority with their pastors
in regulating every part of the Church discipline, and that
they are competent to make whatever changes they please,
in conformity with the laws of the State, without either
Pope or Council ; yet it is seen by its date to have pre
ceded that schismatical and impious assembly by the
space of two years." This is strong language. It was,
however, written by Milner thirty-three years after the
printed letter w^as addressed by the committee to the
Catholics of England, and may be supposed to express

156 Letter to the Catholics of England. [Chap. VL
his deliberate opinion. On the other hand, we may
suppose that the indignation of the great champion was
excited at the time he penned the above lines ; for his
" Supplementary Memoirs " were written in answer to
Butler's " Memoirs," which had just appeared, and which,
as we have seen, omitted in the first edition all notice of
" the Committee of Five," and throughout the volumes gave
but a defective and one-sided account of the questions
which had so long agitated the English Catholics. It is
perhaps a pity that Milner compared the Catholic Com
mittee and the "scribe "who wrote the letter of 1787,10
Mirabeau and the National Assembly. For though the
letter was in the highest degree objectionable, though.
it was a most unwarrantable interference of laymen in the
affairs of the Church, and strongly savouring of schism,
if not actually schismatical, yet surely there was sufificient
difiference between Mr. Butler and Mirabeau, and between
the Catholic Committee and the National Assembly, to
induce Dr. Milner to hesitate before pointing to what was
done by English Catholics, as a forerunner of the terrible
events of the French Revolution. But in criticizing
Milner's words, we must ever remember that they are
the words of a victorious soldier of the Church. He began,
as we shall see later on, single-handed, to attack the evil
spirit of dictation to the clergy by the laity, and of unwise
interference in ecclesiastical concerns, which some men
in England perseveringly continued ; and when he was
joined in the fight by others, he was their leader, facile
primus, at the head of those who combated for the liberty
of the Church, and who, in their devoted loyalty to the
Spouse of Christ, would have remained for ever under the
penal laws, rather than purchase their repeal by surrender
ing her rights. We rejoice now in the liberty which the
Church enjoys in England, in the matter of Catholic

1787.] The Committee and Milner. 157
discipline. This liberty we owe to the happy result of the
differences which existed for so many years amongst our
selves, as much as to the action of the Legislature and of
our civil governors. For that result we are indebted in
great measure to the clear perception, the strong will, and
the persevering energy of Milner. This illustrious man
must for ever share, with O'Connell and the Irish, the
glory of one of the greatest moral victories ever won, of
true Church principles over Erastianism, of the rights of
religion over the tyranny of its enemies. Still, Milner was
a man like ourselves, and he had his faults, as all men
have. What was great in his character was so brilliant
that it would have cast into the shade his defects, were it
not for this circumstance — that they were defects which
had an irritating influence on others. He was plainspoken,
sometimes to a degree of rudeness ; there was a want of
tact, and sometimes of prudence, in things that he said ;
and his writings on Catholic afifairs are continually inter
spersed with personal observations, which must have been
very annoying to several of his opponents, especially to
Mr. Charles Butler. In a case of the highest importance,
Milner had unquestionably right on his side ; and though
he was obliged frequently to comment very severely on
the actions of individuals, he might perhaps have spared
a little of that kind of attack which in a court of law
would be called " damaging the character of a witness."
The men with whom Milner had to contend were
almost all men of more or less influence among their
Catholic brethren ; they had each their own followers,
although they may not have had that representative
character, as members of the committee, which Mr. Butler's
" Memoirs " would lead us to suppose. " The Committee
of Five " were the first men called upon to act in Catholic
afifairs after the Act of 1778. The passing of this Act,

158 The Committee and Milner. Chap. VI.
besides giving substantial rehef, raised the hopes of the
Catholics that the time was approaching when they would
be put on something like an equality with their fellow-
subjects. The members of the committee had all received
a first-rate education in our colleges abroad ; they loved
their country, and were at least as thoroughly English as
any man in the land. Conscious that there was nothing in
the doctrines and discipline of the Catholic Church which
was opposed to British liberties, they wished to destroy
that prejudice amongst Protestants which leads them to
suppose that there is. Some of them were ambitious of
entering into public life. An Emancipation Act was all
that was required to restore to Lords Petre and Stourton
their rights as peers of the realm, to give the descendant of
the ancient family of Throckmorton a seat in the House
of Commons for his native county,^ and to enable the first
real-property lawyer of the day to be called to the Bar.
We can hardly wonder that these men should be inclined
to strain a point, in order to accomplish their wishes. I
do not for a moment say that the position and aspirations
of these men can excuse some of their acts, which were in
fact schismatical ; but surely they may, to use another
legal phrase, be pleaded in mitigation of punishment ?
These reflections on the members of the committee and
Dr. Milner have been written in order to give the reader,
at the commencement of this portion of the history, some
idea of the men who were chiefly engaged in the lament
able disputes to which I shall have to allude.
Another reflection is forced upon us. It does not seem,
from anything which has appeared in print, that the
committee received soon enough that decided check
from ecclesiastical authority which they should have
' Very soon after the passing of the Emancipation Act, Sir Robert Throck
morton, the nephew of Sir John, was returned for Berkshire.

1787.] The Committee and Milner. 159
encountered. The old maxim, principiis obsta, was not
acted upon, or not with that vigour with which it should
have been ; and we may add, not with the promptness and
vigour with which it would be, if any undue interference of
the laity in ecclesiastical matters were to be attempted
now. Mr. Butler, as we have seen, says that it appeared,
from the answers of the Vicars Apostolic to the letter of
May 24, 1783, that their opinions differed, and that the
committee, upon that account, dropped the measure. Dr.
Milner tells us that "it is not to be supposed the Vicars
Apostolic of that period looked with indifiference on these
projected invasions of their own and the chief pastor's just
authority, and on the fatal precipice, to the brink of which
a precious portion of their flock had been led blindfolded
by blind guides. This appears," he says, " by their letters
to each other, while the attempts were making, many of
which letters are still remaining." ^ It would have been
better, we may respectfully say, if the disapprobation of
the Vicars Apostolic had been expressed in a letter to the
committee and to the Catholics of England. If the
proceedings of the committee had been exposed and
disavowed by authority at their commencement, it is
probable that the next "Committee of Ten," which followed
the Committee of Five, would never have existed — at least,
constituted as it was ; and an immense amount of evil
would have been prevented. We have it on the authority
of Milner that that glorious confessor of the faith, Bishop
James Talbot, did not wish the committee to be dissolved,
however much he may have disapproved of their conduct.
Milner was a priest at Winchester in the year 1787.
When the letter of the loth of April appeared, he was
stung to the quick, and, longing to be at them, he wrote an
answer showing the schismatical tendency of the letter.
' " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 50, and in note to p. 53.

i6o The Committee and Milner. [Chap. VI.
It appears that he showed this answer to his Vicar
Apostolic, Bishop James Talbot. Milner himself tells us
that "the bishop made him suppress it, because he
admitted the utility of having a committee." Bishop
James Talbot therefore considered that the co-operation
of the laity with their ecclesiastical superiors in Catholic
afifairs, was a desirable thing. It may seem to us a pity
that he did not write to the committee, and tell them his
idea of the utility of such a body ; where the laymen might
be useful and do good, and where they were making
themselves officious and doing mischief . It appears also,
from Dr. Milner's account of the committee, that besides
writing the two letters I have mentioned, they were
harassing the Vicars Apostolic with other matters, particu
larly in trying to force them to adopt for a general
signature a doctrinal test chosen by the lay committee, and
not approved of by the bishops. The interference of the
committee was, in fact, such that Bishop James, writing to
his brother. Bishop Thomas Talbot, Vicar Apostolic of
the Midland District, says, amongst other things, "some
there are who want to put us (bishops) in leading strings,
and themselves to hold them." During the time of " the
Committee of Ten," Bishop James Talbot prepared a formal
protest against them — and well he might, as we shall
presently see — but it does not appear that he ever
published it. And "when he was on his death-bed, he
told his spiritual friend, the Rev. Mr. Lindow, that if he
recovered he would write against the committee."^ It
might have been well if he had done so at the commence
ment of their proceedings.
But all honour to Bishop James I The penal laws had
dragged him more than once into the dock ; and he had
been tried for his life at the Old Bailey for saying Mass.
' "Supplementary Memoirs," note to p. 53.

1787.] The Committee of Ten. i6i
We must not be too ready to find fault with him for
having omitted to do what we now (perhaps in our
foolishness) think that he ought to have done.
The Committee of Five was, as we have seen, elected for
five years ; its power, therefore, having expired in the year
1787, a new committee was formed. This took place at
what Mr. Butler calls a general meeting of the English
Catholics, on the 3rd of May, 1787. The object of the
formation of the committee was, as expressed at the
meeting, " to watch over and promote the public interest
of the English Roman Catholics ; " it was to be under the
same rules and regulations as the late committee ; it was
to consist of ten members, of whom five were to be elected
at the meeting, one from each of the four districts to be
elected by the gentlemen of those districts, and the
remaining one to be chosen by the gentlemen of Lancashire
and Cheshire.
The meeting elected Lords Petre and Stourton, Mr.
Throckmorton, Sir Henry Englefield, and Mr. Fermor.
Lord Clififord was elected by the Western District, Sir John
Lawson by the Northern, Sir William Jerningham by the
Midland, and Mr. Hornyold by the London District. Mr.
Towneley was elected for Lancashire and Cheshire. At
a meeting which Mr. Butler again calls " a general meeting
of the English Catholics," held on the iSth of May, 1788,
the three following clergymen were added to the committee,
namely. Dr. James Talbot, the Vicar Apostolic of the
London District ; Dr. Charles Berington, the coadjutor
Bishop of the Midland District ; and the Rev. Joseph Wilks,
a Benedictine.^ According to Milner, the election of the three last-
named clergymen was brought about in the following
manner. The committee wished to exclude all clergymen
' Butler's "Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. pp. 4, seq.
VOL. L M

1 62 The Committee of Ten. [Chap, vl
from their body, and, indeed, from the management of
Catholic afifairs. A leading member of the committee
publicly declared that if any clergymen were admitted
into it, he would withdraw himself from it.^ It was now
the intention of the committee to submit to their fellow-
Catholics for general signature an instrument declaratory
of our opinions on certain points.^ The members of the
committee then suddenly bethought themselves that they
would not be able to get many Catholics to sign it, unless
it should have been previously sanctioned by the clergy ;
hence they elected three clergymen members of the
committee. But they would not allow the clergy to nomi
nate their own representatives ; the lay members chose for
them Dr. Berington and Mr. Wilks, who had gone along
with them in all their past measures, and Dr. James Talbot,
whom they could not pass by, and whom they hoped to
hoodwink.^ We must now proceed to the acts of the committee. At
what Mr. Butler calls " a general meeting of the English
Catholics," on the loth of February, 1788,* a memorial
was voted to be presented to Mr. Pitt. It described the
state of Catholics under existing laws, abjured certain
opinions falsely attributed to them, and asked for relief
The memorial was presented to Pitt, and on the 9th of
' In a letter, dated March 22, 1788, from Bishop Jam.es to Bishop Thomas
Talbot, giving an account of a meeting which had just taken place at the
Thatched House, in order to address the King, and of the Catholics who
attended it. Bishop James says — " But the Church is excluded, and therefore
I have never been summoned, though I had some title, as a gentleman, and
could have given some useful information relative to an application lately made
to us " (" Supplementary Memoirs," p. 52).
' This turned out to be the celebrated " Protestation," to which I shall
shortly allude.
^ " Supplementary Memoirs," pp. 52, 53.
^ This was no doubt the meeting to which Bishop James Talbot alludes in
the, letter to his brother above quoted, and from which "the Church was
excluded."

1788.] Deputation to Mr. Pitt, 163
May, 1788, Lord Petre, Sir Henry Englefield, and Mr.
Fermor had a conference with the minister, who assured
them that the Government was anxious to grant what relief
it in prudence could give ; but that it was desirable, before
any bills should be brought into Parhament, that "he
should be furnished with authentic evidence of the opinion
of the Catholic clergy and Catholic universities, with
respect to the existence or extent of the Pope's dispensing
power." The deputation communicated to the committee,
on the same day, the result of their interview with Mr.
Pitt. In consequence of Mr. Pitt's suggestion, three question s
relating to the temporal and dispensing power of the Pope,
and the accusation commonly made against us, that we
hold the doctrine that faith need not be kept with heretics,
were sent to the Universities of the Sorbonne, Louvain,
Douay, Alcala, and Salamanca. The universities all
returned answers which were satisfactory to the Govern
ment. The next act of the committee was to pass a resolution,
at a meeting held on the 19th of April, 1788, "that Mr.
Butler should prepare the draft of a bill for the repeal of
the laws against the English Catholics." Butler accordingly
prepared the bill. It was upon the principle of placing
Catholics, in respect to all civil rights^ on a level with the
Protestant Dissenters. " It contained no oath, but in some
instances the benefits which it conferred were extended
to those only who had taken, or who should take, the oath
contained in the Act passed in 1778 for the relief of the
Catholics." ^
The next object to which the committee turned their
attention was the too-celebrated " Protestation," and the
oath connected with it. The conduct of the committee
in this matter is perhaps the darkest page in our English
' Butler's " Historical Memoirs," vol iv. p. i6.

164 TJie Protestation, [Chap. VL
Catholic history during the last hundred years. The whole
truth of the matter can hardly be said to be known even
now, and perhaps it never will be. I will endeavour to
explain it as clearly and concisely as I can.
According to Mr. Butler, Lord Stanhope was endeavour
ing to form a combined efifort on the part of members of
the Established Church, the Dissenters, and the Roman
Catholics, to procure a modification of the statutes of
uniformity. In order to strengthen the union, it was
thought advisable that Catholics should solemnly disclaim
some of the tenets imputed to us. Lord Stanhope then,
according to Mr. Butler, "without the slightest communi
cation with any Roman Catholic, framed the Protestation "
— that is, the disclaimer above alluded to.^ Milner says
that he "is satisfied that Lord Stanhope patronized the
Protestation ; but that he composed it, he can no more
believe than that he. wrote the Summa Theologies of S.
Thomas of Aquin." ^ Lord Stanhope sent the Protestation
to Lord Petre, who forwarded it to Mr. Butler, the secretary
to the committee, who in his turn transmitted copies of it
to the four Vicars Apostolic.
We have it on the authority of Mr. Butler, that all the
Vicars Apostolic at first made some difificulties about
signing the Protestation.® " They did indeed afterwards
sign it, but Bishop Walmesley complained that he was
surprised into his signature, and withdrew it." Bishop
Matthew Gibson directed that if " his name was absolutely
necessary, it should be affixed by Bishop James Talbot,
in sensu Catholico. The clergy generally felt the same
repugnance as their superiors : ' but,' says Milner, ' what
' " Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. pp. 16, 17.
'^ " Supplementary Memoirs, " p. 54.
^ Husenbeth's " Life of Milner," p. 23, quoting from Butler's " Red Book,"
fol. 14.

1789.] The Oath proposed by the Committee. 165
with the explanations, assurances, and promises of the
dififerent agents of the committee,' they and their flocks
were mostly induced to subscribe it ; many from the positive
assurance given that the Protestation would not be followed
by any new oath. The total number of signatures was
1523."^ Before the Protestation was signed, some altera
tions had been made in it, at the suggestion of some of the
Vicars Apostolic ; but even as signed, it contained, accord
ing to Milner, several errors and inaccuracies. He instances
one inaccuracy which he and some others desired to have
corrected ; but the " patrons of the Protestation " laughed
at them, and refused to make the alteration.
The next proceeding of the committee was, we are
sorry to say, disgraceful. Notwithstanding the assurance
given that no new oath should be proposed, they did frame
a new oath.^ Mr. Butler excuses this act of the com
mittee on the ground that strong representations were
made to them (which they were backward in acceding to)
that a new oath was necessary. But the act was inexcus
able, and the committee began to prove their loyalty to
the Crown by being disloyal to their own friends, and
disloyal to their own Church. No Catholic ever attained
his object who began in this way.
With regard to the substance of the new oath, it was,
in several places, in the highest degree objectionable. Mr.
Butler says that the oath " in its original form was an
exact transcript of the Protestation, and consequently
contained nothing more than what the bishops, with the
body of English Catholics, had already signed and
approved ; " and that after it had received some alterations
suggested by the Ministry and approved of by the ecclesi-
' Husenbeth's "Life of Milner," pp. 23, 24.
^ This new oath was to be substituted, in the bill prepared by Butler, for
the oath in the Act of 1778.

1 66 The Oath proposed by the Committee. [Chap. VI.
astical members of the committee, it was kept by Bishop
James Talbot for two days, and returned by him with a
verbal declaration that he saw nothing in it contrary to
faith or good morals.* But Milner positively asserts that
the oath was never once communicated by the committee
to the Vicars Apostolic ; but that it was shown to the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and altered at his suggestion,
while the Catholic bishops were left to learn its contents
from a newspaper.^
At the final settling of the oath, the chief of the many
objections to it were, that it condemned the doctrine of the
deposing power of the Pope in strained and exaggerated
terms, and far stronger than the Parliament required ; it
condemned the spiritual power of the Pope in this country
in words which not only no Catholic could swear to in
their plain sense, but which made Dr. Horsley, the
Protestant Bishop of St. David's, say, in the House of
Lords, that there were things in the committee's oath which
lie as a Protestant could not swear. But another insuperable
objection to the oath was, that it surrendered the names
" Cathohc " and " Roman Catholic," and took, as the
designation of each one of us who has inherited or professes
the faith of St. Edward, the title of " Protesting Catholic
Dissenter." It is difificult for us in these days to believe
that such a thing could have been done. We hardly know
how to characterize it ; whether to call it horrible and
monstrous, or ridiculous and absurd. To say the truth,
we are now rather inclined to laugh at it. It was one of
those atrocious things which has its ridiculous side ; when
it is first forced upon us, we are afifected with horror, but
we leave it with derision. These chief objections to the
oath arose from new matter inserted into it which was not
' "Historical Memoirs,'' vol. iv. pp. 25, 26.
'' " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 59.

1789,] The Bishops condemn the Oath. 167
in the Protestation.^ And we must here remind the reader
that it was the object of the committee to impress upon
their fellow-Catholics the notion, that the oath contained
nothing in it of consequence which was not in the Protes
tation. The reason of this was that they hoped to get all
who had signed the Protestation to agree to the oath.
It was now time for the bishops to interfere with the
whole weight of their authority. They accordingly met
at Hammersmith on the 19th of October, 1789, and then
and there formally condemned the oath, declared it un
lawful to be taken, and forbade their subjects to take it.
Besides the four Vicars Apostolic, namely. Bishops
Walmesley, James and Thomas Talbot, and Matthew
Gibson, there were also present Dr. Sharrock, coadjutor
to Bishop Walmesley ; Dr. Berington, coadjutor to Bishop
Thomas Talbot ; the Rev. Robert Bannister, Professor of
Theology ; and the Rev. John Milner. With the knowledge
we have of the glorious career of Milner, it is well worthy
of notice that he was present at this meeting, when the
bishops first made a bold stand against the committee.
We can hardly suppose otherwise than that the result of
their deliberations was owing, in great measure at least,
to his energetic advice. "The above-quoted decision of
our VV.A.," says Milner, " which fixed the faith and conduct
of their flocks in general, was echoed back to them in
accents of applause from the prelates of Scotland and
Ireland, as likewise from the Holy See." ^
" In face of this solemn condemnation by the four
> Most Catholics, who have some knowledge of these affairs, are under
the impression that the words "Protesting Catholic Dissenter" occurred in
the Protestation. But such is not the case. They were confined to the oath,
which formed part of the Relief Bill proposed by the committee. Those,
therefore, who signed the Protestation did not style themselves by the
obnoxious title.
2 The Cardinal Prefect of the Propaganda, writing to the bishops, says of
the oath, " Formula juramenti non eratyfot; ac Patrum regulis consenfanea,"

1 68 The Bishops condemn the Oath. [Chap. VL
bishops in England, Mr. Charles Butler wrote a long appeal
addressed to the Catholics of England, dated November
25, 1789, in defence of the protestation and oath; which
appeal was signed by two clerical and five lay members
of the committee. On the same day was signed by the
same members a long letter to the bishops, remonstrating
against their censure, and containing words in which, Dr.
Milner says, both 'they and the Holy See are grossly
insulted and calumniated.'
"Two of the Vicars Apostolic died soon after the
condemnation of the oath. Dr. James Talbot on the 26th
of January, 1790, and Dr. Matthew Gibson on the 19th of
May following. These deaths led to active intrigues on
the part of the committee to procure the appointment
of two successors who might favour their views, and they
were particularly anxious to have Dr. Berington appointed
to the London District. He was a member of the com
mittee, and had all along acted with it." *
It was at this time that Sir John Throckmorton, one of
the committee, wrote several pamphlets, to which allusion
has already been made, to prove that the clergy and laity
had a right; to choose their own bishops and to procure
their consecration by any bishop without reference to the
Holy See. These pamphlets were immediately answered
by Milner, Father Charles Plowden, S. J., and the Revs.
Dr. Strickland and William Pilling. Milner, in his last
pamphlet, gave the finishing stroke to what he calls "an
open attempt to separate the clergy from the faith and
communion of the Church." It would appear from Milner's
" Supplementary Memoirs " that there was some sort of
election on the part of a certain number of the clergy and
laity of the London District ; for he says that one of the
committee wrote to Dr. Berington, and entreated him to
' Husenbeth's " Life of Milner," pp. 25-27.

1790.] The Bishops condemn tJie Oath. 169
stand firmly by his election to the London District. How
ever, if there was any such election, it was of no more
consequence than if it had been a practical joke ; for the
Holy See proceeded to appoint Dr. Douglas to the Lon
don District and Dr. William Gibson to the Northern
District as Vicars Apostolic.
The continued action of the committee against the
Church obliged the bishops to renew their condemnation
of the oath, especially as two of those who originally
condemned it were dead, and their successors had been
appointed in their place. Drs. Gibson and Douglas had
been consecrated at Lulworth ; and before they left the
castle they and Dr. Walmesley agreed upon and signed
an encyclical letter, in which they again condemned the
oath, and asserted the exclusive right of the bishops "to
determine on oaths or instruments containing doctrinal
matters, and rejecting the appellation of ' Protesting
Catholic Dissenters.' "
But this fresh condemnation of the oath by the Vicars
Apostolic did not produce any good effect upon the com
mittee. Though it gives pain to do so, I must quote Mr.
Butler's own words on the subject. He writes as follows : —
" The condemnation of the oath by the Vicars Apostolic
did not withhold the committee from continuing their
exertions to obtain the passing of the bill, or induce them
to take any step for obtaining an alteration of the oath." *
This is a lamentable admission of a gross dereliction of
duty. The oath was, in the first instance, condemned by
all four of the Vicars Apostolic. The alterations made
in it did not satisfy three of the Vicars Apostolic, nor
the successors of two of them who died between the two
condemnations. Five Vicars Apostolic out of six had
therefore condemned the oath in its altered state.
' "Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. p. 34.

170 The Schismatical Protest. [Chap. VL
It was the undoubted right of the bishops to pronounce
upon the lawfulness of the oath, and it was their exclusive
right. It was a pure case of conscience, and the laity had
lawfully no voice in the matter. To proceed, therefore,
with their arrangements for ensuring the passing of the
bill with the obnoxious oath, was a step on the road to
schism. Bishop Thomas Talbot did not sign the second
condemnation of the oath. His position seems to have
been this : he condemned the original oath as framed by
the committee, but he thought the alterations made in it
put it into such a shape that it was not absolutely necessary
to condemn it as altered. I am inclined to think that
Bishop Thomas Talbot thought that in the then state of
afifairs, it was necessary, to ensure the passing of a bill,
that the committee should continue to act, and that they
might cease their work if they were irritated by a second
condemnation. The proceedings of the committee now passed the
bounds of spiritual obedience and common sense, and
began to look like a public entry into schism. They
published what has since been known by the name of
"the Schismatical Protest." It was dated February 2,
1791.* It "occurs," says Husenbeth, "at the end of a
letter of eighteen quarto pages, addressed to Bishops
Walmesley, Gibson, and Douglas, and written by the Rev.
Joseph Wilks, though the protest itself was evidently
drawn up by Mr. C. Butler.^ This protest Milner stigma
tizes as a "complication of profaneness, calumny, schism,
and blasphemy." It " publicly and schismatically disclaims
submission to their bishops acting in the strict discharge
' This, if it be not the correct date, is within a day or two of it. It can
only be verified by reference to the " Blue-books," a copy of which I have
not seen for some years.
^ " Life of Milner," p. 34.

1791.] The Schismatical Protest, 171
of their pastoral duty ; " it " protests and calls upon the
awful name of God, again and again, to witness their
schismatical protest against every clause, determination,
matter, and thing contained in the first as well as the
second encyclical ; it condemns the bishops as being
"arbitrary and unjust," and charges them with "inculcating
principles hostile to society and Government, derogatory
from the allegiance due to the State." * It concludes by
appealing from the bishops " to all the Catholic Churches
in the universe, and especially to the first of Catholic
Churches, the Apostolic See, rightly informed."
Such, then, was the state of things amongst the English
Catholics at the beginning of February, 1791. The day
was rapidly approaching when the second Relief Bill was
to be brought into Parliament. The committee was
maturing its plans for emancipating those only of the
Church who would swear that they were " Protesting
Catholic Dissenters." They were confident of success ;
they smiled incredulously at ecclesiastical authorities who
told them that they would not succeed, and made merry
when they were told that the venerable Bishop Walmesley
used to repeat with confidence, " T have asked my Master
that this bad oath may not pass, and He will grant my
prayer ; they ridiculed the idea that the Vicars Apostolic
would find any support in Parliament ; they had made
friends, as they thought, in both Houses — allies who
would help them to defeat their bishops, and to establish a
lay supremacy in the Church in England ; they were ready
for the battle, boasted of what they were going to do, and
rejoiced in the coming success.

' " Supplementary Memoirs," pp. 74, 76. It will be remembered that
all four of the Vicars Apostolic signed the first condemnation of the oath. As,
therefore, the "Protest " condemns this first condemnation, the committee had
not the excuse that one of the Vicars Apostolic was not against them.

172 Milner attacks the Committee. [Chap, vl
Of the bishops Milner says, " They had little else to
trust to for the success of their cause but its native goodness
and the Divine assistance."
But the days of the committee were numbered, and
their designs were to come to naught. The decree had
gone forth that the rising Church in England should be
free at least from internal lay domination ; the chains
struck ofif by her enemies were not to be replaced by fetters
forged by her own children. The bishops now summoned
to their aid a willing champion, a man in the very prime of
life, full of energy and zeal, a learned and pious priest,
able and willing to be God's instrument to free His English
Church. I have, therefore, now to recount
HOW MILNER FOUGHT AND BEAT THE COMMITTEE.
Milner was the Cceur de Lion of controversy. What
we read both in histoty and fiction of Richard Plantagenet,
and his mode of carrying on war, seems to apply to Milner,
in the method in which he conducted his bloodless but
hardly less fierce contests. In both there was the same
apparent inaction, the same quiet watchfulness for the right
moment, the same sudden onslaughts, rushing into the
very thickest of the fight, following up blow after blow,
right and left, in the midst of a multitude of foes, loving
rather a crowd of adversaries than a single antagonist.
He is quietly seated at Winchester, writing his classical
work on the history and antiquities of that ancient city.
February in the year 1791 arrived; the recess was over,
and Parliament again met. It appeared certain that
within a few months a Relief Bill would pass. The
committee entrusted their bill containing the condemned
oath to Mr. Mitford, afterwards Lord Redesdale. Now
had come the time for action. The voices of the Vicars
Apo.stolic calling on their champion were heard in the

1791.] Milner attacks the Committee. 173
study at Winchester. Milner started from his chair, for
now the battle-axe was to be seized. He set off for
London, leaving, as he says, his friends at home to pray
for him. He wrote a pamphlet in the coach on the way.^
When he arrived in London he put this pamphlet into the
hands of the printer, and then called on Edmund Burke.
Burke introduced him to Fox and Windham. He had a
conference with Dundas in presence of Pitt, also with three
of the Protestant bishops and with Wilberforce and
William Smith, and several other members of Parliament.
They all listened to him with the greatest kindness, and
interpreted the oath in the plain sense of its words, and
not in the lax unnatural manner they were said to do in
the Blue-books.^ He convinced them that the great body
of Catholics looked up to their bishops for guidance, and
not to the committee. They were all sincerely desirous
of passing a bill which, as far as it should go, should
embrace and satisfy all Catholics, and Milner prepared
them for the reception of a bill from the committee which
would exclude the greater number of their Catholic fellow-
subjects. The bill, as drawn up by the committee, was
introduced into the House of Commons on the ist of
March.^ Milner was present in the midst, as he says, of
"a crowd of exulting adversaries." Mr. Mitford, in his
opening speech, distinguished between the " Protesting
Catholic Dissenters," for whose benefit the bill had been
brought in, and the " Papists," who were to be excluded
from relief "The illustrious Fox," says Milner, "spoke
with his accustomed enlargement of sentiment, and Burke
' This pamphlet was entitled "Facts relating to the contest among the
Roman Catholics."
'' The " Blue-books " were the books in which the committee published
their objectionable "Letters," " Protests," etc.
' The bill was drawn by Charles Butler, and settled by his friend and
fellow-labourer on Coke-upon- Littleton, Mr. Hargraves.

174 Milner attacks the Committee. [Chap. vi.
dissipated the gathering mists of bigotry with the bright
rays of his glowing imagination and benevolent heart.
Mr. Pitt spoke at great length, but in such obscure and
ambiguous terms that Fox was obliged twice or thrice to
call upon him for an explanation of his meaning. The
fact is, he had not then made up his mind whether there
should be one Act, to comprehend both parties, or two Acts,
one in favour of the Protestant Catholic Dissenters, whom,
in a former speech, he had praised as good subjects, the
other barely to save from the gallows the traitorous, per
fidious, and bloody-minded Papists, as he then considered
them.i At length the Attorney-General, afterwards Lord
Chief Baron, Sir Archibald Macdonald, rose and said that.
As he was entering the house a paper had been ptit into his
hand which proved that one of the Catholic parties was as
good subjects and as much entitled to favour as the other!' ^
This was the pamphlet written in the stage-coach on the
way from Winchester, and copies of which an ofificer of
the House, who was a friend of Milner, distributed to the
members as they went in. This announcement instantly
produced an extraordinary efifect. Pitt was undeceived as
soon as he heard it, and indeed said, soon after, "We have
been deceived in the great outlines of the bill ; either the
other party must be relieved, or the bill not pass." From
this moment the fate of the obnoxious parts of the bill was
decided. One member proposed that the word Dissenters
should be omitted from the eccentric appellation given to
us by the committee. Another member then said that the
title would be Protesting or Protestant Catholics, which
• From this it would appear that either Milner did not enter so fully into
the matter in his talk with Dundas as he did with the others, or Pitt did not
pay attention to what he said. We can hardly suppose that so great a
man would have allowed his mind again to receive the poison which had been
extracted by Milner.
^ "Supplementary Memoirs," p. 79.

1791.] Milner defeats the Committee. 175
would be ridiculous. The word Protestant was then struck
out, and Catholic alone remained, to which was added the
word Roman ; that word, of which every Catholic is most
proud, and which in our days in England is peculiarly the
test which tries whether one who calls himself a Catholic
is really a Catholic or only an impostor. The Ministry
required the committee to drop the absurd name of Pro-
testing Catholic Dissenter, and adopt the title of " Roman
Catholic." The committee obeyed, and, to use Milner's
phrase, resumed the family name. The oath, too, under
went many alterations in the House of Commons, but still
remained unsatisfactory to the bishops. The committee
in the mean time was not completely beaten. It for
mally called upon Milner to prove that he was authorized
to act for any other Catholics than himself It denied
his right to act. He asked for an hour to write his answer,
and then produced a document ready if necessary to be
printed, in which " he proved that the great body of Catho
lics throughout England looked up to their bishops to
procure for them in the existing juncture an unobjection
able and proper form of oath ; that two parts in three of
the London clergy had signified this to them in a formal
manner but a few days before ; that fifty-three in Lanca
shire had called upon them in a printed paper, which he
had with him, to this efifect, testifying at the same time
that very few of their laity would take the committee's
oath." Lastly, he produced a formal deputation to him
from the bishops to act as their agent in the present busi
ness. " Never," says Milner, " was an attorney more fully
authorized to transact another person's business than he
proved he was to circulate the unanswerable hand-bill,
which had produced so great an effect in the House of
Commons." Notwithstanding this complete justification
the committee drew up a " Statement of Facts," counter to

176 Milner defeats the Committee. [Chap. VI.
the one written on the way from Winchester to London,
which they printed and circulated among members of Par
liament, in which they denied that the supporters of the
oath were a minor part of the Catholic body, or that real
scruples existed among Catholics as to its lawfulness, add
ing that " one John Milner " could only produce the names
of three persons as his authority for his assertions, and that
the committee and those for whom they were acting were
ready to repeat the Protestation (that is to say, says Milner,
the oath) as often as called upon." '
"One John Milner!" Yes — Butler could not have
given Milner greater praise, nor have put him in a higher
position than he did by these very words with which he
meant to damage him. Milner was well supported by three
out of the four Vicars Apostolic ; and we can hardly sup
pose that the fourth, Dr. Thomas Talbot, did not secretly
wish him success. There were some others also who were
active in opposing the committee, amongst whom Milner
mentions Mr. Weld of Lulworth, and Father Charles
Plowden of the Society of Jesus. But Milner was the
avowed champion of the good cause : he was put forward
by the Vicars Apostolic as, to use a vulgar phrase, the
fighting man ; he worked night and day, during his stay in
London, to defeat the enemy and win the battle for the
Church. He was, therefore, the special mark singled out
by the committee, but he was proof against them.
The bill came before the House of Lords in the first
week of June. Lord Rawdon began the debate, and as
serted that the bill wotdd not extend to relieve a considerable
' As well might a Saracen have called out that it was only "one Richard
Plantagenet" who was charging against their ranks. The "three persons"
were three Vicars Apostolic, so that the committee raight be likened to the man
who represented his adversary, in some question of right of way, as having
only ten men in his favour, suppressing the fact that the ten men were ten out
of the twelve judges.

1701.] The pa-ssino- of the Bill of ijgi. 177
number, perhaps a majority of the Catholics. This was, of
course, because it was known that the majority would not
take the oath as framed by the committee. Lord Rawdon
was followed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and by the
Bishops of St. David's and Salisbury, all in favour of the
bill, but all thinking it imperfect. Mr. Butler himself, as
quoted by Milner, has given us a sketch of the Bishop of
St. David's speech. " He called God to witness his wishes
to serve the Catholics ; but the present bill was very im
perfect : so imperfect that he doubted whether it could be
mended. He then repeated, with little variation, the whole
of Mr. Milner's last publication at the door of the House of
Comtnons. If the bill passed, with the oath in its present
form, one set of Catholics were at the mercy of the other. He
saw the streets full of informers, the prisons crowded," etc.^
The Duke of Leeds and Earl Fauconbergh were friendly to
the bill, but thought it should go over to the next session.
The debate was adjourned until Thursday, when it was
stated that Dr. Douglas, on the part of the Catholics, had
sent in his ultimatum, consisting of four alterations ; but
stating that the oath prescribed by the Irish Relief Act of
1778 would be agreeable to every one. The debate was
again adjourned until the next day, when the Bishop of
St. David's proposed the Irish oath. Lords Guildford and
Grenville insisted on a clause being inserted, by which we
swear allegiance to the succession in the Protestant line.
With these alterations, the bill was carried without a
division : and it was sent down to the Commons, who
agreed to the Lords' amendments. And thus the bill
passed unanimously through both Houses. It received
the Royal Assent ; the Committee of Ten was dissolved ;
and Milner went back to Winchester. He laid aside, but
did not throw away, the battle-axe. He resumed the his-
' " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 85.
VOL. I. N

1 78 The Preamble of the Act, [Chap, vl
tory of the ancient city, and remained quietly on the
watch. Having given a short history of the passing of the
Relief Act of 1791,^ it remains to tell the reader to what
extent that relief actually went. This will best be done
by giving a short analysis of the Act.
In the preamble Catholics were srill called "Papists,
or persons professing the Popish religion ; " and it was
recited that it was expedient that those who should take
the oath thereinafter mentioned, should be relieved from
certain penalties and disabilities. The reader will bear in
mind that the word "expedient" in this act was meant
in its sense of, proper under the circumstances, and in
opposition to just. No claim of right was admitted. In
the then state of afifairs in Europe it was desirable that
all the inhabitants of the British Isles should be as united
as possible, and therefore an act which would help to
conciliate was passed.
Though the Act in its preamble called us by the vulgar
nickname " Papists," we were not required to call ourselves
Papists. The oath which the Act prescribed begins with
the words : " I, A. B., do hereby declare that I do profess
the Roman Catholic Religion." After thirty-eight years
we were treated more civilly, and in the great Act of 1829
we could not only call ourselves, but King, Lords, and
Commons condescended to call us " the Roman Catholic
subjects of his Majesty." This was Protestant progress.
The oath itself was, as we have seen, the same as the Irish
oath of 1778. The common sense of Parliament had
substituted this oath in the English Act for the eccentric
and, as Dr. Walmesley called it, "the bad oath," which
the Committee of Ten wished to force upon their Catholic
brethren. The oath was much the same in substance as
' 31st Geo. III. cap. xxxii.

1791.] Relief given by the Act. 179
the English oath of 1778 ; but it contained no special
reference to the claims of the Stuart family. No person
could take advantage of the relief given by the Act who
had not previously taken the oath. Those who had taken
the oath could not be prosecuted for not resorting to some
parish church, nor for being a "Papist," nor for hearing
or saying Mass, nor for being a priest or deacon, nor for
entering or belonging to any ecclesiastical order or com
munity of the Church of Rome, nor for being present at
or performing any rite, ceremony, practice, or observance
of the " Popish religion, or maintaining or assisting others
therein." It was, however, enacted that no assembly for
religious worship should be allowed under the Act, till it
should have been certified to the Quarter Sessions ; and
no person could perform any ecclesiastical functions therein,
until his name and description had been recorded by the
clerk of the peace. This provision was, we believe,
generally obeyed, and some of the old missions still preserve
the certificates, obtained from the clerk of the peace, of the
record of the chapels and of the priest who was then serving
the mission. One curious provision of the Act was that
the doors of no Roman Catholic chapel should be " locked,
barred, or bolted " during the time of service. The framers
of the Act seem to have had some strange suspicion that
Catholics would make use of their chapels for treasonable or
some other unlawful purpose, for they showed themselves
especially anxious to secure this clause by enacting that
no person attending a service, or a " meeting," as the Act
expresses it, with closed doors, should take any benefit
from the Act, although he might have taken the oath of
allegiance. Another provision of the Act, which, at least
in these days, is rather amusing, is that a Catholic might
thenceforth be a constable by deputy, and also a church
warden and overseer of the poor, but still only by deputy.

l8o Relief given by the Act. [Chap. VI.
A priest who had taken the oath was exempted from
serving on a jury ; any person disturbing a congregation
or '* misusing a priest " is by this act hable on conviction
to a penalty of twenty pounds. A clause which shows
into what inconsistencies false doctrines will lead intelligent
people, is one which enacts that the law which compels
every one to go to church on a Sunday shall still be in
force, but that going to a Catholic chapel will count for
the same. So that England, which was then essentially
Protestant, and whose people universally believed Catholics
to be idolaters, made a law under which if a man was
determined not to go to church, he must attend an idola
trous worship. The following restrictions were also put
upon priests. No priest could claim the benefit of this Act
if he ofificiated in any place with a steeple and bell ; ^ if he
should officiate at any funeral in any church or churchyard,
also if he should wear the habit of his Order, or exercise
any rite or ceremony of his religion save within a certified
chapel, or in a private house, where there should not be
more than five persons assembled beside those of the
household. The Act extended to schoolmasters, who thenceforth
could not be prosecuted, provided they had taken the oath ;
but it was provided that " no person professing the Roman
Cathohc religion should obtain or hold the mastership of
any college or school of royal foundation, or of any other
endowed college or school for the education of youth, or
should keep a school in either of the Universities of
Oxford and Cambridge. The seventeenth section of the
Act provided " that nothing in this Act contained should
make it lawful to found, endow, or establish any religious
order or society of persons bound by monastic or religious
' It will be observed that steeples and bells are not forbidden by the Act ;
it only punished the priest who should presume to officiate beneath them.

1791.] Relio'ious Orders under the Act.

i>

i«i

vows, or to found, endow, or establish any school, academy,
or college by persons professing the Roman Catholic
religion within these realms, or the dominions thereunto
belonging ; and that all uses, trusts, and dispositions,
whether of real or personal property, which immediately
before June 24, 1791, shall be deemed to be superstitious
or unlawful, shall continue to be so deemed and taken,
anything in this Act contained notwithstanding."
In the year 1791 there was, as far as I know, no
religious house of men in England. The French Revolu
tion had not at that time driven across the Channel the
English houses established on the Continent. But there
were many men in England belonging to religious orders.
They were scattered about on various missions. There
were Benedictines and Franciscans and Dominicans.
•There were also others who had taken the vows of religion,
who in their hearts remained true and faithful to their
vocation, and who were only waiting until God in His
mercy, by the mouth of His Vicar' upon earth, should
allow them to meet together again in the Society of Jesus.
Although by section xvii. of the Act no Order could be
established,^ the members of Religious Orders then in
England were included and nominatim included, in the
full benefit of the Act. For section iii., which protects
from prosecution persons who had taken the oath, extends,
as we have seen, not only to priests and deacons, but to
any one " entering or belonging to any ecclesiastical order
or community of the Church of Rome." So that the Act
of 1 79 1 made no distinction whatever in the benefit which
> It must at the same time be said that clause xvii., inasmuch as it is
directed against Religious Orders, seems open to very considerable argument,
in which "a good deal might be said on both sides," whether, for instance,
founding a ,. ' house " is founding an " Order " ; and if several men belonging
to a Religious Order were to choose to live together, which of them could be
prosecuted for "estabhshing a Religious Order or Society."

1 82 Religious Orders under the Act. [Chaf. VI.
it gave, between the secular and regular clergy who were
then in England ; and further, though by section xvii. it
forbade an order to be established, by section iii. it ex
pressly allowed a man to " enter an order '' and remain in
England. The Act of 1829 contains, as is well known,
clauses for providing for the gradual suppression of
Religious Orders; but the Act of 1829 goes further than
the Act of 1 791 and makes a most invidious distinction
between the secular and regular clergy then in England :
for "Jesuits," who had the distinguished honour of being
specially named, " and members of other religious orders,
communities, or societies of the Church of Rome, bound
by monastic or religious vows," are obliged by the Act
of 1829 to register themselves as such. And moreover,
whereas the Act of 1791 allowed a man to "enter an
order,'' that is, to take the vows of Religion in an Order,
the Act of 1829, made any man who should do so hable
to banishment, and if he evaded that sentence, to trans
portation for life. In short, whereas by the Act of 1791,
though no one could found or establish an order, any one
might enter an order ; by the Act of 1 829, any one enter
ing an order is punished as a felon. So that the Act of
1829 virtually repealed a portion of the relief which had
been granted by the Act of 1791.^
Are the Catholics of the United Kingdom generally
aware that the great Emancipation Act deprived us of
benefits which were granted when the repeal of the old
penal laws began ; that religious orders, before the law,
have been since the Emancipation Act, and still are in
a worse position than they were in between the years 1 791
and 1829?
The attention of the legislature has several times been
' In one or two other points regarding Religious the Act of 1829 contrasts
unfavourably with the Act of 1791.

1791. J Religious Orders under the Act. 183
directed to the clauses of the Emancipation Act against
Religious Orders. Some attempts have been made to
obtain the repeal of those clauses, though the Catholics of
England have never backed up the attempt as they ought
to have done. A few years ago the subject was spoken
of in the House of Commons, and Lord Beaconsfield, then
in the Lower House, opposed the repeal of the clauses
against Religious Orders, on the ground that though Jesuits
and others were now perfectly harmless, yet they might
become dangerous, and it might be as well to hold the
clauses over them in terrorem. Passing by the expression
of unjust suspicion in which we may hope Lord Beacons
field had too much sense to be sincere, it may fairly be
said that whatever may be the opinions of "the great
Liberal party," the Conservatives of England, at least,
might be well content to allow a man to enter a Religious
Order in the year 1880, when William Pitt, the whole
bench of Bishops, the Houses of Lords and Commons
unanimously, and King George III. himself, were content
to allow a man to do so in the year 1791.^
The remaining portion of the Act, we may give in
the words of Mr. Butler. It " enacts that in future no
one shall be summoned to take the oath of supremacy
prescribed by i William and Mary, s. i, cap. viii., and
George I. s. 2, cap. viii., or the declaration against Transub
stantiation, required by 25 Charles II. ; that i William
and Mary, s. i, cap. ix., for removing Papists or reputed
Papists from the cities of London and Westminster,
shall not extend to Roman Catholics taking the appointed
oath ; and that no Peer of Great Britain or Ireland,
' In the last days of Lord Beaconsfield's Govemment notice was given of a
bill to be introduced into the House of Commons to repeal the obnoxious
clauses of the Emancipation Act. Why did we hear nothing more of this bill
in the days of a Govemment which professed to conciliate Catholics ?

184 Further Relief given by the Act. [Chap. VI.
taking the oath, shall be liable to be prosecuted for coming
into his Majesty's presence, or into the court or house
where his Majesty resides, under 30 Charles II. s. 2, cap. i. ;
the Act also repeals the laws requiring the deeds and
wills of Roman Catholics to be registered and enrolled ;
and dispenses persons acting as a councillor at law, bar
rister, attorney, clerk, or notary, from taking the oath of
supremacy, or the declaration against Transubstantiation,
for acting in those capacities.^
Thus we see that no Catholic could be called to the
bar, or practise as an attorney, before the passing of this
Act. The statute 7th and 8th William and Mary inter
dicted the bar to Catholics. The last Catholic called to
the bar before the statute of William and Mary was Mr.
Nathaniel Piggott, who was called in the year 1688.^ The
first Catholic called to the Bar after the passing of the
Act of 1791, was Mr. Charles Butler himself, who had
drawn up the Act. Much as we differ from Mr. Butler
in his action on the Committee, it must be admitted that
from his learning and position, he was well entitled to be
the first to take advantage of the clause which enabled
Catholics to be called to the Bar. Previous to the year
1 79 1, several Catholics had attained great eminence as
conveyancers. Lord Campbell, in his " Life of Lord
Eldon," relates that Mr. Duane, "an eminent Catholic
conveyancer," gave John Scott (afterwards Lord Eldon)
"the run of his chambers," in consequence of the young
student not having sufficient money to pay the regular
fee. And in a note to this passage Lord Campbell adds :
"At this time (1775) conveyancing was chiefly in the
hands of Roman Catholics. Being long disqualified by
their rehgion from being called to the Bar, they practised
' " Historical Memoirs,'' vol. iv. pp. 47, 48. Ist Edition of 1822.
' Ibid., vol. ii. p. 337. Edition of 1819.

1791. J Further Relief given by the Act. 185
successfully in Chambers ; and being employed at first
by their co-religionists, their industry and learning forced
them into general business. Charies Butler, whom I well
knew, may be considered the last of this race." ^
This act did not extend to Scotland : the Scotch Catho
lics had to wait two years more for their first relief Act.
Up to this time Catholics had been subject to a double
land-tax. Mr. Butler, at the end of his descripdon of the
Act of 1791, says: "The double land-tax being imposed
on Catholics by the annual land-tax Act, a repeal of it
could not be effected by any prospective Act, but it was
repealed by omitting from the annual land-tax Act the
clause imposing it." ^
Still, however, Cathohcs continued to pay double land-
tax. This seems to have arisen partly from the plan
indicated by Mr. Butler, not having been sufificient to
relieve us from the unjust burden; for in the year 183 1
an Act was passed to relieve Catholics from the payment
of double land-tax. And it arose also in great measure
from the difificulty in discovering what lands were actually
paying double tax. Immediately after the passing of the
Act of 183 1, a professional man made it his business to
find out the lands which were subject to double tax, in
consequence of their owners being then or having been
Catholics. He then proposed to the owners to prove the
fact and obtain relief under the Act. His conditions were,
that if he failed in obtaining the exemption, he was to
receive no fee whatever ; if he succeeded, he was to receive
the annual amount which he had recovered, for three years.
In this way many Catholics were relieved of the tax.
Such, then, was the Relief Act of 179 1. It was a great
boon to Catholics. It legalized the public worship of the
' " Life of Lord Eldon," p. 40.
^ " Historical Memoirs," vol. iii. p. 48.

1 86 Relief given by the Act. [Chap. VI.
Catholic Church. Schools could be opened, a priest could
ofifer the Holy Sacrifice, and the faithful could assist at it
without molestation, and under the protection of the law.
Several disabilities under which Catholics lived were re
moved. It was essentially a new beginning — a much more
fair, if not altogether a fair start for truth in its contest
with error. So great was the relief, that Mr. Pitt called it
emancipation, and said that "the term emancipation was
not in the smallest degree applicable to the repeal of the
few remaining penal statutes to which Catholics were still
liable." 1
If Mr. Pitt was justified in calling the Act of 1791
" emancipation," he could only have been so by confining
his meaning of the word to what he found by tracing it
back to its classical origin. It was not emancipation, as
an Englishman would understand the term. A free man
in England, without some of the most important rights of
a free man, would hardly consider himself emancipated.
Until the year 1829, no English Catholic could even vote
at the election of a Member of Parliament. Gerards and
Towneleys would scarcely look upon themselves as eman
cipated, when, solely because they were Catholics, their
broad acres were not represented. And the voice of the
public seems to have proclaimed that Pitt, standing in the
British House of Commons, put too narrow a construction
upon the word emancipation. For the Act of 1791 was
never called more than a Relief Act, whereas the Act of
1829, from the first introduction of the Bill, was universally
called Emancipation. Nevertheless, the Act of 1791 was
a very great step in advance ; and as these are days in
which centenaries are celebrated, those amongst us who
shall be spared to see the year 1891 should not let that
year pass without renewing our thanks to God for His
good providence over His English Church.
' "Pitt's Speeches," vol. iii. p. 421.

( i87 )

CHAPTER VII.
THE ACT OF 179I, AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS.
Why the Committee failed— Meeting at the Crown and Anchor— The Cisal
pine Club— The Mediation— The " Buff Book"— Father Charles Plowden
—The " Roman Catholic Meeting."
In giving an account of the Relief Act of 1791 in the last
chapter, I omitted to mention,, that in the clause which
permitted a Catholic to keep a school, it was provided that
" no schoolmaster professing the Roman Catholic religion
should receive into his school for education the child of
any Protestant father." This unjust and penal proviso,
introduced into a Relief Bill, was repealed by 9 and 10
Vict. cap. 59. And with regard to this proviso, it may be
noticed that it was not merely a penal law against Catholics ;
it was an infringement of the liberty of British subjects,
inasmuch as it crippled the freedom of Protestants in the
choice of school for the education of their children. The
Act 9 and 10 of the Queen cap. 59, also repealed two
other portions of the Act of 179 1. It may be interesting
and perhaps also useful to mention these. It repealed so
much of the Act of 179 1 as enacted " that nothing therein
contained should be construed to give any ease, benefit,
or advantage to any person who should by preaching,
teaching, or writing, deny or gainsay the oath of allegiance,
abjuration, and declaration thereinbefore mentioned and
appointed to be taken as aforesaid, or the declarations or
doctrines therein contained, or any of them." This clause

1 88 Portions of the Act of ijgi repealed. [Chap. VIL
was certainly an infringement of the liberty of speech.
Under it no Catholic could speak in public, or write
against any part of the oath, even for the purpose of
obtaining its repeal, . without depriving himself of the
benefit of the Act. If a Catholic had preached or written
against, for instance, the insulting declaration against
" evasion, equivocation, and mental reservation " in the
taking of the oath, or against the vile insinuation that he
had a " dispensation already granted by the Pope," to
perjure himself, he would have made himself liable to
prosecution. The Act 9 and 10 Vict. cap. 59, also repealed
that part of the Act of 1791 which provided that "no
person professing the Roman Catholic rehgion should be
permitted to keep a school for the education of youth
until his or her name and description as a Roman Catholic
schoolmaster or schoolmistress should have been recorded
at the Quarter Sessions." Any restrictions upon Catholic
primary education existing now are not the result of what
we call the penal laws ; these have in this respect been
swept away : they are the result of modern laws, pro
fessedly enacted for the benefit of all her Majesty's subjects,
but in which the venom of hatred of all religion, especially
of the Church, is as clearly to be seen as in any of the old
penal laws themselves. About forty years ago, it used to
be the fashion amongst some of the older members of the
Catholic communion in England, to say to their younger
and more ardent brethren : What have you to complain
of? What is the necessity of Catholic associations, and
meetings, etc. ? or, " What are you pretending to watch ? "
But the history of the last forty years, and the tendency
of legislation in our own days,, must convince (to use one
of Lord Brougham's phrases) "the most foolish of our
foolish kind " that they were right who took it for granted
that the evil spirits would not, as far as their power

1791.J Why the Committee failed. 189
extended, allow the ways of the renascent Church in
England to be the ways of pleasantness and peace. But
we must proceed with our history, reserving further remarks
suggested by this subject for a future page.
It will be worth while, however, before any further
mention of the facts, to consider for a moment what it was
that caused the Catholic committee to fail so signally in
their work, and to expose themselves to the ignominious
defeat I have narrated. We are bound in common
gratitude to attribute the failure chiefly to that special
Providence which has so clearly watched over us. But of
secondary, or instrumental causes, to what can we assign
the complete collapse of all the elaborate arrangements of
the " Committee of Ten ? " They made two practical,
and what we may call diplomatic, mistakes. The first
mistake was in framing a new oath to be taken by
Catholics, instead of the old one which they had taken
since the year 1778, when the first Relief Act was passed.
In their eagerness to convince Protestants of the falsehood
of certain doctrines attributed to us, they wished us to
swear to everything that was in the Protestation. And
this eagerness induced the committee, as we have seen,
to break faith with their fellow-Catholics ; for they had
given an assurance that no new oath should be proposed.
They introduced the new oath, and, thank God ! it was
the first step to their ruin. The second mistake of the
committee was the assurance they felt that the new oath
being introduced, every one would sign it who had signed
the Protestation. In this they found themselves most
completely deceived. So that it might have been said
truly of the committee, Lacum aperuit, et effodit eum : et
inciditinfoveam, quam fecit} In speaking of the differences
' " He hath opened a pit and dug it : and he is fallen into the hole he made''
(Ps. vii. 16).

1 90 Why the Committee failed. [Chap. Vll.
between the Oath and the Protestation, and which I have
specified in a former chapter. Dr. Milner says : " It may
be added, with respect to the errors, in general, of the
instrument, that conscientious Catholics made a great
difference between a declaration made to their fellow-
creatures and an oath made to God. Being deluded to
believe that all the first characters in the nation understood
certain expressions, as the secretary explained them, they
thought at first that it was lawful to subscribe them ; but
when the question was about swearing to the truth of them
'in the plain sense of the words,' their consciences revolted
at the proposal." ^
To those who interest themselves in matters of this
kind, it must always be a matter of great surprise that
Charles Butler, whose acquaintance with Catholics of all
classes, must have been at least equal to that of any other
man in England, should have fallen into these, to him and
the committee, fatal mistakes. For it was these two
mistakes that enabled Dr. Milner to take up a position
which was impregnable, and from which he was able to
attack his enemy and put him to the rout. Of some of
the other members of the committee we are not so well
able to judge ; but of Mr. Butler it may be said that he
was a man of strong intellectual power, and a logical
mind, and though he held strong opinions, and could
prosecute them earnestly, yet he was singularly free from
prejudice, and was remarkably tolerant of opinions opposed
to his own. A man who had the habit of jumping to a
conclusion because he desired the conclusion, and one
whose prejudices governed his actions, might easily have
made the blunders which Butler made on the Catholic
Committee ; but that he himself should have acted as he
did is, at first sight, unaccountable. The only solution
' " Supplemental Memoirs," p. 60.

1791.] Why the Committee failed. 191
which appears to be at all satisfactory is that which seems
to be suggested by the result of his mistake, and by the
happy state of freedom in which the Church now is in
England. He was in this matter opposed to Providence ;
and he had eyes that saw not, and ears that heard not. And
here it may be well to caution any one who may be
interested in the matters alluded to in this history, not
to judge too hastily of the whole character of Mr. Butler
from his action as we have seen it on the committee,
and from his subsequent action on the Catholic Board.
Though his conduct both on the committee and at the
Board must be condemned, yet for other reasons he is
entitled to the gratitude of Catholics, and as I hope
hereafter to show, he possessed and exercised some quali
ties in whch he might be taken with advantage as an
example. Two days after the passing of the Relief Bill, that is,
on June 9, 1791, a meeting of Catholics took place at the
Crown and Anchor Tavern, in the Strand. There were
about two hundred gentlemen present. The first business
of the meeting was a resolution proposed and seconded,
conveying the thanks of the meeting to the committee for
their conduct in the afifair of the bill. It had been previ
ously arranged at a meeting of the clergy summoned by
Dr. Douglas, that an amendment should be proposed to
the above resolution. This amendment was for the purpose
of including the bishops in the vote of thanks. And it is
well worthy of being told, as an example of the fair-minded
ness of Milner, that whereas at this meeting of the clergy
Dr. Douglas declared his opinion that thanks "could not
conscientiously be given to persons who had so long and so
violently endeavoured to impose a condemned oath of
heterodoxy and schism on the Catholics of England ; " Dr.
Milner contended " that the committee might properly be

192 Meeting at the Crown and Anchor. [Chap. VII.
thanked for their exertions in procuring the civil benefits of
the Act, provided the bishops were thanked for their vigi
lant zeal in obtaining an orthodox oath." Milner's proposal
was adopted, and accordingly as soon as the resolution of
thanks to the committee had been proposed and seconded
at the Crown and Anchor meeting, the Rev. J. Barnard,
Dr. Douglas' vicar-general, proposed the amendment
agreed upon. Milner seconded the amendment. The
chairman, however, refused to put the amendment to the
meeting, and persisted in his refusal, though he was con
tinually reminded by Milner "of the established rule of
deliberative assemblies, which requires that a proposed
amendment of a motion must be disposed of before the
original motion itself" According to Dr. Milner, pressure
seems to have been used upon the chairman, to force him
to act as he did. "Certain gentlemen," writes Milner,,
"who surrounded the chair insisted upon it that the
amendment should not be put to the vote, and accordingly
it was not put to them." ^
The principal object, however, which, according to
Milner, the committee had in calling the meeting at the
Crown and Anchor, and the only object which Butler
mentions in his " Memoirs," was to pass the following reso
lution : —
' The account of this meeting at the Crown and Anchor is taken chiefly
from Milner's " Supplementary Memoirs.'' It is extraordinary that Husenbeth
in his " Life of Milner " makes uo allusion to the meeting of the clergy sum
moned by Dr. Douglas, as mentioned in the text. It was, as we have seen, in
consequence of Milner's advice that the clergy consented to join in any vote of
thanks to the committee. Though Husenbeth mentions that Milner seconded
the amendment at the Crovm and Anchor meeting, his account of the whole
proceeding is so meagre, that he lets pass a grand opportunity of putting into
striking contrast the great fairness of his hero, in proposing a vote of thanks to
the committee, and the great unfairness of the committee in refusing to thank
the bishops. This is only one instance, out of many in Husenbeth's "Life of
Milner," which have caused it to be so often observed, that the life of Milner
has yet to be written.

1791.] Meeting at the Crown and Anchor. 193
" That as the oath contained in the Bill for the Relief of English
Catholics is not expressed in the words of the Protestation, the
English Catholics take this occasion to repeat their adherence to
the Protestation, as an explicit declaration of their civil and social
principles, and direct the committee to use their endeavours to
ha>ve it deposited in the Museum, or some other proper place of
public institution, that it may be preserved there, as a lasting
memorial of their political and moral integrity."
The meeting divided on this resolution, and it was car
ried by a majority of 32 ; the numbers being 104 for the reso
lution, and 72 against it.^ Mr. Butler accordingly deposited
the Protestation in the Museum. He looked upon this as a
great triumph, and used frequently for many years after to
speak of it as such to his friends. But it was not such a
great triumph after all. In the first place, it was and is a
matter of great doubt, whether the Protestation deposited
in the Museum was the original and identical document
which was signed. Butler declared that it was ; Milner
maintained that it was not, and certainly brought strong
proofs to support his assertion. In the second place, the
Protestation was, according to those best able to judge, a
loosely and inaccurately worded document. The doubt as
to its authenticity with the proofs, and the fact of its inac
curacy in several statements, are also recorded in papers
which Milner deposited at the Museum. The importance
of the document is therefore considerably lessened ; in
fact, it is not of much value. Its existence in the British
Museum need not be a matter of any anxiety to English
Catholics. With regard to the number of Catholics who took the
oath prescribed by the Act of 1791, I am not aware that
' The majority consisted of twenty-one priests and eighty-three laymen,
and the minority of thirty priests and forty-two laymen. The priests in the
minority included Bishop Douglas and Bishop Walmesley's deputy, the Rev.
Mr. Coombes.
VOL. I. O

194 The Cisalpine Club. [Chap. vn.
£my account has been collected and published. The onl\-
allusion to it I have met with, occurs in the debate on Sir
J. C. Hippesley's motion in the House of Commons, in
March, 1S13. IMr. Canning, in his speech on the nth of
iMarch, said, "The hon. baronet" (Sir J. C. Hippesley)
"has, with infinite assiduity and industry, collected infor
mation that not more than five thousand Catholics had
taken the oath prescribed b\- the last Act passed for the
relief of the Roman Catholic body." ^
I must now put before the reader a short account of
the establishment of what was for so many }-ears known
amongst Catholics as " the Cisalpine Club." We saw in a
former chapter that the Committee of Ten was formed on
JMay 3, 1787, and was to last for five years. The five years
terminated on May 2, 1792. But as the services of the
committee were no longer required after the passing of
the Act of 1 79 1, the committee transacted no further busi
ness, and considered themselves virtually dissolved. They
determined, however, to preser\-e in another association the
principles and spirit of the old committee, which might
still be said to have some existence, as its term had not
run out. The leading members of the committee and a
few of their friends, to tire number of thirteen in all, met
on April 12, 1792, at the Freemasons' Tavern, and formed
themselves into the Cisalpine Club. The principles of
the late committee were to be the principles of the club.
IMilner says that the professed object of the club was to
oppose the alleged usurpation of the Pope, and the tyranny
of the Vicars Apostolia^ The members themselves ex
pressed one object of the club in these words — " We are
determined in all similar situations to resist any ecclesias
tical interference, which may militate against the freedom
^ Canning's Speeches, edited by Therrv, vol. iii. p. 405.
* " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 99.

1792.] The Cisalpine Club. 195
of English Catholics."' The name Cisalpine sufficiently
indicates to Cathohcs the spirit and objects of the club ;
the title " Cisalpine " being of course chosen as opposed to
Ultramontane. A special object of those who formed the
club was to educate the young men of the Catholic body
in the principles which had guided the committee. This
appears in a letter written b}- one of the " principal founders
and patrons of the committee," as quoted b}- Milner.
"The merits of it" (the Protestation), sa}'s the writer of
the letter, "would soon be frittered away, if the spirit of
that Protestation were not preserved by such a meeting,
where the young men may continue to support their
fathers' principles, who signed the Protestation before thej'
came into the public world." ^ Cardinal Newman, in the
second of his most admirable lectures on " The Present
Position of Catholics in England," represents ' tradition as
the sustaining power of the Protestant ^-iew," of that view
of which fable is the basis, prejudice the life, assumed
principles the intellectual ground, and ignorance the pro
tection. The Cisalpine Club was founded in order to begin
within the Catholic Church in England an evil tradition of
Cisalpine principles, based upon assumed principles, some
false, others dangerous, some the oflfspring of English
natural prejudices, others borrowed from unruly foreign
Catholics; all protected by ignorance of the Church's
rights. And if this tradition could have been preserved,
it would have been the cause of great mischief ; and would
have made the position of English Catholics as unenviable
as it is now honourable and respected throughout the
world-wide Church.
But the flow of the tradition was soon to be stopped.
> Buff Book, p. 23, cited by Mihier. The word "similar," means, of
course, sitnatioiis ¦JmilaT to that in which the Committee of Ten had placed
themselves. - " Supplementary Memoirs," p. loi.

1 96 The Cisalpine Club. [Chap. VIL
The Cisalpine Club did indeed continue to exist for many
years. During the first few years of its existence; it did
some mischief, but none which had permanent consequence.
And its influence will continually lessen as years flow on.
Indeed, it would seem that in proportion as it increased its
members, it diminished in Cisalpine principles. It soon
ceased to act at all as a body having any influence in
Catholic afifairs. Catholics who have celebrated their
jubilee of life can well remember all the later members of
the Cisalpine Club. And it would not be too much to say,
that in remembering them, they call to mind men who
were remarkable for their respect for Church authority, and
who carefully instilled that respect into the hearts and
minds of their sons. During the term of oflfice of the last
secretary of the Cisalpine Club (who was also the first
secretary of the Emancipation Club ') no Cisalpine business
whatever was transacted.^ The club soon became a mere
dining club, which used to meet three times a year, during
the London season, at the Thatched Plouse Tavern.
The Cisalpine Club in its origin never had, nor pretended
to have, any representative character. If in the course of
years it possessed that character, it was representative only
of the laudable desire of hmglish Catholic gentlemen to
assemble together occasionally at a friendly and convivial
meeting. Soon after the meeting at the Crown and Anchor
Tavern, an attempt was made to bring about a reconcilia-
' When the Emancipation Bill passed, the Cisalpine Club, chiefly, I believe,
at the instance of Mr. Edward Blount, of Bellamore, changed its name to
"Emancipation Club."
"^ This secretary was Mr. Charles Turvile, of Gray's Inn, who continued
secretary to the Emancipation Club until his untimely death in 1839, he having
been an early victim to the dangers of railway travelling. All who can
remember him know him to have been a man not only of distinguished honour
and virtue, but also one who was remarkable for his respect for authority and
submission to ecclesiastical superior,s.

1792.] " The Mediation i' ic^j
tion between the members of the committee and the
Vicars Apostolic. This attempt at reconciliation was
called at the time " the Mediation." In order that the
reader may understand the proceedings connected with
the mediation, it will be necessary to make some intro
ductory remarks.
It has been already noticed that one of the clerical
members of the Committee of Ten was the Rev. Joseph
Wilks. Mr. Wilks signed the schismatical protest, and in
doing that he put himself in direct opposition to his own
bishop. Dr. Walmesley, the venerable Vicar Apostolic of
the Western District. Dr. Walmesley was bound in duty
to maintain his authority, schismatically attacked by one
of his own priests. His lordship accordingly suspended
Mr. Wilks " from the exercise of all missionary faculties,
and all ecclesiastical functions," in the Western District.
We have already noticed that Milner was assisted in
his attack upon the committee by the Rev. Charles
Plowden. Mr. Plowden was one of those who at that
time were commonly called ex-Jesuits. He had entered
the Society before its suppression in the year 1773. He
was a powerful writer, and wrote a trenchant "Answer to
the Second Blue Book"; that is, the book which contained,
amongst other things, the schismatical protest. In this
answer. Father Plowden asserted that he wrote at the
request of the three Vicars Apostolic, Drs. \\'almesley,
Douglas, and Gibson. It appears that Father Plowden
had consented to write the answer on condition that he
alone should be answerable for its contents.
The mediation originated with three Catholic laymen,
whom Butler calls, "gentlemen of the highest respectability,"
and whom Milner calls, " respectable and religious Catholic
gentlemen." They were John Webbe Weston, of Sutton
Place; Francis Eyre, of Warkworth Castle; and William

198 " The Mediation:' [Chap. viL
Sheldon, of Brailes. These three gentlemen requested the
committee to state the grievances of which they complained,
and which were obstacles to a reconciliation between
themselves and the Vicars Apostolic. The committee
mentioned three grievances : (i) " The depriving Mr.
Wilks (one of their ecclesiastical colleagues) of his faculties;"
(2) "The publishing of the 'Answer to the Second Blue Book,'
by the Rev. Charles Plowden, in which the author asserts
that he wrote at the request of three Vicars Apostolic,"
(3) " That the ecclesiastical government of the Catholic
bishops in this country is not conformable to the known
rules and canons of the Church, by which the clergy of
the mission ought to possess the rights of parochial clergy." ^
The mediators then laid this statement of grievances
before the bishops. Their lordships answered, in the case
of Mr. Wilks that, " if the reverend gentleman under an
interdict would express his submission to their decision,
they would respectively concur to the removal of it." ^ To
the second point — that is, the grievances arising from
Father Plowden's pamphlet — " the bishops answered agree
ably to the wishes of their advocate, that they had requested
the Rev. Charles Plowden to answer the Blue Book, but
that if he had written anything amiss, he himself was to
answer for it." As to the third grievance — that is, that
the missionary clergy were not parish priests — " the bishops
contented themselves with saying that they would consider
of it." ^ To this last answer, Milner, in his "Supplementary
Memoirs," in the page already cited, adds as follows : — " In
fact, these lay gentlemen did not understand the ecclesi
astical business they had embarked in. They wished our
scattered missionaries to be changed into parish priests,
before there were any parishes founded for them to govern.
' Milner's " Supplementary Memoirs,'' pp. 97, 98.
^ Ibid., p. 98. 3 Ibid., p. 98.

1792.] The "Buff Book." 199
They were all of them to be alike rectors, without any
vicars ; like an army of officers without any soldiers ! And
this to restrain the bishops from deciding doctrinal ques
tions, or at least from censuring those of their clergy who
might refuse obedience to their decisions." '
When the answer of the bishops in the case of Mr.
Wilks, was sent to the committee, and they saw that their
lordships required that reverend gentleman's submission
to their decision in the matter of the oath before the
suspension could be removed, they " unanimously and
decidedly rejected " the condition. With regard to the
answer of the bishops in Father Plowden's case, Milner
makes the following characteristic remark: — "The secretary
of the committee had no stomach to come to close
quarters, and in such a cause, with the Rev. Charles
Plowden." The three mediators published their proceedings in a
book, which, from having a buff covering, was known by
the name of the " Buff Book." In justice to the com
mittee, I insert a passage from this book, as quoted by
Butler. 2
" In the course of this negotiation," say the mediators,
" we had an opportunity of seeing and laying before three
of the Vicars Apostolic, the original bill prepared by order
of the late committee, and also the second bill, with the
several alterations, and particularly the variations in the
oath, which had been the unfortunate cause of so much
difference of opinion. These were produced, with such
incontrovertible evidence that those alterations, and particu
larly the variations in the oath, were not formed or proposed
' The reader interested in this matter would do well to compare Milner's
remarks on this subject with an article on "Ecclesiastical Organization," by
"Cardinal Wiseman, in the Dublin Revie'w for August, 1842.
2 "Historical Memoirs," etc., vol. iv. p. 58. Edition of 1822.

200 The " Buff Book." [Chap. VIL
by the gentlemen of the late committee, that we feel ourselves
called on, both by candour and impartiality, to declare that we
were perfectly convinced that tite Vicars Apostolic appeared to
us satisfied; and that we really hope no doubts will any
longer be entertained on that subject." '
The mediators no doubt wished to deal as mercifully
as they could with the members of the committee. It was
probably proved to them that Lord Stanhope and his
friends had framed and proposed the alteration in the
oath, and therefore they excused the committee from
having originated them. If the Vicars Apostolic appeared
satisfied, it must have been only on the question of the
origin of the new oath. The report of the mediators does
not take anything material from the blame which the
committee deserved. The committee had no right to
accept the proposal of a new oath. It was their duty to
keep faith with their fellow-Catholics, who had been
assured that no change should be made in the oath.
And when the committee determined upon a change,
they should have inserted nothing without the knowledge
and consent of the Vicars Apostolic. When the Vicars
Apostolic condemned the oath, the committee should have
instantly withdrawn it. It is a very small excuse for
them to say that they did not originate the oath. In fact,
the old saying seems to apply to ^^xa—the receiver is as
bad as the thief.
With the aid only of the published documents connected
with this mediation, it is not possible to form a positive
judgment as to its precise results. From the extracts I
have cited from Milner, it would appear that things
remained in a very unsettled state, and that the bones
of contention still lay between the two parties. Butler,
' The itahcs are Mr. Butler's ; but he does not say whether they were his
own, or those of the mediators.

1792.] Father Charles Plowden. 201
however, leaves a very dififerent impression in the following
passage from his account of the mediation. "Thus," he
writes, " by the interference of these respectable mediators,
arid the gentlemanly and Christian disposition of the
parties principally engaged in the discussion, the con
tention was happily terminated ; on each side the word
of peace was spoken, and silence promised. The peace
thus spoken; and. the silence thus promised, have been
observed inviolate, both by the committee and their ad
herents, and by the three objecting prelates." '
It is clear from Milner's account that the answers of
the bishops did not satisfy the committee, and one of
their answers the committee absolutely rejected. Still,
we cannot but accept what Butler says, writing after
thirty years had passed, "The peace was spoken, and
observed inviolate." Comparing the two accounts by
Milner and Butler, and judging by the light of subsequent
history, it would appear that on neither side was any
actual concession made ; but that the parties to the
difference shook hands, and by a sort of tacit agreement
said nothing more about the matter.
I cannot conclude this portion of the history without
making some reflections on the noble conduct of Father
Charles Plowden. Father Plowden, as I have said, was
one of those who were commonly called ex-Jesuits. He
was born in the year 1743, entered the Society of Jesus,
and was thirty years of age at the suppression of the
Society in the year 1773. He lived to see the restoration
of the Society over the whole world in 18 14, and he died
in the year 1821, in the seventy-ninth year of his age. He
held the highest ofifices in the Society. On what Dr.
Oliver calls "the partial revival of the Society'' in the
year 1803, he was appointed Novice Master at Hodder
' "Historical Memoirs,'' vol. iv. p. 59.

202 Father Charles Plowden. [Chap. vn.
Place, and later on he was appointed Rector of Stonyhurst
College, and Provincial of the English Province. He was
a finished scholar and a highly accomplished man ; he had
great knowledge and experience of the world and of the
characters and manners of men. In judging of what
Father Plowden did in 1791, he must be judged as a Jesuit,
and not as what he, strictly speaking, was at that time,
a secular priest. He had been brought up and ordained
priest in the Society ; and from the time of its suppression
he, like so many other faithful men, never allowed his
affections to turn away from his first love. He longed
and sighed for the restoration of the Society of Jesus.
His heart was where his treasure was, in the poverty and
obedience of a Religious Order. He thought and spoke
and wrote as a Jesuit. When in 1803 he took charge of
the novices at Hodder, so far from having lost anything
of the spirit of his Order, his high appreciation of it, his
love and aff'ection for it, were as grfeat as when he took
his first vows at Watten. It may be said of him that the
thirty years of his nominally secular life, had deepened in
his heart the roots of every virtue and quality which fitted
him to be a true son of St. Ignatius. From 1773 to 1803
he preserved unimpaired the traditions of the Society,
both in its internal government, and in its relations to the
Holy See, to bishops and vicars apostolic, and to all who
were not members of the Society. From 1803 these
traditions, preserved intact, were the rule of his conduct as
Rector, Master of Novices, and Provincial. What Father
Plowden did during the days of the Committee of Ten
was done by one who must to all intents and purposes be
called a Jesuit. I may venture to repeat the words :
he thought, he spoke, he wrote as a Jesuit. How, then,
did he act? When the Vicars Apostolic were in their
utmost need ; when their authority was attacked by priests

1792.] Father Charles Ploioden, 203
and laymen ; when a formidable combination of Catholics
rose up to assist a clique of Protestants in forcing schis
matical declarations upon the clergy and laity of England,
Father Plowden came to the rescue, proved his loyalty to
the Church and to the Episcopal Order, and aided nobly
in the combat which ended in victory. It derogates
nothing from Father Plowden to say that he was second
to Milner in the fight. JMilner, it appears abundantly
clear, was especially raised up by God to be the great
leader in the contest. It was a great honour to any man
to be what Father Plowden was — the gallant lieutenant of
a chosen chief The honour which Father Plowden won
at the end of the last century, the members of the Societ}-
of Jesus claim now to share ; and they may claim it on
the double title, that Father Plowden \\as a member of
the Society, and that he was emphaticalK- a representative
man. It is sometimes said that when one individual
Jesuit expresses an opinion, it is attributed by the public
to the whole body. But if this be a rule which has its
exceptions. Father Plowden is not one of those exceptions.
In his attack upon tlie schismatical productions of the
second Blue Book, he spoke the opinions of all who, like
himself, were waiting to retum to their old home. In
particular, he spoke and wrote with the full and entire
consent of the venerable Father Stone, who, though he
could not then be called Provincial, was looked up to by
all in Father Plowden's position as a father, and who was
in fact the first Provincial of the restored Society in
England. To such an extent was Father Plowden what
I have cedled a representative man, that I believe it would
not be too much to say that, if the English Fathers of the
Society were called upon to name one man since the
restoration, by ^^hose principles and conduct the}- would
be content to be judged. Father Plowden would be the

204 Father Charles Plowden. [Chap. VIL
one named. His action was the action of his brethren at
the time he lived, and he has transmitted his spirit to our
own days. His support of lawful authority was the support
which the English Jesuits gave to the Vicars Apostolic
when they wanted the help of any one who could give it.
Father Plowden in after years, as Novice Master and
Provincial, was not the man to impart to his successors
principles different from his own. He gave and he left
a great lesson which he taught both by word and example,
and that lesson has never been lost in the English Province
of the Society. One sentence of that lesson was, loyalty
to every lawfully constituted authority upon earth. It was
the lesson handed down to him, and which he faithfully
passed on to others : it is a lesson as well understood and
acted upon in these days, as when Father Plowden lived.
The tradition has its source in the sainted founder, and it
is passing through our days full and pure.
As for more than three hundred years the Society of
Jesus has, in moral theology, held the balance between
the rigorous and the lax, so, in the relations of a Religious
Order to the Episcopate, it has always held the balance
between an unbending adherence under all circumstances
to its privileges, and that weak compliance which would
surrender a right to secure a temporary advantage, or win
the evanescent smile of patronage. A true Jesuit, like
every other true and faithful religious man, would always
be ready to stand by his Order, and by those privileges
which the Holy See, for the general good of the Church,
has conferred upon it, in order that its special work may
be protected. On the other hand, as it is well known to
be the boast of the Society that obedience is the chief
virtue inculcated, we may add that no Jesuit has yet been
found so far to play the hypocrite, as to flatter himself on
his obedience, and exclude from its object any authority

1792.] Father Cliarles Plowden. 205
which over him has lawful power. As it was at the end
of the last century, so it would be now. Though no body
of men can be more anxious than members of the Society
of Jesus that young Catholic laymen should, in their
proper sphere, interest themselves in those affairs which
affect the Catholics of England ; so no men could be
found who would be more ready to warn those young
men if they should meddle with matters not within their
province. At present it would appear that a spirit of
inactivity pervades the mass of those who are almost of
age to take their fathers' places. But should there be a
reaction from this state of inactivity, and should the
reaction take a line — which God forbid — opposed to
ecclesiastical authority, the bishops of England would
see in these days what they saw in days gone by, the
Society of Jesus in the front rank of those who would
stand up to support them.
Before passing on from this portion of the history of
English Catholics during the last hundred years, I must
mention the establishment of another Cathohc club, the
existence of which is not even alluded to in Butler's " His
torical Memoirs," but about which we find a few words in
the " Supplementary Memoirs " of Dr. Milner. Milner's
account is headed The Roman Catholic Meeting ;
and what he writes about it is verbatim as follows : —
"The notorious anti-Catholic spirit of the Cisalpine Club
caused another club to be formed under the above-mentioned title,
in effecting which the respectable mediators named above were
mainly instrumental. The first meeting was held and the eighteen
rules of it settled at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, on May 1,
1794, when the following members of it were present: Bishop
Douglas, the Lords Newburgh, Stourton, Arundell, and Clifford ;
the Baronets Fleetwood, Jerningham, Blount, and Haggerston,
with about forty other respectable gentlemen. The greatest hopes

2o6 The Roman Catholic Meeting. [Chap. vn.
of general benefit to the Catholic religion and the Catholic cause
were conceived from the continuance of this Society ; but owing to
some mismanagement or jealousy which the writer has not fully
discovered, it fell to pieces in the course of a very few years." ^
This is the only published account, as far as I know,
which has ever appeared of the Club, which Milner calls
the Roman Catholic Meeting. It is interesting in several
respects. As according to Milner the mediators were
mainly instrumental in forming the club, it would seem
that they were so dissatisfied with the spirit of the Cis
alpine Club, and consequently of the Committee of Ten,
that they considered it advisable to form another club to
counteract the evil. The words "forty other respectable
gentlemen," written by Milner, most probably mean forty
men of well-known Catholic families. These forty, along
with four peers and four baronets, make up a considerable
party — indeed, a very large party of Catholics in those
days. This shows that the Cisalpine Club was very far
from representing the Catholics of England. It is also a
matter of interest to know the names of some, at least, of
those families who were opposed to the ideas and proceed
ings of those who formed the Cisalpine Club. We have
also to. notice with regret, in Milner's short account of
the new club, the cause of its failure after a few years.
Mismanagement and jealousy ruined it, and in ruining it
destroyed the hopes of those who looked to it for general
benefit to the Catholic religion and the Catholic cause.
Mismanagement and jealousy have destroyed many a
good work amongst the Catholics of the British Isles
since the time of which I am writing. The fault of
mismanagement and the passion of jealousy are perhaps
the two evils which most commonly prevent a combination
of men from learning wisdom by experience.
' "Supplementary Memoirs,' p. loi.

( 207 )

CHAPTER VIII.
the reception of the FRENCH CLERGY AND OF THE
ENGLISH COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND.
The French clergy— Letter of the Bishop of St. Pol de Leon— Enghsh Com
munities abroad— Douay and St.Omer's— TheBenedictine dames of Brussels
— The providence of God over the Church in England — Mean action of
some Cisalpines — Kindness of the royal family to the religious — George
III. and the Taunton nuns —The Prince Regent and the Princethorpe nuns.
We now come to that time in which I have to recount one
of the grandest acts of national charity which the world
has ever witnessed. And it was national in the fullest
and best sense of the word. An act may be called national
if it be done by the Parliament or by the governing power
in a country, whatever that power may be. But still a
Parliament might pass a measure which would be national
inasmuch as the Parliament is representative, but which
would not be national inasmuch as the great body of the
people might sympathize little or not at all in the act.
In the matter I am going to speak of, the people of Eng
land individually, and collectively in Parliament, threw
themselves heart and soul into the good deed.
The reader will readily understand that I allude to
the reception in England of the French clergy and the
twice-exiled British communities who were expelled from
France during the great Revolution, and who found a
home in the British Isles. It was a grand act of charity ;

2o8 The French Clergy. [Chap. Vlil.
grand in the number relieved, and in the amount of the
relief, grand in the motive by which it was prompted, and,
let us add, grand in the reward which it received. In
giving credit to our countrymen for their magnificent
act, we must not forget that its value was enhanced by the
promptness with which, in time of necessity, all religious
rancour and hatred were sunk in the desire to succour the
oppressed. The expulsion of the clergy and religious seems to have
been timed most providentially for England. They began
to arrive on our shores in the year 1792, the year after
the passing of the Relief Act of 1791. This Act had
legalized the Catholic religion in England, and there had
been no reaction from the liberal spirit in which the
measure had been conceived. If in the minds of some,
a protest against the French revolutionists constituted
along with charity a mixed motive for benevolence,
the desire of making a protest was certainly not the
dominant motive in what was done. France did not
declare war against England until February, 1793, and
therefore the favour shown by England to the French
Catholics was not the result of feelings of animosity
engendered by war. The relief given by England to the
exiled French was a work of almost pure benevolence.
England never regretted the good work of those days ;
and glories in it to the present time. Amongst Catholics
there seems to have been from the beginning, and there is
now, a universal impression that the reception of the
French clergy by our Protestant fellow-countrymen has
brought, as its reward, many blessings upon the country.^
On August 19, 1792, the decree for the transportation
' Often as I have heard this subject mentioned, I never remember to have
heard it spoken of without the accompanying expressed conviction that it
must have brought a great blessing from Heaven.

1792.] Tlie French Clergy. 209
of all priests who would not take the revolutionary oath
passed the French Legislative Assembly. On the 2nd of
September began the atrocious massacres of priests in
the prisons of Paris. Then followed another decree of
transportation, and the flight to England began. Well
may the writer in the Catholic Directory for the year
1794 say : " 1792 and 1793 will be ever remarkable in the
annals of time. Amidst the various nations which have
afiforded an asylum and succour to the French clergy whom
a strict adherence to their religion has exiled from their
native soil, England, beyond a doubt, must have the
pre-eminence for generosity and compassion. During the
course of September and October, 1792," says the writer,
" more than six thousand clergymen were received in either
England, Jersey, or Guernsey ; nor was it long before the
number was augmented to eight thousand. Great Britain
has proportioned her munificence to the number of the
sufifering objects. By the benevolence of Government, the
Royal Palace at Winchester has been fitted up in order
to accommodate some of them with lodging and other
necessaries, without expense. Already more than six
hundred and sixty are provided for there. The nation
at large has opened a subscription, and every parish has
contributed its part ; the amount of which in August, 1793,
was ;^67,ooo, and at the same epoch four thousand
eight hundred of these suffering exiles were supported
by it. We might also mention," continues the same writer,
";£'io,ooo, the donations of some charitable but nameless
individuals, without even taking notice of the succours
several of them have received in private families, where
they have been caressed almost like children of their
own." Dr. Milner says that there were one thousand of the
clergy in the King's House at Winchester ; and as he was
VOL. L P

2IO Tlie French Clergy. [Chap, vul
living in that city at the time, his number is probably
correct. The private collections for the exiled priests and lay
men were set on foot, and earnestly prosecuted, by the
great Edmund Burke. Burke also established a school
for the education of the sons of the French noblemen who
shared the fate of the non-juring priests.^ The University
of Oxford printed a fine edition of the Vulgate New
Testament and presented a copy to each one of the French
priests who desired to have one. The acts of kindness
to the h'nigrh, as they were called at the time, were
universal over the whole kingdom. But the crowning act
of charity was the grant by the House of Commons, on
the proposal of William Pitt, of an annuity of .£'20 a year
to each one of the exiles. This gift they continued to
receive so long as they remained in England and had need
of the bounty. In order to make the money they received
go further, many of the priests used to live together in
a kind of community life.^
A considerable number of these were employed by the
Vicars Apostolic to work in missions where the number
of English priests was not sufificient. Some of them were
sent to be chaplains in private houses where the inmates
from having been educated abroad were well acquainted
with the French language. And as the ^migris themselves
became able to speak English, they began new missions
in various parts of the country.* A large number of the
' One of the French noblemen educated in this school was the Marquis de
Lys, the father of the late Marquis Francis de Lys, whom many remember
with affection.
^ A considerable number of the priests and also of the laymen congre
gated in the suburb of London called Somerstown. A Catholic who was
living at the time told the author that the development of this suburb was
chiefly owing to the number of priests who resided there.
" If any one would undertake to make a list of the missions in England
which were begun by the French e-migris, it would be an interesting contri
bution to the history of the Church in England during the last hundred years.

l7'.)2-3.] The French Clergy. 2 1 1
priests helped to support themselves by teaching the
French language, some in schools, others in private
families. They were often engaged for this purpose by
both Catholics and Protestants.^
Catholics who well remembered those times used to
say that the dispersion of the French clergy amongst the
aristocracy of England helped in a very great degree to
soften the bitterness against the Church which at that
time prevailed. This efifect was produced by the high
principles, the blameless conduct, and the polished manners
of the guests. The reader will no doubt be pleased to
read an account of the French clergy which was written
many years ago by an English Catholic, who was born in
the middle of the last and who lived until very near the
middle of the present century.^
Mr. Browne Mostyn says: "Having myself inhabited
France full thirty years with but short absences, and having
seen and frequented clergy society during that time both in
the north and south of France, and mixed in society with
all ranks, I believe no Englishman can more fairly than
myself assume to give an opinion, which at your request, I
will give with pleasure and as strict adherence to truth as
conviction will allow me to do. ... I will begin with the
bishops ; . . . they were almost all men of high rank in
society, all having had the best education, and mostly men
of great information. Their opulence, high connections,
and distinguished rank in society, induced most of them to
repair a great deal to Paris and about court, unfortunately
and improperly, but their dioceses were not for that neg
lected, but governed during their absence by able grand-
' The late Sir Robert Peel, amongst many others, received his earliest
lessons in French from an hnigr^ priest.
^ This was the late Charles Browne Mostyn, of Kiddington. The extract
which appears in the text is from a manuscript which was never printed, and
which was written at the request of Miss Turvile, of Bosworth Hall.

212 The French Clergy. [Chap, viil
vicaires as administrators for them. That some of them
led worldly lives cannot be denied, but, with very few
exceptiotis indeed, I did not hear of anything like vice or
dissolute conduct laid to their charge. In the great day of
trial at the Revolution, when called upon by the Assemblee
Nationale to take the obnoxious civil oath, or to forfeit
their rich benefices, on the day appointed they appeared at
the bar, and when called nominally to take the oath, out
of one hundred and twenty-four Bishops, only three con
formed ; Talleyrand was one, the Bishop of Orleans another,
and one whose name I forget, but who was notoriously
deranged. All the others forfeited voluntarily their livings
and exposed themselves to finish their lives by the guillo
tine or in exile, ending their days in beggary and want.
So fine an example is not to be found in all ecclesiastical
history. How very dififerent was the conduct of our
English bishops on a similar trying occasion, when one only.
Fisher of Rochester, remained steady to his duty! The
conduct of the French bishops was so magnanimous as to
force from their most powerful enemy, Mirabeau, then
present, that honourable testimony : " La force et les
bayonettes sont pour nous ; mais ma foi, I'honneur est pour
eux ! " The cures and vicaires and parochial clergy through
out France were a most respectable and, generally speaking,
respected body, always at their posts, constantly and daily
employed in their duties and those duties very hard, as in
the constant exercise at their churches, morning and even
ing, their confessionals, visiting the sick, administering the
sacraments, catechising, etc. They were poorly provided
for . . . To say that among such an immensely numerous
body of clergy there were not some solitary examples of
misconduct of some kind or other cannot be expected.
But, indeed, such examples were unaccountably rare.
Whenever they occurred the bishops took cognizance of it

1792-3.] The French Clergy. 213
and the usual punishment was confinement in the seminary
for months or years, according to the gravity of the
case." Such, then, according to the testimony of one who knew
them well, were the French secular clergy. Such were the
men, eight thousand of whom found a home in the British
Isles, and were hospitably entertained for several years.
The great body of them remained the honoured guests of
the English, until the ratification of the Concordat by Pope
Pius VIL, August 15, 1801, and the solemn re-establish
ment of the public exercise of Catholic worship in France
on Easter Sunday of the following }-ear, enabled them to
return to France. Many of them, however, remained in
England, and died on the missions they had founded.
The gratitude of the French clergy was equal to the
generosity of the English nation. Two expressions of
heartfelt thanks, I will put before the reader. The first
was that of Louis XVI. on the scaffold. We read in the
Laity's Directory for the year 1796, the following short but
touching account :
"In 1793, Louis XVL of France, having been perfidiously
condemned to an ignominious death by a portion of his own
subjects, and having chosen for his confessor, to assist him in his
last moments, the Rev. Mr. Edgeworth, an Irish priest, who
performed this heroical duty in the prison of the Temple and
upon the scaffold at the imminent risk of his fife. His iNIajesty
inquired of him what was become of his faithful clergy : when
upon learning that a considerable portion of them had found an
asylum in England, he expressed his most lively emotions of
gratitude towards His Majesty and the Enghsh people."
The other expression of gratitude is so grand and con
soling that though the extract is somewhat long, the
reader will easily forgive its length. It is contained in a
letter of the Right Rev. John Francis de la Marche, Bishop

2 14 Letter of the Bishop [Chap. VIIL
of St. Pol de L6on, addressed to the French clergymen
refugees in England, and translated into English from the
original French.
"Let us admire the all-wise ways of Divine Providence,
which, to prepare us an asylum in this place, disposed the British
legislation to adopt a system of toleration very different from that
which prevails in our unhappy country, a toleration which on our
arrival opened chapels for the public practice of religious worship,
and altars prepared to receive our devotion and the Victim we
are permitted to present to the Eternal Father in thanksgiving
for His favours, while we call down His mercies on those through
whose hands we receive them. Let us, then, take advantage
of this liberty; let us hasten to these altars, these sanctuaries;
let us pour forth the effusions of our gratitude ; let us join in
prayer with the pious natives who edify us by their fervour and
the constancy of their faith ; let us conjure our Lord to bestow
His blessings on the nation at large, according to the measure of
our obligations ; let us beseech Him to turn away the fatal princi
ples which are inconsistent with the tranquillity of government,
and that He would send His guardian angels to secure the throne
of its kings ; let us beg of Him that He will be graciously pleased
to preside over that august senate, the representatives of the
people, the interpreters of its wishes and wants, the defenders of
its rights, the oracle of its duties, in their important deliberations,
where the interests of nations are discussed, the weighty concerns
of peace, war, commerce, finance, and everything which concerns
the public welfare, is debated with wisdom and eloquence ; let us
entreat our God to direct their councils in framing laws to be
sanctioned by the King, and in adopting measures that may bring
prosperity to the kingdom. May union ever prevail among the
different parts which compose the British Empire, and continually
give additional strength and energy to its power and greatness.
May England be a stranger to civil discord and anarchy, which
raust be fatal to the commerce, the prosperity, and liberty of her
subjects. "May Heaven, attentive to our prayers, grant peace and
plenty to a country where we are so hospitably entertained. May
every revolving year give an increase to the harvest of a people

1792.] of St. Pol de L^on. 215
so ready to share it with the unfortunate. May the Ruler of the
winds and seas guide their vessels, and enrich them with the
treasures of the East and of the West. May England exhibit
to all other nations the picture of perfect happiness, as she has
held up to them the model of Christian benevolence." '
When we consider that this prayer for our country was
drawn from grateful hearts by a really grand act of national
charity, it is difificult not to believe that the great temporal
and spiritual blessings which England has received since
the prayer was uttered, are its fruit. It is now ninety-three
years since the French clergy found an asylum in England.
France cannot be said to have been in a settled state ever
since that time. In the turmoil of contending factions a
party is now in the ascendant which has in that country
renewed against the Church the violent measures of the
early days of the Revolution. The bishops and secular
clergy have been hitherto let alone ; but almost all the
religious orders of men have been proscribed, and the
members of one order, numbering several thousands, have
been expelled from their country. Many of them have
again found refuge in England. In 1792 the French clergy
were received in this country with open arms; in 1880
they were received with a respectful silence. The ex
pulsion of the Jesuits is not a new sign of new times — it is
the old sign that things are in a bad state on the other side
of the Straits of Dover. But the kind of reception they
have met with here is a new sign. Let those study it and
learn a lesson from it who love their country and their
religion. The decrees of the legislative assembly promulgated in
the year 1792, afifected only French subjects. The houses
' The letter from which the above is an extract is dated " London,
December 30, 1792," and was published by Coghlan in the following
year.

2i6 English Communities Abroad. [Chap. VIII.
of the religious, both men and women, who were British
subjects remained for a few months unmolested. These
houses had been established abroad in consequence of the
penal laws which forbade their existence in Great Britain
and Ireland. The two principal houses belonging at the
time of the French Revolution to the English secular
clergy, were the celebrated colleges of Douay and St.
Omer's. Douay had always belonged to the seculars. It
was commenced by Cardinal Allen in the year 1568, and
during the course of its existence, which lasted for two
hundred and twenty-five years, it " produced one cardinal,
two archbishops, thirty-one bishops and bishops elect,
three arch-priests, about one hundred doctors of divinity,
one hundred and sixty-nine writers, many eminent men of
religious orders," and what was its greatest glory, "one
hundred and sixty martyrs, besides innumerable others,
who either died in prison or suffered confinement or
banishment for their faith." ^ The College of St. Omer's
was a college of the Jesuit Fathers. It was founded by
the illustrious Father Persons in the year 1594, exactly
two hundred years before the commencement of the now
famous College of Stonyhurst. It remained in the hands
of those to whom it belonged for a hundred and sixty-eight
years, that is, until the year 1762, when the power of hell,
which cannot prevail against the whole Church, was per
mitted to prevail against that portion of the Church, and
no mean portion of the Church, formed by the Society of
Jesus in the kingdom of France. The dissolution of the
society in France was, in the usual order of such things,
followed by robbery, and the College of St. Omer's was
handed over by the Parliament of Paris, which had seized
it, to the secular clergy of England. They kept it until
' "Notices of English Colleges and Convents," by the Hon. Edward
Petre.

1792-3.] English Communities Abroad. 217
the Revolution, when they in turn were robbed of it by
the infidel.^
Of the houses of the English regular clergy in France
in the year 1793, perhaps the most celebrated was the
Benedictine priory at Douay, the origin of which dates
(according to Mr. Petre) from the year 1605. In this
college was continued, in unbroken succession, the old
English presidency of the Benedictine order, the oldest
presidency, I believe, in the world. There was also a
Benedictine priory at Paris, and a convent of Franciscan
Recollects at Douay.
Of religious houses of women there were in France,
at the time I am writing about, the Canonesses of St.
Augustin at Paris, a Benedictine abbey at Paris, a Bene
dictine abbey at Dunkirk, a convent of the Poor Clares at
Gravelines, a convent of the same order at Dunkirk, a
convent of the same order at Aire, a convent of the same
order at Rouen, and the nuns of the Conception, or Blue
Nuns, at Paris.
Having thus mentioned our English establishments in
France, I must now proceed to the march of events in that
country. On the ist of February, 1793, the National
Convention declared war against England. On the loth
of October in the same year, the National Convention
issued a decree by which the subjects of his Britannic
Majesty in France were stripped of their property and
imprisoned. The alleged reason for this atrocious measure
I will give in the words of Dr. Coombes, in his narrative
' Alban Butler was the second secular president of St. Omer's. Charles
Butler, in his life of his uncle says, " On his being named to the presidency
of the English college at St. Omer's, doubts were suggested to him, on the
justice or propriety of his accepting the presidency of a college, which, in fact,
belonged to others. He advised with the Bishop of Amiens and the Bishop
of Boulogne upon this point, and they both agreed in opinion that he might
safely accept it."

2 1 8 Douay and St, Omei'^s. [Chap. Vlir.
of his own escape from Douay. "^ "The pretext which
served to cloak this inhuman proceeding was the supposed
indignity shown to the French nation in the person of
Beauvais, one of the representatives of the people. This
man was said to have been put to death by the English at
Toulon, and, as Barr^re stated in his report to the Con
vention, not to have suffered like a freeman, but to have
been hanged like a slave. After the recapture of Toulon,
Beauvais was ' found alive and in good health.' It then
appeared that his conduct had exposed him to the resent
ment of his countrymen, and that he had been indebted
for his safety to the generous protection of the British
ofificers. Impressed with the noble behaviour of the enemies
of his country, he set off for Paris, with a full determination
to make known the humanity of the English towards him,
but he was despatched on the road by the secret orders
of the Committee of Public Safety." Men who could
commit so cowardly a murder were fit instruments to carry
out the decree of the loth of October. Two days after the
promulgation of the decree, namely, "on the I2th of
October, the College of Douay (writes Mr. Petre) was
seized by the French, and its inmates were conveyed
prisoners to the citadel of Dourlens. There they remained
until the 24th of November, 1794, when they obtained
permission to return to Douay, being twenty-six in number.
They were still prisoners in the Irish College, but under
less restraint. In the following February they were set
at liberty, and arrived in England on the 2nd of March,
1795- " The College of St. Omer's was also seized in conse
quence of the decree of the loth of October, and its
members were imprisoned at Arras. In May, 1794, they
were sent as prisoners to Dourlens. From Dourlens they
' Laity's Directory for the year 1800.

1793-1.] Englisli Communities Abroad. 219
were sent back to St. Omer's and confined in the French
College. In 1795 they were set at liberty, and returned
to England." 1
It would occupy too much of the history to follow the
fortunes of those Rehgious Houses of English subjects
which I have mentioned above. Suffice it to say that,
after enduring imprisonment, privations, insults, and threats
of death, these communities, some of them with numbers
diminished by persecution, found their way to England
during the years 1794 and 1795.
We have seen that the forced emigration of the French
clergy and many of the laity from France to England was
caused by the decree of the Legislative Assembly on the
19th of August, 1792 ; and that the seizure of the persons
and property of the English secular and regular establish
ments in France, and their arrival at last in England, were
brought about by the decree of the National Convention
of the loth of October, 1793. In the following year, 1794,
the success of the French revolutionary forces in Belgium
caused the flight to England of the English religious houses
which had been established in that country. These religious
houses were many and famous. Of the religious houses
of men there were the barefooted Carmelites at Tongres — •
who lived in a house which had belonged to the Jesuit
Fathers up to the time of the suppression of their Order —
the Dominican Convent and College at Bornheim, near
Antwerp, the Dominican College at Louvain, and the
College of the Jesuit Fathers of Liege. The reader may
ask how it was that the Jesuit Fathers could possess a
house in the year 1794, when their Order was suppressed
in the year 1773, and not restored until the year 1814. It
happened in this way; and as the story cannot be told
better than it has already been by Dr. Oliver, I will quote
' "Notices of English Colleges," by the Hon. Edward Petre.

2 20 English Communities Abroad. [Chap. vill.
his words. Father John Howard was the last rector of
the Liege College before the suppression. He " saw the
suppression of his house pn the 9th of September, 1773.
After the dissolution of the Society the Prince of Liege
restored the house to this Father John Howard, and under
the name of "The Academy," it served as a place of
education for the English Catholic gentry, as well as a
Seminary for ecclesiastics. Father Howard presided over
the new establishment until his death, i6th of October,
1783. He was succeeded by Father William Strickland,
a man of superior merit, who, after introducing some con
siderable improvements, delivered up the government to
Father Marmaduke Stone. This last respected and
conciliating Superior continued in ofifice until the final
emigration to Stonyhurst." ^
After the bull of Pope Clement XIV, the Academy
at Liege could not strictly be called a Jesuit establishment,
but, if the expression may be allowed, it was as much Hke
one as it could well be. The Dominicans of Bornheim,
after their arrival in England, settled first at Carshalton in
Surrey, and established a school there in 1795. In the
year 18 10 they removed from Carshalton to Hinckley, in
Leicestershire. In the year 1852, when the Passionist
Fathers left Woodchester, Mr. Leigh, the founder of the
church and adjoining convent, presented both to the
Dominican Fathers. The first prior of Woodchester was
Father Proctor, so well known for many years in the
midland counties as the superior at Hinckley.
The convents of religious women in Belgium which
were compelled to break up when the country was invaded
by the French, were the Canonesses of S. Augustine at
' " Historical Catechism," chiefly relating to the English Province of the
Society, p. xi. Mr. George Clifford, the father of the present Sir Charles
Clifford, was the last student at Liege ; accompanying the Fathers in their
emigration, he became the first student at Stonyhurst.

1794.] The Benedictine Dames of Brussels. 221
Louvain ; a convent of the same Order at Bruges ; the
Canonesses of the Holy Sepulchre at Liege ; the Bene
dictine Abbeys of Brussels, Cambray, and Ghent ; the nuns
of the Third Order of St. Francis at Bruges ; a convent of
Dominicanesses at Brussels ; and convents of Teresian or
Carmelite nuns at Antwerp, Lierre, and Hoogstraet.
There were other English communities on the Continent
at the time of the French Revolution ; but as they did not
return to England I have not mentioned them.
There is a circumstance connected with the arrival in
England of one of the communities, which will no doubt
interest the reader. The Benedictine dames of Brussels
dated their beginning from the year 1587, when they were
founded by Mary Piercy, daughter of the Earl of North
umberland, Dorothy and Gertrude Arundell, Jane Berkley,
daughter of Sir John Berkley, of Baverstone, and several
other English ladies. There was "a constant prevailing
opinion in this community, said to be founded on ancient
predictions, that as this was the first entire religious
establishment of our nation, that was founded on the
Continent, so they should be the first of this kind that
should return to their native country. Certain it is," says
the account from which I take this, "that this event,
contrary to all expectations and appearances, has taken
place. They did not leave their house at Brussels until
June 22," 1794, "when passing on to Antwerp, they arrived
at Rotterdam the 26th ; embarking from thence July 2nd,
they landed at St. Catherine's Stairs early on the 6th of the
same month, where they met with the utmost humanity
and respect even from the lowest ranks of Englishmen." ^
The community to which the above refers was that whose
successors are now established at East Bergholt in Sufifolk.
' Laity's Directory for the year 1795, from an article continued in the
Directory for the years 1796 and 1797, and signed J. M. (John Milner).

222 The Providence of God [Chj^p. VIIL
And so, the English colleges and religious communities
which had been founded in France and Belgium, came at
last to their own country. There is something so wonder
fully providential in this event that it cannot be dismissed
with a mere mention. But it is only one link in a chain of
events, which seem evidently to prove that the Almighty
has a special care for this land of ours, and that we have
every reason to hope that the Church in England is
advancing in a triumphant march. Our history during
the last hundred years shows in a remarkable manner how
the Providence of God makes use of the political necessities
of nations and the changes in Empires, to bring about the
glory of the Son of God and the victory of His Spouse
upon earth. This appears very clearly in the events which
happened in consequence of the revolt of our American
Colonies, and of the breaking out of the French Revolu
tion. We have seen that political motives chiefly induced
the British Legislature to relax the penal laws. The want
of troops to send to America, and subsequently to defend
our own shores, led naturally to a desire to unite as much
as possible all the subjects of George III. A less active
hatred of the Church in the hearts of the majority of the
people, a strong sense of the injustice of the penal laws in
the minds of many influential statesmen, also contributed
to make the time favourable for acts of relief It is a
most remarkable coincidence that the first Act of practical
relief should have been passed the year before the French
clergy were driven to our shores, and only two years before
our own exiles began to return. Had there been no
expulsion of our communities from France, and had they
simply taken advantage of the Act of 1791 to come over
to England in a body, it is very doubtful how they would
have been received. The liberality which caused the bill
to be introduced might have been exhausted when the

1703.] over the Church in England. 223
Act had been passed. Before the Jews were admitted into
Parliament, many people used to say they would vote that
a Jew might be elected, but would certainly never vote for
a Jew themselves. And so, many Englishmen might have
voted that Catholics might open schools, and religious
orders exist in England ; and yet would not have been
prepared to see St. Omer's, Douay, and Liege come
immediately to England, and scores of religious in various
convents forthwith recommence the work which had been
destroyed at the Reformation.
It is very improbable indeed that the liberality of the
time would have been enough to make our countrymen
take an invasion of Catholic religious communities much
more calmly than an invasion of soldiers from the
Continent. Providence came to our aid, or rather so
governed events, that the actual arrival of the colleges and
the religious orders was celebrated with a more popular
reception than the passing of the Act of 1791 itself As
the minds of the English had been prepared to pass the
Act by political motives ; so the kind reception which
the communities received here was mainly due to the base
and tyrannical motives which caused their expulsion from
France and Belgium.
There is in the English people a strong tendency to
sympathize with those who sufifer unjustly, and to run to
the succour of the oppressed. The conduct of the French
Government roused and put in active motion this natural
characteristic of our countrymen. Hence this great
natural virtue of compassion supplied whatever might
have been wanting of religious toleration, and Protestants
vied with Catholics in welcoming communities, which
made England far more Catholic than it was before.
Political motives, national vices and national virtues, were
all instruments in the hands of God. What had been

2 24 The Providence of God [Chap. VIIL
flung away from England by the Reformation was thrown
back again from France by the Revolution. The virtue
of the English, under the command of God, was more than
a match for the vice of the French, and a victory was won
for the Church. Just at the moment when Englishmen
were best prepared to sanction it, the Church resumed its
normal condition in England. This was a great blessing
in store from all eternity for a country in which God had
once been well served.
In the first chapter of this history I classed under three
heads the active agencies which have brought about so
wonderful a change in the Church in. England during the
last hundred years. Under the first head was comprised
all that has been done by English Catholics themselves.
And here must be included all that has resulted from the
return of the English communities : for the preservation
of these communities abroad until the appointed time, was
essentially the work of English Catholics. The good that
has resulted from the presence of our institutions is
enormous. Before the Act of 1791 and the French
Revolution, the Church was in a decaying state. It had
just been in its worst days, with no prospect of better
things. It was a Church without schools and without
rehgious orders.^ It is impossible to deny that the
existence in England of Oscott, Stonyhurst, Old Hall,
Ushaw, Downside, and Ampleforth, have in many respects
been of the greatest advantage to religion. If none of
them have yet attained the reputation of old Douay and
St. Omer's, they have at any rate, in their steady advance
towards being schools of the first order, shown what the
vitality of the Church is, when she sets to work under
almost every conceivable obstacle.
' Two or three schools of a secondary order existed, and one religious
community, namely that at York.

1793— t.] over the Church in England. 225
Then as to the return of the religious orders, their
presence has made a great change in the state of the
Church in England. If a religious order be curtailed of
its privileges, or be thwarted in its own proper work, the
effect is that of maiming one of the limbs of the Church.
But the Church in a country where there are no religious
orders, is in a state which may be compared to paralysis ;
it would be difificult to preserve in the body even a scintilla
of life ; and life would gradually become extinct. It may
be said that the Church in Ireland is a proof to the con
trary. But Ireland is an exceptional case. Religion in
Ireland was, under God, preserved as it was in the first
three centuries of the Church by the strength of faith
undergoing a continual persecution. In England faith
gave way before persecution, and at the time I am writing
about, there were probably not a hundred thousand Catho
lics, including the Irish, in the country. There has always
been in England a tendency to nationality in Church
government. Religious orders, besides constituting the
state of perfection, and besides the special good which each
order does by prayer and good works, bind a church more
closely to the successor of St. Peter ; they do this in the
very origin of their constitution, by their position in
the Church, and by their well known loyal devotion to
the Holy See. If the religious houses had not returned
to England when they did, there is some reason to think
that Church government in England would either have
fallen under lay domination, or assumed a national
character which would have dimmed the glory of its
resurrection. The grand spirit of Milner was strong in the
land no doubt, but it had formidable adversaries, and it
might not have remained always in the ascendant
And what I have said above of our colleges, I ma)-
say of our convents. Xew Hall, Taunton, Stanbrook,
VOL. L Q

2 26 Mean Action of some Cisalpines. [Chap. VIII.
East Bergholt, and Oulton, better known as Caverswall,
represent well-nigh three hundred years of education of
Catholic giris, an education which did so much to preserve
the faith in England during the dark days of persecution,
and which many a man has blessed in its fruits up to the
present day. Long may our old convents live ; and long
may they hand down the memories of bygone days, and
the spirit which inspired their first foundation.^
Let us thank God that He so disposed of events as to
restore our colleges and convents to us, and let us hope
and pray that they may all long flourish, the pride and the
boast of English Catholics.
The general welcome which was accorded to the
religious houses which were driven to England by the
French Revolution had a few exceptions, but these
exceptions only tended to mark the generous spirit of the
great bulk of the English people. Milner, after stating
that none contributed more cheerfully to the relief of the
communities than the Established clergy, says, " The only
persons who did not partake of this benevolent spirit
were the Jacobins of England, a few bigots among the
Dissenters, and certain Catholic Cisalpines."^ Following
Milner's account of this portion of our history, he says that
' The reader who is not sufficiently acquainted with the history of our
convents may perhaps be surprised not to see the name of Princethorpe
mentioned with the rest. The reason is that this account refers only to the
return of those convents which were of English origin. Princethorpe was of
French origin. The community was expelled from France at the time the
French clergy were expelled. From the time of its arrival in this country in
1792, up to the present day, this community has educated a large number of
girls of the best families of Great Britain and Ireland, and so from companion
ship in exile, and the thoroughly English as well as Cathohc education it has
given, has earned the same gratitude from us as the other convents have, and
in honourable mention can never be separated from them.
'' The reader must always distinguish, especially in the writings of Dr.
Milner, between the acts of the Cisalpine Club and the acts of members of
that club in their individual capacity. The club did not act in the matter of
the Religious mentioned in the text.

1794.] Mean Action of some Cisalpines. 227
" a great leader of the club wrote to a venerable character
(who could not but disapprove of his sentiments), under
date of September 8, 1794, 'What a quantity of nuns,
monks, and friars are arrived ! What is to be done with
them ? It is well worthy of the consideration of the
Vicars Apostolic how far it is advisable, safe, and prudent
to encourage their establishment ; how far we are bound
by our oath, by our honour, not to connive at a wilful
transgression of our Act of Parliament.'" So that while the
whole nation, with hardly an exception, was forgetting any
penal law that might still exist against religious orders,
and was anxious only to gratify the yearnings of a noble
British spirit, these few Catholics of the Cisalpine Club
were meanly raking up the old and bad laws, and parading
a hypocritical spirit of loyalty, to cover their dislike to
religious orders. This bad leaven amongst the English
Catholics, which, thank God, was not destined to corrupt
the whole mass, had however some efifect amongst the
Protestants. As this disagreeable subject has come
naturally in its turn, I may as well follow it to the end and
have done with it. This cannot better be done than in
the words of Milner. After quoting the words of the letter
from the Cisalpine, he continues as follows : " When it is
known that Catholics of power were thus disposed in
regard of the most inoffensive, the most pure and pious,
and the most usefuP description of English Catholics, next
to the officiating clergy, it is easy to account for a circum
stance which took place respecting them in 1800. A
religious controversy had taken place in one of the
cathedral cities between a prebendary and the Catholic
pastor of that city, in which the latter, owing to the
advantage of his cause, was allowed to have had greatly
' ' ' Allusion is here made to the virtuous and religious education given by
the ladies to the youth of their own sex. "

2 28 Mean Action of some Cisalpines. [Chap. vni.
the advantage.^ In this posture of affairs, it was resolved
on by the worsted party to have recourse to Parliament
for an Act to annoy the CathoHcs, though it was not
settled on which side to attack them. At one time it was
intended to lay restraints on the French clergy, some of
whom had been actually sent out of the kingdom for
making converts, but at length it was resolved on to
torment the poor nuns, by putting them under a species of
Alien Act. Accordingly a bill was brought into the
House of Commons for this purpose, and, as it was at first
countenanced by the minister, it seemed sure of succeed
ing.^ At length, however, being opposed by Messrs.
Sheridan, Hobhouse, Windham, etc., it became weaker
and more relaxed in every stage of its progress, and was
likely to be totally lost, when the first-mentioned member
proclaimed to the Commons that, ' a compromise had
taken place.' Accordingly the bill met with no further
opposition among them, though, after all its changes, it
was still in such a state that, as O'Leary said in his
excellent pamphlet on the subject,^ ' The ladies would say
of it, " Send us back to the French guillotines rather than
subject us to the conditions proposed in the bill."' The
fact is, Mr. Sheridan, who was extremely intimate with
the Cisalpines in question, never doubted of their being
authorized to make terms for the poor recluses ; and, to
give a colour to such a pretence, they had actually written
to them for their certificates and other documents, with
a promise of protecting them. The upshot of the business
was, a real friend of theirs informed them that they were
betrayed, and advised them to throw themselves on the
humanity of the House of Lords, without any Cisalpine
' The Catholic pastor was, of course, Milner himself.
^ This bill was brought into the House by Sir Henry Mildmay.
' "Remarks on Sir Henry Mildmay's Bill."

1800.] Mean Action of some Cisalpines. 229
interference whatever.^ This they did, and the bill was
' quashed at once.' " ^
Religious orders will always have enemies — they will
have them both inside and outside the fold. No sooner
did they take their place again in England, after nearly
three centuries of proscription and exclusion, than they
found enemies, few in number indeed, but active in their
evil work, and amongst Catholics as well as Protestants.
Whenever these enemies appear, and wheresoever they
appear, may they be always crushed, as they were crushed
in the year 1800, by the resistance of the great majority of
Catholics, backed by the fairness and chivalrous sentiment
of the English people. But if ever any English Catholics,
in their dislike of religious orders, should so far lose the
true spirit of their religion, and should be so tainted with
Erastianism as to congratulate themselves that some
religious orders are still under the ban of the law, let them
also congratulate themselves that they must trace back
their descent up to the shabby half-dozen Cisalpines, who,
at the beginning of this century, brought discomfiture and
disgrace upon themselves by the mean conduct which has
just been put before the reader.
It is pleasing to turn from this unworthy conduct of a
few Catholics to the conduct of the English royal family
in regard of the communities expelled from France and
Belgium. It is a remarkable thing that George III. and
his sons, though some of them were most bitter opponents
of the Catholic claims, always showed, not merely civility
and politeness, but extreme kindness, in their personal
relations with Catholics.
' Who this real friend was Milner does not say, but there can be little
doubt that it was himself. He loved religiou,s orders, he hated Cisalpuiism,
and could spot a traitor quicker than any other Catholic in England.
^ The friends of the nuns might have exclaimed, as Cobbett once exclaimetl,
and as we may exclaim now, " Thank God, we have a llouse of Lords."

230 Kindness of the Royal Family [Chap. vin.
The determination of the old King himself not to
consent to our complete emancipation is well known.
George IV. was in 1829 inclined to be quite as obstinate
as his father, and but for the influence of the Duke of
Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, might have refused his
consent to the great Act. The Duke of York, as is well
known, also took a solemn oath in the House of Lords that
he would never, under any circumstances, give his consent '
to admit us into Pariiament. The Duke of Cumberiand
amongst his other supposed enormities, was the grand
master of the Orangemen, and therefore our most bitter
enemy. I am not quite clear as to the disposition towards
us of the Duke of Cambridge. The Duke of Kent, the
father of the Queen, was friendly to us. But the Duke of
Sussex was the only active friend we had amongst the
King's sons, in the advocacy of our political rights. It so
happens that the most remarkable acts of kindness which
Catholics received from the royal family were precisely
from those members of it who were most actively opposed
to the Relief Bill. These were George III., George IV.,
and the Duke of York. Some examples of this kindness
on the part of the King and his sons cannot fail to interest
the reader. We take the first example from a letter
written by Dr. Coombes to Coghlan, and published in the
Laity's Directory for 1800. Dr. Coombes was one of those
who escaped from Douay, and in this letter he describes
the adventures of some of the Douay students who had
been captured and imprisoned at Doulens. The conclusion
of the letter is in the following words : —
" After crossing the country with infinite hazard and danger,
and performing the journey of nearly forty miles in the space of
one night, they arrived safe on the frontier of France, and reached
the head-quarters of the British army under the command of the
Duke of York. His Royal Highness beheld with the deepest

1794.] to the Religious. 231
concern the situation to which young men of a liberal education
had been reduced ; he sincerely pitied their misfortunes, and was
visibly hurt at the wretched appearance which they made both as
to their persons and dress ; he kindly inquired about their friends
whom they had left in prison, requested a list of their names
undoubtedly for the same benevolent purpose, and with a gene
rosity peculiar to himself, gave to each one present an ample
pecuniary supply for the prosecution of his journey. This, sir,
is an instance of humanity which should never be forgotten. It
is an action worthy of a prince and a hero; and ought to be
reserved for the instruction and example of those who have yet
to learn that the exercise of humanity, compassion, and generosity
adds the brightest ornaments to the splendour of rank and the
fame of military exploits. I cannot dismiss this subject without
expressing my earnest wish and prayer, that this generous and
gallant Prince may long be the boast of the illustrious family which
fills the throne, and the pride and glory of the country which
gave him birth."
The annals of the Franciscan nuns of Taunton also
relate of the Duke of York as follows : —
" During his stay in Bruges, his Royal Highness honoured our
community with a visit, and considerately brought in with him
only one English officer as an attendant. The Bishop of Bruges
met him in our refectory, for he had come unexpectedly while we
were at dinner. The abbess and sister F. Sales Weld, who was
a novice, went round the house with him. On taking leave of
the abbess, he recommended to our prayers the success of his
arms, and after his departure he sent back one of his suite, with
a present to the community of twenty-five guineas. His Royal
Highness did the same to the Austins ; ^ and we were told, visited
every English establishment in the places through which he
passed." The account also adds that "his Royal Highness
Prince Ernest Augustus [the Duke of Cumberland] likewise
honoured us with a visit at a later period of the year."
The next instance which I shall give is of the kindness
of the King himself; and it is taken from the same manu-
' What is now called the English Convent at Bruges.

232 George III. and the Taunton Nuns. [Chap. VIII.
script account from which I have just quoted.^ It is as
follows : —
" Our afflicted abbess was all anxiety to have a letter from Mr.
Weld, whose two daughters were with us. She had immediately
informed him of our emigration and where we were, and was
hurt at not having a speedy reply, and his advice in her distress.
At last she received a most kind and consoling letter. It informed
her that it providentially happened that when he received the
account of her having left Prinsenhof, the King was at Weymouth.
Mr. Weld went there to pay his respects, and the good King
asked him with great interest what had become of the English
communities in the Low Countries, and especially after that in
which his daughter was novice. Mr. Weld described the situation
all were in, and that they knev/ not whither to take refuge. The
King immediately desired he would tell us to come to England,
and that he would take care we should not be molested, and
added of his own accord, ' TeU them to bring their Church vest
ments, breviaries, and such like ; I will give orders that they shall
pass the Custom House.' His majesty recollected that by law these
things were condemned to the flames. He made Mr. Weld give
him down the names of the superiors of the different communities."
The community having arrived at London, the account
continues :
" The next morning, the Sth of August, Mr. Grafton, Sister
Frances Chantal Howse, and Sister Mary Austin Hutton went
to the Custom House (at London) to see to the landing and
examining of our goods ; and discovered how cleverly and
secretly the King had managed for all the religious communities.
Only the chief or head officer knew his Majesty's orders; a sort
of examination therefore took place ; and when he sent the men
out of the room into another with bales or trunks he had done
with he asked which contained Church vestments, breviaries, etc.,
' This manuscript is an account of the adventures of the community of
Franciscan nuns who were established at the Prinsenhof at Bruges, in their
flight to England ; and I am permitted to publish it through the kindness of
the reverend mother abbess of Taunton.

1792.] Prince Regent and the Princethorpe Nuns. 2

00

and when the officers returned, he pretended he had examuied
those trunks, and ordered them to be carried away."
One of the most interesting accounts showing the
kindness of the royal family to the exiled communities,
is that which is preserved at St. Mary's Priory, Princethorpe ;
and a translation from which I can give the reader through
the kind permission of the Reverend Mother Prioress.
The community was at that time purely French, and
they had been established for many years at Montargis.
In the year 1792 they were expelled from their convent
with the rudeness and insolence which characterized the
French revolutionists. They determined to make for
England with the intention of passing immediately from
England to Belgium, where they hoped to find a home.
But they unexpectedly found a welcome home in England.
They arrived at the port in France from which they were
to embark for our shores. I now continue the narrative
in their own words.
" The captain of the ship in which we had taken our
passage, having learned that we had obtained passports,
had given out on leaving Brighton that no doubt he
should take us on board on his return journey. This
accounts for our having found the beach at Shoreham
crowded with a large number of carriages and a mass of
people, some of whom had been attracted by the sight of
an entire community disembarking on this island, where
for two hundred years the religious state was proscribed ;
others of whom, and these in greater number, had come
in their eagerness to succour it. Scarcely had we stepped
out of the small boats which landed us, when we were
conducted by the crowd to a neighbouring house, in the
midst of great cheering and the most touching marks of
kindness. Some of them said to us, ' Come, come and
forget amongst us all that those villains have made you

234 The Prince Regent [Chap. vill.
sufifer : we will take away the least trace of your mis
fortunes.' Others said to us, ' You will find here none
but feeling and compassionate hearts, who will esteem
themselves happy in repairing the injustice and the cruelty
of your fellow-countrymen.' Others again said, ' We will
make every effort to procure you that happiness and peace
which you could no longer enjoy in France ; take courage,
therefore, you have nothing more to fear.'' The truth of
these assurances was soon made evident to us. Persons
of quahty, who had come in their carriages, hastened to
make us get in with them ; while the rest of the community
were conducted to hired carriages which had been sent
from Brighton. In a few moments we all found ourselves
carried ofif, without any one of us knowing where she was
going or with whom she was, and all of us in the greatest
surprise at a reception which we had no idea we should
receive. We arrived at Brighton, a town situated at
a distance of six miles from Shoreham, where we had
disembarked ; and we were set down at the hotel, where
apartments had been engaged for us by our generous
benefactors. Those who had brought us, all united in
renewing their assurances of the most sincere compassion.
It was there we learned the protection accorded to us by
the Prince of Wales through the intervention of Mrs.
Fitzherbert, who came herself to see us on our arrival.
We did not, however, as yet know that this protection
extended so far as to defray all our expenses in this town,
and that all the nobility who were there had subscribed for
this act of benevolence. We were only informed of this
the next morning, when the Prince of Wales sent his
physician to inquire if we were treated at the hotel
according to the orders which had been given. During
the course of this day we were visited by a multitude of
our benevolent hosts. The Prince of Wales himself came

1792.] and the Princethorpe Nuns. 235
to see Reverend Mother. He entered into the minutest
details of everything which concerned us. Having learned
that we intended to leave immediately for Brussels, he
persuaded Reverend Mother to remain in England ; ' for,'
said he, 'the Low Countries being threatened with a
French invasion before long, a residence there will only
expose you to danger, and the same bad treatment you
have just met with in France. Remain in England,' he
continued ; ' you will find here a great number of your
countrymen and countrywomen, and the English will con
sider it a duty to make you happy. At least, go to
London, and pass some time there ; you will see what
turn afifairs will take, and then you can leave for Brussels,
if you can do so without fear of the consequences ; but
believe me, a hasty voyage there may place you in the
greatest possible embarrassment.' This advice, coming
from the mouth of the heir apparent of the Crown of
England, was as much as a manifest order of the will
of our Lord in our regard ; and although we did not then
see all the consequences of it, it was at least an earnest
of the favourable reception which awaited us, to whatever
part of the kingdom we might go. After the Prince had
left, the physician whom we have already spoken of sup
ported his advice more in detail, adding that the passage
from Brighton to Ostend being very little frequented, we
might run great danger : whereas it would be much safer
to take the ordinary way by Dover, in case we should be
able to go to Belgium. The opinions of all directing us
to London, Reverend Mother determined to go there, and
thought only about the means of transit. The Prince
again came to see us, and this time he asked to see the
community. Reverend Mother having assembled us all,
he received us with a kindness truly royal. He conjured
Reverend Mother (these were his words) to make the

236 The Prince Regent [Chap. VIII.
community sit down while he remained standing. He
repeated the advice which he had given the evening before
about our journey to Brussels, and he invited us in the
most obliging terms to go to London, where we should
find all the inhabitants disposed to recompense us for
our losses. The want of chairs prevented many of us
from being able to sit down. The Prince perceived
this, and, turning to Mrs. Fitzherbert, he said in that
kind manner which is his characteristic, ' See, we are
keeping them standing ; let us be ofif ; I cannot sufifer this
any longer.'
" Whilst Reverend Mother was turning over in her own
mind, as we have already said, our departure for London,
a lady obligingly ofifered her two places in her carriage,
for Friday. The hour for starting was just settled, when
the landlord came to tell us that the Prince of Wales had
taken upon himself the expenses of our journey and the
transport of all our baggage, and that ten of us could start
the next morning. So, Reverend Mother changing the
plans she had already made, named those who were to
start on the next and the following days."
When George IV. died in 1830, a miniature of Mrs.
Fitzherbert was found tied round his neck. This lasting
attachment to a virtuous wife has often been cited as one,
if not the only one, redeeming quality in the character
the King. His conduct to the exiled community of
Montargis may certainly also be mentioned in his favour.
For it was not only in consequence of his civility and
kindness, but in consequence of his urgent and repeated
advice, that the sisters settled in England, and that we
are indebted for one of the largest and most flourishing
communities we possess. It is at least interesting, that
both these traits of goodness should have been taken from
the conduct of George IV. towards Catholics.

lTst2.] and the Prineethorpe Xiins, 237
If, as we cannot doubt, Almighty God has blessed our
land for the hearty welcome which our religious orders
received, wc may hope that the royal family of Kngland
has earned a special blessing for itself in consequence
of the special kindness which its members showed in our
regard.

( 238 )

CHAPTER IX.
REV. MR. WILKS AND THE "STAFFORDSHIRE CLERGY."
Before giving an account of the progress of emancipation
in Ireland and Scotland, it will be necessary to mention
an episode in the history of English Catholics. This
episode was something very like a small schism amongst
the Catholic clergy ; and was for many years afterwards
well known under the name of " the Staffordshire Clergy."
This unfortunate affair lasted only for a short time. Its
temporary character showed that anything like schism
could not take any hold on English Catholic ground.
From the end of its brief existence until the present day,
no clergy have shown more zeal, more devotion to the
Church, and more submission to authority than the whole
body of priests in the county of Stafford.
The origin of this schism was as follows. It has been
already stated that the Rev. Joseph Wilks was a member
of the " Committee of Ten ; " that he signed, and in fact
wrote, conjointly with Mr. Butler, the " schismatical protest"
against the condemnation by the Vicars Apostolic of the
oath proposed by the committee in 1791. Dr. Milner says
of Wilks that he went all the unlawful lengths of the
committee, continued to promote its oath after it had been
censured by his bishop, signed the two " Blue-books, and
obstinately refused to retract these scandalous measures." ^
' " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 92.

1791.] The Rev. Mr. Wilks. 239
In consequence of this rebellious conduct. Dr. Walmesley,
the Vicar Apostolic of the Western District, suspended Mr.
Wilks. The letter of suspension was as follows : —
" Bath, Saturday, February 19, 1791.
" As you have evidently refused submission to the ordinances
of the Vicars Apostolic; if, before, or on Sunday next, the 26th
instant, you do not make to me satisfactory submission, I declare
you suspended from the exercises of all missionary faculties, and
all ecclesiastical functions in my district. Let this one admonition
suffice for all. " Charles Ramaten, Vicar Apostolic.
Mr. Wilks did not immediately submit. He had not
submitted at the time of the meeting at the Crown and
Anchor Tavern on the 9th of June. We have seen that
the suspension of Mr. Wilks was one of the grievances
brought forward by the committee at that meeting. On
that occasion "the agent of Bishop Walmesley," says
Husenbeth, "being called upon to declare for what criminal
fault Mr. Wilks had been suspended, read the following
from a letter of the bishop, dated June i, 1791 : — "Because
Mr. Wilks has rebelled and protested against the divine
established government of the Church by bishops and their
authority — a crime not less than schism." ^ In the mean
time, and before the Crown and Anchor meeting, " dififerent
laymen and women," says Milner, " had used their efforts
in vain to oblige the prelate to reverse a sentence which
he had conscientiously pronounced."^ The case being
clearly an ecclesiastical one, we have it on the authority of
Milner that the committee, or at any rate those ladies and
gentlemen who were most anxious to have the suspension
reversed, solicited priests to interfere in the matter. " The
principal clergyman applied to for this purpose," says
' Husenbeth's "Life of Milner," pp. 40, 41.
'^ "Supplementary Memoirs," p. 92.

240 The Rev. Mr. Wilh [Cav. l\.
Milner, " was one who had alwa_\s shown his obsequiousness
to the secretary and leadci-s of the committee."* Milner,
mIu^ is always cautious in mentioning pn.ipcr names, does
not name this "principal clorg\-nian." It was the Rev.
Joseph Berington, w ho had published some vcr>- objection
able books ; who took the worst possible view of the state
of the Catholic Church in luigland; who had pubUcly
suggcsteil that Catholics owed their unemancipated state
to themselves, for not taking the oath of supremacy ; and
who was one of those men, one or two of whom may be
goncrall)- fount! amongst us, who live in a chronic state
of dissatisfaction with superiors and opposition to ecclesi
astical authorit)-.^ Joseph Berington was well acquainted
with the clergy of the Midland District, and especially
with those of Staffordshire, lie had been on tlie mission
at Oscott before the mission house there was enlarged to
commence the college." Berington applied to some of his
acquaintance arpongst the Staffordshire clergy to join him
in taking the part of Mr. Wilks against his bishop. Thir
teen of them consented to do so : and these thirteen, along
with Berington, joined in signing a letter, "most probably,"
as Husenbeth says, "composed by Berington," and
addressed to the Committee of Ten, in which they " pledge
themselves to make the cause of Mr. Wilks their own, and
doubt not but they shall receive such co-operation from
all the clergy of England as shall secure success to their
endeavours in restoring to their delegate the good-will of
' "Supplementary Memoirs," p. 92.
* Joseph Berington had published a book entitlal, " The decline and fall
of the Roman Catholic Church in Groiil Britain." Poor man 1 Ue wrote
this only just before the Catholic Church in Groat Hritnin rose up agsvin, and,
with a new life, began a now light, in which slie has never had a fall, but with
God's blessing has obtained many a victory.
' This house is now called Maryvale, that name having been giwn to it,
at the suggestion of one of his companions, by Coi'diiuil Newman when he
went to reside there.

1791. J and the ''Staffordshire Clergy." 241
his bishop and the exercise of his ecclesiastical functions."
" Never," says Milner, " was there an ecclesiastical pro
ceeding more irregular and disedifying." ^ " The names
of these priests were subsequently signed to other repre
hensible documents, and one more joined them, making
the whole number fifteen ; and they were known as the
" Staff'ordshire clergy."^
In justice to tiie memorj' of these men, we must add
another sentence from Milner's " Supplementaiy Memoirs."
" These last signatures, which were made by some of the
thirteen without any knowledge, and by the rest with only
an imperfect knowledge, of the cause which they had made
their ozvn, were the source of disquietude and misery to
them for several years, till by the grace of God they
successively, either in health or on their death-beds, fully
retracted them." "
The bad spirit which caused the unpleasant proceedings
above mentioned continued to work for a few years. But
when Milner was consecrated bishop, and appointed Vicar
Apostolic of the Midland District in the year 1803, it had
entirely died out. The late Dr. Husenbeth, in an un
published manuscript, corrects an error relating to this
matter which occurs in Canon Flanagan's " History of the
Church in England." * As this error represents tiie evil
of the " Staffordshire clergy " to have lasted longer than
it did, it is well that the reader should be aware of the
correction. Dr. Husenbeth writes as follows: — "It is stated,
' Husenbeth's " Life of Milner," p. 41.
- " Supplementary Memoirs," p. 93.
' Milner says that one of the publications of the "Staffordshire clergy"
containeA implied Iteresy. This publication was "an appeal to the Catholics
of EnglEUid," and the proposition which Milner condemns was as follows : —
"Of this (Catholic) Church we believe the Bishop of Rome to be the head,
supreme in spirituals by Divitu appointnuni , supreme in discipliru by eccle
siastical institution."
* Vol. ii. p. 443.
VOL. I. R

-'•I-' The R,v. Mr, h'ilks [o,i,u>. ix.
in c:aiu)n Flanagan's llistor\-, that these pricst.s" t^that
is, tho.so known us tho " StalVord.sliiro clergy") "often
as.semblcd at Scilglc)' Park, and that Dr, Milner frequently
nppoaretl among them, to call their atloiUion to jvasons
and facts, and bring them to a better sense, ihit this is
a sail mistake. Their opposition had been entirely given
up uiuler his predecessor, 15i,shop Stapleton, and when Dr.
Milner became Bishop in 1803, eight of the firiecii were
dead ; another, Rev. Ju.sejih Berington, hail left tlK> ilistrict ;
and one, Rev. John I'err)-, hail .so far gained Dr. Milner's
confidence that he i\iaile hini his vicar-general and his
confessor. All indeed fully retracted, . . . and "as to Mr.
Southworth' (the I'rcsidcnt of Scilgley Park when Milner
was made bishop), 'he, wilh the remaining live, had re
tracted two years before. He was on the best of terms
with Bishop Stapleton, who confirmed in his new chapel at
Sedglcy I'ark, soon after it had been opened in 1801. It i.s
certain, therefore, that these priests never assembled at
Sedglcy I'arh in Dr. Milner's time, nor is it likely that they
all met there together at any lime.' " *
Amongst some other manuscripts left by Dr. 1 lusenbeth,
he gives, under the heading "StaffordHhire clergy," a list
of thirteen priests, with the residence of most of them and
the date of their deaths. As this list may prove of interest ,
to some readers, I give it as follows : —
Rev. Thomas Flynn, died August 18, 1797.
Rev. George Beeston, 'J'ixiUl, died August 15, 1797.
Rev. William Hartley, died July 8, 1794,
Rev. Joseph Hcrington, Oscott, ilieil Dee. i, 1827.
Rev. Thomas Stone, Moseley, died Miin-h 7, 1797.
Rev. John tiartor, Wolverhampton, died IVlin'i'h 34, 1803.
Rev. John Coone, Stafford, dieil Aun'iist 4, 1S16.
Rev. Thomas Southworth, Sednloy Vi\x\, died June 9, 1816.
Rev. J;inics Tasker, Cresswell, died July 15, 1815.
' " MS. Memoirs of i'lultcrs ! " liov Thomiw Smilhwovlh,

l"iU.J and the ''Staffordshire Clergy." 243
Rev. Edward Eyre, Longbirch, died Nov. 15, 1834,
Rev. John Roe, Blackladies, died June jS, 1S3S.
Rev. John Wright, died July 23, 1797.
Rev. John Kirk, Pipe Hall, died Dec. 20, 1851.
These, with the Rev. Thomas Perry, make up fourteen ;
who the fifteenth was, I am not aware. Mr. Wilks re
tracted his error, and died an editying death at Douay.
A few jears later than tlie time I have been writing
about, some of the French priests in England were en
gaged in the schism whicli followed the Concordat between
Pope Pius VII. and Napoleon, and whicli I shall have
occasion to allude to. But from the time of the " Stafford
shire clergy " down to the present da)-, the word " schism "
has never been seriously pronounced in relation to the
English Catholic clerg)-. If ever through thoughtlessness
or ignorance the word has been rashly uttered, there never
has in fact been any foundation for its use.
In this history we have now come, so far as the Church
of England is concerned, down to tlie end of the last
century. At the opening of the present century, twenty-
two years had passed since the repeal of the penal laws had
begun, and nine years since what is called freedom of
worship had been granted to us by Act of Parliament.
The remnant of the Catholics of England had been re
inforced by the retum of our colleges and convents from
abroad, and we had derived great help in several ways
from the residence of the clergy who had been exiled from
France. The large emigration of the Irish to England had
not begun, and the " Oxford movement '' was three and
thirty years in the future. The new growth of the Church
sprang from the old roots. The sapling took a firm hold
of the ground, and, though exposed in its early life, as we
have seen, to some rude shocks, it showed proofs of a
strength well able to bear them. It shot up and becarae

244 The " Staffordshire Clergy," [Chap. ix.
a stately tree ; and when shelter had to be provided for
thousands, its branches were spread out to cover them all.
If the parable of the mustard-seed may be applied to
the Church of any one country, it certainly illustrates the
state of the Church in England at the close of the last
century and its growth in succeeding years. The arrival
of the Irish added enormously to our numbers, and the
Oxford movement, besides numbers not inconsiderable,
brought the Church into, or into close connection with,
almost every family of the upper classes in the country.
These two providential events infused elements into the
Church of England which now form essential parts of our
state and condition. But still they were joined on to the
old stock and amalgamated with it. And whatever may
be the progress which the Church may make in our country,
even if it should own the English people for its children
once again, the Church preserved in the old Catholic
families, the Church of the garrets and cellars, will have
been the seed from which the tree grew which produced
such abundant fruit, though some of its branches may have
been grafted on the stem.
It is not unlikely, indeed, that had there been no
emigration from Ireland and no "Oxford movement," the
Church in England would have been in a state so lowly
that we do not like to think of what might have been.
But truly, in thinking over these things, our thoughts are
lost in the mysterious designs of God. The seed had
fallen to the ground, and had died, beaten down and
trodden underfoot. But because it had fallen to the ground
and had died, it was not left alone. It received two com
panions (if the expression may be allowed), bringing new life
and strength— two as great blessings as God ever gave to
a Church ; and we see it now, bearing much fruit, only one
of the myriad proofs that God's Word does not pass away.

( 245 )

CHAPTER X.
PROGRESS OF EMANCIPATION IN IRELAND.
The influence of Ireland — Duty of EngUsh Catholics towards Ireland —
Catholic associations in Ireland — ^John Keogh — Keogh and O'Connell —
O'Connell — Union is strength.
We have now to follow the progress of emancipation in
Ireland. This is a great and instructive subject. Though
the history of the emancipation of English Catholics be
a matter of more interest, as relating to our immediate
home affairs, still what was done in Ireland by her own
people towards gaining the freedom of British subjects is
of greater importance, because it brought into action a
great political power — the only great political power which
the Catholics of the British Isles possess. I repeat here
what has been written in a former chapter, that the
political power of Ireland is the political power of Catholics
in the United Kingdom. An English Catholic has many
things to be proud of There is a great deal in our past
history of which we may justly boast. England, as well
as Ireland, was at one time entitled to be called, as she
was called, an Island of Saints. The history of England,
when England was Catholic, though there are many blots
upon its leaves, presents many centuries of wisdom and
strength in government, of steady progress and persever
ing energy in its people, and of bravery and glory in war.
Though an English Catholic has to lament that brute

246 The Influence of Ireland. [Chap. x.
force drove the Church out of the land, leaving only a
handful of members who were to form the stock out of
which, in after years, true religion was again to grow, yet
he has to rejoice in the fidelity of that handful, and to
thank God for the increase He has given in our days. An
English Catholic may also point to that sense of religion,
that reverence for God, which undoubtedly exist in many
of our countrymen and women, and passing over for the
moment the wrong direction which that sense of religion
and that reverence for God have taken, through the wiles
and deceits of the enemy of human nature, he may stretch
his view back to those days when all that is good in
religion, was brought over to our forefathers with the first
coming of the Roman Catholic Church.
We may, indeed, now look upon the realization of
almost the fondest hopes of English Catholics who were
young and eager forty years ago. We see a great increase
in numbers ; we see freedom before the law, and the law
administered with greater fairness ; we see churches,
schools, and institutions of all kinds rapidly on the in
crease, and the number of priests yearly augmenting;
we see religious orders multiplying, and a hierarchy
gradually developing into settled organization. We
have much to be proud of in the past ; we have much
to be proud of in the present. But there is one thing
that we cannot boast of: we cannot boast of political
power. If we want to use political power we must go
to Ireland to get it. Have English Catholics ever got
anything from Pariiament or the Government which the
Irish Catholics have not got first, or which has not been
got for us by Irishmen .? By Irishmen I here mean the
power of Catholic Ireland. Could English Catholics force
a bill; should we ever dream of forcing a bill through
Pariiament? The Irish have forced bills through Pariia-

1793-1885.] The Influence of Ireland. 247
ment; they forced bills before 1829, they forced one in
1829, and they have forced several since that time. Look
at Canning's speeches, and see the emancipation of
English Catholics brought in as an afterthought, as a
sort of corollary or note, at the tail end of one of his
grand orations for the emancipation of the Irish. And
when to-day a Catholic priest is stung by the refusal of
some local authorities, or by the Home Office, to give
some direction which justice and common fairness would
dictate to an administrator of the law, what is it that he
is told to do ; what do people say to him ? They say to
him, " Get an Irish member to bring it before the House
of Commons."^ Why an Irish member .-' Because an
Irish member has power at his back to support his de
mands. For some years past only one constituency in
England has returned a Catholic member. It is, indeed,
thought by some that it is our own fault that we have not
some Catholics representing English constituencies. It is
said that there are a few Catholic gentlemen who, if they
took their proper position in public affairs, would succeed
in occasionally winning a seat in Parliament. This is a
subject that I may have occasion to refer to in some
subsequent page. But this question does not affect what
I am now insisting upon. For whether it is in conse
quence of the neglect of their duty by Catholic gentlemen,
or in consequence of the bigotry of the majority in every
English constituency, the fact remains that, with one ex
ception, the only representation of Catholics by Catholics
in the House of Commons is by members sent from
Ireland. So that if the Home Rule party should gain
its end, there might not be a single Catholic in the Lower
House of Parliament.
' This was perfectly true at the time it was first written. It is not true
now, because folly has taken the place of wisdom in our counsels.

248 The Influence of Ireland. [Chap. S.
Nothing is more dangerous in practical politics than
for a politician to mistake the ground on which he stands.
Nothing is more useful to a man who has some political
question in charge than to tell him the truth. There are
amongst us some who, judging from what they say and
write, greatly overrate the power of English Catholics.
That we have more power in one respect now than we
had some years ago is true. There are more consti
tuencies in which the number of Catholic votes adds
considerable weight when put into the scale at an election.^
In another respect we have not so much power as we had.
To have Catholics in Parliament is a power, especially
when we have a man there like the late Mr. Langdale.
At one time we had several English Catholics in the
House, representing English constituencies. Now we
have only one. The injury we do ourselves by ex
aggerating our power is this : it tends to make us
undervalue the importance of preserving as close a
connection as we can with the Catholics of Ireland and
their representatives in Parliament. If we think that
power is where power is not, we shall underrate and
perhaps neglect and even ignore power where power
really is. We must understand our position as it is, not
as it was, nor as it may be in the future. Parliamentary
power is the supreme political power in the British
Empire ; and the parliamentary power of Catholics
comes wholly and solely from Ireland. But we need
not despair ; things will get better. We shall some day,
and perhaps before long, have a few representatives in
Parliament. We may be as sanguine as we please, but
until we have about fifty English Catholics in the House
of Commons, and until about a quarter of the tradesmen
' This is in consequence of the increase of Catholics in England ; but is it
in consequence of the increase in the number of English Catholics ?

1885.] Duty of English Catholics. 249
in Oxford Street are Catholics, we must not consider
that our power has attained any degree to boast of We
know, our countrymen know well, the whole world knows,
that the power of the Catholics of Ireland is great in the
British Pariiament. The power of English Catholics,
unaided by the Irish, is nothing. If we think it to be
something, whereas it is nothing, besides mistaking our
own interests, we shall run the danger of putting ourselves
into the ridiculous position represented in the old fable, of
the frog which tried to swell itself to the size of the ox,
and was ruined in the attempt.
The Catholics of Ireland have much more to boast of
than we have. They have preserved the faith as a nation ;
they possess great political power ; they have, by emigrat
ing in- large numbers to England, increased the Catholic
population, and contributed a large share of whatever
importance we may have in this country. In the highest
interests which we have in this world, we and the Catholics
of Ireland stand on the same ground ; we have the same
rights to demand, and the same rights to defend when
gained. It is our interest to keep up as close a connec
tion as we can in every respect with Irish Catholics. Our
relations with Irish Catholics, whether they be in England
or in Ireland, ought to be so friendly that, if any English
Catholic should disapprove of anything done by Irish
Catholics, his inclination should be to let his disappro
bation be dissolved in those more potent motives, which
would urge him to allow nothing to diminish the friendship
between him and them. When a man hears the actions
of his true friend condemned, his generous impulse is to
defend his friend : if he sfiould think that he cannot
defend him, he at least shows a disinclination to hear his
friend abused. Such a man is honoured for his fidelity. It
should be the ambition of every English Catholic to be

250 Duty of English Catholics [Chap. x.
thus honoured. And it appears to me that there is some
thing even dishonourable as well as impolitic in the
conduct of those amongst us who, in order that they may
please their Protestant fellow-countrymen, separate them
selves from Irish interests, and make it appear that they
have as little sympathy with the Irish people as they have
with Basutos and Boers. And when we consider the
enormous importance which the Irish people are to the
welfare of the Church in the British Empire, it seems
treason against the Church to say or do anything which
would weaken the power of Ireland. I would venture to
say that an English Catholic who has little sympathy
with the Irish has little sympathy with the Church. And
one who would diminish the power and influence of the
Irish, would diminish the power and influence of the
Church in the British dominions. To be a Catholic before
everything is the boast of many in England, and loudly
do some sound the cry, in order that it may be heard in
Rome. But little would " the Christ on earth " ^ rely upon
the sincerity of those who, while they assert so loudly the
words " Catholic before everything," show, by the manner
in which they speak of Ireland, that they are English first
and Catholic after.
It must not be supposed that I in the least undervalue
the influence which English Catholics really possess.
There are so many Catholics who in these days hold
positions in which influence is exercised, that, though the
number is small in comparison with that of the Protestants
in such positions, yet the amount of influence arising from
such sources does not stand at just one degree above zero,
as it does in the House of Commons. Good and staunch
Catholics, scattered however sparsely over Great Britain,
produce some effect in social life. The various offices
' St. Catherine of Siena's name for the Holy Father.

1885.] towards Ireland. 251
which they hold in boroughs, counties, and cides bring
them into relation with those who can only learn by actual
experience that Catholics can be as truly English as they
are truly Cathohc. Every now and then a Catholic is
put into a posidon of high .trust and dignity. Though it
may not be very perceptible at the moment, such appoint
ments as those of Serjeant Shee ^ to the Queen's Bench, and
Lord Ripon to the Governor-Generalship of India, break
down, subsequently to the appointment, even more pre
judice than has been broken through in order to effect it.
That Catholics have fairer play than we had been ac
customed to is well shown by this, that when a man has
made such a position for himself that he cannot be over
looked or thrust aside, his claims are admitted, as would
be the claims of a Protestant. In proportion as Catholic
young men choose to employ usefully the undoubted
talents which many of them possess, they will arrive at
a position in which the value of their services will be recog
nized. There is reason to hope that influence acquired in
this way will continue to increase ; and the time may come
again when English constituencies will return Catholic
members. But at present it must be acknowledged that
we have none of that first-rate political influence which is
given by seats in the House of Commons. This influence
is a matter of necessity when any section of the community
has separate interests. We have it not amongst ourselves.
Ireland does possess it ; and therefore in all matters relating
to Catholic interests a first axiom for our guidance should
be, what I again repeat, and what should be instilled into
the mind of every Catholic young man in Great Britain,
and urged until it become a practical conviction-^THE
POWER OF Ireland is the power of the Catholic
' Mr. Serjeant Shee was the first Catholic raised to the bench in England
since the Revolution.

252 Duty of English Catholics. [Chap.x.
Church in the United Kingdom. To keep that power
strong ought to be an object in the conduct of every
English Catholic : it is difficult to see how it is not a
positive duty. The authority which is exercised under
the Constitution of England by Queen, Lords, and
Commons is as lawful an authority as that exercised by
any absolute monarch who ever reigned. The loyalty of
a subject to a sovereign is not greater than the loyalty of
an Englishman to the authority of Queen, Lords, and
Commons. If an absolute monarch were a pillar of the
Church as well as a pillar of the State, it would be double
disloyalty in a Catholic to be unfaithful to such a man.
How, then, can an English Catholic, owing fealty in the
British Constitution to Queen, Lords, and Commons, escape
a charge of disloyalty if he is not loyal to that special
element in the authority which he obeys, which is the
only representative in Parliament of the interests of his
Church 1
Loyalty ought to be above suspicion ; and I venture to
say that never a word should escape the mouth of an
English Catholic which should lead any one to suppose
that he does not value at a great price the power of
Ireland. Our object should be to keep as closely connected
as possible with the Irish power ; and we should deem
it a disgrace to say or do anything which would show
a tendency to patronize English Protestant ideas at the
expense of those which are Irish and Catholic. An English
Catholic appreciating the true value of the power of Ireland
would rather incur the censure of meaner natures finding
fault with him for not being sufficiently English, than merit
the stigma of cowardice by siding, through human respect,
with those who would weaken, because it is Irish and
Catholic, that power which it is his interest to protect. If
it were known generally throughout the Empire that

1642-1823.] Catholic Associations in Ireland. 253
English Catholics were faithful to the only power which
they possess in Parliament, and that they looked upon
the power of Ireland as a man in the midst of a shower
of arrows would look upon his shield, English Catholics
would be regarded as men of sense and as men of moral
courage, and as such they would be respected. The power
of Ireland, too, would be more thought of and brought
into account. For no considerable body of Englishmen,
though they may be even a small minority, can worthily
attach themselves to a good cause without raising the
importance of that cause itself, and without, I dare to
say, forming a conviction in the minds of the majority that,
though the time may not have come, it is not far distant,
when the cause will have gained its end.
I have thought that these introductory remarks may
help to show the reader that the history of emancipation
in Ireland is for them an interesting and a useful study.
The great Catholic Association of 1828' was one of the
most powerful engines of political action that was ever
organized. It proved for all time what the moral force
of a united people is capable of doing. The Catholic
Association and the Clare election carried the emancipa
tion of the Irish and British Catholics. The obstinate
prejudice, the deep-seated bigotry, and the jealous selfish
ness of the English Protestants were struck, beaten down,
and for the time rendered powerless by a union of the
Catholics of Ireland, brought about and governed by the
genius, the energy, and the determined will of one man.
This great Association, of which I shall have to speak
more at length in future chapters, had its precursors.
According to Mr. Sheil, "the confederates of 1642 were
the precursors of the Association of 1828."^
The object of the confederates of 1642 is thus stated
» "Legal and Pohtical Sketches," vol. ii. p. 157.

2 54 Catholic Associations in Ireland. [Chap. X.
by Lingard : " To procure freedom of conscience, to main
tain the just prerogative of the Crown, and to obtain for
the people of Ireland the same privileges which were
enjoyed by the people of England." ... "A national
Association," writes the same author, "for the purpose
of effecting them" (that is, the objects above mentioned),
"was formed, and the members, in imitation of the Scottish
Covenanters, bound themselves by a common oath to
maintain the free and public exercise of the Catholic
worship, to bear true faith and allegiance to King Charles,
and to defend him against all who should endeavour to
subvert the royal prerogative, the power of Parliament,
or the just rights of the subject."^ I do not enter into
the history, civil and military, of this association. It
ceased to exist when Cromwell, to use the words of Sheil,
" crushed the Catholics to the earth."
From this time until the year 1727, there seems to have
been no common action on the part of the Irish Catholics.
In that year George I. died, and was succeeded by George
II. The Catholics of Ireland had been told that some of
the most ferocious of what Edmund Burke called "the
ferocious Acts " of Anne and George I., had been passed
to punish them for not having presented a loyal address
to Queen Anne on her accession to the throne. The
Catholics, therefore, bethought themselves that they might
prudently, and perhaps with some little profit to them
selves, present a loyal address to George II. An address
was therefore prepared. Mitchell says it was " an humble
congratulatory address ; " ^ Sheil says it was " servile." ^
It testified "unalterable loyalty and attachment to the
King and his royal house." Some kind of temporary
' " History of England," (.Hiarles I., a.d. 1642,
^ Mitchell's " History of IrcLind," vol. i. p. 88.
" Shell's "Sketches," vol. ii. p. 159.

1727-28.] Catholic Associations in Ireland. 255
organization had no doubt taken place amongst the Irish
Catholics, in order that this address might be representative.
It was presented to the lords justices at Dublin Castle
by Lord Delvin at the head of a deputation, in which the
principal Catholic families were represented. The only
consolation which the Catholics had on this occasion was,
that they were not scolded for daring to present the
address, and for venturing so near to the shadow of royalty
as they did when they entered the Castle of Dublin. They
got no answer to the address, neither from the King nor
from the lords justices. It was received in solemn silence,
and when Mitchell wrote his history, only a few years back,
it was not known whether the address was ever sent from
Dublin to be laid before the King, nor whether the lords
justices ever engaged to send it. Sheil attributes this
neglect to what he calls the " utterly despicable and
degraded condition " in which Catholics then were. What
was supposed to be a practical answer to the daring of
the Catholics in presenting a loyal address, immediately
followed. An act was passed depriving Catholics of a
right which they had hitherto possessed, to vote at elections
for members of Parliament.^ The following year a bill
was introduced to take away from Catholics the right
to practise as solicitors. This bill was the occasion of
the next combination of Catholics, though it was only
a partial and incomplete organization. I give the account
of it in the words of Mr. Sheil. "Here," he writes, "we
find, perhaps, the origin of the Catholic rent. Several
Catholics in Cork and in Dublin raised a subscription to
defray the expense of opposing the bill, and an apostate
priest gave information of this conspiracy (for so it was
called) to bring in the Pope and the Pretender. The
transaction was referred to a committee of the House
' I Geo. II. eh. 9, sec. 7.

256 Catholic Associations in Ireland. [Chap. x.
of Commons, who actually reported that five pounds had
been collected, and resolved 'that it appeared to them,
that under pretence of opposing heads of bills, sums of
money had been collected and a fund established by the
Popish inhabitants of this kingdom, highly detrimental to
to the Protestant interest' These were the first efforts of
the Roman Catholics to obtain relief, or rather to prevent
the imposition of additional burthens. They did not, how
ever, act through the medium of a committee or association."^
A most important step in advance towards organization
was made in the year 1757. This step was in consequence
of a gross and insulting act of injustice and of a threatened
new penal law. The act of injustice which contributed to
the important consequences we shall presently see is thus
stated by Mr. Mitchell. "A young Catholic girl named
O'Toole was importuned by some of her friends to conform
to the Established Church ; to avoid this persecution, she
took refuge in the house of another friend and relative, a
Catholic merchant in Dublin, named Saul. Legal pro
ceedings were at once taken against Mr. Saul, in the name
of a Protestant connection of the young lady. Of course
the trial went against Saul, and on this occasion he was
assured from the bench that papists had no rights, inas
much as 'the law did not presume a papist to exist in
the kingdom ; nor could they so much as breathe there
without the connivance of Government! ^ And the court
was right, for such was actually the ' law,' or what passed
for law, in Ireland at that time." The threatened penal
law, which had actually been framed into the " heads of a
bill," aimed at the destruction of the Catholic hierarchy.
' " Political Sketches," vol. ii. pp. ijg, 160.
== "History of Ireland," vol. i. pp. 125, 126. Mr. Mitchell, as all the
world knows, was an ultra-Nationalist. In his history he makes no secret
of his advanced opinions. But in his statements of historical facts he is
remarkably accurate.

1757-1792.] Catholic Associations in Ireland. 257
To oppose this bill, and to protect Catholics as far as
possible from oppression similar to that which they had
suffered in the Saul case, the first " Catholic Committee "
was formed. According to Mr. Sheil, this committee was
formed in the year 1757. But it would appear from Mr.
Mitchell's history that it must have been in 1758. The
formation of this committee was, as I have already said,
a great step in advance. No organization like it had been
hitherto attempted ; and from that time forward the
Catholics of Ireland have almost continually possessed
some association for the management of their affairs.
Mr. Sheil calls the committee of 1757 "the parent of the
great Convention which has since brought its enormous
seven millions into action." ^
In the year 1759 this committee, as was noticed in an
early chapter of this history, was recognized by the Govern
ment as representing the Catholics of Ireland. The gentle
men especially active in forming this committee were
Mr. Wyse, of Waterford; Charles O'Connor, of Belanagare ;
Dr. Curry, who wrote the " Historical Review of the
Civil Wars ; " and Lords Fingall, Taaffe, and Delvin. The
committee continued to act, and to act with vigour.
Taking advantage of the difficulties of the Government in
consequence of the revolt of the American colonies, it
obtained one concession after another, until in 1782 the
Act was passed which enabled Catholics to purchase and
dispose of landed property. "Thus," says Mr. Sheil, "they
were rashly placed beyond the state, but were furnished
with that point from which the engine of their power
has been since wielded against it"^ Theobald Wolfe
Tone, as quoted by Sheil, describes the Catholic Committee
in 1792 as composed of " the bishops, the county gentlemen,
and of a certain number of merchants and tradesmen, all
' " Political Sketches," vol. ii. p. i6o. ^ Ibid., p. 162.
VOL. I. S

258 John Keogh. [Chap. X.
resident in Dublin, but named by the Catholics in the
dififerent towns corporate to represent them."
We now come to anotlier phase in the management of
their affairs by tlie Catholics of Ireland — that in which one
man controlled proceedings and became the acknowledged
leader. The state of things in the committee \^¦as not
altogether satisfactory. The spirit of the Irish Catholics
had been roused, and thc_\- had begun to see the power
which tliey possessed. The members of the committee
were o\'er-cautious, and frequently timid in action ; they
were sometimes even time-serving. Thej' wished also to
keep the management of affairs so cntirel}- in their own
hands, and directed b)' tiieir own ideas, that they would
not listen to tlie voice of the millions who were their real
support. The Catholic aristocracy, along with the clerg)',
were in fact the controllers of the action of the Committee.
The members of the committee who did not belong to the
aristocrac\- at length resisted the dictation of the others ;
the)' were backed by the people, and their resistance was
successful. The aristocrac}-, instead of }-ielding to the
pressure of the times in a patriotic spirit, and instead of
continuing to act with the others, and so preserving the
union of all, adopted an unfortunate course. They resigned
in a bod}-. Their successful opponents were not discouraged
by this foolish and impolitic act. At their head was John
Keogh, who, Mr. Sheil sa)-s, "was, in the j'cars 179J and
I793> the unrivalled leader of the Catholic body." As he
was the first leader of the Irish Catholics in those latter times,
the reader will no doubt be interested in having Mr. Shell's
description of him. "lie belonged to the middle class of
life, and kept a silk-nierccr's shop in rarliament Street,
where he had accumulated considerable wealth. His
education had corresponded with his original rank, and he
was without the graces and refinement of literature ; but

1792-1800.] John Keogh. 259
he had a vigorous and energetic mind, a great command
of pure diction, a striking and simple earnestness of manner,
great powers of elucidation, singular dexterity, and an
ardent, intrepid, and untameable energy of character. His
figure was rather upon a small scale, but he had great force
of countenance, an eye of peculiar brilliancy, and an
expression in which vehement feelings and the deliberative
faculties were combined. He was without a competitor in
the arts of debate. Occasionally more eloquent speeches
were delivered in Catholic Convention, but John Keogh
was sure to carry the measure which he proposed, how
ever encountered with apparently superior powers of
declamation." ^
In a much improved form of representation the committee
continued to act under the guidance of Keogh. In the
year 1793 the Irish Catholics acquired the elective franchise.
We English Catholics did not obtain it until 1829. The
rebellion of 1798, and the Act of the Union which followed
it, completely set aside all agitation for the right of sitting
in Parliament. In the restoration of the right to vote for
Members of Parliament, the Catholics of Ireland had an
enormous power placed in their hands, which it may be
fairly said they won by their own union and consequent
streneth. Keoeh continued for some time to be the leader
o o
of the Catholics, but, being advanced in years, he gradually
retired from public business, or rather from continued
attendance at the meetings of the committee. His place
was to a great extent filled by Mr. Dennis Scully, of
Tipperary, whose wisdom in council, power in writing,
and general services to the Catholic cause have hardly
received in history and the memory of his countrymen that
distinguished notice to which they are entitled.
As I have traced the organization of the Irish Catho-
' "Pohtical Sketches," vol. ii. p. i66.

26o Keogh and O'Connell. [Chap. x.
lies up to the beginning of this century, I may as well
continue it until the great Act of Emancipadon. In the
year 1808 a change in leadership took place. Keogh,
though in comparative retirement, was still considered up
to this time, more than any other man, the leader. But he
had had his day. As he had deposed the oligarchy of
aristocrats, he was now to be deposed himself He was
to be deposed by a stronger and a greater man than he
had ever been, by one of the greatest men that not only
Ireland but any other country ever produced, the illustrious
O'Connell, the Liberator of the Catholics of the United
Kingdom. The occasion on which O'Connell defeated the
policy of John Keogh is thus described by John O'Connell
in his edition of his father's speeches. " In January, 1808,
the Catholic Committee, as the agitators of the day styled
themselves, assembled to debate the advisability of an im
mediate petition to Parliament for the total abrogation of
the penal laws. The negati^'e was strongly urged by some
of their number, supported, as was rumoured, by the opinion
of the celebrated John Keogh, the Catholic leader of that
day, M-ho \\-as, however, prevented by illness from attending
in person. His object was said to be founded on the idea
that it was beneath the dignity of the Catholic body to
petition so repeatedly, and that it would be more advisable
for them to remain quiet watching in 'dignified silence'
the course of events and the conduct of their parliamentary
friends." O'Connell was the principal speaker in opposition
to any delay in presenting the petition. The original
motion was proposed by Count Dalton, and it " went to
express the anxiety of the Catholic body to petition
Pariiament for the repeal of the remaining penal laws.'"
Mr. O'Connor, of Belanagare, proposed an amendment, the
effect of which would have been to postpone the petition.
' Plowden's post-union " History of Ireland," vol. iii. p. 614.

1808.] Keogh and O'Connell. 261
Mr. John O'Connell, and with him Francis Plowden and
Mitchell agree, says that " the result of the debate was a
withdrawal of the amendment, and the unanimous carrying
of the resolution to petition." ' The Rev. John O'Rourke,
in his " Centenary Life of O'Connell," ^ gives either a
different version of the same meeting, or an account of
another meeting about the same time in which some of the
same incidents occurred. He say.s, " At the meeting of the
Catholics in the Assembly Rooms in William Street, where
this question " (that is, the question of presenting the
petition) "was debated, O'Connell's advice prevailed over
Mr. Keogh's by a majority of 134 to no. Mr. Keogh
was not present until the meeting was in the act of
dividing ; had he been present earlier the result might
have been dififerent — he was only in to witness the defeat of
his own views. At this meeting the policy of delay, well
meant, no doubt, may be said to have come to an end, and
O'Connell's immortal flag, bearing the words, 'Agitate!
Agitate I Agitate ! ' was hoisted, and the nation rallied
round it and fought under it, until it won complete
unqualified emancipation. O'Connell was now the un
disputed leader of the Irish people." It will be observed
that this account differs from the others, inasmuch as it
gives a division on the question, and only a small majority
against Keogh's views, whereas the other accounts say that
the question was carried against Keogh unanimously.^
O'Connell seems to have played a subordinate part at
this meeting, having only spoken in support of a resoludon
proposed by another gentleman. But it is clear, from the
different accounts, that the influence of O'Connell dominated
the meeting. Mr. Mitchell, in his account of this meeting,
' " Select Speeches of Daniel O'Connell," vol. i. p. 15.
« Page 26.
» Perhaps there were two meetings on the same question, one preliminary
to the other.

262 Keogh and O'Connell. [Chap. X.
says, "O'Connell's influence was, even thus early, very
powerful in softening down irritation, soothing jealousies,
and inspiring self-abnegation, for the sake of the common
cause. It was this great quality, not less than his
commanding ability, which made him soon afterwards, the
acknowledged head of the Catholic cause." m.x. Plowden
says, " The meeting was preserved in unanimity by the
power of Mr. O'Connell's eloquence." And Mr. Sheil, in
concluding his notice of Keogh, writes as follows : — " He
had been previously defeated in a public assembly by a
young barrister, who had begun to make a figure at the
Bar, to which he was called in the year 1798, and who,
the moment he took part in politics, made a commanding
impression. This barrister was Daniel O'Connell, who, in
overthrowing the previous leader of the body upon a
question connected with the propriety of persevering to
petition the Legislature, gave proof of the extraordinary
abilities which have been since so successfully developed.^
Mr. Keogh was mortified ; but his infirmities, without
reference to any pain he may have suffered, were a
sufificient inducement to retire from the stage where he had
long performed the principal character with such just
applause."^ It is quite evident from these accounts that
O'Connell was the dominating spirit of the meeting ;
and the secondary part he seemed to play was perhaps
owing to the fact that being comparatively a young man,
he yielded the place of honour to his seniors. Count Dalton
and Mr. John Byrne, who proposed and seconded the
resolution to present the petition. I have dwelt the longer
upon this meeting, because as it was the occasion on which
our great liberator and master in pohtical conduct, began
' This account was written between the Clare election and the passing of
the Emancipation Act.
^ "Political Sketches," vol. ii. pp. 169, 170.

1808-1823.] O'Connell. 263
to take the lead, it cannot fail to be of extreme interest to
the reader.
In 1 8 ID, there was a new organization of the Irish
Catholics, under the immediate direction of O'Connell, who
was now, by all, the acknowledged leader. The organiza
tion consisted of permanent boards holding communication
with the general committee in Dublin. In the following
year, 18 11, the Government put down the committee by
prosecuting some of the members for a breach of the
Convention Act. Shortly after this a "Catholic board"
was established ; but that again was suppressed in 18 14 by
proclamation. But O'Connell was not to be foiled, and
under his direction "the agitation," says Mitchell, "took
the form of aggregate meetings, thus avoiding all possi
bility of incurring the penalties of the Convention Act ;
while the meetings were even more useful than the board
in arousing the people, diffusing sound information as to
their rights and their wrongs, and keeping up a continual
public commentary upon current events."^ "Thus," says
Mr. Sheil, "matters stood till the year 1821, when the
King intimated his intention to visit Ireland." ^ Agitation
ceased for a time, but the Irish people soon found that
they were disappointed in the hopes of better things which
had been raised at the time of the King's visit In the
year 1823, O'Connell and Sheil established the great and
famous Catholic Association, whose efiforts, crowned by the
election of O'Connell for Clare, at last forced the British
Government to yield.
I have rapidly sketched the history of Catholic organi
zation in Ireland from the year 1642 to the year 1829.
From the subjection of Ireland by Cromwell until the year
1727 nothing was done. Beginning with the year 1727, we

> "Mitchell's History," vol. ii. p. 266.
^ " Political Sketches," vol. ii. p. 183,

264 O'ConneU. [Chap. X.
have traced the continued development of Catholic power
during a period of one hundred and two years, from the
time when Lord Delvin and his deputation humbly
approached the lords justices with an address of loyalty
which never received an answer (unless a new penal law
was the answer) up to the day when O'Connell at the
head of seven millions of people demanded and obtained
their rights. The subject naturally suggests some reflec
tions which I cannot omit. Some years ago people used
often to speculate on the true answer to the question :
How was it that O'Connell, who forced the British Legis
lature to yield in the matter of the Catholic claims, so
completely failed in his agitation for repeal ? Some used
to say that repeal was an impossibility. The more
intelligent of those who said so, adopted Canning's
formula — " Repeal the Union 1 — restore the Heptarchy 1 "
The others were content to express the same idea in a
more homely way, which was embodied in one of Punch's
cartoons, where the great agitator was represented as a
gigantic baby crying for the moon. It was added by
many, that England would fight to the last man before
yielding to the cry for repeal. There were other people
again who said that O'Connell was not himself earnest
in desiring a repeal of the Union, and that the more
influential of his countrymen were perfectly aware of this.
Ill-natured Englishmen and malicious Irish Protestants
used to say that O'Connell continued the agitation in
order to keep up his own popularity; and some used
basely to add that his views were mercenary. But
O'Connell was undoubtedly in earnest ; and in the year
1843 he thought he was about to wrest an Act of Repeal
from the Legislature. If his views had been mercenary,
he would have pursued a lucrative practice at the Bar, or
retired from the Bar with the salary and afterwards with

1843.] O'Connell. 265
the pension of a judge. There were others, again, who
said that O'Connell's object was to be King or President of
an independent Ireland, and that this could never be : the
number of these, however, was not perhaps very large ;
the idea was too absurd for sensible men, except those
men whose common sense was, when O'Connell was
concerned, obscured by bigotry and hate. Another reason
given for the success of O'Connell in his first agitation and
for his failure in the second, was that whereas there was
a large party in the Protestant House of Commons in
favour of emancipation, there was no party in the House
amongst the English, who were in favour of repeal. This
circumstance, no doubt, made the attempt to gain repeal
much more difficult ; but it did not make it impossible :
it was an obstacle, but not an absolute bar. The real
reason why O'Connell failed in 1 843, seems to be this :
that whereas in 1829 he brought sufificient moral force to
bear down all opposition, in 1843 he did not.
There is an old story, which some years ago used to be
a very hackneyed one, that once upon a time a French
cook, being very desirous to produce an English plum-
pudding to set before a distinguished English guest,
applied to an English friend for a receipt. The receipt
was immediately supplied, and the French cook, scrupu
lously adhering to it, turned out, not that beautifully
formed ball so well known to us all, but a confused mass
which resembled less a pudding than a thick potdge. In
his despair he sent for his friend, and on his arrival
explained, with violent gesticulation, how he had made the
pudding with the greatest exactitude after the receipt
given. The Englishman smiled, and said, " There is just
one thing wanting." "One thing wanting, sir! What is
wanting, sir.?" "A pudding-cloth, sir." I venture to
think that in the agitation for repeal a pudding-cloth was

266 O'Connell.

[Chap. X.

wanting. There was nothing to unite together all those
whose interests were affected by a repeal of the Union.
In 1829 O'Connell spoke for the CathoHcs of Ireland, and
the Catholics of Ireland were all with him ; in 1843 he
spoke for all Ireland, but all Ireland was not with him.
The Catholic Associadon included all Catholics ; the
Repeal Associadon did not include all Irishmen. In the
first place, comparatively speaking, very few Protestants
were repealers. Amongst the Catholics, a large number
of the upper classes were decidedly not repealers, and
many were strong in favour of the English connection.
Then, again, amongst those Catholics who called them
selves repealers, and who, when in Ireland, considered
themselves obliged to say they were such, were not really
heart and soul in the cause. What gave O'Connell such
extraordinary power in 1829 was that he spoke for all who
were concerned in the question of emancipation. The
moral power consisted in this, that all Catholics demanded
emancipation ; seven millions did in reality act and speak
as one man. But in 1843 the question was not one which
afifected Catholics only ; it afifected all Irishmen, and the
whole of Ireland. To carry a measure, therefore, which
afifected all Ireland, and to carry it by moral force against
the wish of England, O'Connell should have had all
Ireland at his back. But this he had not ; and therefore
he had not in 1843, as he had in 1829, sufficient moral
force to carry his measure through. If all Irishmen had
been as united in 1843 on the question of repeal as all
Irish Catholics were united in 1829 on the question of
emancipation, we cannot doubt that O'Connell would have
obtained either a repeal of the Union, or some other
measure of what is now called Home Rule. All admit
that there are grievances in Ireland which require redress.
When will they be redressed? If they afifect Catholics

1829-1885.] Union is Strength. 267
only, when all Catholics shall unite in demanding justice ;
if they afifect all Irishmen and the whole of Ireland, when
all Irishmen shall be united in demanding their rights.
There is no demand which Irishmen can make, and which
is consistent with loyalty to the Throne, which they will
not obtain when union amongst themselves shall bring
sufficient moral force to bear upon England. O'Connell,
besides being the liberator of the Catholics of the United
Kingdom, taught, in his way of fighting, a great lesson to
the whole world. But he has taught that lesson in vain,
if moral force can no longer be brought to influence the
action of the British Legislature ; if it cannot do here
what was done in South Africa by the unerring aim of the
Boers. We have thus seen a slight sketch of the various organi
zations of the Irish Catholics from the year 1727 until the
passing of the Emancipation Act. The history of Ireland
during the whole of that time is most interesting and
instructive. Various historians have written of that period
or of some special portions of it. But I am not aware that
any one has had for a main object, in treating of the events
of those days, to show the rise and progress of a great
political power, the difificulties from within and from with
out which it encountered, the conquests which it made, and
the defects in its working which have prevented its consoli
dation as an engine of enduring strength. The long and
persevering struggle which ended in the brilliant victory of
1829 ought to have been the prelude to the establishment
in Ireland of a power which would have made the British
Legislature yield to every just claim of the Irish people,
and which would have compelled the Executive to ad
minister the laws "without favour or affection, malice or
ill-will." ^ Any man or any set of men who may be fired
• Words which occur in the oath which is administered to constables.

268 Union is Strength. [Chap. X,
with the desire to obtain full justice to the Catholics of
Ireland must be thoroughly convinced of the truth of this
proposition — that the Irish Catholics are powerless when
they are not united, and all-powerful when they are. When
divided amongst themselves they are indeed worse than
powerless ; for they not only cannot obtain what they
want from England, but they keep up an irritation amongst
themselves which weakens their strength, and gives those
who have to make laws for them an excuse for saying that
they do not know what the Irish people want It has been
said in a former page of this history that the first states
man who will govern the sister island well, will be the one
who shall legislate for her as Irish and Catholic. Such a
statesman is not to be entirely self-made : nor are we to
expect him to be providentially raised up by God without
that co-operation on the part of God's creatures which
Divine Providence expects to be used. The fable of
¦Jupiter and the Carter must not be forgotten on the other
side of St. George's Channel. The late Sir Robert Peel
was one of England's greatest statesmen. He did many
wise and good things. Amidst all his works the two
measures which will be the most remembered in connection
with his memory are Catholic Emancipation and the
repeal of the Corn Laws. In the wisdom which he showed
in forcing those two measures, he is not entitled to be
called a self-made statesman. He had opposed Catholic
Emancipation and the repeal of the Corn Laws up to the
very moment when he changed his policy. What was it
that made him change } It was the Catholic Association
and the Anti-Corn-Law League. The bold front of the
association made Peel a great statesman in 1829; the
bold front of the league made him a great statesman in
1846. The same observation applies to the passing of the
first and greatest Reform Bill in 1832. On that occasion

1829-1885.] Union is Strength. 269
Peel did not yield : but it was again the bold front of the
Political Unions which gave Earl Grey the strength to
pass the measure. Within the last sixty years we have,
then, three great examples of the practical wisdom which
is forced into the minds of statesmen by a compact union
amongst those who are demanding relief It is true that a
man like O'Connell does not appear twice in a thousand
years. But it does not require a man like O'Connell to
organize and lead an association of men who are willing to
be led in a cause which they have at heart.
Cobden was a mere pigmy in comparison with
O'Connell, and yet he effected great things ; and men of
less power than Cobden could sustain the spirit of an
association formed to protect cherished rights. Supposing
that it had been possible for any large section of the
English people, to injure all the rest by a course of action
which would have been against the spirit of the Reform
Act, or the Act which repealed the corn laws, can we
believe for a moment that a combination would not have
been formed, and if necessary kept in permanent existence,
to protect and preserve the right which had been so
dearly won .¦' Many men would have been found in
England able and willing to begin and keep alive an
association always ready for defence, and sometimes for
attack. A permanent association of the Catholics of
Ireland united in their work would have ensured a much
fairer line of conduct on the part of England, and probably
would have left Ireland at this day nothing to complain of
Let me take one example to illustrate my meaning. If
England had legislated for Ireland on Irish and Catholic
and not on English and Protestant principles, the Irish
Catholics would at this time have a chartered university.
Education in these days is a matter of the highest im
portance, and to establish the education of all on a sound

270 Union is Strength. [Chap. X.
Catholic basis is an object for which a people might well
bind themselves together. The legislation of the last forty
years in respect of education in Ireland has been but a poor
tinkering job. Demands are made in Ireland ; in England
the minister is threatened if he yields to them ; he is
between two fires, neither of which is strong enough to
beat the other, so they both maintain their places, and with
both he must make terms. The settlement is unsatis
factory ; perhaps one party absolutely condemns it, as in
the case of the " Godless colleges." Ever since the Act of
Emancipation, all legislation for Ireland, of which the legis
lation on education is but an example, has been only half-
measures and patchwork. If there be an exception it is
the disestablishment of the Irish Church ; but even that
was a compromise in which the English and Protestant
notions prevailed to an extent at least equal to those
which are Irish and Catholic. In framing measures for
Ireland an English minister anxious to do full justice would
always have opposed to him two mighty powers — the
jealousy in England of Ireland's prosperity, and the hatred
of Englishmen against Ireland's religion. The history of
Ireland during the present century shows that there is only
one power which, during ordinary times, can overcome the
enormous power of England's prejudice and English
bigotry ; and that power is the united and organized Irish
people demanding justice. I say in ordinary times ;
because when England is threatened with war, only a
slight murmur from Ireland is sufificient to bring English
men to a sense of what is right, and a rapid and unanimous
determination to do it. But occasions of this kind do not
so often occur. "England's adversity is Ireland's oppor
tunity," is a well known and oft-repeated apophthegm.
But, happily for England, unhappily for Ireland, England's
adversity does not so often occur. Still it does sometimes

1829-1885.] Union is Strength. 271
occur, and it occurs often enough to exempt Irish Catholics
from that class of persons spoken of in the trite quotation
from Horace : "Rusticus expectat dum defluat amnis ; "
and it happens often enough to make it imprudent to wait
for the event. Between the intervals much mischief is done
which renders redress more difificult In opportunities
England certainly has the best of it For if England's
adversity be Ireland's opportunity, certainly Ireland's
«^;^unanimity — if I may coin an expression — is England's
opportunity ; and whereas adversity here is only of fitful
occurrence, and therefore Ireland's opportunity only seldom
appears, the differences amongst Irish Catholics are so
chronic that English opportunities succeed each other in a
very rapid course. To what extent English statesmen
deliberately foment differences and quarrels amongst Irish
Catholics, I must leave those to judge who are in the secret
of government But the soundest piece of advice which
could be given to the Irish Catholics, if they were just
beginning to exercise civil rights for the benefit of their
religion and country, would be to tell them, first and above
all things, to beware of allowing any one to create disunion
amongst them. If the Irish wish to see the day when a
statesman will arise who will govern them as they ought to
be governed let them be united, and the man will soon
appear. Englishmen are quite capable of being educated
in the science of governing Ireland well. Nothing would
sooner educate an Englishman up to the proper standard
in this most necessary branch of political learning, than a
positive demand from a united people. If Irish Catholics
were united amongst themselves, both nations would be
greatly benefited : the Irish would get what they want and
what they ought to have ; the English would soon find a
middle term to prove at least the practical use of the new

272 Union is Strength. [Chap. x.
order of ideas. Some would say, " Well, after all, it is only
just ; " and others, after a good deal of grumbling, would
settle quietly to their own business, on the principle that
"what can't be cured must be endured." If that most
desirable of all pohtical unions, union amongst Irish
Catholics, could be brought about, and have a lasting
existence, the happiness resulting from it would be so
complete and so enchanting, that the idea of repealing
any other union would never enter into men's minds. Irish
Catholics in permanent union amongst themselves would
soon obtain not merely equal laws, administered with
impartiality, but laws suited to the genius and character of
the Irish people. What more would they need .'' Pitt's
famous statute, after eighty-five years of perhaps very
merited abuse, would at last rest in peace.
If such a state of things could be brought about, what
glorious days we should have : glorious for the Irish nation
and glorious for the Irish Church. The nation would
thrive and be strong under liberties gained as Emancipa
tion was gained, and the Church would have that influence
which is her due, an influence which may perhaps be the
only thing wanting in the United Kingdom to preserve in
the hearts of millions the fear of God and the honour of the
Sovereign. If faith and loyalty are to be preserved in
these islands, they will be preserved by the Catholic Church.
No Irishman can complain of the remarks I have made
about the want of union amongst his countrymen. The
same remarks have been made by every Irishman who has
written the history of Ireland or any portion of it. It is
impossible to take up any book which treats of Irish
history, and not, after a few pages, see the fatal efifect of
disunion. Open the volume where you please, you will be
delighted at first by the noble schemes which ought to lead
to glorious results. But, alas ! you will come before long

1829-1885.] Union is Strength. 273
to the inevitable paragraph, which might remind a lawyer
of the first recital in a deed of separation of husband and
wife : " Whereas various unhappy differences have arisen,"
etc. The proof of what I have written is in the facts
stated and the admissions made by Irishmen themselves.
The truth, indeed, in this matter is patent to all ; and to us
on this side of the Channel, if distance does not lend en
chantment, it certainly lends clearness to the view.
The remarks here made have been dictated by the
sincerest possible friendship for Ireland and the Irish.
They have been made in the firm belief that union amongst
Irish Catholics, and, as far as possible, union amongst Irish
and British Catholics, is the chief blessing to be desired for
the Church in the United Kingdom. Nothing could be
more unbecoming in the mouth of an English Catholic
than an ill-natured reproach of the Irish for not being
united amongst themselves ; at the same time it would be
impossible to write truly about the state of the Catholics in
these islands without alluding to what is a patent and an
important fact It would be well if some Irish Catholic
were to collect together the various instances in which,
during the last hundred years, disunion amongst Irish
Catholics has either led to failure, or at least materially
injured the work to be done. If the facts could be brought
to a focus, they might perhaps cause the truth to be seen
more clearly than it is now, under a scattered and unheeded
light. The Irish Catholics are a great political power, but
by disunion amongst themselves this power is wasted and
lost

VOL. I.

{ 274 )

CHAPTER XI.
FIRST SCOTCH RELIEF ACT.
Enghsh and Scotch bigotry — The Church in Scotland — The Act of 1793.
Before beginning the history of English Catholics during
the present century, the reader should know the progress
of events in Scotland. The riots in Edinburgh and
Glasgow have been noticed in a former chapter. Con
siderable damage had been done to the property of
Catholics, and Mr. Burke loudly demanded full com
pensation. Some compensation was made, but not half
enough to cover the loss. The venerable Bishop Hay,
so well known in all English-speaking communities by
his excellent works, received nothing for the loss of his
valuable library.^
Nothwithstanding the fierce bigotry and opposition of
the Scotch Presbyterians, which rendered the efifort useless,
Charles James Fox, whose thorough Whig liberal principles
ought to shame those who call themselves his disciples in
our day, proclaimed in the House of Commons that it
was time to relieve the Catholics from the persecution of
those laws which Burke said were as severe, though not
quite so bloody, as the laws of Draco.^ Nothing, however,
in the way of relief from the penal laws was done. Every-
' Walsh's "History of the Catholic Church in Scotland," p. 525.
' Ibid.

1793.] English and Scotch Bigotry. 275
thing was done by the ministers and elders of the
Presbyterian Church to keep up an excitement against
the Catholics. The Scotch CathoHcs did not benefit by
the more kindly feeling and the spirit of greater toleration
which, amongst the English Protestants, succeeded the
passing of the Relief Bill in 1778. On the contrary,
the indulgence shown to the English Catholics only
increased the virulence which existed in the hearts of the
Scotch against the Church. So that when the Act of 179 1
legalized the Cathohc religion in England, it was still
proscribed in Scotland, and every effort made to prevent
it from growing, and, if possible, to stamp it out In
1792, the only chapel in the city of Glasgow was a small
room, into which a few Catholics stealthily entered on
a Sunday morning. This room was indeed the only
place where Mass was said in Glasgow until the year 1797,
four years after the first Scotch Relief Act, about which I
shall presently write. There can, I think, be no doubt
that there is a greater and more deeply rooted hatred of
the Church in Scotland, even to this day, than in England.
North of the Tweed the hatred is directed more intensely
and more immediately against the dogmas of faith. That
this hatred exists in England is true ; but it does not exist
so universally, nor is it so pointedly directed against
the great truths of religion as in Scotland. In England
a pseudo-hierarchy, claiming to be descended from the
old Catholic hierarchy, has kept up the old form of
Church government The English have acknowledged
the authority of bishops and priests, and object only to
Catholic bishops and Catholic priests. But the Scotch
abolished all episcopal and sacerdotal authority, and
therefore speak of bishops and priests with a virus un
known in England ; and this virus is so bitter that no
social laws of courtesy or good manners can keep it

276 English and Scotch Bigotry. [Chap. XI.
within the bounds of propriety. Besides this, the work
of destruction was so completely done at the time of the
Reformation, that the Christian feasts which were
respected by the Anglicans were abolished by the Scotch.
John Knox and his followers knew that to root out every
thing that was Catholic, they must destroy as far as
possible everything that was Christian. And so great
was their desire to put an end to everything Cathohc that
they determined to obliterate from the minds of Scotch
men the recollection even of the great feasts of the Church.
The feasts of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and
Whitsuntide were abolished. With the abolition of the
feasts, the reality of the mysteries celebrated lost their
hold on men's minds ; until at this day the words
Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter, and Whitsuntide
bring to the minds of Scotchmen, even of educated
Scotchmen, no idea whatever in any way connected with
religion.^ It has been noticed in a former chapter that in England
there is a great deal that is political, as distinguished from
dogmatical, in the hatred which is directed against the
Church. Although the foundations and the more solid
portion of the superstructure of British liberties were laid
in Catholic times, the enemy of mankind has succeeded
' " Whitsunday " brings no other idea to the minds of Scotchmen than
that of paying or receiving rent and interest, or oi flitting from one tenement
to another, Whitsunday, by Act of Parliament, always falling on a week day.
A caricature which appeared in Pu^nch a few years ago, when Christmas Day
fell on a Sunday, is not in the smallest degree an exaggeration. An English
man, detained by business, has the raisfortune to spend Christmas Day in a
town on the other side of the Tweed. No Englishman who can by possibility
afford to appear at least merry on Christmas Day, ever thinks of looking any
thing else. Going out in the mormng, in a good and merry humour with
everybody, he meets a Scotch acquaintance, and, as every Englishman or
Irishman would do on a like occasion, he cries out, ' ' A merry Christmas to
you." "That's nae an epithet, I'm thinking, to put before the sabbath," is
the only answer he receives from the sad-looking, long-faced hypocrite.

1793.] English and Scotch Bigotry. 277
in possessing the English mind with the absurd but most
deplorable delusion that the Cathohc religion is opposed
to the liberties of the people. Hence, all that miserable
cant about " popery and slavery " is so constantly uttered,
to the unspeakable disgust of all British and Irish Catholics.
But in Scotland hatred of doctrine absorbs every other
sentiment. Scotch Presbyterians seem to have this hatred
always ready for expression. And as they emphatically
hate the Catholic Church, so they appear to hate the
members of the Church, and especially, of course, the
priests of the Church. A Catholic priest cannot walk
the streets of a town in Scotland without seeing in the
countenances, and sometimes hearing from the mouths,
of at least one half of the Scotch people whom he may
meet, signs and expressions which convey the idea that
they are saying in their hearts what the Pharisees of old
cried out against our Lord, " Crucify Him, crucify Him ! "
And the religion of these people well fits them to hate
what is good and true. The Church would look for its
worst enemies amongst those whose religious thoughts
were full of sadness and gloom. It is said in Scotland
that the ministers who are most followed, are those who
show the most cleverness in persuading those who "sit
under " them that they form a portion of the elect But in
meeting these saints coming from church on a Sunday,
a person might fairly judge by their appearance — awful
in every respect — that the minister had undoubtedly
convinced them that they were all predestined to eternal
loss. From this the reader will easily imagine that the
number of converts in Scotland is much smaller than that
in England. It is a very rare thing for a person of purely
Scotch blood, and a Presbyterian, to become a Catholic.
In the city of Glasgow it is estimated that there are about

278 The Church tn Scotland. [Chap. xi.
one hundred and twenty thousand Catholics. Of these
there may be about one thousand whose parents were both
Scotch, and the greater part of them are Highlanders, or
of Highland descent The Church in the Lowlands of
Scotland, though it includes several large communities in
Edinburgh, Glasgow, and Dundee, and many lesser ones
who live either in small towns, or scattered in the country
in the neighbourhood of smaller towns, is almost purely
Irish. At the time of which I am writing, the Lowlands
had been almost entirely cleared of Catholics ; and it is
comparatively of late years that there has existed any
Catholic chapel between Edinburgh and Berwick-on-Tweed.
On the Western Border, especially in Dumfries, Catholics
were better ofif. But at the beginning of this century there
were probably fewer Catholics by far in the Border counties
of Scotland than in any part of England of the same
respective extent. It was not so in the Highlands.
Amongst the Macdonalds on the western coast, and
amongst the Chisholms and Erasers, and a few other clans,
there have always been many Catholic families in which
the faith has never been lost. The district of Moidart,
for example, is almost endrely Catholic to this day.*
Some of the Western Islands are also almost exclusively
Cathohc. During the bad times religion was kept alive in
Scotland, as it was in England, by missionary priests,
amongst whom were several members of the Society of
Jesus, to whose labours Scotland is indebted for the pre
servation of the faith in some districts. The most remark
able man at the time of which I am wridng was Bishop
Hay. The author of the " Memoirs " prefixed to the last
' The author was present some fifteen years ago at a school-feast held in
a school established on Loch Sheil by the late lamented Mr. Hope Scott, of
Dorlin and Abbotsford. There were about forty children present, and all
except two answered to the name of Macdonald.

1793.] The Church in Scotland. 279
edition of his works says, " Since the religious revolution
of the sixteenth century, to no man has the Catholic
Church in Scotland been so much indebted as to Bishop
Hay. He is pre-eminently her bishop of the last three
hundred years." He was born in 1729, and at the age of
sixteen he followed the army of Prince Charles Edward
into England, as assistant to his professor, Mr. George
Lander, who was appointed head surgeon to the army.
On his return to Scotland he was taken prisoner and sent
to London, but was Hberated in 1747. He went back to
Scotland, and in 1747 he was received into the Church by
Sir Alexander Seaton, a Jesuit missioner. Shortly after
he accepted the appointment of surgeon on board a trading
vessel bound for the Mediterranean, and, having to pass
through London before embarking, he there made the
acquaintance of Bishop Challoner. In 1751 he entered
the Scotch College in Rome. After eight years' study he
was ordained priest, and returned to Scotland, where he
laboured as a missionary, and in 1769 he was consecrated
bishop. He died in the year 18 11.
The number of CathoHcs in Scotland at the beginning
of this century is supposed to have been about thirty
thousand. Of this number the great majority were. High
landers. And in most of those towns where a few Catholics
began to collect together, as at Glasgow, Greenock, and
Paisley, they were chiefly, if not entirely, from the High
lands. And the number remained small until God sent
the Irish people to swell to large proportions the members
of His Church, and to sing the song of the Lord in a
strange land.
The Scotch establishments abroad shared the same
fate as had befallen the English. "The miserable state
of the Scottish mission," says Walsh,* " and its great loss
' " History of the Catholic Church in Scotland," p. 530.

28o The Church in Scotland. [Chap. XL
by the French Revolution, was brought before some of the
members of the British Government by Bishop Hay and
some liberal Protestant friends. The Government con
sidered that both justice and humanity demanded that
something should be done for the Scotch CathoHc clergy.
The chief difificulty in the way was the danger of giving
offence to the fanatical or intolerant portion of the com
munity, lest "No Popery" riots should^ensue. And such was
the dread by the Government of that day of this faction,
that it was deemed necessary that all should be kept a
profound secret in regard to the relief given. The Govern
ment granted to the two bishops, who were Vicars Apostolic,
the sum of one hundred pounds a year each, also to the
Catholic priests in Scotland a sum sufificient to make up
their salaries, including what could be got from other
sources, to twenty pounds a year each. The two Catholic
seminaries of Aquhorties and Lismore were to get fifty
pounds a year each, with a contribution of six hundred
pounds a year each for its erection. This grant was no
doubt useful at the time, but it was not continued even
to the end of the war with France. The full amount of
the grant, as far as we can learn, was never paid. It was
at first given very reluctantly, and with fear and trembling,
and after three years it was entirely withdrawn." It will
be observed that the clergy to whom the Government gave
this temporary relief were not foreign refugees, as those
were to whom the nation behaved so generously in England.
The refugees who came to Scotland were Scotch priests.
From this it would appear that the resources of the
Scotch Catholics were much less than those of the EngHsh
Catholics, as the latter were able to support the EngHsh
clergy who returned to their own country at the time of
the French Revolution. There were certainly fewer families
in Scotland than in England of the wealthier class, and

1793.] The Scotch Act of 1793. 281
therefore fewer who could give funds and hospitality to
the exiles. Another thing to be remarked in the above
extract from Walsh's history, is how the Government of
the day was almost completely dominated, in dealing with
the Scotch Catholics, by public opinion in Scotland. This
public opinion was not only adverse to Catholics, but it
was informed by the bitterest hate of our religion, and the
most bigoted spirit of intolerance.
Such being the state of things in Scotland, especially
as regards the feelings of the Presbyterians towards their
Catholic fellow-subjects, it is no matter of wonder that the
first Relief Act was delayed for fifteen years after the first
Act for the relief of the English. Of this first Scotch
Relief Act I will give the account in the words of Mr.
Butler.* " On Monday, the 22nd of April, 1793, the Lord
Advocate of Scotland stated, in the House of Commons,
that ' his Majesty's CathoHc subjects in Scotland were then
incapacitated by law either from holding or transmitting
landed property, and were liable to other very severe
restrictions, which could not then be justified by any
necessity or expediency.' He therefore moved ' that leave
should be given to bring in a bill to relieve persons pro
fessing the Roman Catholic religion from certain penalties
and disabilities imposed on them by Acts of Pariiament
in Scotland, and particulariy by an Act of the Sth of King
William.' On the following day the lord advocate pro
ceeded to observe that ' the Roman Catholics of Scotland
laboured under many hardships and disabilities on account
of their adherence to their religion. By one law an oath,
called a formula, or solemn declaration, was imposed upon
them, which they could not take without renouncing the
religion which they professed, and if they refused to take
it, their nearest Protestant relation might deprive them of
' "Historical Memoirs,'' vol. iv. p. 104, edition of 1822.

282 The Scotch Act of 1793. [Chap. XL
their estates.' His lordship stated that ' it was repugnant
to jusdce and humanity that a subject should be deprived
of his estate for no other reason than that he professed
the religion most agreeable to his judgment and his
conscience, or that he should be placed in the wretched
situation of holding his estates at the mercy of any Pro
testant relation who might be profligate enough to strip
him of it by enforcing this penal law. The liberality which
had induced the House last year, and on a former occasion,
to grant relief to the Roman Catholics of England, would,
he was persuaded, induce them to extend relief also to
the Roman Catholics of Scotland, whose loyalty and
conduct gave them an equal claim to the indulgence of the
Legislature. He admitted that the particular law to which
he referred was too odious to be often carried into execu
tion, but if it was not fit that it should be executed at all,
it ought not to be suffered, to remain, merely as a tempta
tion to the profligate to strip honest and meritorious people
of their property.' He said he was extremely sorry to
inform the committee 'that there was, at that moment,
a suit actually depending in the courts of law in Scotland
founded on this particular statute. A Roman Catholic
gentleman, as respectable and amiable in character as any
man in this or any other kingdom, was possessed of an
estate of .^1000 a year, which had been in his family for
at least a century and a half This gentleman, loved and
respected by all who knew him, was now on the point of
being stripped of his property by a relation, who could
have no other shadow of claim to it than that which he
might derive from this penal law, which he was endeavour
ing to enforce. In the courts as much delay as possible
was thrown in the way, but it was to be feared that he
must succeed at last, and reduce to beggary a gentleman
in every respect a most meritorious subject. If it was too

1793.1 The Scotch Act of 1793. 283
late to save him from such a misfortune, the Legislature,
he trusted, would interpose, and take care that he should
be the last victim to a cruel law, and that it should never
operate in future to the destruction of any other person ;
for surely it was no longer to be endured that a man
should be placed in the horrid situation of either renouncing
the religion of his heart, or, by adhering to it conscientiously,
forfeit all his worldly substance.' His lordship concluded
by moving ' that the chairman should be directed to move
the House for leave to bring in a bill requiring an oath of
abjuration and declaration from his Majesty's Roman
Catholic subjects in that part of Great Britain called
Scotland.' Colonel Macleod having declared his ready
concurrence in the measure proposed, the question was
unanimously carried, and the bill having passed through
all its stages without opposition, it received in due course
the confirming sanctions of other branches of the Legisla
ture." * Thus we see that only ninety-one years ago
the penal laws were, at least in one instance, in active
operation. Mr. Butler, in his " Historical Memoirs," sets out the
whole of the long preamble to this first Scotch Relief Act.
It is not necessary to insert it here ; but the conclusions
which Mr. Butler draws from it are worth notice. He
says, "Both the general tenor and the language of this
Act are very remarkable. They appear to imply, or
rather to express in clear and unambiguous terms, that
the Parliament who passed the Act understood, first,
that Popery consists in the Pope's right to temporal power
in this country ; ^ secondly, that a Roman Catholic, taking
the oath of supremacy, denies by it the Pope's temporal
' For this account Mr. Butler refers to the " Annual Register " for the
year 1793. . -„ • .,
2 Butler adds in a note, " If this be true, there is now no Papist.

284 The Scotch Act of ijgz- [Chap. XL
power, but does not deny by it his spiritual power ; *
thirdly, that this spiritual power was, in a political view,
merely a speculative and dogmatical opinion ; fourthly,
that the oath of 1778 was, and had been found, a proper
and sufificient test of the loyalty of the persons by whom
it is taken ; and fifthly, that an uniformity of oaths is
desirable." To this Butler adds, quoting from Lucan,
"Quid quaerimus ultra.'" and then concludes the chapter
by saying that " Catholics solicit from Parliament nothing
more than that they should legislate, in their regard, upon
these principles, in a manner suitable to their high wisdom
and liberality, with a due regard to the honour and con
scientious feelings of those whom they profess to relieve." ^
What the Catholics of the United Kingdom seek for
is that we should not be governed as Catholics according
to the notions of English Protestants and English free
thinkers. In all matters relating to religion, and where
we ought to be free, we say to English Protestants and
English freethinkers what the little doll's dressmaker is
constantly saying about certain people in one of Dickens'
novels, " I don't like your ways and your manners."
When freethinkers in religion proclaim that all the
Queen's subjects should be allowed to worship God in
the manner which most approves itself to the conscience
of each one, and at the same time perseveringly endeavour
to banish the teaching of any religion from the schools,
and so prevent us from giving that instruction which we
conscientiously believe we ought to give to our children,
we do not like such conduct. When Whigs ally themselves
with freethinkers to preserve themselves in power ; when
they sacrifice principles to party ; when they themselves,
' Butler adds in a note to this, "But it has, we apprehend, been shown
in a forraer part of the work that the oath of supremacy is not susceptible of
this construction."
' "Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. p. no.

1T93.] The Scotch Act of 1793. 285
or at least the more respectable portion of them, profess
to fear God and honour the Sovereign, but by an unholy
alliance help their supporters to prevent us from doing the
same, we do not like such behaviour. When a prime
minister, thwarted by the bishops of the Catholic Church
in his scheme for educating the Irish according to his
English Protestant notions, chafes under his disappoint
ment, and writes pamphlets to raise a mischievous " No-
Popery " cry against us, we do not like " his ways and his
manners." When the Tories pander to Orangemen, and
endeavour to keep CathoHcs in the background ; when,
professing the same loyalty to God and the Queen which
we profess, they refuse an alliance with us, which would
help them to preserve Christianity and loyalty amongst the
people, we do not like and we cannot understand such
behaviour. When all parties and all men are governed in
their dealings with us by the cry of a thoughtless and
ignorant mob, urged on by the jealousy and malice of
those who would lead it, we do not like such " ways and
manners." Who would ? " Quid quaerimus ultra .' " says
Mr. Butler. We seek now for " a fair field and no favour."
We seek for that appreciation by those who govern us
which is due to men who, through evil report and good
report, for better and for worse, have always loved and
clung to their country ; who among the loyal are the most
loyal ; and who, should their mother country ever be in
need, will prove themselves the children who love and
honour her the most

( 286 )

CHAPTER XII.
THE RESIGNATION OF PITT IN 1801 — THE VETO.
The resignation of Pitt — Lord Stanhope on Pitt's resignation — The Veto —
Gregory XVI. and Lord Melbourne.
The question of the complete emancipation of Catholics,
by opening to them the two Houses of Parliament, began
to be discussed at the very commencement of this century.
After twenty-nine years of agitation, the right was finally
conceded in the reign of George IV. In the year i8cx>,
the Catholics of Ireland were the only Catholics in the
United Kingdom who could even vote for members of
Parliament. The Catholics of England and Scotland did
not obtain the franchise until the year 1 829.
On the second of July, in the year 1800, the Act for
the Legislative Union between England and Ireland re
ceived the royal assent, and it took efifect from the ist of
January, 1801. On the 22nd of January, the first united
Parliament met Amongst the many things, fair and foul,
which were done to ensure the passing of the Act of
Union, one was that Mr. Pitt allowed the Irish Catholics
to be aware of his determination to propose a measure for
admitting them into Parliament There is no doubt that
Pitt had not only made up his mind to do this act of
justice, but he also considered an Act of Relief as a
necessary accompaniment of an Act of Union. He made

1801.] The Resignation of J' it I. 287
this expressed determination of his an inducement to
obtain the consent of the Irish Catholics to the union. To
such an extent did Pitt's determination operate, that most,
and perhaps the far greater majority of the Irish, thought
that they were more likely to obtain emancipation from
the united than from the seiiarate Parliament At the
same time, it certainly does not ajjpcar that Pitt ever gave,
or authorized any one to give in his name, a distinct
explicit pledge that he would bring in a bill to admit the
Irish Catholics into Parliament, though something very
like a pledge was implied. Mr. Pitt's intention being, as
we have seen, " the last question," says Dr. Aikin, " dis
cussed in the Cabinet previously to the King's illness, was
the extension of all political privileges to the Roman
Catholics of Ireland, which Mr. Pitt had given them every
reason to expect." ' The intention of the minister, and the
discussion in the Cabinet, were of course made known to
the King. The knowledge so preyed upon the mind of
George that it caused a return of what was commonly
caHcd in those days "the King's illness," but which was,
in fact, insanity. His mind had been previously affected
ill the year 1788. That George III. himself attributed his
"illness" in i8oi to Mr. Pitt's proposed emancipation of
the Catholics a])i)erirs from what he himself said on the
subject: " On Friday, the 6th of March, the King . . . was
clear and calm in mind. . . . With respect to Mr. Pitt, his
Majesty used the following words — 'Tell him I am now
quite well. . . . But what has he to answer for, who is the
cause of my having been ill at all 1 ' Pitt was deeply
affected ; and, before Mr. Addington, authorized Dr. Willis
to tell his Majesty that during his reign he would never
agitate the Catholic question — that is, whether in office or
out of office. . . . Dr. Willis, in a letter to Pitt, says, ' I
' "Annals of the Reign of Gcor(,'c III.," vol, ii, p. 107.

288 The Resignation of Pitt. [Chap. xii.
stated to him' (the King) 'what you wished, and what
I had a good opportunity of doing ; and after saying the
kindest things of you, he exclaimed, " Now my mind will
be at rest!" Upon the Queen's coming in he told her
your message, and he made the same observation upon it""
Pitt resigned his ofifice of prime minister, and, to quote
the words of Dr. Aikin, " the sole reason assigned by him
for resigning the post he had so long held with the
applause of a great part of the nation, was his inability to
carry the proposed measure in favour of the CathoHcs;
and in a paper circulated in his name throughout Ireland,
which he did not disavow, he assured the Catholics that he
would do his utmost to establish their cause in the public
favour (though he could not concur in a hopeless attempt
to force it now), and prepare the way for their finally
attaining their object." ^
Great efiforts were made to prevent Pitt from carrying
out his determination to resign. " After a raonth of
unexampled confusion," says Lord Campbell, "during
which it was difficult to say in whom the executive
Government was vested, the attempt to retain Mr. Pitt
at the head of afifairs on his renouncing all his measures
for the relief of the Catholics failed, and his administration
came to a close." ® Several of Mr. Pitt's colleagues in the
Cabinet followed him on his retirement from office ; and
he was succeeded in his post of prime minister by Mr,
Addington, the speaker of the House of Commons.^
That George 1 1 I.'s scruple about the admission of
' Lord Stanhope's " Life of Pitt," p. 302, et $eq.
' "Annals of George III.," p. 107.
» " Life of Lord Eldon," p. 107.
' This Mr. Addington was a bitter enemy of Catholicii. Some years
afterwards, as Lord Sidmouth, and horae secretary, he compelled Mr. Weld,
of Lulworth, to send forth from hospitable asylnm a community of Trappist
monks, who had taken refuge on the Lulworth estate from the persecution
inflicted on the Church by the French revolutionists.

1801.] The Resignation of Pill. 289
Catholics to Pariiament being inconsistent with the
coronation oath was the great obstacle to an Emanci
pation Act, is well known. It would be difficult for
a minister, whether Whig or Tory, to find himself in a
more difficult position than one in which he has to choose
between denying an act of justice to several millions of his
Majesty's subjects on the one hand, and on the other
hand, the certainty of driving his Majesty (and such a
Majesty as George III.) out of his sen.scs. There is no
doubt that Pitt's intended resignation on the Catholic
question drove the good old King mad. And Catholics
must always look upon him as the good old King. With
the exception, of course, of James II., he was the first
King of ICngland who did not persecute the Church since
the time of Henry VIII., who made England to sin. He
looked kindly upon Catholics, and decidedly set his face
against persecution. lie did much more; he gave an
unhesitating and a cordial assent to the Relief Acts of
1778 and 1791. But he could not go a step further; he
could not admit Catholics into Parliament It was a
con.scicntious scruple ; but it was a mere scruple, and is
now generally admitted to have been such. Lord Stan-
hojjc says, " I am far from denying . . . that there were
several weighty arguments to allege against the Roman
Catholic claims. But most certainly the supposed breach
of the coron.ition oath is not to be numbered among these.
It has been long since, and almost by common consent,
abandoned as untenable.'" So great and so universal was
the respect entertained for George HI., that Catholics, who
among the loyal are the most loyal, would never have
urged on the question at the risk of bringing on the same
misfortune which had been caused in 1801. The question
was often discussed during the regency ; but it was not
' "Life of I'ill," vol. iii. p. 263.
VOL, I, U

290 The Resignation of Pitt. [Chap. xn.
until the year 1 820 that, to use Mr. Butler's words, " pro
ceedings for our final and complete relief were begun." ^
The administration which followed that of Mr. Pitt was
therefore essentially anti-Catholic. This was made pretty
evident when Pariiament met in January, 1802. Lord
Stanhope says, "On the 23rd, the King went down and
delivered the opening speech. He exhorted the two
Houses 'to maintain the true principles of the Constitu
tion in Church and State,' an allusion, as some persons
deemed it, to the Roman Catholic claims." And he adds
in a note, "'They have put Church and State into the
speech ; I think I guess why : ' so wrote Canning from
London. ' It could only be to revive what led to Mr. Pitt's
going out of office.' So said Mr. Rose at Bath." ^
A question has arisen amongst historians, biographers,
and writers in reviews, whether Pitt's real, or at any rate
dominant, motive for resigning office in 1801 was that the
King would not allow him to bring forward the question
of emancipation. As the question is one which would
afford interesting matter for speculation to any one, and is
especially interesting to Catholics, the reader may perhaps
not disHke a few remarks on the subject
At the time that Mr. Pitt resigned in 1801, the question
of making peace with Napoleon was being discussed. As
time went on, it became evident that peace must soon be
made.^ Pitt saw that peace was inevitable, and as he had
always been in favour of war, and of war carried on
vigorously against France, the act of making peace would
have been to him one of great humiliation. It has,
therefore, been said that the great minister resigned in

' " Memoirs of English Catholics," 1820.
'^ " Life of Pitt," ut supra.

' The preliminaries of peace were signed in London on the 1st of
October, 1801, and the treaty of peace was signed at Amiens on the 27th of
March, 1802.

1801.] The Resignation of Pitt. 291
reality because he did not wish to be the one to make
peace ; but that, not liking to own this, he gave as the
reason his inability to pass in favour of the Catholics an
Act of Relief Pitt's own account of his resignation, as
given by Lord Stanhope, is as follows :— " On the i6th of
February, in answer to Sheridan, Pitt said, ' I have been
accused of having refused to give the House an explana
tion upon the subject of my resignation. Sir, I did not
decline giving the House any explanation on that subject ;
but I must be permitted to observe that it appears to me
a new and not a very constitutional doctrine, that a man
must not follow his sense of duty — that a man must not, in
compliance with the dictates of his conscience, retire from
office without being bound to give to this House and to
the public an account of all the circumstances that weigh
in his mind and influence his conduct. Where this system
of duty is established I know not. I have never heard
that it was a public crime to retire from office without
explaining the reason. I, therefore, am not aware how it
can be a public crime in me to relinquish, without assign
ing a cause, a station which it would be the ambition of
my life and the passion of my heart to continue to fill if
I could do so with advantage to the country and con
sistently with what I conceive to be my duty. As to the
merits of the question which led to my resignation, though
I do not feel myself bound, I am wilHng to submit them
to the House. I should rather leave it to posterity to
judge of my conduct ; stiU I have no objection to state the
fact. With respect to the resignation of myself and of
some of my friends, I have no wish to disguise from the
House that we did feel it to be an incumbent duty
upon us to propose a measure on the part of the Govern
ment which, under the circumstances of the Union so
happily effected between the two countries, we thought

292 The Resignation of Pitt. [Chap. xn.
of great public importance, and necessary to complete the
benefits likely to result from that measure. We felt this
opinion so strongly, that when we met with circumstances
which rendered it impossible for us to propose it as a
measure of Government, we equally felt it inconsistent
with our duty and our honour any longer to remain a
part of that Government. What may be the opinion of
others I know not, but I beg to have it understood to be
a measure which, if I had remained in Government, I must
have proposed. What my conduct will be in a dififerent
situation must be regulated by a mature and impartial
review of all the circumstances of the case. I shall be
governed (as it has always been the wish of my life to be)
only by such considerations as I think best tend to ensure
the tranquillity, the strength, and the happiness of the
Empire.' " ^
Such being Pitt's account of the reason for his resig
nation, I will give a few opinions ofifered by dififerent
writers. Mr. Therry, who, as the friend of Canning, and
the editor of his speeches, must often have heard this
matter spoken of, accepts Pitt's statement without reserve.
He says, " Pitt resigned in consequence of his inability to
carry a measure of relief, which he had given the Irish
every reason to expect as the result of the Union." ^
Alison is of a different opinion. He says, " The personal
objections of the King to the removal of the Catholic
disabilities, to which Mr. Pitt considered himself pledged
as a consequence of the Irish Union, afford at least the
ostensible reason for the resignation of that minister and
his personal adherents, which took place on the ist of
February ; the real cause, more probably, was the reluc-
' " Life of Pitt," vol. iii. p. 285.
' "Canning's Speeches," edited by Therry, vol. v. p. 359. Mr. Therry
was afterwards, and for many years, well known in Australia as Judge Therry.

1801.] The Resignation of Pitt. 293
tance of Mr. Pitt to be personally concerned in concluding
peace with France, which he saw could not be much
longer delayed." ^ Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens, one of the
most impartial of writers, does not seem able to accept
of Pitt's statement^ He says, "Pitt, after eighteen
years' experience of the incoherency and intolerance of
George III., picked a quarrel with his Majesty about
religious disabilities, and threw up his office when he
could not prevail. After three years' exile, he discovered
that his sine qua non might with honour be waived ; and
he came back without being able to give any logical
account of why he had quitted." ^ Lord Stanhope main
tains that the reason assigned by Pitt was the true one.
" It has often been said," he writes, " both in England and
abroad, and even now perhaps the rumour has not wholly
died away, that the cause assigned by Mr. Pitt was only
his ostensible, and not his real motive. It has been
asserted that he withdrew from office on account of the
difficulties which he experienced or expected in the way
of making peace. Lord John Russell and another eminent
critic have some years since sufficiently disposed of this
hostile allegation. The original documents bearing on the
question, some of which have lately come to light, must,
I am sure, convince every careful and dispassionate reader
that any such idea is entirely unfounded."*
The refusal of the King to allow Pitt to carry a
measure to which he was implicitly, if not explicitly,
pledged, was a sufficient ground for resignation. It was
something more than a sufficient ground for resignation.
' " History of Europe," Epitome, p. 184.
" Mr. M'Cullagh Torrens is almost the only Protestant writer of repute
who, in writing about Catholics and Catholic affairs, makes use of respectful
and correct phraseology.
' "Life of Lord Melbourne,'' vol. i. p. 341.
* " Life of Pitt," vol. iii. p. 309.

294 Lord Stanhope on Pitt's Resignation. [Chap. XII.
To resign, under the circumstances in which Pitt did
resign, was the only course which a high-spirited minister
could adopt There was no necessity, therefore, for seeking
any other reason. And as Pitt declares what his reason
was, it would not be just to assign any other reason unless
that other reason were evidently the motive. That Pitt
was glad to escape from the responsibility of making peace
with Napoleon was no doubt true, and it may have been
a consolation to him not to be minister when the peace
was made ; but there is no reason for supposing that if the
King had been willing to do justice to Ireland, Pitt would
not have cheerfully undertaken the responsibility of making
peace, or any responsibility which a continuance in office
might have thrown upon him.
I will now give the reader some of Lord Stanhope's
reflections on the King's determination to resist the
Catholic claims. "Few things in our history," says his
lordship, "are perhaps more to be lamented than the
inflexible determination of the King, in February, l8oi,
against the Roman Catholic claims. Even the adversaries
on principle of those claims would probably in the present
day partake in that regret. They would argue that the
concession should not have been made at all ; but they
would allow that, if made, it would have been attended
with much greater benefit, or with fewer evils by far, in
1801 than it was in 1829. How fierce and long was the
intervening conflict ! How much of rancour and ill-will —
and not on one side only, but on both — did that conflict
leave behind I It is true, indeed, that even in 1801 there
would have been a resolute resistance to the measure —
a resistance headed by the primate in England, and by
the primate in Ireland. But I think it certain that, had
the king been favourable, or even remained neutral, the
measure would have passed, not easily indeed, but still

1801.] Lord Stanhope on Pitt's Resignation. 295
by a large majority. The feelings of the English people
had not been stirred to any considerable extent against it
There had been none of that violent conduct and violent
language on the part of Roman Catholics which at a later
period provoked so much resentment on the other side.
In 1 801, it would have been a compromise between parties ;
in 1829, it was a struggle and a victory of one party above
the other. And, further still, the measure that was carried
by the Duke of Wellington was far less comprehensive
than the one proposed by Mr. Pitt It did not comprise
any settlement of the Roman Catholic clergy which in
1 80 1 might have been most advantageous, and which
thirty years later became not only disadvantageous, but
impossible." ^ Such are Lord Stanhope's reflections upon
the failure of Pitt to carry a Relief Bill.
Very dififerent are the reflections of most Catholics on
the same thing. Few things in our history are perhaps
more to be rejoiced at than the inflexible determination
of the King in February, 1801, against the Roman Catholic
claims. It is quite certain that if Pitt could have carried
a Relief Bill he would have done so ; and it is equally
certain that he would have charged the Relief Bill with
clauses, giving what in those days would have been called
" securities " on the part of Catholics. These " securities "
would have been a veto, or something in the nature of a
veto, on the election of bishops, and a State provision for
the Irish clergy. Securities I — new chains to be fastened
on as soon as the old penal chains had been removed.
That we have been delivered from a new slavery, we owe
to the inflexible determination of the King. " How fierce
and long," says Lord Stanhope, "was the intervening
conflict." But the very fierceness and length of the
conflict made the Catholics more feared, with that whole-
¦ "Life of Pitt,'' vol. iii. p. 281.

296 Lord Stanhope on Pitt's Resignation. [Chap. Xll.
some fear which keeps the tyrant from the intended
victim. Lord Stanhope seems to look upon the violent
language used, as he says at a later period, as an un
mitigated evil. We may presume he alludes chiefly to
the language used by O'Connell. As we get nearer the
time of emancipation, we shall see it admitted that if
O'Connell had not used the language he did, he never
would have won emancipation. "In 1801," says Lord
Stanhope, "it would have been a compromise between
parties." Yes, it would have been a compromise ; and
thank God it was not. A compromise between Catholics
and the English Government means Catholics giving up
something they have a right to, in order to get something
else they have a right to, but which is being unlawfully
kept back from them. " In 1829," continues Lord Stan
hope, " it was a struggle and a victory of one party above
the other." But the victory of the Irish Catholics made
them politically respected, and feared with a wholesome
fear. In 1829, the Catholics of the United Kingdom felt
that it was as useful a thing to have amongst them a man
who had brought England on her knees, as all the King's
subjects felt it a useful and comfortable thing to have
amongst us the man who had made Napoleon turn his
back upon the British lines at Waterloo. Though I do
not wish to give a very decided opinion, I am inclined
to think that if O'Connell had a political defect, it was
the same which in military afifairs Maherbal charged upon
Hannibal, that he knew how to conquer, but not how to
use his victory. "And further still," continues Lord
Stanhope, "the measure that was carried by the Duke
of Wellington was far less comprehensive than the one
proposed by Mr. Pitt.'' When the reader understands
that this desirable comprehensiveness would have com
prehended the security clauses, the veto, the State pay-

180L] The Veto. 297
ment of the clergy and other new claims, he will be
inclined to say : Thank God that the bill which was intro
duced in 1829 was far less comprehensive than the one
William Pitt would have drawn. When we consider our
present position in the British Isles, and still more when
we consider that the hitherto abandoned fruits of victory
are still within our reach if we choose to take them, not
only are we inclined to say, but we do say, with the
deepest feelings of heartfelt gratitude : Thank God for
the "inflexible determination of the King in i8or, against
the Roman Catholic claims."
It was not until a few years after the beginning of this
century that the word "veto" was heard in connection with
any designed interference of the British Crown with the
government of the Church in this country. The idea of
obtaining the consent of the bishops of the United
Kingdom and of the Holy Father to such interference
had occurred to William Pitt some years before the name
of veto was heard. As we have seen, some concessions
on the part of Catholics were expected by the minister,
and they formed a part of the plan framed by him for
our complete emancipation. As the question of making
concessions in Church government as the price of emanci
pation, was for many subsequent years debated amongst
both Catholics and Protestants, it may be well, before
proceeding with the history of the question, to explain,
as cleariy as I may be able, what the veto meant.
When, by custom of ancient standing tolerated at
Rome, or by the tacit consent of the Holy See, or by the
usurpation of the civil power, or by what is called a
concordat, the sovereign power in any country exercises
any portion of that authority which of strict right belongs
to the Holy Father, that power may either be a positive
or a negative power. A positive power would be (to take

298 The Veto. [Chap. XII.
the example of the choice of a bishop to fill a vacant see),
when the civil government should nominate a person to
fill the office, and either present him to the Pope for
institution, or direct the chapter to elect him for such
presentation. A negative power, in the instance I have
taken, would be where the civil power should exercise
the right of objecting to any person canonically elected
for presentation to the Pope. The difiference between
these two powers is theoretically great. The positive
power is a direct exercise of authority in a spiritual
matter, by a person to whom it does not naturally belong.
The negative power enables a person who has naturally
no power in a spiritual matter, to prevent one who has
that power from exercising it. But the difiference between
the two powers is in practice not so great as it is in theory.
For instance, the civil power in a State might exercise the
negative power in the appointment of a bishop, so as to
prevent the institution of any one to a vacant see, except
the person whom the civil power might itself choose. If,
for example, by a concordat the right of objecting to those
elected by the chapter should be limited to a certain
number of times, still the exercise of the power might
sometimes prevent the election of any one of those whom
the chapter might think fit to fill the office of bishop.
The proper exercise of a negative power would depend
on many circumstances. It might be in the hands of one
of sound judgment or of unsound judgment, of a man
of fair or unfair disposition. One man might consult
only the interest, as he would understand it, of the Church
and of the see to be filled ; another man might look only
to what he would consider the interest of the State,
ignoring completely the interests of the Church and of
the See. One minister might object to a priest being
made a bishop, on the ground that he was what he would

1835.] Gregory XVI. and Lord Melbourne. 299
call a proselytizer, and this simply because he had been
a successful controversialist; another less bigoted might
despise such a reason. There are men who would decide
such a question from unworthy personal motives, and
there are others who would rise superior to such imper
fection. The veto nominally in the hands of the Crown,
might be actually in the hands either of a Protestant or
a Catholic minister. In this country it would, of course,
be most likely in the hands of a Protestant ; and if so,
that fact alone would make the Holy See decline such
a power, or even refuse to tolerate its exercise, unless
under very great compulsion. And if in the hands of a
Catholic, the interests of the Church might fare no better
in the exercise of the right of exclusion. It has happened
that some years ago a Catholic, closely connected with
Government, was asked whether, in a matter affecting the
interests of the Church, but not actually touching faith,
he would act in the interest of the Church or of his own
political party ; and he unhesitatingly replied that he
would give the interests of his party the first place.^
The Holy See would not be well content that a veto
upon the election of a bishop should be in the hands
of such a minister.
In relation to this subject, and as an example of what
might happen if the English Government were allowed to
exercise a veto in the election of bishops, I may cite a
remarkable passage from the "Greville Memoirs." Mr.
Greville says, "I told him'' (Lord Melbourne) "that I
had been long of opinion that the only practicable and
sound course was to open a negotiation with Rome, and
to endeavour to deal with the Catholics in Ireland and the
ministers of the Catholic religion upon the same plan
' The reader will observe that it was his party, not his country, to which
he would give his preference.

300 Gregory X VI. and Lord Melbourne. [Chap. XII.
which had been, mutatis mutandis, adopted universally
in Germany and almost all over the Continent, and that
there was nothing the Church of Rome desired so much
as to cultivate a good understanding with us. He then
told me a thing which surprised me, and which seemed
to be at variance with this supposition — that an application
had been made to the Pope very lately (through Seymour),
expressive of the particular wish of the British Government,
that he would not appoint MacHale to the vacant Catholic
bishopric — anybody but him; notwithstanding which the
Pope had appointed MacHale, but on this occasion the
Pope made a shrewd observation. His Holiness said that
'he had remarked for a long time past that no piece of
preferment of any value ever fell vacant in Ireland that
he did not get an application from the British Government
asking for the appointment' Lord Melbourne supposed
he was determined to show that he had the power of
refusing and of opposing the wishes of Government, and
in reply to my question, he admitted that the Pope had
generally conferred the appointment according to the
wishes of Government."^ If the EngHsh Government
had possessed the right of the veto, whether it had been
in the hands of a Protestant or a Catholic, it would, in the
particular instance mentioned by Lord Melbourne, have
been undoubtedly exercised to exclude Dr. MacHale, and
Ireland would have been deprived of a great bishop.
In the above extract we see that Greville thought that
the fact of His Holiness having declined to accede to the
request of the British Government to exclude Dr. MacHale
from the episcopate, was at variance with the preconceived
idea that Rome desired to cultivate a good understanding
with us. It does not appear to me to militate against
' Vol. iii. pp. 269, 270, June 30, 1835, conversation with Lord Melbourne
on the Irish Tithe Bill.

1835.] Gregory XVI. and Lord Melbourne. 301
such an idea. Lord Melbourne told Greville, as we have
seen, that " the Pope had generally conferred the appoint
ment according to the wishes of Government." This,
surely, is quite sufficient to show the inclination of Pope
Gregory XVI. to meet the wishes of the EngHsh Govern
ment. It is ample proof of his desire not to exercise his
authority in a way to offend the Crown of England un
necessarily. It would be ridiculous to say that, to show his
good-will. His Holiness must in every case yield, in the
appointment of a bishop, to the desire of the State. From
what Lord Melbourne said, it would appear that the desire
to interfere on the part of England was continual and
becoming a great deal too frequent, and that Pope Gregory
was resolved to show that there must be a break in the
compliance with the requests of the State. It may, indeed,
have crossed the mind of the vigilant pastor that, if every
interference were allowed and every request acceded to, in
a series of years a kind of right to interfere would have
at last been claimed. His Holiness may have thought that
it was time to stand on his right, lest, without even a
concordat, an unauthorized power might have crept into
the relations between England and Rome. He may have
seen the shadow of the veto and taken alarm. The action
of His Holiness in the case of Dr. MacHale does not show
any recoiling from a desire to be on friendly terms with
England. It shows that he wished to prevent a continual
favour from becoming a recognized custom ; and to do so,
he chose the case of one to whom the British Government
objected, but who was a learned and pious priest, and who
would be most acceptable as a bishop to the Irish people.
In acting as he did, Pope Gregory also taught a good
lesson to the English Government. The State should have
no right, in any case, to interfere, except where it can show
good proof that the loyalty of the person objected to is at

302 Gregory XVI. and Lord Melbourne. [Chap. XIL
least questionable. They could not show this in the case of
Dr. MacHale. A man is not to be suspected of disloyalty
to the crown of England because he can paint in strong
colours the wrongs of his country and call out against the
oppressor. Attwood, at the head of the political unions in
1 83 1, and Cobden, the leader of the Anti-Corn-Law League,
were not chargeable with disloyalty in their respective
positions. The wrongs of Ireland were far greater than
any wrongs suffered by the English. Church and landlord
oppression, occasionally leading to a discharge of musketry
upon the people from British soldiers, were grievances
harder to be borne, than the want of suffrage, by the
Birmingham gunmakers, or bread a little dearer than it has
been of late years. Pope Gregory would have been ready
to comply with the wishes of the English Government,
if it could have shown that Dr. MacHale was not a loyal
man ; but perhaps he was rather glad to show that he
would not refuse to confirm the election for the reason
that Dr. MacHale was troublesome to the English Govern
ment, because he was a patriot. The loyalty of Dr. MacHale
to the Crown of England was in every respect superior to
the loyalty of those, the number of whom increases every
day, who are only loyal to the Crown so long as the Crown
satisfies all their desires. If English Statesmen, instead of
objecting to the election of Dr. MacHale, had given the
attention which it deserved to the voice from St. Jarlath's,
it is most probable, indeed it is certain, that the relations
between England and Ireland would not have been, to use
an expression much in vogue now, so strained as they have
been of late years and still are. Lord Melbourne was
probably a little annoyed that His Holiness would not
veto the election of Dr. MacHale ; but he was not the man
to resent it. He very likely secretly admired the inde
pendence and firmness of the Pontiff

1835.] Gregory XVI. and Lord Melbourne. 303
Some of my readers may probably be surprised to
know, from what Lord Melbourne said to Greville, that
the English Government does interfere so often in the
election of Catholic bishops of the United Kingdom,
particularly those of Ireland. But besides the authority
of Lord Melbourne, I have heard on very good authority
that such interference does occur much oftener than many
would be inclined to suppose. The state of things revealed
by Lord Melbourne's words is not altogether unsatisfactory,
for that very state may prevent any recurrence to the
question of a veto. If English statesmen would govern
their relations with the Holy See on the same principles
and good feeling which governed Lord Melbourne, no one
could reasonably complain of the fact of those relations,
or of the manner in which they were conducted. It is
surely a good thing that the Holy See and even a
Protestant Government should be on speaking terms.
A hard and fast Hne between the two which would prevent
any communication, might lead to a severity of conduct on
both sides which would produce an unwholesome enmity
rather than useful conciliation. If the English Govern
ment would take in a proper spirit and not be offended
at some refusal to comply with its request, the Holy See
would not object to a suggestion, and even to a remon
strance, when respectfully made, and would undoubtedly
always be inclined to listen to reasons, and, where it could,
comply with requests. In this way an English statesman
who should have a share in what a Frenchman called in
WilHam Pitt " that prodigious good sense," would carry
on afifairs with Rome in a much more satisfactory manner
than is done by those who look to written forms and
agreements for their undeviating rule. England has it
in her power to be a model for other nations to copy in
their relations with the Holy Father. English statesmen

304 The Veto. [Chap. XII.
can, if they choose, prove practically to the world that
such odious things as forced concessions, vetoes and
concordats are fit only to be matters of history.
Every power claimed and exercised by the State in
spiritual matters is, of course, objectionable. The positive
power is in every case a usurpation, or, what amounts to
a usurpation — a concession which in no circumstances
would be obtained unless extorted by superior force. The
negative power — or, in other words, the veto, is less ob
jectionable, but nevertheless so objectionable that the
State would never be allowed to exercise it if the
Church felt herself free to refuse it. In the history of the
veto question in this country there was no attempt to
claim in theory any positive power. All that was spoken
of was a negative power, or the veto. And supposing
that, unfortunately, any negative power in the nomination
of bishops had been granted to the English Government, it
would in all probability have been a limited negative power.
A limited negative power is when the State has the power
of setting aside only a certain number of names at each
episcopal election. In an unlimited negative power, the
State can set aside as many names as it pleases ; and thus,
when exercised to its full extent, it amounts in practice to
a positive power. There can, however, be little doubt
that the men in power in England when the question of
the veto was being discussed, intended to obtain such a
right to veto as would enable them practically to fill the
Irish sees with men of their own choice. When we come
to the history of the question, the reader will perceive from
words publicly uttered, that some Protestants thought
that, by obtaining the veto they would almost entirely
subject the CathoHc Church in the United Kingdom to
the power of the State. It will be sufficient now to cite
one proof of what has been said. Dr. Milner says, " The

1801.] The Veto. 305
personage whose opinion he considered to be of the greatest
weight in this business explained that the efifect of the
veto was to make it exactly correspond with the Conge
d'elire, by which the Protestant bishops are appointed.
'I will suppose,' he said, 'myself to be his Majesty's
Minister to whom you present a list of three candidates,
whom your prelates judge worthy of the vacant chair.
Very likely I may say to you : Neither Mr. A. nor Mr. B.
nor Mr. C. is approved of, but if you choose Mr. F. he
will be accepted.' " ^ From this we see what use would
have been made of the veto if it had been obtained by the
Government. Having given the reader some idea of what the veto is,
and of the power it would have given the English Govern
ment in the appointment of bishops in England, I propose
in the next chapter to commence the history of the
question as it was agitated in England and Ireland until
it was swept away in the grand march of O'Connell's
Catholic Association.
' " Suppleraentary Memoirs," p. 133, note. Milner does not say who the
personage was whom he raentions in the above extract. It was probably in
the year 1808 that the words above cited were said to him. If so, the No-
Popeiy Ministry of the Duke of Portland was then in power ; and Milner is
not likely to have spoken to any member of that Ministry on the subject.
The personage he alludes to may perhaps have been Lord Grenville.

VOL. I.

{ 3o6 )

CHAPTER XIH.
THE VETO QUESTION.
Origin of the Veto Question in the United Kingdom — Burke on the Veto —
Resolutions of the Irish bishops in 1 799 — First public mention of the veto —
Milner's interview with Ponsonby — Debate in the Commons — Milner and
Ponsonby — Indignation in Ireland — Milner's " Letter to a Parish Priest."
The earliest allusion to what was afterwards called "the
Veto Question," so far as I have been able to discover,
occurs in Edmund Burke's famous " Letter to a Peer of
Ireland on the Penal Laws against Irish Catholics." The
letter is dated February' 21, 1792, and towards the end
of it he writes as follows : — " Before I had written thus far,
I heard of a sdheme of giving to the Castle the patronage
of the presiding members of the Catholic clergy. At first
I could scarcely credit it : for I believe it is the first time
that the presentation to other people's alms has been desired
in any country. If the State provides a suitable main
tenance and temporality for the governing members of the
Irish Roman Catholic Church, and for the clergy under
them, I should think the project, however improper in
other respects, to be by no means unjust But to deprive
a poor people, who maintain a second set of clergy, out
of the miserable remains of what is left after taxing and
tithing — to deprive them of the disposition of their own
charities among their own communion, would, in my
opinion, be an intolerable hardship. Never were the

1792-1795.] Burke on the Veto. 307
members of one religious sect fit to appoint the pastors to
another. Those who have no regard for their welfare,
reputation, or internal quiet, will not appoint such as are
proper. ... It is a great deal to suppose that even the
present Castle would nominate bishops for the Roman
Church of Ireland, with a religious regard for its welfare.
Perhaps they cannot, perhaps they dare not, do it. But
suppose them to be as well inclined, as I know that I am,
to do the Catholics all kind of justice, I declare I would
not, if it were in my power, take that patronage on myself, —
I know I ought not to do it" ^
The next mention which I have found of the veto
is in a letter from Dr. Hussey to Edmund Burke.^ The
letter was written from Dublin, and is dated January 29,
1795. Dr. Hussey says, "Some plan is likely to be
thought of by Parliament for the appointment of Catholic
bishops. The election to rest with the clergy, and the
election of one out of three so elected to be in government,
or something similar." ^ To this Burke replies on the
24th of February as follows : — " This is a great crisis for
good or evil. Above all, do not listen to any other mode
of appointing your bishops than the present, whatever it
is ; no other elections than those you have ; no Castle
choices." * Thus we see how jealous the grgat philosopher
and orator was of any interference with the rights of those

' For further excellent remarks on this subject see the "Letter" in Burke's
works. The " Peer of Ireland " was Lord Kenraare.
^ Dr. Hussey was at one tirae attached to the Chapel of the Spanish Embassy
in London ; during which he was employed by the English Government in a
delicate negotiation at Madrid. He became afterwards the first President of
Maynooth College, the establishment of which, Charles Butler says, was
principally due to him. He was subsequently appointed to the bishopric of
Waterford. ' "Correspondence of the Right Hon. E. Burke," edited by Lord Fitz
william, vol. iv. p. 268.
» Ibid., p. 285.

3o8 Burke on the Veto. [Chap, xiil
whose cause he advocated : how clearly he saw the true
interests of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and how
anxious he was that they should not be injured by any
secular power. As the next date in the history of the
veto is after the death of Burke, this may be a good place
to pay a very short tribute to his memory, and to say that
of all the great men who advocated Catholic claims, not
one was more sincere and faithful than Burke. And one
thing entitles him to hold the first place among those
Protestants to whom we owe respect and gratitude : in all
he did for us, he seems to have had in view, not mere
political expediency, not only the restoration of civil rights,
but the well-being and perfect liberty of the Church in the
United Kingdom. In giving Burke the first place, some
may be inclined to think that I detract from the merit
of our illustrious advocates Grattan and Canning. But it
must be remembered that, as we shall see in the course
of this history, Grattan and Canning were Vetoists, Burke
was not^
Between the years 1795 and 1799, the question of the
veto was no doubt often discussed by Pitt and the other
ministers who were meditating the Act of Union. Pitt,
as we have seen, intended an Act of Emancipation to
accompany the Act of Union. And he further intended
that some concessions on the part of Catholics should be
a condition of the Act of Emancipation. It was supposed
that these concessions would render harmless the emanci
pated Catholic Church. But it is difficult to suppose that
a statesman of such " prodigious good sense " could have
really thought that the Church and State of England
would have anything to fear when Ireland should be freed
' Charles James Fox must of course have a foremost place amongst our
advocates ; but he must rank after Burke, and as he died in the year 1806 he
could not give us the continued support which was given by Grattan and
Canning.

1799.] Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. 309
from her penal chains. He riiost probably thought that
the concessions would render the Bill of Emancipation less
unpalatable to the English people.
Whatever might have been Pitt's chief motive for
wishing to shackle the Church in Ireland, in the year 1799
while he was maturing his plans for the Union, he com
missioned Lord Castlereagh, who was Chief Secretary to
the Lord Lieutenant, to sound the Irish bishops on the
subject of the veto, and of a State provision for the clergy.^
Lord Castlereagh having received his instructions, it
happened that ten of the Irish bishops who were trus
tees of Maynooth College were assembled in Dublin " to
attend to its concerns." ^ Amongst the ten were the four
Metropolitans. There were at that time twenty-nine
bishops in Ireland ; so that, as Dr. Milner observes, the
number assembled in Dublin was " little more than a third
part of their whole number,"^ and they were not met
to attend to the general interests of the Irish Church,
but only to the interests of Maynooth College. Lord
Castlereagh took advantage of this meeting of the ten
Episcopal trustees of Maynooth to proceed in the execution
of his instructions, "and to consult them on the double
plan of a State provision for the Catholic clergy, and of
a government interference in the appointment of their
successors." *
The reader must here note well, that the proposals for
a State veto and a State provision for the Catholic clergy
did not come from the Irish bishops to the Government ;
but came to the Irish bishops from the English Govern
ment—from Mr. Pitt, through Lord Castiereagh. This
' Lord Castlereagh's speech in the House of Comraons on May 25, 1810,
cited from Keating's Report, in Butler's " Memoirs," vol. iv. p. 112.
^ Milner's"Supplementary Memoirs," p. 115.
2 Ibid.
*¦ Ibid.

3IO Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. [Chap. xm.
fact should be remembered, because, as Milner says, " it
has been asserted by a great many ill-informed and self-
interested writers and speakers, that the Irish prelates who,
to the number of ten^ met together in Dublin in 1799, were
the original authors of the veto. . . . No assertion, how
ever, can be more false."
The ten bishops considered and discussed the proposals
made to them by Lord Castlereagh. The reader will no
doubt be interested in knowing the result of their delibera
tions, an account of which I take from Plowden's " History
of Ireland since the Union." ^
" Resolutions of the Roman Catholic Prelates in 1799.
"At a meeting of the Roman Catholic prelates, held in
Dublin, the 17th, i8th, and 19th of January, 1799, to deliberate
on a proposal from Government, of an independent provision for
the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland under certain regulations,
not incompatible with their doctrine, discipline, or just principles :
" It was admitted, that a provision through Government for
the Roman Catholic clergy of this kingdom, competent and
secured, ought to be thankfully accepted.
"That, in the appointment of the prelates of the Roman
Catholic religion to vacant sees within the kingdom, such inter
ference of Government as may enable it to be satisfied of the
loyalty of the person appointed is just, and ought to be agreed to.
"That, to give this principle its full operation, without in
fringing the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, or diminish
ing the religious influence, which prelates of that Church ought
justly to possess over their respective flocks, the following regula
tions seem necessary : —
" I. In the vacancy of a see, the clergy of the diocese to
recommend, as usual, a candidate to the prelates of the eccle
siastical province, who elect him, or any other they may think
..more worthy, by a majority of suffrages ; in the case of equaUty
of suffrages, the Metropolitan or senior prelate to have a casting
vote. ' Vol. iii. Appendix, n. ii. p. 9.

1799.] Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. 3 1 1
"2. In the election of a Metropolitan, if the provincial prelates
do not agree within two months after the vacancy, the senior
prelate shall forthwith invite the surviving Metropolitans to the
election, in which each will then have a vote ; in the equality of
suffrages, the presiding MetropoHtan to have a casting vote.
" 3. In these elections, the majority of suffrages must be ultra
medietatem, as the canons require, or must consist of the suffrage
of more than half the electors.
"4. The candidates so elected to be presented by the
president of the election to Government, which, within one
month after such presentation, will transmit the name of the said
candidate, if no objection be made against him, for the appoint
ment to the Holy See, or return the said name to the president
of the election, for such transmission as may be agreed on.
" 5. If Government have any proper objection against such
candidates, the president of the election will be informed thereof
within one month after presentation ; who in that case will convene
the electors to the election of another candidate.
" Agreeably to the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church,
these regulations can have no effect without the sanction of the
Holy See, which sanction the Roman CathoHc prelates of this
kingdom shall, as soon as may be, use their endeavours to
procure. "The prelates are satisfied that the nomination of parish
priests, with a certificate of their having taken the oath of alle
giance, be certified to Government. (Signed) Richard O'Reilly,
Edward Dillon, P. J. Plunkett, Daniel Delany, James Caulfield,
Thomas Bray, P. Moylan, Edmund French, John Cruise." ^
" Subsequent Resolution of the Roman CathoHc electors.
" The prelates assembled to deliberate upon a proposal from
Government of a provision for the clergy, have agreed, that M.R.
Doctor O'Reilly, M.R. Doctor Troy, and R.R. Doctor Plunkett,
and such other of the prelates who may be in town, be com
missioned to transact all business with Government relative to
said proposal, under the substance of the regulations agreed on
and subscribed by them. Dublin, January 28, i799-"
' I conclude that Dr. Troy also signed the resolutions.

3 1 2 Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. [Chap. xm.
This subsequent resolution was signed by seven bishops,
making with the three named in it the ten above-
mentioned. Several things have to be noticed about these resolutions,
both as to their substance and their circumstances. In the
first place, the proposals of Lord Castlereagh were not
made to the bishops of the Irish Church assembled to
deliberate upon matters which were vitally important, but
merely to a small portion of their lordships accidentally
meeting in Dublin to discuss the afifairs of Maynooth
College. Nor could these ten bishops be said in any way
to represent the rest of their order in any matter not
coming within the scope of their trust And yet Mr. Butler,
in his " Memoirs," so words his account of the Castlereagh
proposals as to leave an impression on the mind of the
reader that the negotiation was with all the bishops. He
heads the section in which he writes of this afifair with this
title : " Resolutions of the Irish Prelates in favour of the
Veto." And whenever he mentions the resolutions, he
speaks of them as " the resolutions of the Irish Prelates."
To do Mr. Butler full justice, I must mention that after
having repeatedly spoken of the assembled bishops as
" Irish Catholic Prelates,'' he does mention, quite at the
end of his account, that they were ten in number. And
he cites a passage from the speech of Lord Castlereagh
in 1810, already referred to, in which he does speak of the
ten bishops ; but his lordship's words are so chosen as
to convey the idea that if all the bishops did not sign,
all of them deliberated upon the resolutions. Castlereagh's
words as cited by Butler from Keating's report are as
follows : — " The expediency of making, without delay, some
provision for their clergy, under proper regulations, was
so generally recognized, even by those who were averse
to concessions of a political nature, that a communication

1799 ] Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. 3 1 3
was officially opened with the heads of their clergy upon
the subject. The result of their deliberations was laid
before Government, in certain resolutions, signed by ten
of their bishops, including the four Metropolitans, in
January, 1 799." ^
The words " the heads of their clergy " certainly means
the bishops, and in a matter of this vast importance would
surely imply all the bishops either personally or by
authorized representation. And the succeeding words,
" the result of their deliberations," would confirm the same
impression ; for who would suppose that the result of the
deliberations of ten members of a council of twenty-nine,
the nineteen not even knowing that the deliberations were
going on, would be formally announced in Parliament as
the result of the deliberations of all the Irish bishops } In
mentioning the ten bishops. Lord Castlereagh does not say
that only ten deliberated, but that only ten signed. No
doubt the question would arise as to the opinions of the
remaining nineteen. But taking all that Lord Castlereagh
said on this occasion, I am inclined to think that the
impression left on the mind of his hearers would be that
all the bishops had been consulted, that ten of their number
had signed, perhaps authorized by the rest and therefore
representing them, or perhaps that the ten were the only
ones who would sign, the others declining to do so, but
willing to let the thing pass without protesting against
it They certainly did not protest, for the very sufficient
reason which we shall have again to allude to, namely,
because they had no knowledge whatever that the reso
lutions had been passed, nor even that the subject of
them had been broached. However much Mr. Butler
may have approved of the resolutions, he should not, in
a matter of such consequence, have left this portion of
1 "Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. p. II7' Edition of 1822.

314 Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. [Chap. xin.
his " Memoirs " to be spotted by his great antagonist. Dr.
Milner.^ The next thing I have to call the reader's attention to
in the above resolutions is the three concessions contained
in them : the interference of the government in the election
of bishops ; the acceptance of a State maintenance for the
clergy ; and the certificate to be sent to Government of
the nomination of parish priests, and of their having taken
the oath of allegiance. That the first of these was a
concession is of course plain enough. With regard to the
second, namely, the State maintenance of the clergy, it
was an important concession, because it gave up that
freedom from control which must necessarily hamper every
one who depends upon another for his subsistence. The
pensioner of a Tory family dares not vote for a Whig ; and
a priest paid by the State dares not always be too zealous
for the interests of the Church. As to the third, that the
appointment of parish priests and their having taken the
oath of allegiance should be certified to the Government,
it was a degrading concession and a gross insult to the
Irish Catholics to require such a thing. What is loyalty
if the Irish clergy have not been loyal during the last
hundred years ? Burke, as we have seen in a former
chapter, told the electors of Bristol that the Catholic priests
of London should have been called up to receive the
thanks of both Houses of Parliament for having held back
the Irish during the Gordon riots. And on several occasions
during the last hundred years the Irish clergy have deserved
' If Mr. Butler had written his " Memoirs of the English Catholics " as
carefully as he wrote his Notes to Coke-upon-Littleton; if he had elucidated
the facts of history as clearly as he elucidated difficult and abstruse points of
law, he would have left us a valuable work. But when he wrote the latter he
wrote as an impartial lawyer ; when he wrote the former, he wrote as a pre
judiced partisan. And so it almost always is : the student in history cannot
read with the same confidence as can the student at law.

1799.] Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. 3 1 5
the same recognition of their services. It has frequently
happened that a partial insurrection has not ended in a
general rebellion solely because the Irish clergy stood
boldly out to oppose revolt What has more than once
prevented a universal rising.? Who are they who could
have caused a rising and have not done it } The bishops
and priests of Ireland could at any time during this century
have roused the whole people, as O'Connell used to say,
from Giant's Causeway to Cape Clear, from Connemara to
the Hill of Howth, against English rule. And they have
not done it. And why have they not done it .^ Because
they have been loyal, with a loyalty guaranteed by their
religion. And yet these are the men whose loyalty is held
up by English statesmen as something which cannot be
trusted, unless a clause in some miserable concordat shall
prescribe an oath of allegiance.
It may have happened in the course of the last hundred
years that the priests of a people ground down by the
bigotry and jealousy of a more powerful nation, have, in
the spirit of religion and patriotism, cried out, and cried out
aloud against the oppressor. It may have happened that,
smarting under the lash of the tyrant, they have said
words which but for the provocation they never would
have uttered. Let these cries and these words be repeated
by an unscrupulous Press, in order to make the English
people believe that the clergy of Ireland are not loyal
men : what in the name of all reason and common sense
is the worth of such evidence, when against it we have the
fact that the bishops and priests could at any time have
raised a universal rebellion in Ireland, and they have not
done it ?
Another matter to be noticed in the resolutions, and
which indeed we have already alluded to, is that, to use
the words of Milner, "the ten bishops . . . were not the

3 1 6 Resolutions of the Irish Bishops. [Chap. XIII.
representatives of the prelates of Ireland, for they did not
so much as inform their absent brethren of the business in
question. Hence the answers which they gave to the
secretary's questions were never considered by them, nor
can they in justice be considered by others, as expressing
anything more than their their own private opinion in the
existing circumstances, on the points proposed to them." ^
The next observation on the resolutions cannot be
better expressed than by again quoting from the " Supple
mentary Memoirs." " Then," says Milner, " as to the
purport of these very answers ; they will be found, on a
strict examination, to fall very short of that contained in
the veto, as it was generally understood ; for the Maynooth
trustees approved of the interference of Government in
episcopal elections, barely as far as was necessary to
ascertain the loyalty of candidates. They, moreover,
stipulated for their ' own just influence,' and also for the
consent of the Pope in this important business." ^
But perhaps the most extraordinary circumstance in
connection with these resolutions was that the " Maynooth
trustees " not only did not inform their absent brethren of
the business in question before their communication with
Lord Castlereagh ; but they did not inform them of the
communications after they had taken place. The nineteen
absent bishops knew nothing of the resolutions until the
year 1808, nine years after they had been passed ; and
Milner says that the resolutions remained equally " unknown
to Catholics and Protestants in both islands." ^ And
Francis Plowden says that " the resolutions of the clerical
trustees of Maynooth College never came fully to light
tin 1 8 ID."*
' " Supplementary Memoirs,'' p. 115.
« Ibid.
' Ibid.
* " History of Ireland since the Union,'' vol. iii. p. 663 note.

1805.] First Public Mention of the Veto. 317
Whether any further steps were taken in the matter of
the resolutions, and whether the committee of bishops
appointed to " transact all business with the Government,''
in any way exercised the power given to them, no published
history, so far as I am aware, has revealed. As the
resignation of Mr. Pitt in February, 1801, put a stop to the
project of emancipation, all question of any concessions on
the part of Catholics also dropped.
The next mention of any interference on the part of the
Government with Church matters in the United Kingdom
occurred in Parliament during the session of 1805. In
the month of May in that year " a petition from the Roman
Catholics of Ireland to be relieved from the civil disabilities
under which they laboured, was introduced into the House
of Lords by Lord Grenville, and into the House of
Commons by Mr. Fox." ^ Speaking of the debate in the
Commons, Butler says, " The first public mention of tlie veto
appears to have been made by Sir John Cox Hippisley." ^
And Butler gives a long extract from the speech, in which
there is no mention of the appointment of bishops, but
suggestions that bulls and papal rescripts should be
subject to State inspection, and that priests and school
masters should produce certificates of character. Francis
Plowden's report of the debate does certainly contain a
hint of the veto. He says, " Sir John Cox Hippisley,
by way of meeting the objections of those who opposed
the motion upon the ground of its incompatibility with
the coronation oath, mentioned that the Constitution of
Corsica, as ratified by his Majesty, stipulated that the
Roman Catholic religion in all its evangelical purity (such
1 Aikin's "Annals of the Reign of George IIL," vol. ii. p. 165. Butler,
in his " Historical Memoirs," says that the raotion for referring the petition of
the Irish Catholics to a committee of the whole House, was made by Mr.
Grattan. This is a raistake : it was made by Fox and supported by Grattan.
2 " Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. p. 134.

3 1 8 First Public Mention of the Veto. [Chap. XIIL
were the words of the Act) should be the only national
religion of Corsica, and all others tolerated ; and that
Parliament should concert the discharge of the functions of
the bishops with the see of Rome. His Majesty, also in
the year 1794, appointed Mr. Macdonald, a Roman Catholic
priest, to a Catholic Fencible Regiment raised in Great
Britain." ^ Butler concludes his notice of what Sir J. C.
Hippisley said, in the following words : — " By this speech
the arrangement of the veto was first brought before the
public ; but it mentioned it only in very general terms ;
Httle more respecting it was intimated than that it should
be formed on the model of the legislative provisions of
France against Papal encroachments ; and that it was to
supersede altogether the sanguinary provisions, enacted,
ostensibly at least, for that purpose, by Queen Elizabeth
and her Parliaments." ^
In neither the House of Lords nor the House of
Commons was the negotiation with the Irish bishops
mentioned ; and it remained unknown to all but a very few.
But though the resolutions were not spoken of, " the subject
of them," says Dr. Milner, "was frequently discussed by
leading men of both communions, at least on this side of
' " History of Ireland since the Union," vol. ii. pp. 148, 149. When the
Highland chiefs cleared their estates of the small farraers, in order to create
sheep-walks for the Lowlanders, raany of the Highlanders were employed in
the works of the Glasgow raanufacturers. The Glasgow trade suffered so
much from the breaking out of the war with France in the year 1 793, that the
Highlanders could no longer find employraent. The Rev. Alexander Mac
donald (afterwards the first Bishop of Upper Canada) conceived the idea of
getting the men out of work embodied in a Highland corps. This plan was
effected, and Mr. Macdonald was appointed and gazetted chaplain to the
regiment, which did service in Guernsey and afterwards in Ireland. It was
disbanded at the peace of Amiens. For the information contained in this note
I am indebted to the Rev. Williara Forbes Leith, S.J.
'^ "Historical Memoirs," vol. iv. p. 139. Sir J. C. Hippisley afterwards
published the substance of what he said, and of what he intended to say, in a
good-sized pamphlet with notes and appendices. This pamphlet is now very
scarce ; but is to be found in some of the older Catholic libraries.

1805.] First Public Mention of the Veto. 319
the water."! Sir John Hippisley in particular busied
himself in the subject, and according to Milner he was
endeavouring to dispose Catholics " to accept with cheer
fulness certain legislative restraints on the appointment of
bishops, and their intercourse with the Apostolic See, the
management of which, by means of an office to be created
for that purpose, he expected would be put into his
hands." ^
To bring about a settlement of the Catholic question
was Sir John's hobby. He began well, and was acknow
ledged to be our friend both by the Irish bishops and by
Milner. But he ended by being a mischievous meddler ;
and at last he " meddled and muddled " to such an absurd
degree, that he drew upon himself the ridicule of the
House of Commons, excited by one of the wittiest speeches
Canning ever made. There was no further public mention
of the veto and other concessions until the year 1808. In
that year, and up to and including the year 18 10, the
history of the veto question presents one of the most
interesting and extraordinary portions of the annals of the
Catholic Church in the United Kingdom during the last
hundred years. It must be confessed that during this
period there was a certain amount of muddling which was
not confined to one side. But a good Providence which
has so kindly and so wonderfully watched over our
renascent Church, brought us unscathed through the
mistakes and the misdeeds of good and bad.
Before going back to the year 1800 to mention other
matters, it may be well to continue the history of the
veto, at least up to the year 18 10. In the year 1807 the
Irish bishops requested Milner to act as their political
agent in London. The reader should know that Milner
' "Supplementary Memoirs," p, 117.
2 Ibid.

320 Milner's interview with Ponsonby. [Chap. XIII.
was now the Vicar Apostolic of the Midland District,
having been appointed by the Holy See Bishop of Casta-
bala, and consecrated at Winchester on the 22nd of May,
1803. In order to ensure his continual residence in
London, several of the Irish bishops interested themselves
to obtain an exchange between Dr. Milner and Dr. Poynter,
the coadjutor vicar apostolic to Dr. Douglas, who was
then the Vicar Apostolic of the London District. This
proposed arrangement was not carried out ; but, to efifect
the object of it another way, Pope Pius VII. granted to
Milner a dispensation from the obligation of residence in
his own district, and gave him permission to reside in
London, if he should deem it advisable.^ On the 20th of
May, 1808, Dr. Milner arrived in London as the agent
of the Irish bishops. His reason for coming at that time
was that a debate on the " Catholic disabilities " was about
to come ofif in the House of Commons. On the morning
after his arrival in London, Milner was "conducted by
Lord Fingall to Mr. Ponsonby," who was going to take
a leading part in the debate. But Lord Fingal did not
inform Mihier of the subject that was to be treated
of between himself and Ponsonby. We may, however,
naturally suppose that Milner knew that the interview
was to be on the subject of the debate on the "Catholic
claims," though he did not know the special point on
which he was to be questioned. It is necessary to notice
this, because the special point was the veto, and the
public were afterwards led to believe that the opening of
the question began with Milner. In the course of the
conversation, Ponsonby asked Milner, "as agent to the
Irish prelates, what power they were disposed to attribute
to his Majesty in the choice of future Catholic bishops ?" To
this question Milner answered as follows : — " I know very
' Husenbeth's "Life of Milner," pp. 132, 133.

1808.] Milner's intervieiv with Ponsonby. 321
well that they cannot, conformably with their religion,
attribute to his Majesty a positive power in this business,
but I believe, on good grounds, that they are dis
posed to attribute a negative power to him. However,
as I have no instructions from them on the subject, I
cannot positively answer for them." " This admonition,"
says Milner, " the writer " (that is, Milner) " repeated
several times." Ponsonby did not say a word intimating
an intention of making a proposal of the kind in Parlia
ment, and was so little satisfied with Milner's "answer
respecting the disposition of the prelates, that he requested
him to write out of hand to them on the business, which he
did by sending letters to five of them that very evening." ^
Having given this account of his interview with Mr.
Ponsonby, Milner then writes as follows : — " Reflecting,
however, as he returned from the conference, that the
necessity of the Pope's authority in any new regulation of
discipline had either not been mentioned, or not sufficiently
expressed, he wrote a hasty note to Mr. Ponsonby to sup
ply the defect, into which, however, he introduced several
unconnected subjects, on which he had conversed with the
member, and among others the process by which, in case
the Pope and the prelates agreed to this plan, the Catholic
bishops in Ireland would be appointed in future. That
this ill-digested paper was a mere hypothesis, and not a
fixed plan for Mr. Ponsonby to act upon, is plain from
the concluding words of it, which are these : ' Dr. Milner
has not, of course, had an opportunity of consulting with
the prelates of Ireland on the important subject of the
Catholic presentations, but he has every reason to believe
that they will cheerfully subscribe to the plan traced out
in the first page of this note.' " ^
• "Supplementary Memoirs," pp. 124, 125.
" Ibid., p. 125. Milner adds a note at this place, saying, " see the Hon.
Robert CUfford's ' Origin and Progress of the Veto,' p. 3."
VOL. I. Y

32 2 Debate in the Commons. [Chap. XIIL
The debate in the House of Commons came ofif on the
25th of May. Milner was present in the gallery. Several
petitions having been presented by Grattan, Sheridan, Sir
John Newport, Mr. Butler, and Mr. Fitzgerald, Grattan
rose and moved a Committee of the whole House to con
sider the petition of the Irish Catholics for a repeal of the
penal laws. In this speech he was the first to introduce
the question of the veto. He said, " I have a proposition
to make, a proposition which the CathoHcs have authorized
me to make ; it is this. That in the future nomination
of bishops, his Majesty may interfere and exercise his
royal privilege, and that no CathoHc bishop be appointed
without the entire approbation of his Majesty. In France
the King used to name ; in Canada the King names ; it
is by no means incompatible with the Catholic religion
that our King should name ; and I do not see any diffi
culty on this head. Thus the objectors cannot refuse to
go into the committee with consistency. They say they
have no repugnance to the civil capacities of the Catholics,
but they object to the nomination of their bishops by a
foreign power. Here, then, they may get their wishes on
both subjects ; if the danger will exist under the further
admission of the Catholics, it exists now ; if Bonaparte
has that ascendency over the Pope, if the Pope has that
ascendency over the bishops ; and they — that is, the
clergy — over the people, it follows that the Catholics in
the army and navy, and the Catholic freeholders, are
afifected by a foreign power : so that a very great danger
now exists, and a further measure is necessary. Here is
the measure." ^
' With all due respect to so great a man as Grattan, I raust say that his
manner of proving the ascendency of Bonaparte over the Catholic soldiers and
sailors in the British service, may remind us of the old absurdity of proving
that a battle was lost for the want of one nail. I don't know whether it is
necessary to apologize to the present generation for what I believe to be a

1808.] Debate in the Commons. 323
Ponsonby spoke after Grattan. When the reader shall
have seen what this gentleman said, he will be able to
form some faint idea of the astonishment and grief which
filled the heart of Milner when he heard the words. It
is necessary to bear well in mind what was said, and
what was not said, in the conversation which Milner had
with Ponsonby. Ponsonby did not tell Milner that he
was going to make a proposal in Parliament on the
subject of the veto ; on the contrary, he left Milner to
suppose that he had no such intention. Milner did not
authorize Ponsonby to say anything, nor did he even sug
gest to him that it would be well to say anything on
the subject ; on the contrary, he told Ponsonby, in his
"hasty note," that nothing could be done without the
consent of the Pope. The reader may now imagine what
¦ Milner's feelings were when he heard what Ponsonby
said : " As to the danger to be apprehended from the
Pope's connection with the Irish Catholics arising out
of the dominion of Bonaparte over that personage, he
appealed to the common sense of the House whether
anything were to be apprehended from that quarter.
What motive could the Pope have to promote the
wishes of Bonaparte } He certainly could not be prompted
by affection or interest to do so. But in order to
remove all apprehension on that head, he was authorizea
to say, that the Catholic clergy were willing, in the
event of the measure before the House being acceded
to, that the appointment of every Catholic bishop in
"Joe Miller,'' but the proof was this : for want of a nail the shoe was lost ;
for want of the shoe the horse was lost ; for want of the horse the man was
lost ; for want of the raan the battle was lost. This proof is quite as good as
the other, from Napoleon to the blue'-jacket. At any rate, the influence of
Pope Pius VII. produced no bad efifect a year and a half before in Trafalgar's
Bay ; unless, indeed, it was His Holiness who raised the storm which marred
the "spoils of Trafalgar."

324 Debate in the Commons. [Chap. XIIL
Ireland should in future finally rest in the King; that
the Catholic bishops had no objection to make the King
virtually the head of their Church; and that a bishop
appointed by the Pope, if disapproved by his Majesty,
should not be allowed to take upon himself his spiritual
functions. Mr. Yorke expressed a wish to know upon
what authority Mr. Ponsonby grounded his statement
relative to the disposition of the Irish clergy as to the
future appointment of their bishops ; that circumstance,
if well founded, must serve to remove a principal objection
to the Catholic claims. Mr. Ponsonby answered, that he
made the statement on the authority of Dr. Milner, who
was a Catholic bishop in this country, and who was
authorized by the Catholic bishops of Ireland to make
the proposition, in case the measure of Catholic emanci
pation should be acceded to. The proposition was this,
that the person to be nominated to a vacant bishopric
should be submitted to the King's approbation ; and that
if the approbation were refused, another person should be
proposed, so that the appointment should finally rest with
the King." 1
" These assertions," says Milner, " as they filled every
one else who heard them with astonishment, so they
pierced the writer's heart (who equally heard them, and
on whose authority they were stated to be made) with
grief and confusion." When Ponsonby "had concluded
his speech, he sent for Lord Fingal and Dr. Milner to
meet him in the lobby of the House, where he asked them
both the question — ' if he had not gone too far } ' " ^ In the
year 18 10, Ponsonby said in the House, according to
' Vide Plowden's "History of Ireland since the Union," vol. iii. pp. 655,
656 ; and Milner's "Supplementary Memoirs," p. 126. The above account of
what passed in Parliament is taken partly frora what Milner himself heard,
and partly from the report of the debate as quoted by Francis Plowden.
' "Supplementary Memoirs," p. 126.

1808.] Milner and Ponsonby. 325
Keating's report of the debate on the Catholic question,
that on the occasion of his asking the above question. Lord
Fingal said, " No ; you are quite exact." Milner's conduct
we must give in his own words. " Certain it is," he says
in the "Supplementary Memoirs," "that the writer hung
his head down, and made no answer at all, being resolved
early the next morning to print a disavowal of the hetero
dox sentiments which had been ascribed to him on so
solemn an occasion." Accordingly, on the following morn
ing, Milner, who never procrastinated an hour when he had
anything of importance in hand, had printed a Protest
which he had probably written overnight, and posted
copies of it to the Irish and English bishops, and to
several other persons. He took one himself to Ponsonby.
This gentleman said to Milner, and, as we should express
it in these days, in the coolest possible way, "I am not sur
prised at your alarm ; I do not pretend that you authorized
me to say all that I did say ; but I was at liberty to argue
as best suited my cause. For the rest, this paper (the
Protest) is a fair paper, and you have my consent to
circulate it."
On the 27th of May, Lord Grenville presented the
Catholic petition to the House of Lords, and moved that
it be referred to a committee. In his speech he introduced
a proposal of the veto. Butler, who said and wrote all
he could to make the public believe that Milner was in
favour of the veto, says in his " Historical Memoirs " that
" Lord Grenville made a proposal of the veto in the
House of Lords, at the suggestion of Dr. Milner." Milner,
in his "Supplementary Memoirs," says that if such a
charge were advanced in the hearing of Lord Grenville,
his lordship " would flatly deny it." Milner had, in person,
presented a copy of his Protest to Lord Grenville, and " all
that then passed consisted in his lordship objecting to the
L Y 3

326 Indignation in Ireland. [Chap. xill.
restriction on Government proposed in that paper, namely
that its negative power should be confined to avowed civil
grounds." ^
The report of the debates in Parliament, and that of
Ponsonby's speech, caused universal indignation in Ireland.
Clergy and laity, all joined in condemning the extraordi
nary and unwarrantable assertion which had been uttered.
The bishops, says Milner, "both in conversation and
correspondence, universally disavowed Mr. Ponsonby's lan
guage."^ But before publishing any authoritative con
demnation of what had been said in Parliament, the bishops
thought it more prudent to wait until they could all con
veniently meet together to discuss the question. Mr.
Butler takes advantage of this delay to say that the Irish
bishops continued to adhere to the resolutions of 1799.*
Butler also says that "the Irish Prelates distinctly ex
pressed to many their approbation of what had been said
on the veto by their parliamentary advocates."
Milner, who was their agent, says, as we have seen, that
they universally disavowed it How are these two state
ments to be reconciled .'' The explanation is no doubt this,
that the Irish prelates approved and expressed their
approval of a good deal that had been said in Parliament
by Ponsotiby and others, which was not only not objection
able, but was much to be praised and to be grateful for as
' " Supplementary Memoirs,'' p. 124. The reader of Plowden's " Histoiy
of Ireland since the Union," in perusing the note at page 662, vol. iii., must
bear in mind that that note was written ten years before the publication of the
" Supplementary Memoirs," and that therefore Plowden raost probably did
not know that Milner had called upon Lord Grenville between the 25th and
the 27th of May.
^ " Suppleraentary Memoirs," p. I28.
' At page 151, vol. iv., of his " Historical Memoirs," edition of 1822,
Butler heads a chapter in the following words : — " Continued adherence of the
Irish prelates to their resolutions in 1799, until their meeting in September,
1808."

1808.] Milner's "Letter to a Parish Priest." 327
JDOwerful advocacy of the Catholic claims. But that the
bishops approved of such language as that which conveyed
to the House of Commons, on the authority of Dr. Milner,
that their lordships were willing "to make the King vir
tually the head of their Church," no sane man can believe.
And yet Butler asserts, without any qualification, that " the
Irish prelates distinctly expressed to many their appro
bation of what had been said on the veto by their parlia
mentary advocates." This surely is not history ; it is not
an historical memoir, but a memoir of the wish which was
father to the thought. The paragraph which in the
"Memoirs" immediately precedes the words just quoted,
seems to show the truth of the remark I have made upon
them. It is as follows : — " The efifect produced in favour
of the Catholic cause by what was said in both Houses of
Parliament, of the willingness of the Catholic prelates of
Ireland to accede to the veto, was very great ; even their
most determined adversaries seemed to consider that it
had gained them their cause. This was the general lan
guage within the walls of Parhament ; the first im.pression
which any Catholic heard from his Protestant acquaintance,
on the following day, was a congratulation on the turn of
the debate, and the event which occasioned it."
As Butler does not in any way protest against the
language held by Ponsonby, it would certainly appear from
the above extract that he received with unalloyed pleasure
the congratulations of his Protestant friends.
The reader will now be surprised to hear that Milner
himself advocated the veto. But judgment upon this act
must be suspended until the whole of the story has been
told. Amongst the letters which Milner received from
Ireland in consequence of the unwarrantable speeches of
Lord Grenville and Ponsonby, was one from an Irish
bishop, written to him, as Milner says, "too sharply and

328 Milner's " Letter to a Parish Priest." [Chap. XIIL
indignantly on the subject" Milner was not a man who, in
expressing his opinion, ever minced matters himself; nor
was he always over-nice in the choice of^ words. He
generally used strong words to express strong opinions.
What he thought was too sharp and indignant, must have
been sharp and indignant indeed.^ Milner was evidently
annoyed at receiving the rebuke. He had said nothing in
London which he was not amply justified in saying as the
agent of the Irish bishops ; and, to say the least, he had
not gone further in any expression favourable to a veto
than some of the bishops themselves had gone in the resor
lutions which they had passed in Dublin.
The mind of Bishop Milner on the subject of the veto
was probably this : any interference of the Government in
Church matters is bad, especially at this time when the
minister would desire to have the appointment of bishops
in his own hands ; but a negative voice, a right of veto
limited as to the number of times it may be exercised, and
the reason of the objection to any particular person con
fined to the question of his loyalty, would be, along with
complete emancipation, a better state of things than a
continuance of the penal laws. Stung by the letter he had
received, he wrote a letter in answer to it He printed this
letter, calling it " A Letter to a Parish Priest" The letter
was not printed for publication, but only for private circu
lation. Only fifty copies were struck offi It was dated
August I, 1808. The fifty copies "were distributed,"
Milner tells us, " exclusively among the higher order of the

' Husenbeth, who, we may suppose, was supplied with all extant letters to
Milner by those who have the custody of them, does not raention the name of
the Irish bishop who wrote so "sharply and indignantly," nor does he give a
single extract from the letter itself. If that letter should be in existence, it
would be an interesting document in the matter about which I am now
writing.

1808.] Milner's "Letter to a Parish Priest" 329
clergy, with the exception of a single copy given to Lord
Fingal." ^ Taking this letter by itself, without any of the
surrounding circumstances to explain it, it is undoubtedly
an advocacy of the veto. " One of the copies of the
letter, unfortunately," says Milner, " fell into the hands of
the writer's adversaries, who published it, to his indescrib
able mortification."^ When Charles Butler read it, he
was, of course, in a high state of delight ; to him it was,
to use a vulgar expression, nuts to crack. But the letter
"was not a serious advocation of any kind of veto."
This Milner positively tells us in his "Supplementary
Memoirs." And when he asserts this, he adds that it
was "merely a mooting essay, to use a lawyer's term, for
the perusal of his friend, a Catholic prelate of Ireland,
who had written too sharply and indignantly to him on the
subject." ^ Milner also says that Charles Butler was " fre
quently assured" of the real nature of the letter. But not
withstanding this, Butler continued to speak of it as a
serious advocacy of the veto, and so long after as the year
1819, when he published the first edition of his Memoirs,
and in all subsequent editions, he heads a section with the
words, " Dr. Milner's advocation of the veto, in a pamphlet
entitled, ' A Letter to a Parish Priest ; ' " and he begins the
section by saying, "In Dr. Milner the veto found both an
able and zealous advocate ; " and he praises the argument
and the eloquence of the letter. This was not very fair on
the part of Butler. He was bound to accept the positive
assurance of Milner as to the sense in which Milner's own
words were written. Butler was a lawyer, and a lawyer
should be the last man to fix an advocate with a personal
assent to the views which he puts before a judge in a
' " Supplementary Meraoirs," p. 130.
' Ibid. ' Ibid. The italics are Milner's.

330 Milner's " Letter to a Parish Priest." [Chap. XIII.
question for that judge's decision. It must happen often
every day that a barrister, simply doing his duty to his
cHent, puts before a judge an opinion which he does not
himself believe to be the correct one. He does this in the
interest of his client, and if he did not do it he would be
arrogantly assuming to himself the office not of advocate,
but of judge. An advocate defending a man charged with
murder may believe — indeed, he may know from the man's
own mouth — that he is guilty, and yet he may adduce such
strong arguments to prove the innocence of the culprit as
to cause the jury to bring in a verdict of "Not Guilty."
Would it be fair to say that the barrister really believed
the man was not guilty .'' It would not only be unfair, but
it would be absurd and ridiculous. And the same thing
may occur in an argument on a point of law. Council may
put before a judge a view of a case which he does not
believe to be good law, and he may even obtain a decision
in his favour. Is he to be taxed with being a bad lawyer,
and with seriously holding an opinion which is bad law,
when the decision of the court below shall have been reversed
in an Appeal Court ? Certainly not Milner maintains that
his advocacy of the veto was an advocacy of this kind,
and is he to be taxed with seriously holding an opinion
which he only put forth for the sake of argument .¦"
Husenbeth, in his " Life of Milner," hardly does justice
to Milner's real opinion. He says that Milner, "in his
eagerness to defend himself, certainly went a great way in
favour of a certain negative power being attributed to the
Government in the appointment of Catholic bishops." ^ But
Milner, by asserting that the letter was a mere mooting
essay, prevents any one from asserting with correctness that
he went any way at all towards a serious advocacy of any
' " Life of Milner,'' p. 154.

1808.] Milner's " Letter to a Parish Priest." 331
kind of veto, or that the letter was in reality anything
more than the argument of an advocate to show that if
emancipation could be obtained on no other condition, the
kind of veto which he proposed might not be too great a
price to pay for it

END OF VOL. \.

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, LONDON AND BECCLES.