should rejoice, that they pledged themselves so far. The amendment was finally agreed to without a division, and referred to a committee of the whole house on that day fortnight.

After so many unsuccessful attempts to bring the question of reform under the consideration of parliament from the year 1782 to that period, this referring of it to a committee was considered, by the gentlemen of the opposition, as a matter of great triumph: it was an admission of the principle; it created confidence within, and afforded joy and satisfaction to the people without. In parliament, there appeared a most desirable, though novel disposition in the treasury bench, to accede to proposals made for the good of the nation, even from the opposite side of the house. On the other side Mr. Forbes heartily approved of the ministers bringing forth an alien bill upon the plan of the British alien act, as a wise and necessary measure, and tending to strengthen the union with Great Britain:* and Mr. Grattan thought it more necessary there than in Great Britain: it was certainly a strong measure, but at that crisis extremely necessary. On that same day (15th January) Mr. secretary Hobart gave notice, that he should at an early day move the house to take into consideration that part of the lord lieutenant's speech where he recommended the parliament to take into consideration the situation of the Roman Catholics of that kingdom: and also, that when a committee of supply should sit, he would bring forward a measure for modifying the hearth-money tax, so as to render it less burthensome to the poor. This conduct of administration brought forth the heartiest applauses from the opposition bench. Mr. Duquery remarked, that ministers had done more in the first week of that session than ever he had read of, to tranquillize the nation and restore confidence to that house. Upon Mr. Grattan's expressing his intention of bringing forward a libel bill, like that of Great Britain, Mr. Hobart avowed, that the attorney general had it also in contemplation. Leave was given to Mr. Forbes to bring in a responsibility bill and a pension bill, and to Mr. Grattan to bring in a bill for the improvement of barren land. Thus passed one week in the Irish parliament without a symptom of opposi tion. Every thing proposed for the good of the country, was unanimously adopted by both sides of the house. In order to give time to digest the weight of important matter before the house, they adjourned from the 15th to the 18th of January,

1793.

On the 31st of January the house, according to order, took into consideration the lord lieutenant's and privy council's procla

mation* of the 8th of December last, for dispersing all unlawfuf assemblies, when lord Headfort moved a resolution for an address of thanks to the lord lieutenant for the proclamation, which his excellency had issued, and for the vigilance and attention which he had manifested, to preserve the public tranquillity; and that they applauded the wisdom of his excellency, in separating those who so laudably associated for the purposes of defending that country from foreign invasion, as well as to preserve domestic tranquillity from those whose declared objects were tumult, disaffection, and sedition.

Mr. George Ponsonby approved of the address; at the same time he wished that a line of distinction should be made between the old volunteer corps and any modern corps who might make use of any disaffected emblems.

Mr. secretary Hobart then read a summons from the Goldsmiths' corps; an address from the society of United Irishmen to the volunteers of Ireland; likewise, the resolutions entered inte at a meeting of delegates from several of the Dublin volunteer corps. He said, that from these resolutions, those corps came within the description and meaning of the proclamation, it was a matter of great satisfaction to him to find, that the conduct of administration in that business had met with the approbation of gentlemen on the other side of the house. It appeared to be the general sense of the house to shun a debate.

After a loud cry for the question had ceased, Mr. Grattan said he approved of the proclamation as much as he condemned the use which the minister attempted to make of it. The procla mation arraigned a certain body of men, whom it described to be an association assuming devices and emblems of disaffection. The minister applied that to the volunteers of the city and the county; and under that colour proposed to disperse them; and in order to justify that project, he produced a formal charge; viz.

Notwithstanding the proclamation of the 8th of December, 1792, the goldsmiths' corps paraded in Ship street, on Sunday the 24th, but were dispersed by alderman Warren. Mr. Stewart (of Killymoon) said, in the debate, that they were entitled to praise for dispersing at the instance of the magistrate. At the close of this debate, lord Edward Fitzgerald, in a very vehement tone, declared, "I give my most hearty disapprobation to that address, for I do think that the lord lieutenant and the majority of this house, are the worst subjects the king has." A loud cry of "to the bar," and "take down his words," immediately echoed from every part of the house. The house was cleared in an instant, and strangers were not re-admitted for nearly three hours.

He was admitted to explain himself, and on his explaining, the house

Resolved, nem. con. That the excuse offered by the right hon Edward "Fitzgerald, commonly called lord Edward Fitzgerald, for the said words so "spoken, is unsatisfactory and insufficient:" and he was ordered to attend at the bar on the next day, when his apology was received, though not without a division upon its sufficiency for receiving it 135, against it 66. (12 Par. Deb. p. 8.)

a summons purporting to be that of the corps of Goldsmiths, reciting, that the delegates of the corps were to assemble to celebrate the retreat of the duke of Brunswick, and the French victory in the low countries, and inciting the Goldsmiths' corps to attend. He did not ask, how far it were discreet to celebrate such an event, but he asked was it a ground for dismissing the volunteers? Neither did he consider that the imitation of French style or flippery was a sufficient ground for the minister to disperse the corps, or was it, such an offence as came within the description of the proclamation? The minister, himself, aware that his first charge was insufficient, had produced another. He had read a long address from a society called the United Irishmen, inviting the people of Ireland to assemble in a national convention, and containing an abundance of other matter; and he then produced a succession of resolutions from some of the corps of Dublin, one of which resolutions returns thanks to the society of United Irishmen. The minister was doing the very thing which he wished to prevent; he was provoking a general armament; he was doing more, he was detaching that armament from parliament. In his charge against the volunteers he had mentioned a national convention. He hoped that house would, by reforming the parliament, prevent such an assembly, the consequences of which might be very unfortunate; but if the minister wished to give such an assembly an army at its back, he was taking the method, by committing that house as well as himself, with the volunteers, and attempting to detach them from the established constitution. The object of the right honourable mover, in 1779, of resolutions of thanks to the volunteers, was to attach them to the House of Commons: he thought the object was a right one. That of the minister was to detach them from the house: he thought the object was an evil one, and the manner in which the minister proceeded convicted him of imprudence. He therefore desired, in giving his approbation to the proclamation, to be distinctly understood. He approved of it, because it did propose to disperse the national guard, and because it did not propose to disperse the volunteers. The address passed unanimously.

On the 4th of February, 1793, Mr. secretary Hobart presented to the house a petition of certain Roman Catholic bishops of Ireland and others, on behalf of themselves and their fellow subjects of the same persuasion, which was read, and ordered to lie on the table.*

15 Com. Journ. p. 141. The petition of John Thomas Troy, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin; Dominick Bellew, Roman Catholic Bishop of Killala; Richard O'Reilly, Roman Catholic Bishop of Uister; Thomas Bray, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cashel; Richard M'Cormick, Thomas Fitzgerald, Edward Byrne, Thomas Warren, Denis Thomas O'Brien, Valentine

Then Mr. Hobart said, he was aware that many of those gentlemen whom he most respected were not likely to concur in the measures he should propose; but in that point he trusted that he differed from them for the real advantage of the country. He was also aware that in the last session of parliament a petition for the very measure he should now propose had been rejected, and that he himself had voted for that rejection; but he declared that under the same circumstances, he would again vote for its rejection; it was then evident to every man that the sentiments of the country on that subject had materially altered since that time; it was well known, that at that time the opinion of the country was not ripe for such a measure. The circumstances of the present time would justify a very material alteration in the sentiments of that house. The conduct of the Roman Catholics had proved that they were perfectly attached to the constitution; and at that particular period, every man who was attached to the constitution should receive encouragement from the house. He trusted such would ever be their conduct, and such would ever be the encouragement received by men attached to the constitution.

His first object, and what the Roman Catholics seem to have most at heart, was the right of voting at elections for members of parliament; this he wished to have restored to them, and would recommend the unlimited extension of this franchise.

For that purpose it would be necessary to repeal a clause in the 1st of Geo. II. and that would extend to permitting Roman Catholics to vote in cities and towns corporate for magistrates.

The next proposition would be to repeal the 6th of Anne, so far as prohibits Papists from being grand jurors, unless there are not a sufficient number of Protestant freeholders to serve.

The next would be to repeal the 29th of George II. so far as allowing a challenge against any Papist on a petit jury, in causes where a Protestant and Papist were the parties.

He also would propose, that his majesty might be empowered and authorized to enable the Roman Catholics to endow a college or university, and schools.

O'Connor, Hugh Hamill, Christopher Bellew, and several others, whose names are thereunto subscribed, on behalf of themselves and the rest of the Catholics of Ireland; setting forth, that the petitioners are subject to a variety of severe and oppressive laws, inflicting on them inabilities and disqualifications unknown to any other description of his majesty's subjects, the further continuation of which they humbly conceived their dutiful demeanour and unremitting loyalty for above one hundred years, must evince to be equally impolitic and unnecessary; that this system of injurious exclusion had operated not less to the particular depression of the Catholics of Ireland, than to the general obstruction of the true and manifest interests of the country; the petitioners therefore humbly prayed, that the house might be pleased to take the whole of their case into consideration, and in conformity to the benign wishes of his majesty, for the union of all his people in sentiment, affection, and interest, to restore the petitioners to the rights and privileges of the constitution of their country.

That the laws which prevented them from carrying arms should be so far repealed as to persons possessing a certain degree of property; but by no means so as to put arms into the hands of the lower order of the people.

As to the army and navy, it was, he said, in the contemplation of the government of England to admit Roman Catholics to bear commissions in these departments of the state; and that in due time measures for the same purpose would be proposed there, when a communication with the English government should have been had upon that point.

As to civil offices, he wished Roman Catholics might be enabled to hold them; but in that instance, he would suggest the propriety of necessary limitations.

He understood that Roman Catholics laboured still under some severities with respect to personal property, which appeared merely accidental, and to exist from inadvertence, and these he would propose to repeal. In thus endeavouring to bring forward such measures as were likely to carry into effect his majesty's recommendation to parliament, he hoped and trusted he was acting for the advantage of the country, and in conformity to that disposition which government had manifested to meet the wishes of the people. Government had proved it by having in that session taken up the idea of relieving the lower order of people from the hearth-money tax, and it was the determination of government, in that session, to adopt such measures as would tend to promote the happiness and prosperity of the kingdom in general.

He had almost omitted a material point in his propositions, which is, that the executive government might be enabled to grant to Roman Catholics commissions of the peace.

He then moved for leave to bring in a bill for the further relief of his majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion. The motion was seconded by sir Hercules Langrishe and most vehemently opposed by Dr. Duigenan, who in a very long and elaborate speech collected together whatever the acrimonious bigotry of former days had suggested against the Catholics, and retailed it with new and enthusiastic bitterness. He and Mr. Ogle were the only two upon the division who opposed the bringing in of the bill.

On the 5th of February, lord Hilsborough moved for leave, which was granted, to bring in a bill to establish a militia, which, as nearly as circumstances would permit, he would wish to form on the same plan as that of England. The whole number of men, he proposed to be 16,000, upon a rough estimate 500 for each county. Mr. Grattan made some observations on the state of the country, as apparent in the public accounts. His remarks were followed by a motion "for an address to his majesty, for the