\n\tOn April 21, 1812, a 24-year-old baron stood up in the British House of Lords to speak in favor of Catholic emancipation. While it was only his second time
\n\trising to speak in Parliament, he made pointed claims. He called the state of Great Britain a \u201cstate of exclusion,\u201d and the Church of England \u201can
\n\tintolerant church.\u201d1 \n\t<\/p>\n
\n\tSpeaking directly about the exclusion and intolerance directed towards the Catholics he continued his speech by naming a great misconception about them:
\n\t\u201cThe Catholics are contented, or at least ought to be, as we are told.\u201d His sarcasm then becomes clear: \u201cI shall, therefore, proceed to touch on a few of
\n\tthose circumstances which so marvelously contribute to their exceeding contentment.\u201d <\/p>\n
\n\tThe rest of his speech specifies their persecution. Starting with injustices in the military, he claimed that Catholics are not allowed to practice their
\n\treligion, but are forced to attend Protestant services. Turning to injustice in the courts, he told an anecdote about a man who was acquitted by a
\n\t\u201cProtestant jury\u201d for killing a Catholic man. Perhaps one of his most piercing claims involved the treatment of the Catholic poor. Catholic children, the
\n\tbaron claimed, have been \u201ckidnapped from their Catholic connections by their rich and powerful Protestant neighbors,\u201d and then enrolled in Protestant
\n\tschools. The schools, he continued, are where the \u201cviper of intolerance deposits her young,\u201d making these children grow up to \u201csting the Catholic.\u201d The
\n\tbaron\u2019s most incendiary message comes afterward: \u201cBetter would it be to send them . . . to those islands in the South Seas, where they might more humanely
\n\tlearn to become cannibals; it would be less disgusting that they would be brought up to devour the dead, than persecute the living.\u201d Perhaps many
\n\tparliamentary speeches contain such rhetorical devices in an attempt to persuade an audience. This speech, however, sounded like a \u201crecitation of poetry,\u201d2
\n\twhich certainly fits its speaker, the English Romantic poet Lord Byron. <\/p>\n
\n\tByron was not the only English Romantic poet to be invested in religious liberty. While he promoted emancipation in England, Percy Bysshe Shelley, the
\n\tother \u201cradical\u201d Romantic poet, spoke out in Dublin against the injustices the Irish Catholics suffered. Other Romantic poets, such as John Keats, also
\n\tfavored Catholic emancipation; Byron and Shelley, however, were most actively involved in this movement. Byron and Shelley promoted Catholic emancipation
\n\tin and out of their literary works, even though they disagreed with some Catholic beliefs and practices.<\/p>\n
\n\tAs a member of the aristocracy, Byron had a rich education and opportunities for traveling abroad. Byron\u2019s home life, though, was full of turbulence. He
\n\thad gained the title of lord at the meager age of 10 when his uncle died, since his father had already passed when Byron was 3. Before receiving the title,
\n\tByron had been raised by his mother in a poor household in Scotland where he was \u201cindoctrinated with the Calvinistic morality of Scottish
\n\tPresbyterianism,\u201d3 which reportedly caused Byron\u2019s \u201c\u2018irritation\u2019 toward religion.\u201d4 What a change he must have felt, leaving this home to attend Harrow and
\n\tthen the Trinity College at Cambridge. It was his travels, moreover, that significantly shaped Byron\u2019s legendary persona. With a friend he made at Trinity
\n\tCollege, Byron went on a major trip in 1809, \u201ca tour through Portugal and Spain to Malta, and then to little-known Albania, Greece, and Asia Minor.\u201d5
\n\tInternational influences then become vivid in Byron\u2019s writing. From Greek and Persian mythologies to Turkish tales, Byron introduced much of England to
\n\tforeign, captivating stories. Byron\u2019s own introduction to the myriad of beliefs he encountered made him question the superiority of one belief system over
\n\tanother. He had \u201ccultivated a skepticism about established systems of belief.\u201d6 Very soon after this world tour, Byron stood in Parliament denouncing
\n\testablished religion. <\/p>\n
\n\tIt would not be fair to say that Byron solely fought for the Catholic claims. Byron calls for equal treatment and opportunity for not just Catholics, but
\n\tfor those of all religious affiliations. Quoting from William Paley, the late-eighteenth-century Christian apologetic, Byron suggests that those of
\n\tdifferent religious beliefs should strive to work together peacefully: Byron asks, \u201cWhat says Paley?\u201d \u201c\u2018I perceive no reason why men of different religious
\n\tpersuasions should not sit upon the same bench, deliberate in the same council, or fight in the same ranks.\u2019\u201d Quoting Paley most likely surprised Byron\u2019s
\n\taudience, since he next discusses Paley\u2019s standing in the church, noting that some do not see him as \u201corthodox.\u201d Byron does not, however, qualify this line
\n\tfrom Paley. He means to expand the current parliamentary motion to a vaster realm, and thus uses his position as a lord to lend an egalitarian voice. In
\n\this speech, then, Catholic emancipation appears to be the first religious liberty act of many he would like to see take place.<\/p>\n
\n\tMuch like his speech on the Catholic claims, Byron defends Catholics in his literary work. In particular, his poetic drama Manfred (1817) calls attention
\n\tto the misconceptions of Catholic clergy. This \u201cdrama of ideas\u201d features Manfred, a Byronic hero, who has committed an unspeakable crime, and therefore
\n\twishes to die.7 Attempting to help him, an abbot arrives at Manfred\u2019s dwelling. Manfred greets the father warmly, creating a positive depiction of the
\n\tabbot: \u201cThanks, holy father! welcome to these walls; \/ Thy presence honours them, and blesseth those \/ Who dwell within them.\u201d8 When the abbot learns of
\n\tManfred\u2019s affliction and offers his help, Manfred requests that he take his life, which causes the abbot\u2019s response: \u201cI come to save, and not destroy. \/ I
\n\twould not pry into thy secret soul.\u201d9 What is curious about this response is that Manfred never accuses the abbot of prying into his \u201csecret soul.\u201d It is
\n\tas if these lines address Protestant readers who are suspicious of Catholic clergy, believing that they have evil intentions. The abbot, rather, comes
\n\tacross as a sincere helper, telling Manfred that there is still time for \u201cpenitence and pardon.\u201d That Manfred chooses death over following the abbot\u2019s
\n\tadvice is to show that Manfred represents a completely independent person rather than to critique the abbot. No entity could influence Manfred throughout
\n\tthe play. The abbot reveals his own noble character, which most likely challenged the reader with biases against the Catholic clergy. <\/p>\n
\n\tJust because Byron defends the Catholic Church does not mean that his beliefs align with Catholicism. Manfred, for instance, strongly disagrees with some
\n\tof the abbot\u2019s theology. When the abbot tells Manfred that there is still time to be forgiven, it is \u201cwith the true church, and through the church to
\n\theaven.\u201d Manfred rejects this idea, protesting that his penitence \u201cdoth rest between \/ Heaven and [himself].\u201d Manfred believes that he does not need any
\n\tintercessors. As sympathies commonly lie with Manfred in this tale, his belief here is elevated above the abbot\u2019s belief. Byron shows that he can critique
\n\tCatholic theology while still promoting Catholic emancipation.<\/p>\n
\n\tHowever, Byron\u2019s heroes do not necessarily represent Byron. This conflation has been long-going: \u201cByron\u2019s contemporaries insisted on identifying the author
\n\twith his fictional characters, reading his writing as veiled autobiography even when it dealt with supernatural themes.\u201d10 Byron, indeed, might have
\n\tdesired these comparisons, as they added to his mystique. Those close to Byron knew better: \u201cHis own temperament was in many respects opposite to that of
\n\this heroes.\u201d11 Specific comparisons between Byron and a Byronic hero therefore need affirmation outside of the literary work. <\/p>\n
\n\tWhen it comes to Manfred\u2019s objection to the abbot\u2019s theology, Byron does seem to agree with him. Byron\u2019s words outside of this dramatic poem assert his
\n\tbelief that no intercessors between man and God are needed. When a relative attempted to convert Byron to orthodox beliefs, the poet tried to convince him
\n\tthat it was useless, claiming, \u201cin Morality I prefer Confucius to the Ten Commandments, and Socrates to St. Paul. . . . In Religion I favor the Catholic
\n\temancipation, but do not acknowledge the Pope.\u201d12 Manfred\u2019s objection to the abbot, then, does mirror Byron\u2019s own beliefs. Ultimately Byron did not have to
\n\tagree with Catholic beliefs in order to promote their liberty. His promotion of equality, in other words, was not a move toward religious pluralism.<\/p>\n
\n\tLike Byron, Shelley\u2019s involvement in the Catholic emancipation movement did not stem from holding common beliefs with Catholics. Also like Byron, Shelley
\n\tdecided early on to promote equality. Shelley had been a child \u201cmercilessly baited by older and stronger boys,\u201d and thus early on \u201cdedicated his life to a
\n\twar against injustice and oppression.\u201d13 Shelley\u2019s experience at university was markedly different than Byron\u2019s, however. After sending out a pamphlet
\n\tcalled The Necessity of Atheism to the religious authority at Oxford, Shelley was expelled. Sending out this manuscript to church authorities makes this
\n\taction seem inevitable; but Shelley still felt \u201cshock and grief\u201d over the decision.14 His own religious persecution may have played a role in his promotion
\n\tof religious liberty for others. Shelley traveled to Dublin in 1812, the same year as Byron\u2019s Parliamentary speech, to further the cause of Catholic
\n\temancipation. He brought with him his pamphlet An Address to the Irish People. More so than Byron, Shelley critiques the Catholics while still promoting
\n\ttheir rights. He criticized their beliefs and practices in the opening of his pamphlet, bringing up the Inquisition, the \u201cvices of Monks and Nuns in their
\n\tConvents,\u201d and the practice of paying money to absolve crimes, no matter how \u201cmonstrous\u201d those crimes were.15 He even dares to assert that the \u201cMonks and
\n\tthe Priests of old were very bad men.\u201d Shelley certainly chose a curious way to engage his audience.<\/p>\n
\n\tHe does, eventually, turn to religious liberty, and what keeps this liberty from materializing. Like Byron, Shelley deplores the religious intolerance in
\n\tthe military. He claims that the Irish Catholics \u201cpay for war with their lives and labor,\u201d but since their freedoms, like religious liberty, are withheld,
\n\ttheir involvement in the military is \u201cfor nothing at all.\u201d To Shelley, this, among other injustices, is unacceptable. His egalitarian voice rings out as
\n\tByron\u2019s did during his speech. Shelley announces that \u201cliberty should be possessed equally by all.\u201d His turn from criticism to grand statements such as
\n\tthis one shows Shelley\u2019s hope for the Irish Catholics\u2019 future. Yet Shelley acknowledges that the present king, George III, has been \u201cinimical\u201d to the
\n\tIrish. With the king obstructing the Irish\u2019s call for religious liberty, the reality of this liberty appeared uncertain. He then reassures his Irish
\n\taudience that this king who had refused their emancipation would soon be dead, claiming that \u201che will in a certain time be no more.\u201d Shelley shows real
\n\tbravery in condemning the king\u2019s actions and voicing joy over his upcoming death. Making this risky move in 1812, Shelley shows his true support for the
\n\tIrish Catholic movement, even with his condescension earlier in the pamphlet.<\/p>\n
\n\tEven though the king did not die for another eight years, Shelley continued making risky moves in his literary work. King George III, while having been
\n\tofficially declared insane in 1811, would live until 1820. As the king clung to life, Shelley\u2019s sentiments in his prose made their way to anguish in his
\n\tpoetry. In his sonnet \u201cEngland in 1819,\u201d Shelley bemoans that King George III is still alive. With the staccato-like first line, Shelley draws attention to
\n\this descriptions of the king: \u201cAn old, mad, blind, despised, and dying King.\u201d Shelley\u2019s reasoning for why he despises the king may be summed up by one word
\n\tin the poem: \u201cliberticide.\u201d This killer of liberty certainly created a host of those who grew infuriated. <\/p>\n
\n\tShelley must have sensed the possibility for violence early on, as he warned against all violence during his 1812 visit. When Shelley speaks of
\n\temancipation, it is not without caution. He asks how emancipation will be reached, and then answers his own question: \u201cWhat are the means which I take for
\n\tmelioration? Violence, corruption, rapine, crime? Do I do evil, that good may come? I have recommended peace, philanthrophy, wisdom.\u201d16 If this message
\n\twere not clear enough, Shelley implores in his pamphlet, \u201cIn no case employ violence.\u201d He repeats something similar to this phrase more than once
\n\tthroughout the work. Shelley\u2019s absolute is striking and not without experienced reasoning. <\/p>\n
\n\tShelley\u2019s warning derives from his regrets of the French Revolution, a disillusioning revolution for the Romantics. In his pamphlet to the Irish, Shelley
\n\talludes to the Reign of Terror: \u201cThe French Revolution, although undertaken with the best intentions, ended ill for the people; because violence was
\n\temployed, the cause which they vindicated was that of truth, but they gave it the appearance of a lie.\u201d Shelley uses the familiar horrors of the revolution
\n\tto impart to the Irish the necessity of a peaceful emancipatory movement. Shelley encouraged the Irish Catholics not to join in violent mobs, but \u201cnever to
\n\tcease writing and speaking\u201d for their rights, which must have sounded easier for an outsider to say.<\/p>\n
\n\tYet Shelley sees his outsider status as one of his merits, adding to his pamphlet\u2019s many rhetorical blunders. Shelley believes he can be more objective as
\n\tan outsider: \u201cI am not a Protestant, nor am I a Catholic, and therefore not being a follower of either of these religions, I am better able to judge
\n\tbetween them.\u201d These words would have most likely sounded condescending, if the Irish reader even read this far. The very first words of the pamphlet could
\n\thave kept the Irish from reading any further. Shelley suggests to his struggling audience, \u201cI am not an Irishman, yet I can feel for you,\u201d a line most
\n\tlikely met with skepticism rather than intrigue. Apart from his \u201crhetorically inept\u201d criticism of Catholic heritage,17 Shelley criticized the Irish\u2019s
\n\tconsumption of alcohol. He advised them to \u201clay up the money with which [they] usually purchase drunkenness and ill-health.\u201d The many issues in Shelley\u2019s
\n\tpamphlet were not without consequence. He was called back early by William Godwin, whom Shelley saw as his mentor. Shelley\u2019s entire trip, which focused
\n\tpredominately on his pamphlet, seemed to fail. The early historian William St. Clair saw Shelley\u2019s trip as a \u201cdisillusioning failure.\u201d18 Shelley\u2019s trip to
\n\tfight injustice seemed in vain.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe outcome of Byron\u2019s speech was not any better than Shelley\u2019s expedition. With 174 \u201cnoncontents\u201d to 102 \u201ccontents,\u201d \u201cThe Earl of Donoughmore\u2019s Motion for
\n\ta Committee on the Roman Catholic Claims\u201d failed.19 Byron\u2019s name appears listed on the side of the minority vote. Even though the vote was not even for
\n\tCatholic emancipation, but solely to form a committee, it still failed. Both Shelley\u2019s trip and Byron\u2019s speech have the appearance of failing.<\/p>\n
\n\tThere would, however, be another parliamentary vote 17 years after Byron\u2019s speech that would pass the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829. As one scholar
\n\tnotes for Shelley: \u201cIt turns out that Shelley was right in terms of winning Catholic emancipation, for it was secured in 1829 largely along the lines
\n\tsketched out by Shelley.\u201d20 Byron and Shelley had become like the poets outlined in Shelley\u2019s A Defence of Poetry: \u201cPoets,\u201d Shelley provocatively claims,
\n\t\u201care the unacknowledged legislators of the world.\u201d21 Unfortunately, both of these poets died before 1829. Shelley drowned when a storm took out his boat on
\n\tthe Gulf of Spezia in 1822 when he was just shy of 30 years old. Byron, as one would almost expect, found himself training to fight with the insurgent
\n\tGreeks against the Ottoman Empire. He died of a fever there in Greece at the age of 36, just two years after Shelley died. Shelley\u2019s words in his pamphlet
\n\tappear nearly prophetic: \u201cDuring our life-time, we cannot hope to see the work of virtue and reason finished now; we can only lay the foundation for our
\n\tposterity.\u201d Standing up for the religious liberty of others may very well initially end in failure, which could cultivate excuses for why we ought to not
\n\teven try. In his speech, Byron casts away these excuses: \u201cIt is not the time, say they, or it is an improper time, or there is time enough yet.\u201d Perhaps
\n\tByron and Shelley sensed what little time they had.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On April 21, 1812, a 24-year-old baron stood up in the British House of Lords to speak in favor of Catholic emancipation. While it was only his second time rising to speak in Parliament, he made pointed claims. He called the state of Great Britain a \u201cstate of exclusion,\u201d and the Church of England \u201can<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[307],"tags":[139],"class_list":["post-6316","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-july-august-2015","tag-july-august-2015"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6316","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6316"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6316\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6316"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6316"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6316"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}