At a subsequent period, efforts were made in the direction of emancipation by Mr. Canning and lord Castlereagh. About 1824, the press began to take up the question warmly; a Catholic association was formed, to prepare petitions to parliament; the Irish priests stimulated their flocks to subscribe for the purposes of agitation; O'Connell rapidly became a power; and as early as March, 1825, the importance of the question was so deeply felt, that sir F. Burdett ventured to introduce a relief bill, which passed the commons by a majority of 268 to 241, but was rejected by the lords. A slight tem porary reaction now took place, the superstitious fears of ignorant Protestants being excited by a " no.popery" cry, and in consequence, a new relief bill, introduced in 1827, though supported by the last effort of Canning's eloquence, was lost in the commons by a majority of 4. But the liberal view of the Roman Catholic claims was essentially the popular one—at least amono. the enlightened classes; and a proof of this, under the hostile administration of the duke of Wellington, the very same resolution which had lost in 1827 by a minority of 4, was carried in 1828 by a majority of 6. The duke him self now began to waver in opinion, so that the beginning of the end was manifestly near. During O'Connell's famous canvass for the county of Clare, the duke declared in the house of lords, "if the public mind were now suffered to be tranquil, if the agitators of Ireland would only leave the public mind at rest, the people would become more satisfied, and I certainly think it would then be possible to do something." O'Connell's return for Clare, notwithstanding the existence of the oaths which precluded him from taking his seat in the house, and the events which now followed in quick succession, made it clear that the "something" of which the duke had spoken must be the passing of the emancipation bill in the ensuing session. The king's speech, which was read on the 5th Feb. of the following year, accordingly contained a recommendation to parlia ment, to consider whether the civil disabilities of the Catholics could not be removed. "consistently with the full and permanent security of our establishments in church and state." On the 5th Mar., Mr. Peel brought forward the great measure. The majority on the
motion in the commons for going into committee was 188, in a house of 508 members; the debate on the second reading issued in a majority of 180; and the final majority, after the bill had passed through committee, in which not one of the many amendments proposed was carried, was 178 in a house of 462. In the lords, the debate lasted three nights, the majority being 106 in favor of the second reading of a bill which, nine months before, the same house had refused, by a majority of 45, even to entertain—so rapid and threatening had been the progress of the agitation. On the 13th April, 1829, this famous measure became the law of the land. It now only remains that, by men tioning the provisions of the act, we sum up the results of one of the most important controversies that ever agitated the inhabitants of this country. For the oath of supre macy, another oath was substituted, by which all Catholic members of parliament bound themselves to support the existing institutions of the state, and not to injure those of the church (see ..knJutt:vriox). Catholics were admitted to all corporate offices, and to an equal enjoyment of all municipal rights. The army and navy had already been opened to them. On the other hand, they were excluded from the offices of regent, of chancellor of England or Ireland, and of viceroy of Ireland; from all offices con nected with the church, its universities and schools, and from all disposal of church patronage. The most important security related to the franchise, in which a £10 was substituted for a 40.'. qualification in Ireland. The clergy of the R. C. church were left , in the position of other dissenters, the government having declined either to endow them, or to introduce any machinery for prying into their relations to the pope. But the public use of their insignia of office, and of episcopal titles and names, was denied them; the extension of monachism was prohibited; and it was enacted that the number of Jesuits should not be increased, and that they should henceforth be subject to regis tration. further information, see Miss 3lartineau's History of England during the Peace front 1815 to 1846. W. It. Chambers, 1858.