A

MEASURE of considerable importance to the internal state of Great Britain and Ireland, especially the latter country, was the interchange of the militia of each island; for the effecting of which, a bill was introduced into the House of Commons on May 17th, by Mr. Secretary Ryder. At the first reading it was opposed by Lord Temple, on the ground that it gave to his Majesty a power which he did not before possess over the militia; that it would render the men independent of their officers, and destroy the discipline of that body; and that it would cause many gentlemen to resign their commissions. Also, that it would increase the price of substitutes, and impose a heavier burthen for the maintenance of the wives and children of militia

men.

Colonel Bastard concurred in disapproving the bill, which he regarded as a breach of faith to the militia; and he affirmed that for his part he would not volunteer on the occasion, yet would hold his situation till the resentment of the crown should be manifested against him on that ac

count.

On the motion to read the bill a second time, May 23d, similar objections were made to it by Col.

Stanley, Mr. Eliott, and some other members; whilst it was supported as a measure useful to complete the union between the different parts of the empire, which ought now to be regarded as composing one and the same country. Mr. Whitbread asked if any clause were intended for allowing the Irish Catholic the full liberty of his religious worship when in this country; and was answered, that no difference was to be made in his situation in consequence of the present bill. It was then read a second time.

On the 27th, when a motion was made that the House should go into a committee upon the bill, some of the Irish members proposed a postponement of it till the Irish Catholics should have an opportunity of communicating with their representatives on the subject, and an amendment to that purpose was moved, but negatived. The bill being then committed, Mr. Ryder proposed a clause to confer on the Irish Catholics serving in England all the civil, military, and religious exemption which they possessed in Ireland.

On the third reading of the bill, Mr. Parnell moved that a clause should be introduced establishing the right of the Catholic soldier to

attend his proper place of worship on coming into England; but it was rejected on a division.

When the bill, on June 17th, was brought before a committee of the House of Lords, Lord Stanhope moved the insertion of the words which he had proposed for introduction into the Mutiny Bill, importing that no officer should have power to compel any soldier not of the church of England to attend its service, and that he should have the right of attending on the worship to which he was attached; and though he was warmly supported by some other lords, who argued that such a matter should not be left to discretion, it was negatived. The Earl of Radnor then proposed as an amendment, that the interchange should be limited to the cases of invasion and rebellion; which was also negatived, and the bill finally passed without further debate.

The purpose of this interchange, which has since been extensively carried into effect, is obvious, though, probably from motives of delicacy, it was not touched upon in the debates. By its means a military force will be quartered in Ireland, not influenced by the local interests or prejudices of that country, which will be at hand to assist in the suppression of the disturbances that may arise from the disappointed hopes of the majority of the people respecting their civil or religious privileges. The policy of the measure will not be questioned, provided that of subjecting them to such disappointments be established.

The Irish Catholics having agreed upon a petition to be presented to parliament, the same was

presented by Mr. Grattan to the House of Commons on May 20th. On the 31st, that gentleman moved that the petition above mentioned, and also the votes of the House conveying their thanks to the armies under Lord Wellington and General Graham, should be read. This having been done, he rose, and said that he had desired that the petition and the votes should be read, in order that the House should be reminded of the grievances which they were called upon to redress, and that the petitioners might have the benefit of the recorded opinion of the House in favour of their allegiance. He then proceeded to show that there was nothing in the Roman Catholic religion itself which encouraged disaffection, but that the manner in which the Catholics had been treated by the government was the cause of their discontents. If, said he, the government should keep any class of its subjects in a state of imperfect privilege, it must occasionally find that class in a state of imperfect allegiance. In order to take away all subjects of grievance, they should take away the penal laws which formed the dictum of discontent, and the repeal of which would ensure the allegiance of the subject, and establish the tranquillity of the people. After dwelling some time upon these ideas, he proceeded to make some observations upon the principle adopted by government, that of disqualification, and he contended that, when applied to a population like that of the Irish Catholics, it was wholly and absolutely inadmissible. He assumed as undeniable maxims, that no government has a right to make partial laws,

or arbitrary laws, that is, without reason; that no government has a right to establish an inquisition into the thoughts of men, or to punish a man purely on account of his religion. The existing penal laws did not in fact impose any religious creed. An atheist or a deist might take the oath or subscribe the declaration; it was sufficient that he was not a Catholic. Did the House then mean to say that an atheist was fitter to make laws than a Catholic? No-the Catholics had been excluded only on account of a supposed connec tion with a foreign power; but did such a connection now exist? The government itself had made a league with two Catholic sovereigns, and this country more than any other was now exerting itself to support Catholic establishments. His inference from these observations was, that there was nothing in the Catholic religion to disqualify a nation for making Jaws, for the proof of which he appealed to our ancestors-nothing to create a connection with our enemies, for which he would appeal to our allies; and upon these two propositions he would found a third-that the Irish Catholics had the same right as any other dissenting subjects to any priviJeges possessed by any other body of subjects. With respect to the objection, that to repeal the penal laws would be to endanger the religious establishment in Ireland, he said it was a bad way to support the establishment by disqualification, and the law of conquest. The benefices of Ireland did not exceed twelve hundred, and were four millions of people to be disqualified through consideration for them? Not for the

preservation of their property, for that was secured; but for bigotry, for intolerance, for avarice, for an abominable, illegiti mate and atrocious usurpation. If the question were, whether the church were to be established by the ruin of the civil liberties of Ireland, they had no right to make the attempt. The church establishment was not meant for the king, because the people were not to be of his religion, but he of the religion of the people: it was not for the court, or for persons of fashion, but for the people. On this principle the kirk had been established in Scotland. If they were to attempt to fix a church establishment upon any other ground, it could not possibly succeed: they could not call it Christianity; it would be a church of ambition, of ava rice, of bigotry, of intolerance. Many (said Mr. G.) there are who imagine that the Irish Catholic is indifferent to the fate of these demands. That, however, is not the question: you have no right to ask them whether they desire, but ask yourselves whether it is justice to grant. If you really think them careless on the subject, all you can establish by your argument is this" We, by our bad government have so debilitated you, so broken your hearts and debased your spirits, that even liberty is become of no account with you." Will this be a matter of boast to England? You need not gloss over your injustice by the idea that what you refuse is trifling. The Catholics have wisely refrained from stating their grievances in this petition; but what they are excluded from is not a bauble,

They are excluded from a seat in this house, from offices in the Bank, from the situation of sheriff, from the best places at the bar, from the highest stations in the army, from any participation in the state: they are deprived of their civil liberties, they are galled by tythes, they are oppressed by their landlords; and what remedy do you offer them? Nothing.

Mr. Grattan then noticed the objection drawn from the coronation oath, and argued that the laws against the Catholics were by no means fundamental, but provisional, and were so declared by the acts of union with Scotland and Ireland. Both these declared such penal laws not permanent, but capable of repeal provisional, as circumstances might occur. He next entered into the consideration of the security that would be derived from the repeal, by uniting the force of the country against the dangers that now threaten it. "I tell you (said he), unless you tolerate each other, you must tolerate a conqueror. I know you are a very grave, a very wise people; but on this one point, the very point of your vitality, you are stupid, stripped by bigotry of every sense, and you must certainly at one stroke be crushed." He then made an animated reference to the late services of the Irish Catholic soldiers in Spain; and concluded a long speech with moving that the petition be referred to a committee of the whole House.

After Sir J. Coxe Hippesley and General Matthew had spoken in favour of the motion, Dr. Duigenan rose, and made a speech of great severity against the principles and claims of the Catholics.

He stated the oath of fidelity to the pope and the church of Rome taken by every Catholic bishop and priest, and affirmed that intolerance was an essential part of their religion. He ridiculed the exaggerated terms in which their numbers were represented, and asserted that the whole population of Ireland did not exceed three millions and a half, of which one million and a half were not Catholics; and he disparaged their consequence with respect to landed and personal property. He maintained that it was still a doctrine of their belief that oaths taken to heretics were absolutely null and void. He spoke with contempt of the origin of the present petition; and concluded with reading long extracts from the pamphlets and speeches of the Catholics, in order to show that they were hostile to the established government of this country.

Lord Jocelyn declared himself unfriendly to the Catholic claims, and imputed the principal grievances of the poor in Ireland to the non-residence of landlords.

Mr. Banks apprehended that the Catholics would still be going on with demands, and thought that the present petition was urged on by ambitious men, rather than by the voice of the country.

Mr. Ponsonby said he was called up, though reluctantly, by the remarks of the last speaker. He maintained that there was in the restrictions themselves, without other motives, cause enough for complaint on the part of the Catholics, and that even the peasantry must feel the degradation under which those of their communion laboured. He argued upon

the absurdity of the fears that the repeal would tend to the overthrow of the established church; and said the future times must be astonished at the infatuation which permitted a question of this sort to be matter of debate in a British House of Commons.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer treated the claim to political power as a palpable absurdity, especially as coming from the men who perpetually spoke of all power as only a trust for the people. If there was an apprehension that any body of men would use their power improperly, it ought not to be put into their hands. He said that Mr. Grattan's language in speaking of tythes as an oppression, showed the spirit of the motion and of the Catholics. Would not this be preliminary to the abolition of tythes, and of the establishment? He loved Christian toleration, not the toleration of philosophy; and thought, that the more great sects were brought to an equality of honours, the nearer they were to a struggle. It was not to be supposed that the Catholic petition was now more agreeable to the nation, because the public voice was less loud against it than formerly. The feeling would be roused again the moment that the danger seemed probable.

Mr. Whitbread reprobated the speech of the minister as one of the most inflammatory things he had ever head; and made an eloquent appeal to the house respect ing the principles of toleration, and the public merits of the Irish, He said, in conclusion, that he hoped the trumpet sounded by the right honourable gentleman that

night would not be attended to by the people, and that no other infernal cry could be raised in this country with any hope of success.

The call for the question at length becoming very general, Mr. Grattan rose again to make a few observations on what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. After having replied to him in a strain of animated asperity, he concluded, “I have thought proper to say thus much, because I see the right honourable gentleman has assumed a higher tone in bigotry than he has even done in politics; and I must further tell this intolerant minister, that it is not in the declamatory tone of any earthly power to defraud my country of her civil rights, or prevent her from obtaining her religious liberty."

On the division, there were for the motion 85, against it 146.

pe

On June 18th, the Catholic tition was introduced to the House of Lords by the Earl of Donoughmore. In his speech on the occasion, his lordship chiefly dwelt upon the folly and injustice of imputing to the Catholics, who composed the greatest part of the Christian world, principles subversive of all civil society; on the different state of things relative to the succession to the crown since the penal laws were imposed, and on the objection drawn from the supremacy of the pope in the Catholic church. He concluded with moving that the petition be referred to a committee of the whole House.

Lord Longford opposed the motion on the ground of its inexpediency at a period when the con