S5Q L O N I) O N. 
When the nature and provlfions of this propofed bill 
became publicly known, an alarm was excited among all 
thofe upon whom it was calculated to operate, which pro¬ 
duced a more general and zealous afl'ociation between the 
feveral clafles of feparatifts for oppofing it, than had per¬ 
haps ever been witnelfed on a fimilar occation. As they 
could not conceive it to be the real object of the noble 
mover to add more refpeftability to the diffenting miniftry, 
they regarded the meafure as intended, in effeft, to con¬ 
tract the limits of toleration, and fubjeft the licenfing of 
preachers to the control of magiflrates ; and, although 
thofe fects which might be reckoned inferior in rank of 
life and education would be chiefly aftefted by the re- 
firiftions propofed, yet the others confidered it as a mat¬ 
ter of common intereft to all who diflented from the efta- 
biifhed church. When, therefore, on the 21ft of May, 
the bill was to be read a fecond time, fuch a deluge of 
petitions was poured in again!! it, that the mover was left 
alone in its fupport. In his fpeech on the occafion, he 
began with complaining of the mifunderftanding that pre¬ 
vailed refpefting the bill, and endeavoured to fliow that 
it was intended to effeft no real change in the toleration- 
laws, but merely to give uniformity to the two acts on 
which the fyftem of toleration was founded. He then 
went through the feveral provifions of the bill, and re¬ 
plied to the objections that had been made again!! them. 
He afferted his adherence to the principle of the tolera¬ 
tion-laws, which, he faid, never meant that any perfon 
lhould affume to himfelf the privilege of a preacher or 
teacher without fome teftimonials to-his qualification for 
fuch an important office.—He was however obliged to 
yield, and the bill was thrown out. 
Soon after this queftion was put to reft, an interchange 
of militia between Great Britain and Ireland was pro¬ 
pofed.—The purpofe of this meafure, which has fince 
been extenflvely carried into effeft, 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 in- 
terefts or prejudices of that country, which will be at 
hand to aflift in the fuppreflion of the difturbances that 
may arife from the difappointed hopes of the majority of 
the people refpeCling their civil or religious privileges. 
The policy of the meafure will not be quellioned, pro¬ 
vided that of fubjedting them to fuch dilappointments be 
eftabli fired. 
The Irifh catholics having agreed upon a petition to be 
laid before parliament, the fame was preferred by Mr. 
Grattan to the houfe of commons on the 20th of May. 
On the 31ft, that gentleman moved that the petition ftiould 
be read. This having been done, he role, and endea¬ 
voured to fhow that there was nothing in the Roman-ca¬ 
tholic religion itfelf which encouraged difaifedtion ; but 
that the manner in which the catholics had been treated 
by the governfnent was the caufe of their difeontents. 
If, faid he, the government fhould keep any clafs of its 
fubjedls in a ftate of imperfed! privilege, it mult occafion- 
ally find that clafs in a ftate of imperfect allegiance. He 
afiumed as undeniable maxims, that no government has a 
right to make partial laws; or arbitrary laws, that is, 
without reafon ; that no government has a right to efta- 
blifti an inquifition intp the thoughts of men, or to punilh 
a man purely on account of his religion. The exifting 
penal laws did not in fad! impofe any religious creed. A11 
atheift or a deift might take the oath or fubferibe the de¬ 
claration ; it was fufficient that he was not a catholic. 
Did the houfe then mean toTiiy that an atheift was fitter 
to make laws than a catholic ? No—the catholics had 
been excluded only on account of a fuppofed connexion 
with a foreign power; but did fuch a conneftion now exift ? 
The government itfelf had made a league with two ca¬ 
tholic fovereigns, and this country more than any other 
■was now exerting itfelf to fupport catholic eftablifhments. 
His inference from thefe obfervations was, that the Irifh 
catholics had the fame right as any other diflenting fab- 
jedls to any privileges pofTefled by any other body of fob- 
jedts. Many (laid Mr. G.) there are who imagine that 
the Irifh catholic is indifferent to the fate of thefe de¬ 
mands. Thar, however, is not the queftion : you have 
no right to afk' them whether they defire, but a!k your- 
felves whether it is juftice to grant. The catholics have 
wifely refrained from ftating their grievances in this peti¬ 
tion ; but what they are excluded from is not a bauble. 
They are excluded from a feat in this houfe, from offices 
in the bank, from the fit nation of fheriff, from the bed; 
places at the bar, from the higbeft Rations in the army, 
from any participation in the ftate : they are deprived of 
their civil liberties, they are galled by tithes, they are op- 
prefied by their landlords ; and what remedy do yo'u offer 
them ? Nothing.—Mr. Grattan then noticed the objec¬ 
tion drawn from the coronation-oath ; and argued that 
the laws again!! the catholics were by no means funda¬ 
mental, but provifional, and capable of repeal as circum- 
fiances might occur. He next entered into the confidera- 
tion of the feourity that would be derived from the re¬ 
peal, by uniting the force of the country again!! the dan¬ 
gers that now threaten it. “ I tell you (faid he), that, tin- 
lefs you tolerate each other, you mult tolerate ar conqueror. 
I know- you are a very wife people ; but on this one point, 
the very point of your vitality, you are ftupid, ftripped 
by bigotry of every fenfe ; and you mult certainly at one 
ftroke be crufhed.” He then made an animated reference 
to the late fervices of the Irifh catholic foldiers in Spain ; 
and concluded a long fpeech with moving that the peti¬ 
tion be referred to a committee of the whole houfe. 
Dr. Duigenan made a fpeech of great feverity again!!' 
the principles and claims.of the catholics. He Itated the 
oath of fidelity to the pope and the church of Rome taken 
by every catholic bifhop and prief! ; and affirmed that in¬ 
tolerance was an eftential part of their religion. He main¬ 
tained that it was ftill a doftrine of their belief that oaths 
taken to heretics were abfolutely null and void. He 
fpoke with contempt of the origin of the prefent petition 5 
and concluded with reading long extracts from the pam¬ 
phlets and fpeeches of the catholics, in order to ihow that 
they were holtile to the eftablilhed government of this 
country. 
Mr. Bankes apprehended that the catholics would ftill * 
be going on with demands; and thought that the prefent 
petition was urged on by ambitious men, rather than by 
the voice of the country. 
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, among other re¬ 
marks, laid, that Mr. Grattan’s language in fpeaking of 
tithes as an oppreffion, fhowed the fpirit of the motion, 
and of the catholics. Would not this be preliminary to 
the abolition of tithes, and of the eftablifhment > He 
loved Chriftian toleration, not the toleration of philolo- 
phy ; and thought, that the more great lefts were brought 
to an equality of honours, the nearer they were to a ft niggle. 
The call for the queftion at length becoming very ge¬ 
neral, Mr. Grattan ro(e again to make a few obfervations 
on what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer,. 
After having replied to him in a ft rain of animated afpe- 
rity, he concluded ; “ I have thought proper to lay thus 
much, becaufe I fee the right honourable gentleman has 
affumed a higher tone in bigotry than he has even done 
in politics ; and I muft further tell this intolerant minif- 
ter, that it is not in the declamatory tone of any earthly- 
power to defraud my country of her civil rights, or pre¬ 
vent her from obtaining her religious liberty.”—On the 
divifion, there were for the motion, 83 ; again!! it, 146. 
This fubjeft. was introduced in the houfe of lords on 
the 18th by lord Donoughmore ; and, after undergoing a 
levere difeuftion, the motion was loft by a majority of m 
againft 62.— See Liberty of Conscience, voi. xii. 
Soon after the prince-regent had affumed the power of 
his high office, the duke of York was reftored to the po(t 
of commander in chief. The clouds were difperfed, per- 
fonal and individual follies forgotten, and the excellent 
ftate of difeipline which the duke had introduced in the 
ai-my* 
