ONE:The warder silent on the hill."
TWO:Such were the means by which the union of Ireland with Great Britain was accomplished, and it would be idle to argue that a majority in the Irish Parliament was not purchased by places, pensions, peerages, and compensation for suppressed seats. But it was a bargain, made above-board, and in the open market. It was, moreover, in agreement with the sentiment of the age, a borough-owner was thought to have a right "to do what he willed with his own," and Pitt, in one of his own Reform bills, had acted on the theory that boroughs were a species of property. Lord Cornwallis, though he acknowledged that he was engaged in dirty work, declared that the union was imperatively necessary, and could be accomplished only by those means. The Irish Parliament was profoundly corrupt, and from no point of view could its extinction be regretted, but that extinction could be accomplished only by further corruption. Nor is there any proof that the Irish nation as a whole were opposed to the union. It was, of course, hard on a pure patriot like Grattan to be involved in the fate of a corrupt gang of placemen, but, as a Protestant, he only[476] represented the minority. The Catholics were either indifferent, with the indifference resulting from long oppression, or in favour of the measure. They knew that from the Irish Parliament it had become, since the Rebellion, hopeless to expect Catholic emancipation; they believed the assurances of Pitt that a measure for their relief would speedily be introduced in the British Parliament. Had he been able to fulfil his promise, the union would have beento use Macaulay's familiar phrasea union indeed.
THREE:LORD GREY.The discussion of the question, though it was so summarily dismissed as it regarded the Church, did not prevent a certain number of the Dissenters from coming forward to endeavour to relieve themselves of the yoke of these Articles. In the Toleration Act, passed after the Revolution, it had been stated that this toleration was conceded to those only who were willing to subscribe these Articles, with the exception of the first clause of the 20th, which asserts that the Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies, and to settle controversies of faith; the 34th, which relates to the traditions of the Church; the 35th, relating to the homilies; and the 36th, relating to the consecration of bishops and ministers. With these exceptions, the Articles had been little objected to by the Dissenters till the Presbyterians of England had, for the most part, embraced Unitarianism. It was chiefly from this class that the movement against these Articles now took its rise; but not altogether, for the subscription to the Articles included in the Toleration Act having for some time been little insisted on, some Dissenters, who had not subscribed them, were menaced with trouble on that account by officious clergymen. Amongst these Dr. Doddridge was mentioned as one who had been so disturbed. It was now thought fit to press the question on Parliament, and in April, 1772, Sir Henry Houghton moved for leave to bring in a Bill for that object, under the title of "A Bill for the further Relief of Dissenters." Sir Roger Newdigate, destined for so many years to be the champion of Church Toryism, led the way in opposition, as one of the members of the University of Oxford; and he was supported by two or three men of the same stamp. In this case, however, Burke voted for the Bill as only reasonable, and it passed by a majority of seventy against nine. But in the Lords, the Bishops came forward in full strength against it, and Barrington, Bishop of Llandaff, pointed it out as a Socinian movement, and quoted, with telling effect, some of the most objectionable passages from the writings of Dr. Priestley. There were cries of "Monstrous! Horrible! Shocking!" and, amongst the utterers of these, the loudest was Lord Chatham. The Bishop of London said that, so far from the Dissenters generally advocating this measure, he had been waited on by some of their ministers to inform him that they regarded it, not as a measure to relieve Dissenters from the Articles of the Church, but certain persons from the obligations of Christianity. It was thrown out by a hundred and two against twenty-nine.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aliquam eget consequat est. Aliquam ac nunc mauris.
