tholics, and other dissenters of Great Britain, those privileges which, while they were an indulgence to them,' would be a source of benefit to the country. As far as it was possible to collect the opinions of the House, or the general feelings of the public on this subject, there seemed to be no objection to the measure, as a necessary conse quence of the act of 1793, and as a redemption of the pledge given at that period. The only objection started, appeared to be by those who thought that the proposed measure, by going farther than the act of 1793, established a new principle of concession which ought not to be acceded to. It would now therefore be necessary for him to state in what the two measures differed. The first difference was, that the proposed measure went to permit persons of every religious persuasion to serve in the navy' and army. When the Irish act was passed, it was distinctly stated, that in the bill to be submitted to the Bri-' tish Parliament leave to serve in the navy would be included, and the only reason why it was not included in the Irish act was, that Ireland had no navy. If it were right to allow catholics to serve in the army, there could be no possible objection to allow them to serve in the other branches of our warlike establishment, so immediately connected with the prosperity of the country. The difference in the extent of the privileges granted by the two measures was this: the Irish act, while it admitted catholics to hold commissions in the army, did so under certain restrictions, by which, as he had before mentioned, they were prevented from becoming commanders in chief of the forces, masters general of the ordnance, or generals on the staff. No such restriction was intended to be proposed in the present instance, because it was not believed that such a restriction was founded on any good principles; for if any danger attended the admission of catholics into the army, it was the duty of the legislature not to restrain, but wholly to exclude them. The same principle which induced his majesty's ministers to propose the adoption of a similar law for the two countries, induced them to propose the abolition of restrictions, consistency; for there could be nothing more incongruous than the consequences of these restrictions, which might be attended with considerable inconvenience to the service. A catholic might, by the Irish act, rise through the regular gradations, and become a field officer; lie might become a

major,

major, a lieutenant-colonel, a colonel; in this last capacity he migt have the command of a corps equal in number to that frequently under the orders of officers of supe rior rank. He might shew himself eminently qualified for a situation of greater trust; he might distingush himself to such a degree as to be called upon by the voice of the army and the people to fill that situation; but it would be impossible to create him a major-general! This was a great discouragement to the catholic officer; it was a greater disadvantage to the country, which, by such a restriction, had lost the extended services of many a brave and skilful man. Nor did the restrictions form any security against danger, if danger could be supposed to exist. And after all it must be considered, that the proposed measure only enabled his majesty to appoint such persons to situations of high importance. Their appointment must depend upon the executive government, who of course would avoid any dangerous or improper use of their authority. In addition to the advantage of enabling the country to avail itself of the whole extent of its population, without any of those restrictions which operated nerely to keep up a spirit of discontent, and to damp that ardour which might otherwise be so successfully directed to the public service, the proposed measure, in addition to these things, provided for all who should enter his majesty's service the free and unrestrained exercise of their religion, as far as it did not interfere with their military duties. Perhaps it would be said that this might be accomplished in another way, by giving directions to that effect; but he was apprehensive that this could only be partially done; besides the insecurity and instability of such a procceding would deter catholics from entering the army, and would furnish to those who might be desirous of preventing them, sufficient means of prevention. Let them have full security in the shape of a clause in an act of Parliament; let them have the sanction of the legislature, and all doubt will be removed. If there was any possible utility in this provision, when it was considered that it could be with no possible inconvenience or danger, he trusted that it would meet with no objection. He had thus stated briefly the objects of the bill. Briefly, because he was not aware that in this stage the measure would occasion much debate. He could, indeed, hardly persuade himself that any serious objection to it could exist

in the minds of the House or of the public; with regard to the latter part of it, the whole extent of the provision was, to prevent dissenters from being interrupted in the exercise of their own religion, and compelled to adopt a religion irreconcilable to their faith. This was the whole extent; it held out no encouragement to them; it established no institution for their support or increase. The abolition of restrictions in point of rank, would place before the sons of the gentry of Ireland, those fair objects of ambition, it would open to them that carcer of glory, the pursuit of which was synonimous with the advancement of the best interests of the empire. On the commonalty of Ireland the measure must have a powerful effect, by affording a salutary check to the increasing superabundant population of that country, as it would induce numbers to enter into the service of his majesty, even of those who by their own discontents, and by the artifices of others, had so lately been urged into insurrection and rebellion. He therefore moved for leave to bring in a bill for enabling his majesty to accept the services of all his liege subjects in his army and navy, on the terms therein mentioned.

Mr. Perceval, although he would not at present enter into any debate on the proposed bill, yet as the principle of it was one which he felt it his bounden duty to oppose, he thought it right, even in the first instance, to apprise the noble lord of the nature of his objections, and to call the serious attention of the House, and of the public, to one of the most important and most dangerous measures that had ever been submitted to the judgment of the legisla ture. It was not so much to the individual measure which he objected, but to the system of which it formed a part, which was growing day after day, and threatening to expand into the most alarming magnitude. If it was desirable to preserve any thing of our ancient and venerable establishments, it could only be effected by making a stand against every fresh attempt at innovation. what did the proposed measure tend? With any degree of consistency its supporters could not stop short of abolishing all the tests which the wisdom of our ancestors had thought it necessary to interpose in defence of our religious establishment. The proposed measure was a partial repeal of the test act, founded on arguments which went to the repeal of that act. It was his firm conviction, that if the legislature wished to preserve Ireland to this country, if

Το

they

they wished to keep the two islands united, they would maintain the protestant interest in Ireland, under which toleration was permitted, and not run the risk of sacrificing that interest to another, which, when in power, had not permitted toleration, and which, if it regained power, might revert to its former practice, as it declared that its principles were unchangeable. It was the more necessary to pause on this subject, as it had been thought wise and liberal to provide the means of support for a priesthood to instruct three millions of people in the catholic religion, and thus perpetually to combat the progress of protestantism. From the arguments that were advanced at the prescat day, a man might almost be led to suppose that one religion was considered as good as the other, and that the reformation was deemed only a convenient and political measure. He was far from ascribing indifference on this point to the noble lord, who, he was sure, gave the preference where it was justly due; but the noble lord had said, that it approached to a spirit of persecution for Parliament to hesitate in appropriating the funds of the country to the support of those who preached a doctrine subversive of the religion of the country. He might be. wrong, it might be policy so to dispose of the national revenue. It might be called for by the true and enlightened spirit of christian toleration. He certainly did not think it was. He had as great a regard for true toleration as any man. He would never restrain the free exercise of religions worship in any individual, for he could not conceive that one man could commit a greater crime against another than by such an interference. (Hear! hear!) But however strongly he might feel this sentiment, the application of it to any particular measure was a very different consideration. The noble lord proposed to open the army and navy to persons of all religions, and he founded this proposition on the Irish act of 1793, and on the incongruity which this act produced. To this he could not bring himself to consent, without a much stronger case than that which was made out by the noble lord. If the grievances which had been stated by the noble lord ever existed in possibility, they had at least never been experienced in practice. There was not an instance of a single individual having been injured or prosecuted in consequence of them. Besides, these grievances, if there were any, had xisted not only since the union of Great Britain and

Ireland,

Ireland, but since the union of England and Scotland; for there was no difference between the inconvenience sustained by the catholic of Ireland, on entering his majesty's service, and the inconvenience sustained by the presbyterian of Scotland on doing the same. The presbyterian of Scotland was sacrificed as much as the catholic of Ireland; but had there been any disposition evinced on the part of, the presbyterian of Scotland to withhold his services? But, setting this aside, he denied the proposition of the noble lord in point of law; he denied that a catholic, who obtained a commission in Ireland, was liable to any penalties, if called over to exercise his military duties in Great Britain. If this was not so, we should have an act which compelled a man to perform a certain duty, and which yet did not protect him in the execution of that duty which it compelled him to perform; such an act was not to be found in the code of British and Irish jurisprudence. Did not the United Parlirment, which must be supposed to be as well acquainted with the laws of Ireland as with the laws of Great Britain, pass every year a mutiny bill, which enabled the king to require the services of every man in his army in any part of his dominions to which he might think proper to summon him; and was it to be supposed that he was insecure in doing that, the refusal to do which would subject him to be shot? And after all, if any inconveniences actually did occur, the annual indemnity act would completely cover the case. This was therefore not a substantive grievance, and to ground the proposed measure on it was a mere pretence. There were ulterior causes for its being brought forward. What were they? it was proposed to do away the restrictions by which catholics were prevented from holding superior commissions in the army, and this on argument which would affect equally every situation in the country civil as well military. (Hear! hear!) It cer.ainly was a great discouragement in any profession that the professors could not arrive at the highest distinctions. In his own profession it must be great discouragement to a catholic lawyer, to know that he could not be made a judge or a chancellor. (A loud cry of hear! hear!) He saw that some of the gentlemen opposite were prepared to go to the utmost extent, and to say, that in every profession and every employment there ought to be no distinction between the catholic and the protestant. Did those gentlemen perceive that their rea VOL. II. 1806-7

M m

soning