the effect of this position: for if so large a portion of the aristocracy of the country, the rank, the landed property, and influence, were to be seized upon a distinct question of this kind, to convey their decided disapprobation of the ministers of the time, it was a pretty clear proof of the sense the best part of the country entertained of these ministers. The generality of the feeling, however, let what may be the cause of it, afforded no argument for the success of the measure. The country, notwithstanding the extraordinary success of all the measures recommended from the other side, was still extremely at a loss for a dis posable force; this, with the expectation of possible circumstances in Europe to afford room for employing this force, were the reasons for resorting to that which the government was pledged not to recur to, except in cases of extreme necessity. The repetition of this measure went totally to change the militia from its original constitution, to destroy the principle of connection, and thus to do a vast injury to the home service, without having any thing like a permanent good effect on the army. This measure could not be made a part of a general system for recruiting the army. It was a measure of such a nature, that we could not long go on in it, but should soon come to a total stop. Our military system should be so constructed that its parts would correspond with and assist each other. The consequence of doing this thing in this case was, that one part of the existing system acted in one direction and another in the opposite. Then there was a sort of compromise, and such a com

promise was most ruinous to any thing like a general system. For all these reasons, and for many others, which he could adduce, he thought himself perfectly consistent in opposing this bill. The question being called for, the house divided

The bill was then read a second time, and afterwards passed

both houses.

IRISH CATHOLIC PETITION.

May 14, 1805.

MR. FOX had, on the preceding evening, moved that a Petition which he had presented from the Roman Catholics of Ireland should be referred to the consideration of a committee of the whole house. Dr. Duigenan, the Attorney General, and Mr. Alexander, opposed the motion, which was supported by Mr. Grattan. The debate was adjourned to the 14th, when the motion was supported by Mr. William Smith, Mr. Lee, Dr. Laurence, and Mr. Ponsonby, and opposed by Sir William Scott and Mr. Foster. Mr. Pitt also resisted the motion, on the ground of its inexpediency, though he acknowledged that he should have been friendly to the claims of the Catholics, had they been brought forward under other circumstances.

In reply to Mr. Pitt, Mr. WINDHAM rose and spoke in substance as follows:

SIR,

I consider the question now before the house, as one naturally and immediately the consequence of the legislative union established between Great Britain and Ireland, and one to which the catholics of Ireland were certainly taught to look forward in the course of all the arguments urged in favour of that measure, both in and out of parliament. I think, and have

long thought, it is that measure by which alone the great union of protestant and catholic can be brought about. When the proposition for the union was first brought forward, I had strong objections to the measure; and I was only reconciled to it upon the idea, that all disabilities attaching on the catholics were to be removed, and that the whole population would be united in interests and affections. Believing this to be the case, Sir, and finding that impediments were started to this measure, much stronger than I was prepared to apprehend, I relinquished the administration, because I thought the measure indispensable to the safety of this empire; and I have seen nothing since to change my opinion on that point. The Right Honourable Gentleman has avowed that his opinion was then the same; and surely if it was expedient in 1801; if the circumstances of the country then imperiously called for its adoption; surely it is still more loudly called for by the circumstances of the present moment; and I know of no alteration that has taken place in the situation of the empire that can be truly said to render it less expedient now.

The Right Honourable Gentleman, in every thing which he has offered as argument against the question itself, has referred to times past; but how those arguments can apply to the present day he has not stated. The Right Honourable Gentleman has said that many persons are averse to the measure, that the clergy and the nobility are opposed to it, and that the public mind is not unanimous in its favour. Why,

.

Sir, if the catholics are to be told they must wait until all the objections which passion, or prejudice, or ignorance, or caprice may suggest, are perfectly silent; and that no man is to be found in or out of parliament opposed to their wishes, I am afraid their hopes of success must be postponed to a very distant day indeed but, Sir, I am not aware of this very general sentiment of the leading clergy, the nobility, or the public at large, against this measure; unless we take the speeches uttered in this or another house of parliament, opposed by other speeches, at least equally strong and independent, for that general sentiment; or unless we consider the declarations of a few individuals, in different quarters of the kingdom, or a few newspaper publications from prejudiced authors, as expressive of that general sentiment. But if arguments drawn from such sources are insisted on; if no measure is ever to pass in parliament which has not the unanimous sense of the country in its favour, prejudice and passion may for ever triumph over reason and sound policy.

But, Sir, as long as a catholic remains in these countries, such objections will exist. They are founded upon the very essence of opinions, which you can never remove from those minds, on the very first principles of which they are rooted. And so long as they exist, there never will be wanting an outcry against the claims of the catholics. I should be glad to know what public question that ever came forward in this house has had in its favour such unanimity,