The 1829 Catholic Emancipation Act, or the Roman Catholic Relief Act, is often regarded as a ‘U-turn’ made by a Tory government. It is interesting to consider the act as being passed not out of an ideological commitment to the cause of Emancipation, but out of necessity. Indeed, the act was passed by a party in which anti-Catholic sentiments were a fundamental principle of ideology. Sir Robert Peel, who was instrumental in passing the bill, was vehemently anti-Catholic, and deeply opposed to Emancipation. He was often called ‘Orange’ Peel, which was a reference to the Orange Order that emerged in the 1790s to defend Protestantism, revealing his distaste towards Catholicism. Naturally then, Peel had no ideological support for the Emancipation Act, which admitted Roman Catholics to sit in Parliament and to hold all but a few public offices. The issue of Emancipation was becoming increasingly contentious and held a large presence in public debate because before the act was passed, Catholics were excluded from sitting in Parliament.
It thus becomes evident that Peel, the Prime Minister, and the Duke of Wellington--who engineered the act--were reluctant supporters of Emancipation, rooted, as they were, in their conservative ideology. Moreover, Peel and Wellington had been urged to support Emancipation due to wider political circumstances, rather than out of principle. Indeed, Emancipation had grown in controversy since the charismatic Irish lawyer, Daniel O’Connell formed the Irish Association in 1823, uniting Irish Catholic peasantry and middle classes to push for full Emancipation. In 1828, O’Connell won the by-election in County Clare, forcing the hands of Peel and Wellington, as the Catholic issue could no longer be neglected. The election triggered an attack on the Irish representative system, as British law had excluded Catholics from sitting in Parliament. As the majority of Ireland was Catholic, the political voice of a large section of society was being stifled, and O’Connell’s election victory demonstrated this. The situation grew more ominous as rebellion loomed, which led to Wellington’s ‘U-turn’: a Tory government would now sponsor a bill to secure Catholic Emancipation. Indeed, as Peel confessed in a speech made to the Commons in March 1829, this decision was being taken out of necessity to remedy political instability, rather than out of any matter of principle. The Tories, then, were still at root anti-Catholic, and the Catholic Emancipation Act did not alter this.
It is also worth considering the role of Daniel O’Connell, as he demonstrates the ability of the individual to impact history. His work in uniting different social groups of Ireland by his creation of the Catholic Association should not be undermined. He encouraged a large percentage of society to push the issue of Emancipation so that pressure was exerted on the government. This is significant as the vast majority of the British Establishment were staunchly opposed to Catholic Emancipation. In fact, the highest ranks of British society were entrenched in their animosity to Catholics; the opposition included King George IV, his brother, the Duke of Cumberland, and many prominent Tories like Falmouth. O’Connell, however, was able to rally and reinvigorate support for the issue of Emancipation, resulting in legislative change.
Although the act was an important milestone in securing greater civic and political rights for Catholic populations in Britain, the act cannot be regarded as transforming the Catholic presence in Britain and reforming the Protestant perception of Ireland. Whilst the act enabled Catholics to enter Parliament, they still faced challenges; Catholics were not able to hold all offices in government and were barred from higher education. Indeed, not until much later in the 19thcentury would they be able to enter university, as it would take further legislative change in the form of the Universities Test Act of 1871 to remove the Catholic exclusion from higher education. At Oxford, Catholics could not matriculate and at Cambridge, they were not able to graduate. Thus, Catholics were socially excluded, betraying the failures of the act.
Additionally, the act is limited in that it failed to improve Anglo-Irish relations, as hostilities between Catholics and Protestants still raged. In fact, sentiments arguably hardened, and this is evident by the reprinting of anti-Catholic remarks made by the Duke of Newcastle. Newcastle was well-known for his antipathy towards Catholicism, and he was vehemently opposed to Emancipation: he wrote in newspapers and featured in pamphlets to voice his contention toward the bill. In 1837, these remarks were reprinted in a new book, revealing that passions against Emancipation had hardened, rather than improved, and consequently Anglo-Irish relations had failed to ameliorate. Alongside this, many ordinary Protestants in Britain still harboured antipathy towards Catholics, and a long history of contention had not been remedied by the act. This is apparent by the common practice of burning effigies of the Pope on Bonfire Night, until the 1850s. This demonstrates the failure of legislation to bring about social change, because Irish and Catholic issues still remained particularly contentious.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note the impact of the Catholic Emancipation Act on the Tory Party, as it contributed to the party’s defeat in 1830. Public opposition to Emancipation was so prominent that a long period of Tory dominance was ended by the act, paving the way for Whig victory. Therefore, the Act had profound consequences for the Tory party, and it failed to radically change the Irish presence in Britain. Anglo-Irish relations had not improved, and although the issue of Emancipation was addressed, amelioration was limited because Peel and Wellington were reluctant supporters.
By Kitty L
Commentaires