Lords Sitting of 17 June 1811

PRISONERS OF WAR.
Lord Hollandrose to move that duplicates of the correspondence which had passed between the British and the French governments, relative to the Exchange of Prisoners, and which correspondence had been already laid before the other House of Parliament, be also laid on their lordships' table. It was painful to consider to what hardships and privations such a large number of persons had, in both countries, been doomed for such a length of time, especially if no serious measure had been adopted to relieve them from so distressing a situation. It was proper that their lordships should inquire, and that the country should know to which of the two governments was to be imputed the failure of the attempt to settle some plan for the exchange of prisoners of war. It was proper it should be known that nothing in fairness and in justice had been omitted on the part of the British government to effect that exchange, and that if it failed, it had not failed, through any want of sincerity and anxiety

643
on our part, to accomplish an object which, from every motive of humanity, it was so desirous to attain. It afforded him much satisfaction to observe, that no blame on this head was imputable to this country, and that the British government had gone every length which they were warranted in going, in order to bring about that much desired exchange.
The Earl of Liverpoolwas as desirous as any noble lord could be, that the conduct of government, in this respect, should be as generally and as publicly known as possible. Indeed government had evinced a most sincere anxiety to obtain this object by the sacrifices they were ready to make, in order to attain it; for every proposition that was just, fair, and equitable, had been made to the enemy for that purpose, but they were not met by a similar disposition, and had been frustrated only by the exorbitant, and wholly inadmissible demands on the Part of the French government.
The motion was then agreed to.

BRITISH AND IRISH MILITIAS INTERCHANCE BILL.
The House went into a Committee on this Bill, and agreed to several clauses. On that clause which provides for the privileges enjoyed under the respective acts by the different militia forces,
Earl Stanhopemoved the insertion of the words he had moved to insert into the Mutiny Bill, and which provided that no officer should have the power of compelling any soldier not of the Church of England to attend its service, and gave him the right of attending those places of worship to which he was attached, according to the dictates of his own conscience, such attendance not interfering with his civil or military duties. He wished not to leave this matter to the discretion of this or that Commander in Chief, but to make it clear and undoubted by a parliamentary enactment.
The Earl of Liverpoolthought the Amendment unnecessary; as care would be taken, on the adoption of this measure, to have a general order issued here, similar to that in Ireland. He believed the Catholics, whom he admitted to be as respectable and loyal as any other description of his Majesty's subjects, were quite satisfied on this point, and that the regiments from counties chiefly Catholic were among those who would be first in volunteering their services in England.
The Earl of Moiracontended for the clause proposed. He thought nothing
644
could be more simple and just, than to set the whole matter in a clear and legal point of view, and so do away all grounds of misunderstanding. He believed that nothing unfair was meant, and if his feeble voice could reach the ears of his countrymen, he would tell them that they might rely on fair treatment; but it was still better to settle all reasons of doubt.
Lord Hollandargued in support of the clause. The question ought not to stand on the disposition of a Secretary of State, or a Commander-in-Chief, whoever they might be: it was one which it became parliament to fix beyond misapprehension. A proof that the original clause was not sufficient, was shewn in the necessity of promising a general order from the Commander-in-Chief here.
The Earl of Buckinghamshirewished to have the doubts removed. He had no objection to the amendment, except his decided conviction, that government would act with perfect fairness. He also thought that some difficulties might arise from adopting the Amendment now, after refusing it in passing the Mutiny Bill.
Earl Stanhopein reply, strenuously defended the principle of his amendment, as founded on the sacred, inherent, and inalienable right of every man to worship his Creator in his own way, when it did not infringe on the civil and military duties he owed the state. Why should the Secretary of State refuse his amendment, which went to do that in a straight forward way which he wanted to do circuitously; which went to put that on a ground of right, which others seemed to put on a ground of favour? He appealed to the resolutions passed in May, in Dublin, to prove that the Catholics were not satisfied on this subject. Indeed, they could not be satisfied. The Secretary of State had a vast deal of faith, and the proof of his excessive faith was to be found in his belief in impossibilities! If the Catholics were dissatisfied, they would not come. Then the noble Secretary of State would be another Mahomet. The mountain would not come to him, and Mahomet must go to the mountain. He had proposed his amendment, in order to state his clear and conscientious opinion, and wondered how any man of principle could dispute it. But he should not then divide the House.—The Amendment was accordingly negatived.
The Earl of Radnorproposed a clause, which went to limit the interchange to the cases of invasion or rebellion.
The Earl of Liverpoolobjected to the clause as hostile to the principle of the Bill; the professed object of which was to promote the intercourse, not only on extraordinary but on ordinary occasions, and thus more closely cement the connection between the two countries.
Lord Hollandwas of opinion, that the Bill as it stood really went to consolidate the efforts of the Empire; and therefore though it considerably trenched upon the old principles of the militia acts, yet the former advantage so much outweighed any inconvenieuce from the latter, that the Bill should have his support.
The clause was negatived; and the third reading of the Bill was fixed for Friday.