PERSECUTION OF SOLDIERS BY SOME HARD-HEARTED AND IGNORANT MINIS­TERS—PROTECTED BY THE LORD JUSTICE CLERK AND THE LORD ADVOCATE— SOLDIERS ALLOWED TO OMIT THE OBJECTIONABLE CLAUSE IN THE ATTESTA­TION OATH—ARMY MEN SEEK A REPEAL OF THE ODIOUS LAWS—GENERALS BOURGOYNE AND CONWAY—THE WAR WITH AMERICA AND AN IMPENDING WAR WITH FRANCE FAVOUR THEIR VIEWS—SIR. JOHN DALRYMPLE—LOYALTY OF CATHOLICS—IMPORTANT NEGOTIATIONS—ADDRESSES OF CATHOLICS GRACIOUSLY RECEIVED BY GEORGE III.—A RELIEF MEASURE BEFORE PARLIA­MENT—SUPPORTED BY THE OPPOSITION—THE DISSENTING PROTESTANTS GIVE THEIR AID.

At this time the loyalty of Catholic soldiers and their bravery in the field was nothing new to the British public. These great qualities, however, met with but little consideration on the part of the more dark and bigoted portion of the Presbyterian world. Two Highland battalions of British troops, composed in great part of Catholics, both officers and privates, had served in the war which led to the cession of Canada to Great Britain. On leaving the service, these brave veterans were allowed a pension, sufficient for their comfortable maintenance. They retired to their mountain homes; and generally their being Catholics was not considered as an objection to the regular payment of their pensions. In some of the remoter parts of the Highlands, however, the ministers raised such an objection, and threatened those brave men, who had risked their lives in fighting the battles of their country with the loss of their pensions unless they would abstain from any public profession of their Faith. As many of those men were entirely dependent on what the Government allowed them, the threat of the ministers implied a total privation of their livelihood. It does not appear that such a threat was, or could have been carried into execution, in defiance of the general opinion which prevailed. In. fact, the Lord Justice Clerk (the chief judge in Scotland) and the Lord Advocate pledged their word in answer to Bishop Hay’s appeal, that, although they could give no public assurance in favour of the pensioners, no complaint as to religion, made against them, should be listened to by the law officers of the Crown. This, we may conclude, was a sufficient check to the charitable ministers, and the retired soldiers were directed to ask, as usual, without fear, the payment of their pensions.

It had been the custom to administer to recruits the attestation oath, in other words, that they should swear that they were Protestants. This custom must have been highly injurious to the military service. Bishop Hay publicly advised all Catholics who wished to enlist, to declare openly when they were called upon to make the attestation, that they were Catholics, and would never take the oath in its existing form. They followed the Bishop’s directions, were applauded for their honesty, allowed to omit the objectionable clause and swear only to be obedient and faithful. This reform greatly facilitated recruiting. Many Catholics were added to the ranks of the army as privates, and young gentlemen, notwithstanding their religious profession, obtained commissions.

Lord Stanhope, a minister of the Crown, and a leading member of the Government, endeavoured in 1718 to obtain some mitigation of the penal laws in favour of Catholics. He was supported by the Government of the time, and had many friends in Parliament. He, nevertheless, utterly failed. The age of greater light and a more tolerant mind had not yet dawned. It had made but small progress when our army men, in 1770, took up the gauntlet in favour of their Catholic fellow-citizens. They knew the value of the Catholic soldier; and they would have him a free man, and not a Pariah or Helot crushed to a state worse than servitude, by cruel and degrading penal laws. A motion made in the House of Commons, 11th Dec., 1770, by General Bourgoyne, and seconded by General Conway, had in view to provide soldiers for the British army at the beginning of the American war. To this end it was proposed to relax the penal statutes which prevented Catholics from serving under the British flag, unless they did violence to their conscience. General Bourgoyne addressed the Commons with great freedom. During the late war he had the honour to command 500 Roman Catholics. It was true that they had come to him as Protestants; but, it was also very well known that the poor fellows went when they were able, to their own place of worship; and, as they went out of uniform, he had not opposed it. He declared that they were as brave soldiers as any in the British army; and that foreign nations were astonished that so many fine soldiers should be forced into foreign service by the imposi­tion of oaths at home, which they could not take without violating Truth and Religion. The eloquence of the noble General was lost on the House of Commons of 1770. In the short period of eight years there was a change. Shall it be said a change of opinion? The sentiments of a nation do not change so rapidly. But, wars and rumours of wars, more eloquent than the words of orators, more powerful than “the still small voice of reason,” sometimes oblige them to change their policy. It cannot be alleged that the statesmen who composed the Government of Lord North were unfriendly to toleration and a mitigation of the penal laws. But the war with America and an impending war with France, no doubt quickened their zeal in endeavouring to pass through Parliament some form of bill that would considerably lessen the odious laws. It behoved them to move with caution, for they knew not, as yet, what the sentiments of the Oppo­sition were; and, accordingly, they wisely resolved to refrain from bringing the subject before Parliament until they had made all possible enquiry and preparation. They looked first to Scot­land, and sent thither a confidential agent, Sir John Dalrymple, a Scotch Baron of Exchequer. This gentleman was already known as friendly to Catholics, having originated a plan for raising Catholic soldiers in Ireland and having nearly succeeded in obtaining the restoration of the forfeited estates to the families of their original proprietors, when his laudable endeavours were interrupted by the state of affairs in America. Sir John was not without friends in Scotland. Among these was Lord Linton, the son and heir of the Earl of Traquair, a Scotch Peer; and, in order to be introduced to Bishop Hay, he had recourse to the good services of the Rev. Alex­ander Gordon, newly appointed principal of the Scotch College of Paris, with whom he had formerly been intimate at the French capital. Sir John now proceeded to business, visited Bishop Hay, and desired to learn from him the sentiments of the Scotch Catholics on the three following points: 1st. How they were generally disposed to regard the war with America? 2nd. What grounds there were to expect that they would enter freely into His Majesty’s service if invited? 3rd. What ameliorations in their social condition they would look for as an equivalent for their services? To these queries the Bishop gave distinct answers in writing, under date of 16th February, 1778. He assured the Government agent of the loyalty of the Catholic people, and that, although they were incapacitated by law for serving their country, either as military men or as civilians, their honest endeavour was directed to the discharge of their private duties to their country as good citizens. With regard to the question of the war with America, the Bishop took it upon himself to say that the conduct of the Americans was generally disapproved of by the Scotch Catholics of his acquaintance. As a proof of this, as well as of the readiness with which Catholics would enter into His Majesty’s service, he reminded Sir John that nearly all the emigrants who had left the Highlands for America, a few years before, were now wearing His Majesty’s uniform. He also referred to the great number of Catholics who had enlisted in spite of every discouragement, during the last war, and to the popularity of the recruiting sergeant in Catholic districts of the country at the present time. The Bishop added, and at some length, that he considered it undoubted that if the whole penal code were repealed and Catholics restored to all the rights and privileges of their fellow subjects, Catholics would become entirely attached to His Majesty’s person and Government, and that the more favoured they were in this way, the more cordial would be their service, but this was more than could be hoped for in the present state of matters. In the meantime, his object could be attained by the removal of the chief imped­iments to a cordial service of His Majesty. First, a repeal of the sanguinary laws against all hearers and sayers of Mass. As long as it is death or banishment to attend the Catholic worship, it cannot be supposed that Catholics would cheerfully serve, or consider themselves as looked upon in a friendly light by Government. Secondly, a repeal of those statutes which enable the Protestant seller of an estate to take it back again from the Catholic purchaser without allowing to the latter action for the restitution of the price, and of those which enable the nearest Protes­tant heir to take the estate from the rightful Catholic proprietor. Thirdly, that part of the attesta­tion oath which regards religion be done away with, and those who enter the service be required only to swear fidelity to the King and obedience to the laws of war.

Lord Linton’s opinion, which Sir John had taken separately, agreed in every point with that of Bishop Hay. The agent was now ready for further negotiations with the Ministry. Accordingly, he saw Premier Lord North, Lord George Germain and Lord Suffolk. These gentlemen were highly pleased with the opinions which he laid before them. Bishop Hay had suggested to Sir John the importance of obtaining the co-operation of the English Catholic body in their negoti­ations. He wrote, accordingly, to Edinburgh for letters of introduction to Bishop Challoner and other leading Catholics of England. Bishop Hay, in reply, immediately forwarded to the agent a letter for his venerable friend, Bishop Challoner, and another to the coadjutor, Bishop Talbot. More he declined to do, lest he should appear too assuming in the matter, considering that it would be better if in Scotland they seemed to follow rather than to lead. He knew also that the two Bishops for whom he gave introductions had great influence with all their friends in England, and the persons best qualified to give advice as regards the important business in hand. Bishop Challoner did not enter with much warmth or courage into the plan of a partial repeal of the penal code. But he assured Sir John Dalrymple of the loyal sentiments of the Catholics of England in the present crisis. The aged Bishop had suffered so long from the oppression of the odious laws that he could not be reconciled to the idea of the Catholics acting in the open and public way now proposed to them. He dreaded lest by coming forward in support of the Govern­ment, they should give offence to the Opposition and perhaps occasion a renewal of persecution. Through the timidity incident to his great age, he started many difficulties. An eminent Catholic lawyer, Mr. Duane, gave the agent a similar reception. Sir John, however, was not to be discour­aged. He waited on the Duke of Norfolk, Lord Shrewsbury, Lord Petre and many other Catholic noblemen and gentlemen in London. He induced them to hold several meetings for the discus­sion of the subject. They came at last to the conclusion, with the concurrence of the Ministry, that a loyal address should be presented to the king in the name of the English and Scotch Cath­olics. His Majesty would receive it graciously and reply in the most encouraging terms. Soon after they would jointly present a petition, praying for a mitigation of the penal laws. This peti­tion would be referred to Parliament and supported by all the influence of the Court. Thus, by avoiding to introduce the subject merely as a Government measure, unsustained by the voice of the Catholics themselves, it was hoped that it would meet with less opposition. About the same time, also, the Irish Catholics presented a loyal address, so that nothing was wanting to show what sentiments prevailed.

The Catholic nobility and gentry of England were now invited by circular letters to come up to town and sign the proposed address, or authorize it to be signed for them by proxy. At the request of Sir John Dalrymple, Lord Linton, in the absence of the Earl of Traquair, who was resident with his daughters in France, represented the Scotch Catholics. He was willingly accompanied, as he desired, by Bishop Hay. As soon as they arrived, Lord Linton attended a meeting of the Catholic body, at which the address was adopted and signed, personally, or by proxy, by ten peers and nearly two hundred commoners who were gentlemen of family and property in England. Lord Linton and Mr. George Maxwell, of Kirkconnel, signed for the Scotch Catholics. The address expressed the attachment of His Majesty’s Roman Catholic subjects to his person and Government, notwithstanding the disabilities under which they laboured. The address disclaimed, moreover, all sympathy with the designs of any foreign power against the Crown, and the safety and tranquility of His Majesty’s subjects. It appeals for proof of these sentiments to the irreproachable conduct of the Roman Catholics for many years past “under circumstances of public discountenance and displeasure.” Lord Arundel and Surrey, Lord Linton and Lord Petre presented the address at a public levee. It was graciously received, as His Majesty had promised it would be, and afforded him much gratification. The Irish Cath­olics presented a like address, dated Dublin, April 13th, and signed by three hundred persons.

As the Penal Laws were not the same in the three kingdoms, the Ministry desired that the Cath­olic representatives should prepare for them a note showing what their constituents wished to be done for them by Parliament. It was also signified that if their first demands were moderate, everything that they possibly could desire, the Nation approving, would be done for them in course of time.

There was still great anxiety as to the light in which the Opposition in the House of Commons might view the measure. If it were presented merely as a scheme of the Ministry, it might, on that account, fail. Several circumstances, however, concurred to dispel all doubt on this head, and made it apparent that the members of the Opposition were the warmest supporters of the measure. Many of them were connected with Ireland by property and family, and from a humane feeling towards their fellow-countrymen, they were anxious that the Irish should be relieved of their social anti-political grievances. Of this liberality, however, Great Britain must set the example. The name of the celebrated Edmund Burke, at that time leader of the Opposi­tion, was a sufficient guarantee for the sincerity and humanity of their motives. And now comes State policy which concurred with so many other causes to secure unanimous support for the Catholic Relief Bill. The American Congress had invited all Catholics to emigrate to the West, promising them entire liberty of conscience. There was also, throughout the land, the salutary fear of a French invasion. This added not a little to the pressure of the American war; and hence it became highly important that all parties in the State should unite against the common enemy. The dissenting Protestants of England, at the same time, lent their aid. They needed a little more religious liberty than the jealous State church and its supporters had hitherto allowed them. They were inclined, therefore, to favour the Catholic movement, considering it a step towards their own complete emancipation. They no doubt also had a view to securing the support which the Catholics, from gratitude, in return for their timely aid, would be disposed to bestow, when the dissenting bodies came to claim an extension of their liberties.