ROMAN
125
ROMAN
along with the Catholic body, that much more was
required. Pitt and his rival, Fox, were alike pledged
to a full measure of Catholic Emancipation, but they
were both thwarted by the obstinacy of King George
III, who insisted that to agree to any such measure
would be a violation of his coronation oath. There
were also at this period considerable dissensions
within the Catholic ranks. These concerned first the
question of Veto on the appointment of bishops in
Ireland, which it was projjosed to confer on the
English Government, and belongs chiefly to the his-
tory of Emancipation in that country. There was
another cause of dissension, more properly English,
which was connected with the adjuration of the sup-
posed Catholic doctrines contained in the oath im-
posed upon those who wished to participate in the
benefits conferred by the Act of 1791, as previously
by that of 1778. The lay members of the Catholic
committee who had framed this disclaimer were
accused by the vicars Apostolic, who then adminis-
tered the Church in England, of tampering with
matters of ecclesiastical discipline; and although the
bishops had their way in the matter of the oath, tlie
feud survived, and was proclaimed to the world by
the formation in 1792 of the Cisalpine Club (q. v.),
the members whereof were pledged "to resist any
ecclesiastical interference which may militate against
the freedom of English Catholics".
Such internal dissension, no doubt, did much to retard the course of Emancipation. Its final triumph was due more than aught else to the pressure which the Catholic body in Ireland was able to put upon the Government, for it was acknowledged by the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel themselves, who carried the Hill, that their action was due to the necessity of pacifying Ireland, which had found so powerful a leader in Daniel O'Connell (q. v.), and of thus averting the danger of a civil war. It would take too nmch space to go into details regarding the provisions of the Act of Emancipation. Its general effect was to ojjen i)ublic life to Catholics taking the prescribed oath, to enable them to sit in Parliament, to vote at elections (as previously they could not in England or Scotland, though they could in Ireland) to fill all offices of State with a few exceptions, viz.: A CathoUc cannot succeed to the throne, and a sovereign becoming a Catholic or marr>ang one, thereby forfeits the crown, and a Catholic cannot hold the office of Regent. It is uncertain whether the English Chancellorship and the Irish Vice- royalty are barred to Catholics or not. Like the previous Relief Acts, that of 1829 still retained the "Roman CathoHc Oath", to be imposed upon those who desire to enjoy its benefits. It likewise added something in the way of penal legislation by a clause prohibiting religious orders of men to receive new members, and subjecting those who should disobey to banishment as mis(lemeanants. This prohibi- tion is still upon the statute book, and within the present century an attempt has been made to give it effect. Finally, in 1871 (M and 35 Victoria, c. 48) the invidious Roman Catholic Oath was abol- ished, as also the still more objectionable declaration against Transubstantiation.
Butler, Historical Account of the Laws Respecting the Roman Catholics, and of the Laws passed for their Relief, etc. (London, 1795) ; Idem, Historical memoirs of the English, Irish and Scottish Catholics from the Reformation to the present time, 4 volumes (1812- 1821); Amherst, History of Catholic Emancipation (London, 1886); Lilly and Walter, A Manual of the Law especially affecting Catholics (London, 1893); BlOtzer, Die Katholikcn emanzipation in Grosabritannien u. Irland (Freiburg, 1905); Dain, Catholic Emancipation in Cambridge Modern History, X, c. 19.
John Gerard.
In Ireland. — When Elizabeth became Queen of England, her Irish deputy was ordered "to set up the worship of God in Ireland as it is in England".
The Irish Parliament soon enacted that all candidates
for office should take the Oath of Supremacy; and by
the Act of Uniformity the Protestant liturgy was
prescribed in all churches. For a time, however, these
Acts were but mildly enforced. But when the pope
excommunicated the queen, and the Spanish king
made war on her, and both, in attempting to dethrone
her, found that the Irish Catholics were ready to be
their instruments and allies, the latter, regarded as
rebels and traitors by the English sovereign and her
ministers, were persecuted and hunted down. Their
chiefs were outlawed, their churches laid in ruins,
their clergy driven to exile or death. The expecta-
tions of a harassed people and an outlawed creed —
that better times had come with the advent of the
Stuarts — were falsified by the repeated proclamations
against priests, by the Plantation of Ulster, and,
later, by the attempted confiscations of Strafford.
Charles II had special reasons for being grateful to
large masses of Irish Catholics, who fought his
battles at home and supported him abroad; yet at
the Restoration he left them to their fate, and con-
firmed the gigantic scheme of confiscation which had
been carried out by Cromwell. He was not indeed
much attached to any religion, and disliked religious
persecution; and more than once during his reign
he tried to interpose between the Catholics and the
Acts of Uniformity and Supremacy. But the mili-
tant and aggressive Protestantism of the English
Parliament would have no Catholic in any office,
civil or military, and none in the corporations; and
Charles was too politic to strain unduly the allegiance
of these intolerant legislators. Had James II been
e(iually ])olitic he would have gradually allayed Prot-
estant i)n'ju(iice; and i)erliai)s there would have been
no long-drawn-out penal code, and no wearisome
struggle for emancijiation. But he insisted on
Catholic predominance, and soon picked a quarrel
with his Protestant subjects which resulted in the
lo.ss of his crown.
The war which followed in Ireland was terminated by the Treaty of Limerick, and had its terms been kept, the position of the Catholics would have been at least tolerable. Granted such privileges as they had enjoyed in the reign of Charles II, with an Oath of Allegiance substituted for the Oath of Supremacy, and with a promise of a further relaxation of the penal enactments in force, they could practice their religion without hindrance, sit in Parliament and vote for its members, engage in trade and in the learned professions, and fill all civil and military offices; and they were protected in the possession of t he lands they held. William III, whose name has been made a rallying-cry for bigotry, was in favour of these, and even more generous terms. But the forces of in- tolerance on both sides of the Channel were too strong. A small minority of Protestants in Ireland, pampered by privileges and possessing confiscated lands, thought that their only chance of security was to trample upon the Catholic majority surround- ing them. Su.stained and encouraged by England, in defiance of the solemn obligations of public faith, they tore the Treaty of Limerick into tatters, re- fused to ratify its concessions, and elaborated a penal code which every fair-minded Englishman now blushes to recall. For more than a quarter of a century the work of outlawry and proscription was continued by an exclusively Protestant Parliament at Dublin; and when the work was completed the position of the vast majority of Iri.shmen was that of slaves. An Irish Judge declared in 1760 that the law did not recognize the existence of an Irish Catholic, and, assuredly the penal code had placed him ef- fectually beyond its pale. It branded Catholics with proscription and inferiority, struck at every form of Catholic a(;tivity, and checked every symptom of CathoUc enterprise. It excluded them from Parlia-
