The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1912. CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION: A STUDY IN METHODS

New Zealand Tablet, 21 March 1912, Page 33

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 1912. CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION: A STUDY IN METHODS

' T 18 ei g ht y- three years ago this month since '<l *1 A the Catholic Relief Bill —commonly known Ift under the name of Catholic Emancipation mi) was introduced into the 'Blouse- of . Commons; and a retrospective glance at the history of the agitation which was thus brought to such a satisfactory, and success- * ful issue will serve to bring out an interesting and instructive parallel. The Catholics of Great Britain and Irelandlike the Catholics of Australasia to-day—were the victims of a galling injustice, the only difference being that the Catholic disabilities of that day were infinitely more grievous than those which we have to contend against, and the seeming difficulties in the way of obtaining redress immeasurably greater. Up till 1828 neither of the English political parties had made — or had apparently even thought of making—Catholic Emancipation a part of its~programme. No Government had ever made it a Government measure; and the leaders of the Ministry of the day the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel had expressed themselves as unalterably and irrevocably opposed to the proposal. The King George IV.—was bitterly hostile, the most violent of his many obstinacies being his rooted aversion to the removal of the Catholic disabilities. Nevertheless, in the face of these apparently insuperable obstacles, the Catholic Association, founded by the immortal O’Connell, deliberately pitted itself against the Governmentand won.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century the Catholics of Great Britain were ground to the very dust. They were excluded, not only from the franchise, but from the Bar, from colleges and universities, from office in the Civil Service, and from Commissions in the Army and Navy. In Ireland Catholics could vote, and in- theory could elect a Catholic to the House 'of I Commons, but the oaths which he was compelled to take repudiating and denouncing the Pope's supremacy, transubstantiation,; the invocation of saints, etc. effeqV'

tually prevented from taking his seat; Catholic Peers were excf4sfed from the House of Lords. x On various occasions the House of Commons had declared, sometimes by resolution, sometimes by the second reading of a Bill, that—in an academic sort of waybelieved in the removal of Catholic Disabilities. But the House of Lords declined to allow anything to be done as long as Catholic Emancipation was not a Government measure"; and there the matter ended. There was not the slightest prospect of any Ministry ever making the question a Government measure; for the Catholics in England in those days were neither numerous nor influential, and their emancipation was not considered in any sense a ' popular cry.' ' It is an error,' says Brodrick (Political History of England), ' to suppose that Catholic relief was ever a popular cry in this country, like retrenchment and reform. The. feelings of the masses in Great Britain were never roused in regard to it. It would be too much to say that the controversy was merely academical, for it was keen enough to split up parties and produce dualism in Cabinets. But it was never a hustings question.' In 1823, an ardent supporter of Catholic Emancipation in England said, As for our Catholic question, it has gone to the devil.' In Ireland, however, a very different feeling and spirit prevailed. Daniel O'Connell, with his Catholic Association, had appeared on the scene; and he not only made Catholic Emancipation ' a hustings question,' but he made it a question that must be answered. The Association was founded in 1823, its declared object being to win Emancipation by legal and constitutional means.' Just at first, progress was slow, but success came in time; and by »1825 a vast organisation had spread over the land. In each district, usually under the presidency of the clergy, there was a branch of the Catholic Association, where local grievances were ventilated, and subscriptions received and sent to Dublin to |the central association, whence came advice in difficulties and speakers : -for local meetings. Of course, there was an outcry against the Irish leaders; and it was said that they : not only alienated the friends of their cause in England, but that, but for their methods, Catholic Emancipation would already have been granted. That genial, liberal-minded, Church of England man, Sydney Smith, in his famous letter on the Catholic question in the Fortnightly Review (1827), dealt vigorously with this nonsense:'' The most common excuse of the Great Shabby is, that the Catholics are their own enemies that the violence of Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Shiel have ruined their cause—that, but for these boisterous courses, the question would have been carried before this time. The answer to this nonsense and business is, that the very reverse is the fact. The mild and the long-suffering may suffer for ever in this world. If the Catholics had stood with'their hands before them, simpering at the Earls of ' Liverpool, and the Lords Bathurst of the movement, they would not have been emancipated till the year of our Lord four thousand. As long as the patient will suffer, the cruel will kick.' The Annual ' Register for 1828 is fiercely hostile to emancipation,, but its record of events and its comments are interesting, as throwing light on the way in which the situation was regarded in England. It tells us that O'Connell's Catholic Association ' waged war against the Duke of Wellington and his Ministry. Its orators lavished their contumely and abuse upon his grace without either taste or discretion: so far as their words could go they revolted all sound sense and good feeling. But their doings were things of much higher importance, and were carried through with an activity and perseverance which led to very alarming results.' From the politicians' point of view the most alarming of these results was the adoption of the anti-Government policy by the Association and its resolution ' to overthrow the Ministry, or any Ministry; which should refuse to grant unconditional , Emancipation, by returning members -pledged to oppose every measure of every Cabinet which would not adopt and carry through this one. measure.' Henceforth, every parliamentary, candidate in Ireland was required to pledge himself to be an indiscriminate

opponent of the Ministry of the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel, until the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel should become Catholic Emancipators.' . ■ ■'■■' ••' ' * ..•-..'..' '" . . ''.-■', How utterly remote and wildly improbable such a possibility must have seemed, may be gathered from the repeated and emphatic declarations against emancipation which had been made by Peel, whose support of Orangeism and out-and-out championship of the Protestant ascendency in Ireland had led O'Connell to dub him 'Orange Peel.' Here are his utterances in Parliament, arranged in chronological order. In 1813: 'I protest against the principle of this Bill, because it confers upon those who admit an external jurisdiction the right of legislating in all matters connected with the Church of England. ... If the Protestants exceeded the Roman Catholics in number I should have much less objection. _But it is impossible to consider that the Catholics so greatly preponderate without feeling alarm at the consequences of such unlimited concession.' In 1817 'Do you mean to give them that fair proportion of political power to which their numbers, wealth, talents, and education will entitle them? If you do, can you believe that they will, or can, remain contented with the limits which you assign to them In 1823 ' With what variation from principle can lat any time be charged From the earliest period of my political lifecaring nothing for the opinion of my friends, caring nothing for the opinion of the people —I have uniformly and undeviatingly opposed the concessions to the Catholics. '..-_.. . For my own part, I protest that I would rather submit to eternal exclusion from office than consent to hold power by the compromise, or anything approaching to the compromise, of an opinion.' In 1828: 'As the hon. baronet (Sir F. Burdett) has expressed a hope that the present Administration will take up this question next session, and introduce some measure for its settlement; lest any misconception' should go abroad respecting my sentiments, I am anxious to say a word upon this point for myself, and for myself alone. ... I refer the hon. baronet and the House to the declarations which I have repeatedly made respecting it, when, speaking as an individual member of the Government, as I am at liberty to do, I have explained my own sentiments on the question. To that declaration and to those opinions I still adhere, and I conceive that, in saying so, I have said enough to satisfy the House that my sentiments upon the question remain unaltered.' •'•••. . * • • So spoke the Tory Minister in June, 1828. In March, 1829, he introduced a Bill for the emancipation of the Catholics. What had brought about the change, and compelled him—and along with him the ' Iron Duke' himself— strike his colors. It was the growing power of the Catholic Association, as manifested in the never-to-be-forgotten Clare election. Readers of Irish history are all familiar with the story—how on Vesey Fitzgerald seeking re-election for Clare on taking office in the Ministry in 1828 he was opposed by the Catholic Association, and O'Connell himself was nominated against him. In vain Fitzgerald declared, truly enough, that he had always been in favour of Catholic Emancipation. O'Connell, with characteristic vigor, showed in his speech at the hustings the futility of such mere lip service. ' The time is come when the system which has been pursued towards this country must be put a stop to. It will not do for the future to say "Sweet friend, I wish you well," but it must be shown by acts that they do wish us well. It is time that this system should be put an end to, and I am come here to put an end to it.' And put an end to it O'Connell did. He was returned by an overwhelming majority, amid scenes of unprecedented enthusiasm. The Clare election frightened the Governmentthe Catholic Association, every day becoming more powerful, was too strong for it. On March 5, 1829, Peel introduced the Catholic Relief Bill in the House of Commons, and spoke for four hours in advocacy of the measure. By April 10 it had passed all its stages in both Houses; and three days later, angrily • and grudgingly, the King gave it his Royal assent.

The bearing of this little excursion into history lies in the application of it; and the application our readers may very easily make for themselves. For the present our principal purpose is to draw,'attention to this historic agitation as a striking object-lesson in' the value of organisation. Admitting that its complete and rapid success* owed a great deal to the genius and personality of O'Connell, it is at the same time true that without the organisation O'Connell would have been helpless. Had the Catholics of Ireland hung back had they pleaded that the time was not ripe for organisation—that their motives would 'be misunderstood that it was bad tactics to embarrass their political friends in Englandwe know what would have happened. O'Connell and his little following would have been overwhelmed, the movement crushed, and the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland 'would, perhaps, have still been under the yoke. Now, as then, there are wrongs which need to be righted; there are grave social and moral evils in our community against which Catholics desire to raise their collective voice and exert their collective influence; and for these purposes organisation is necessary. The Catholics of Australia, following the lead of their co-religionists in America, are everywhere establishing Catholic federations, which have already amply*justified their existence; and the day cannot be far distant when New Zealand, too, must fall into line. On that subject we hope to have something to say on a future occasion. In the meantime we ask our readers to ponder the lessons taught by O'Connell and his Catholic Association ; and we invite them, in the face of. what their forefathers accomplished against such tremendous odds, to ask themselves if there is one single solitary reason why they should patiently, meekly, and supinely endure wrongs which have been truthfully described as 'tyranny, oppression, and plunder.'