few great patrons, and are, in a great measure, lost to the community, Protestant as well as Catholic; and that the only way of restoring them to that community, is to give that community weight against the influence of the minister or the patron, by adding to its numbers a portion of its fellowsubjects.

But, waving the application, and admitting this principle of the right honourable member, which, properly understood, I do not, by any means, combat, "That the House of Commons are only trustees, and have no right to prejudice the elective franchises of their constituents," it follows, that the powers of Parliament, in governing and controlling the elective franchise, are much more limited than the right honourable gentleman in the first part of his speech, seemed to conceive. It follows, that Parliament has no absolute authority over their franchises. It follows, that the law of George II., adduced by the member, which took away the elective franchise from the Catholic; and still more, the two resolutions of the House of Commons, affecting to disfranchise them, without even the form of law; resolutions whose authority the right honourable member has also resorted to, were, according to his own principle, as now advanced, so many breaches of trust. We are not to understand, that the House of Commons was a trustee for the rights of its electors, provided they were Protestants. We are not to understand, that the House of Commons has no right to prejudice the elective franchise of its constituents, by extending them; but that it has a right to prejudice the elective franchise of those constituents, by a total and entire extinction. The principle is equally applicable to the Catholic as the Protestant elector; and as the rights of the Roman Catholic elector come precisely within the principle now advanced by the member, as they were, without consulting him, and by his trustee, in breach of that trust, extinguished on a former occasion; the question now before you is, by the right honourable member, reduced to a small compass; whether you will set aside that act of violence, and fulfil that trust by an act of restitution; that is, by restoring to the Catholic the elective franchise.

Such were the principal points in the speech of a gentleman, whose great abilities and great authority, even in error, cannot fail to make an impression. To the other honourable member*, who has repeatedly traduced His Majesty's subjects, and, among others, myself, I shall only say, that in most of

his assertions, he has wanted foundation. That the conduct of the Catholic since the Revolution, and the opinion expressed by the legislature thereupon, refutes him; that history, and the very history which he quotes, not far from the very page which he cites, refutes him; for, in Harris, his own author, whom he produced as his authority to say, that none of the Irish forces, after the capitulation of Limerick, joined King William, he will find that nineteen regiments of them went into the service of the English, and Harris gives the names. I must farther observe, that the charges which the member has made against the aggregate meeting of the city of Dublin, are as void of foundation as all his other attacks; that the aggregate was composed of a number of respectable citizens, who could stand a comparison with the member who abuses them, both in credit and condition. I will add, that I have reason to think they spoke the sense of the city, and I learn, that some of the most wealthy and respectable, who had before signed instructions against the grant of the franchise to the Catholics, now approve of that measure; and I will further say, in defence of all who have been libelled in this debate, that none has ever gone so far in dereliction of public principle, as to profess themselves advocates for an union. That crime their greatest enemy never attempted to attribute to them; and that crime, I hope, will ever continue confined to their greatest enemies. Sir, as to myself, who have been alluded to in this or other debates on this subject, I shall say, that where my fellowcitizens are the subject of attack, I do not decline to take my share of obloquy. Situated and connected as I am, with the fate and fame of my country, I must expect a personal attack, whenever she is made the subject, either of invective or oppression. I will humbly endeavour to shield her against both; I incline not to put an ill construction in this question, on the motives of any gentleman; I do not desire it; but they ought to do similar justice to mine.

The question was then put on Mr. Vandeleur's amendment; -Ayes 72, Noes 144; Majority 72. An amendment proposed by Mr. Warburton, to limit the franchise to five pound freeholders, was also negatived. Doctor Duigenan's amendment was likewise negatived, and the clause passed in its original form.

On the 1st of March the House went into a Committee on the bill; an amendment of Mr. Corry was proposed, "That Roman Catholic electors should perform the qualifications now required by Protestants, the oaths of abjuration and supremaey excepted:" this amendment was adopted. An amendment proposed by Mr. Grattan, "That they might be elected professors in physic, on the foundation of Sir Patrick Dunn's Hospital," was also agreed to.

On the 4th of March the House went again into the committee on the bill: an oath to be taken by the Roman Catholics was proposed by Dr. Duigenan; it was supported by Mr. Hobart, on the ground that it did not differ from the declarations of the Roman Catholics; after some discussion it was adopted.

Sir Hercules Langrishe moved an amendment regarding the bye-laws of corporations, so as to prevent their operating to the -injury of the elective franchise; this was carried. Mr. Annesley moved, that the words "Commissioners of the revenue” be expunged from the prohibitory clause; this was also carried. Mr. Grattan objected to the clause enumerating the offices from which the Catholics were to be excluded. Mr. Maxwell proposed to exclude them from the place of keeper of records, register of deeds and his deputy, and the prothonotaries of the two courts, and accordingly made a motion to that effect, which was negatived. Mr. Claudius Beresford moved, that the words "Provost and Fellows of Trinity-college" be expunged, which was also negatived. Mr. Annesley moved, that the place of post-master be left open for the Catholics, which was likewise negatived. Major Doyle moved, that they be admitted as high sheriffs, which was also negatived. Mr. Grattan said, “That the clause excluding them from these and other offices created a barrier that could not stand; it would be in vain to attempt to keep out of the offices of state men who were admitted into the constitution."

Mr. Osborne moved, "That Catholics be admitted to the benefits of Protestant strangers in corporate towns, under the statute of Charles the Second," which was negatived. Sir Hercules Langrishe proposed, "That the clause introduced in the Committee by way of proviso, preventing Roman Catholics from voting at vestries, on questions relative to parish property, should be withdrawn." Mr. G. Ponsonby approved of this. It was opposed by Dr. Duigenan, and ultimately rejected. On the 6th, the bill, with these several amendments, was passed, ordered to be engrossed, and sent to the Lords; and finally was enacted the law of the land. This was the second æra, after 1782, of public justice and Protestant liberality; and the Roman Catholics were thus still further restored to a portion of their long-lost rights and liberties.

MILITIA BILL.

March 7. 1793.

THE order of the day for the second reading of the militia bill being called for, Mr. Forbes moved, "That it be postponed to the 19th of April;" he stated, that he did not object to the principle of the bill, but, viewing it relatively both as to England and Ireland, it was liable to objections; at present he could not discern

many shades of difference between a standing army and a militia; for instance, the cases of Lord Carmarthen and Lord Pembroke, who were dismissed from the government of their respective counties for their conduct in Parliament against administration. The Lord-lieutenant of the county, who appoints the officers, holds his situation at the will of the minister; as to Ireland, the measure ought to be accompanied with such bills as would afford content to the people. A bill that increased the military establishment of Ireland to 36,000 men, ought to proceed pari passu with a redress of grievances. The bill was supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Willsborough, Mr. J. O'Neill, Mr. Knox, Mr. Barrington, and General Cunningham.

Mr. GRATTAN said: A bill of sixty-eight pages, delivered at one o'clock this morning, purporting to give government a military force of I have heard sixteen thousand men in addition to the army, and with all the consequent expense thereupon, is offered to your consideration to-night, with a view to commit it to-morrow, and report it the next day. Sir, the greatest enemy of the bill could not take a more effectual method to damn it for ever; except, that the intemperate language, with which it is pressed, is more prejudicial even than this precipitation; for some gentlemen have urged the militia, as a defence against the people; they have traduced the people; they have misrepresented their loyalty and affection; they have confounded with levellers and defenders the mass of the people of Ireland. I entirely agree, that certain insurgents are, in part, the object of this measure; but I must suppose, as I make no doubt it is the intention of the noble mover, that the militia is proposed principally to defend us against the French. Were I to collect any thing from that clamour, which has been put forth this night in this House, I should fear that, by some, something more was expected; that a defence against foreign and domestic enemies was expected, and that as soon as this measure passed, the hopes of the reform of Parliament would vanish.

This country, as she shares in the adversity of Great Britain, ought to participate of the benefits of her trade and constitution. In point of a place bill and responsibility bill, Great Britain is guarded by such bills; and now, when we are voting loans, and voting lotteries, it becomes necessary that we should, in point of constitution, be put on the same footing as England. The subject of parliamentary reform, administration held out to the people as a measure they were willing to acquiesce in, and it has become necessary for administration to do something for the advantage of the

country, and to administer such constitutional redress as would effectually relieve the people; and I call upon His Majesty's minister in this House to give his support to a place bill, a pension bill, and a responsibility bill, as measures that will tend to assimilate this country to the British constitution, and to conciliate the affections of the people.

I entirely agree, therefore, with an honourable gentleman, that the militia should accompany the redress of grievances; and I am for postponing the consideration of the militia to that time, which ministers have fixed for discussing the internal reform of Parliament, the place bill, &c. and which will be the time when the more equal representation of the people will be considered. In this delay, I am not opposing a militia, I am defending a reform. I am of opinion, that the militia and the constitutional settlement should be considered together, and I observe those who press forward the former, are the old enemies to the latter, and, therefore, suspect their zeal and clamour; they both are manifested by those who do not love our measures, neither reform, nor any of them. I repeat it, I say the constitutional settlement and the militia should be considered together; on this ground I do not fear to stand with a few against the power of this assembly. Gentlemen have told you it will be too late to array the militia, if you postpone the bill till April. Why then did the minister postpone the place bill till that time? Why are these concessions which we are to expect postponed till that time? We were ready, and are now ready, to go into the business of the constitutional settlement; but the minister having postponed that subject, forces on us the difficulty of postponing the other; otherwise we shall give every thing before we secure any thing. Besides, who were the cause of the necessity of this postponement? These who did not bring on the militia bill for near two months, that is, till the assizes, from the difficulty, I suppose, of the subject, and now surely cannot think that we require not more than two days to deliberate upon it. But the ground on which I stand is this: let the constitutional settlement and the militia be considered together; and to those gentlemen who talk of the delay and difficulty of carrying the militia into execution, I will inform them, that the most easy method of arraying the militia, is to reconcile the people to it, by redressing their grievances. The reform of Parliament would facilitate a militia more, much more than our precipitation. I am, therefore, for postponing the consideration of the militia to the consideration of the constitutional settlement.