§ Mr. Sheridanrose to make his promised motion, and spoke in substance as follows: I rise, sir, under some degree of apprehension that, from the lateness of the hour, and the quantity of less important business which the house has already gone through, I may be felt to trespass on your attention: but it was, I assure you, not less my intention this night, than it was on Monday, to address you at a much earlier hour of the evening, had other business permitted. The lateness of the hour on Monday was, indeed, one of the causes which induced me to postpone my motion until this evening; and I cannot but regret that on this, the last day, nay almost the last hour of the sessions, it should become necessary for me to arrest your attention; because I know that at such a time to delay your sitting cannot be agreeable to your feelings or to your habits. I am aware that it must have somewhat of an ungracious appearance to postpone your separation at such a season; and, believe me, I am as willing to enjoy the benefits of that separation as any one among you; but I am too strongly impelled by a call of imperious duty to yield to any desire of accommodation. The necessity which gave rise to that call, was not created by me—nor was the postponement of the proposition I am about to submit, from Monday to this late period, by any means my fault. The propriety of adopting it, is to my conviction rendered perfectly obvious by the circumstances of the two bills which you have recently passed with regard to Ireland. When you have determined to suspend the constitution and laws of Ireland, is it not reasonable to propose to you some enquiry into the causes alleged for such suspension, and how far such causes are removable—is it not wise, when you are sending such acts to Ireland, to communicate at the same time some assurances of your resolution to take the state of that country into your consideration? I am confident that such conduct would be at once consistent with policy and humanity, and that much of the apprehension and irritation which acts of parliament may be naturally expected to 1186 produce, would be mitigated if accompanied by the adoption of a motion of the nature of that which I hold in my hand.—With regard to the intentions entertained by the last administration, to propose two acts similar to those I allude to, or to the character of the persons to whom the execution of the extraordinary powers which these acts confer might be intrusted, by either the late or the present governments, it is my intention to say very little indeed. Because I do not wish to touch upon any topic of irritation, I will not enter much into comparisons. My hope and desire is, to obtain an unanimous assent to the motion, as unanimity is necessary to give it complete effect. I shall abstain cautiously from any thing that resembles invidious distinction. I know that to no set of men could power have been more safely confided than to the members of the late administration. I am sure that in the hands of none would power have been less liable to abuse; and whatever my disinclination to comparison may be, to them cannot be denied this just distinction, that power might have been granted to them with the less reluctance, as they manifested a disposition to accompany its existence by every means of concession and conciliation. When I reflect in whom the power of these acts was to have been invested in Ireland—when I consider that it was to have been exercised by the duke of Bedford, who was not likely to call it into action, unless the necessity was irresistible, and who was in no case likely to abuse it, I must feel that he was peculiarly entitled to confidence. The character of that nobleman formed a guarantee against the apprehension of abused authority. But I have a great respect for his successor also (the duke of Richmond), I know that nobleman well enough, to be certain that he has no disposition to cruelty—that he has no malignant passion to gratify, and that he is above being affected by that gloomy suspicion, or party rancour, which might unnecessarily call for the execution, and materially embitter the operation of such power as these acts ordain. I have no doubt that this nobleman will follow the wise example—will he actuated by the same liberal principles which served to render his illustrious predecessor so much the object of panegyric and attachment. I should not, therefore, be very materially influenced as to a comparison of persons in power, as to my opinion the very unconstitutional powers which 1187 characterize these bills. I am adverse to the principle of such measures, and could never be persuaded to accede to them, unless the necessity were strong and glaring indeed.—Upon Monday last I had an opportunity of shewing my motion to several gentlemen on both sides of the house, and had the satisfaction of observing a general disposition to concur in its principle and object. But some gentlemen expressing a wish for time to consider its structure and tendency, I was therefore for postponing the motion until this day, influenced by the request of those who required such time, in the hope that consideration would serve to remove their doubts and secure their support. In this opinion at least, I acquiesced in the proposed delay, hoping that the effect of it would be to produce the proposition perhaps of some remedy for any defect in the motion, and that delay and deliberation must determine every man in favour of its main object. Retaining still a little of that hope and opinion, I do not think it necessary to take up much of your time, by entering into a detail of the reasons which have induced me to bring forward the motion, and which should urge you to adopt it. Indeed, I cannot conceive a ground upon which the rejection of such a motion can be justified, and I am not bound to conjure up objections or anticipate arguments, upon the strength of which no reasoning man can rely. It is impossible that any thinking man should seriously insist upon as an objection to my motion, that which I have heard on other occasions, namely, that danger was to be apprehended from the discussion of such affairs in this house; that it is a topic which ought to be touched as little and as seldom as possible. But I deprecate such a ground of opposition, as full of error and mischief. For, assuredly, until we get completely rid of the folly and fallacy of such an objection, it will be quite impossible for us to apply a remedy to the disorders of that country, and for this obvious reason, that we cannot know the nature of those disorders. What! that we should go on legislating for Ireland in the dark—that we should reject light and information upon a subject to which we are called upon to apply the law—and that law too most penal and severe in its character!—When I hear ministers of the crown declaring without shame, that they know nothing of the state of Ireland—when I hear the same declaration 1188 from the law-officers, when, in fact, no man can speak decisively upon the subject, is it possible, I would ask, to devise a stronger argument than such declared, ignorance suggests, to urge the united parliament to an investigation of this important question? It is not consistent with even the decent appearance of respect for the rights, interests, and liberties of the people of Ireland to legislate for that country in such total ignorance, or at least such inconsistent contradictory information as we have before us. We have heard one set of gentlemen assert that Ireland is perfectly tranquil, loyal, and united; and this assertion is corroborated by the authority of a noble lord (Hawkesbury) in another place; and with such authority before us, is it right that the constitution of Ireland should be suspended? But, farther, in support of the allegation that Ireland is undisturbed, and requires not such an act, I find that in a very populous county, where disaffection was supposed to exist, I mean Tipperary, judge Fox at the late assizes congratulated the people upon the state of the calendar, upon the acknowledged tranquillity of the district, and upon the general good order of the county. I find that not a single charge of disloyalty, sedition, or treason, was to be seen on the calendar throughout the county. I find at Kilkenny the public resolutions of the Grand Jury testifying, not only the peaceable disposition of the county, but a general and cordial harmony between Protestants and Catholics, with a strong declaration from a body of the former in favour of the claims of the latter. All these testimonies appear on the one side; on the other, to be sure, we have a very high authority—an authority certainly of the highest character in my estimation, I mean the member for Dublin (Mr. Grattan); I hold his authority high, because I respect, not only his talents and information, but his integrity; and I feel towards him as warmly as any resident of Ireland, the gratitude to which he is so eminently entitled, for obligations he has rendered to my country. Ministers, I perceive, are willing to ground their proceedings upon the authority of my right hon. friend. Under his great name, they would shelter the creation of enormous powers, for which there may be no necessity. At all events, wish the information I have received both from public and private sources, I must contend that no necessity appears. Why, then, should we 1189 not enquire? My object is to awaken the house to what I conceive, with deference, to be a just sense of its duty—to procure from it a pledge that an enquiry will be instituted, and thus to hold out to the people of Ireland some prospect of redress—some assurance of the friendly disposition of the legislature. That enquiry is necessary, no man can deny; and without full information, I must say, that it is not becoming in us to take such serious measures with regard to Ireland. We have, in fact, been legislating for that country upon hearsay authority alone, and mark, with much more of hearsay authority against, than for the course you have pursued. All this, too, while you have had the means of ample enquiry within your reach. Upon what grounds then, do you shrink from that enquiry? It is preposterous to pretend that you fly from it because you apprehend danger from discussing the affairs of that country. The fact is, that no topic requires or deserves more of your discussion or investigation. So far from avoiding knowledge upon such a subject, it is highly culpable not to seek it. I profess myself as much in want of knowledge as other persons, and I take some blame to myself on that account; but I shall endeavour by all the means in my power to obtain information, and it is with a view to remove my own defect upon this head, as well as the defects of others, that I wish for enquiry. I wish for enquiry, because it is essential, as well in respect to our own character as in justice to the people of Ireland. It is our duty to enquire upon such an occasion, and we should not shrink from that duty through any objection to the trouble that might attend it, or through any idle fear of danger; but least of all through a timid apprehension of the truth.—With regard to the motives which have urged me to stand forward upon this occasion, I have been prompted to it by duty and by feeling. My object, to serve the cause of justice and my country, without exciting any passion or flattering any prejudice. I hope I may take credit for being as little inclined as any man to the use of inflammatory language—as little disposed to promote sedition, or mutiny, or disaffection. For this I think I am entitled to take credit. There is not, perhaps, a man more strongly convinced than I am, that the very existence of the two islands depends upon the continuance of their connexion. I am quite assured, that if there be any party in Ireland of any de- 1190 nomination, which would advocate an opposite principle, that party is decidedly hostile to the interests of that country—and should call forth the vigilance and vigour of the law. But I must say, that all appearances are against the belief of any such disaffection, much less of organized treason. Indeed, if I could imagine an observer totally free from prejudice upon the subject, his inference would, I am persuaded, be of quite an opposite tendency. If I could imagine a foreigner well disposed to Great Britain—if I could believe such a foreigner to exist, I am satisfied he would be forward to rather congratulate Great Britain upon the present state of Ireland. There are four symptoms of loyalty and attachment to Great Britain visible in Ireland, which would naturally attract the attention of this foreigner. Having heard that the duke of Bedford was applied to by some rash individuals to proclaim a county, at the time of the insurrection of the Threshers, that noble duke rejected the application, and trusting to the ordinary operation of the law, put down the insurrection; the foreigner would, in the first instance, consider this a very good symptom of the disposition of Ireland. Well, in the second place, he would be told that there had been no disturbances whatever in that country since the duke of Bedford had put down the insurrection alluded to, and that the disposition of the people had been particularly proved by the rejection of the Catholic bill. A short description of the nature of that measure would readily satisfy his mind that the laying it aside, after it was promised, was very likely to have an irritating effect in Ireland. But instead of irritation he would witness the most perfect good order, although all the ingredients of insurrection were flung among the people, wrapped up in a proclamation for dissolving parliament. The third object of the foreigner's attention would be judge Fox's address of congratulation to the people of Tipperary, upon the peaceful state of the county; together with that judge's expression of surprise that it should be otherwise described by any person; and the fourth symptom would, more than all, satisfy his mind that no apprehension whatever could be entertained of disorders or insurrection in Ireland. For he would see the army taken away—he would see that formidable body, the German legion, which was sent to Ireland to save it from sedition, embarked for the continent. Now, it this 1191 foreigner were to state these sentiments to the minister, and express his surprise that any suspicion could any where be entertained of the loyalty and tranquillity of the people of Ireland, what would the right hon. gentleman say to him? Perhaps the right hon. gent. would tell him that the duke of Bedford acted injudiciously in refusing to proclaim a county under martial law, and restoring the peace by means of the common law of the land—that the circumstances of Ireland being understood for some time back, was mere matter of accident; that judge Fox knew nothing at all about the state of the country. But, would not the foreigner be apt to ask, why, it Ireland were in such a state of disaffection, should the military force be taken away from it, and two oppressive and arbitrary bills sent there, still more to irritate that disaffection? Perhaps the right hon. gent. might say, that be relied more upon these bills for preserving Ireland, than he did upon a military force; that when he marched out an army, he would march in an act of parliament; that when he withdrew a legion, he would substitute a law. But above all, what was the foreigner likely to say to the right hon. gent. when he found that, while every endeavour was using to arm the English, the Irish were disarming? With such a remarkable contrast before him, would not the foreigner—would not any man interested for Great Britain, or possessing common sense, be disposed, particularly at a crisis when the invasion of a powerful enemy was to be apprehended, to put this plain question to the minister? If you take away the arms of the Irish, what are they to fight with? And if you take away their constitution, what are they to fight for?—It has been said, that there exists a French party in Ireland; but when was it that such a party did not exist in that country? Since the days of Elizabeth; from the very commencement of those foul and tyrannical measures which originated in national jealousy, political prejudice, or religious dissention, but particularly the latter, which drove Catholics of high spirit from their native country, numbers of such exiles found an asylum in France, and hence a correspondence between them and their relations in Ireland, which naturally led to the creation of a French party in Ireland, and an Irish party cannot for a moment be insisted upon as a justification for the oppressive laws it was quoted 1192 to support. For what policy could be more mischievous and inhuman, than a perseverance in the same persecuting measures which originally created that party? Let the state of Ireland be enquired into—let persecution and injustice be put an end to, and the French party would soon cease to exist. But, I cannot admit the danger of such a party in a political point of view. The correspondence of family connections may exist altogether independent of national attachments and prejudices, and perhaps this talked-of French party may consist solely of mere family connection, abstracted from all political views. At all events, there is no evidence upon the subject to direct the judgment of this house. There is, I must observe, a principle contained in the argument which the alleged existence of this party was adduced to support, that bears a most fearful character for Ireland indeed. For the Irish exiles having found an asylum in America, in Denmark, and other states, it would follow from the use made of this principle, that whenever Great Britain should be at war with either of these states, Ireland would be liable to have her constitution suspended, there being to be found an American and a Danish party in Ireland, as well as a French, and all arising from the same cause; which cause it is the tendency of the bills I have objected to to continue and increase.—The cause of emigration and exile from Ireland has been considerably diminished under the auspices of our present most gracious sovereign; but still a great deal remains to be done to reconcile to their country the great body of the Irish. What has been done was no doubt calculated to do much good, but yet it is to be recollected, that there is a great deal in the manner of doing a thing. There is such a case as conferring a favour without obtaining any acknowledgment—of rendering a service without exciting any gratitude—and such a case may be as making concessions when it is too late. I recommend these considerations to the reflection of ministers. When they and others complain of the discontents of the Irish, they never appear to consider the cause. When they express their surprise that the Irish are not contented, while, according to their observation, that people have so much reason to be happy, they betray a total ignorance of their actual circumstances. The fact is, that the tyranny practised upon the Irish has been throughout unremitting. There has been no 1193 change but in the manner of inflicting it. They have had nothing but variety in oppression, extending to all ranks and degrees of a certain description of the people. If you would know what this varied oppression consisted in, I refer you to the penal statutes you have repealed, and to some of those which still exist. There you will see the high and the low equally subjected to the lash of persecution; and still some affect to be astonished at the discontents of the Irish! But with all my reluctance to introduce any thing ludicrous upon so serious an occasion, I cannot help referring to a little story which those very astonished persons call to my mind. It was with respect to an Irish drummer, who was employed to inflict punishment upon a soldier. While he was flogging the soldier, the poor fellow, writhing with pain, intreated him to change his mode of lashing him. Sometimes he called to him to strike a little higher, and sometimes a little lower. The drummer endeavoured to accommodate him as far as it was in his power; but finding it to no purpose, at last cried out, "Upon my conscience, you are a discontented fellow, for whether I strike high or low, there is no such thing as pleasing you." This is precisely the case with respect to Ireland. Notwithstanding the infinite variety of oppression exercised against them, there are still a number of them who are so unreasonable as to be discontented.—As to the conduct which ought to be pursued with respect to Ireland, do not let it be imagined that I should not desire to have a strong armed force in that country. I would have such a force stationed there, much as I rely on the loyalty of the people. But this force should be the protectors and advocates of the people: it should not be placed there to act as executioners, but as a guard of honour upon the constitution, the liberty and the property of the people. I do not wish to have the fate of Ireland entrusted to an inadequate force, particularly at a period when no one can tell the hour at which the enemy may arrive. I wish to have such a force in Ireland, as well as in every other quarter of the empire, as should assure our foreign enemy of the impossibility of success; and at the same time serve to discourage the operations of domestic enemies, by convincing them that it is in vain to hope—that his prospects and calculations were vain. With this view and object, I would have a large army in Ireland; and such an army would serve 1194 still more to render the bills I have referred to, quite unnecessary. Because, if invasion or rebellion should take place, the peace of the country would be vested in the army. For it is a prerogative of the crown in such cases, to put the country under martial law, and in such cases only can martial law be necessary, particularly if you keep a large force in the country. The prerogative of the crown, then, is fully competent to meet any real danger, without these bills, which are in fact nothing but martial law in masquerade.—As to the plan of arming the people at large, which, it seems, is not to be extended to Ireland—although the principle is so perfectly congenial with the spirit of the British constitution—for it is a part of the king's prerogative to compel the people to arm in case of invasion or rebellion, I contend that the policy of disarming the Irish is bad, even for the purpose that measure professes to have in view. For a people that are armed are in general, or almost always, more peaceable and less discontented than those who are left defenceless and disarmed. If the king should, under his prerogative, call out the people of Ireland, or the sheriff were to summon the posse comitatûs, in what state, I would ask, are that people likely to be found after the operation of those acts of parliament? It is, however, pretended that these acts are only to continue for a certain time; that they only involve a suspension of the constitution, in which the people have a reversionary interest. But I do not know when the suspension is to cease. It began in 1795, and since then it has continued without interruption, and the lease has just been renewed for three years longer. I am of opinion that a people who can submit so long to such a measure must be tolerably well prepared for slavery. Indeed, it cannot be difficult to reconcile them to the loss of freedom. In renewing the loan to government of the Irish constitution, I remember that ministers would not attend to the advice of my right hon. friend (Mr. Grattan) as to the duration of the lease. No; where his authority suited their view, they adopted it and took shelter under it, but where that authority was against them, they rejected it. But the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer has promised that the constitution shall be restored to Ireland; I should like to see a receipt and promise of return for a free constitution, from the hand of the right hon. gent. I dare 1195 say, as he is a lawyer, a financier, and a statesman, it would be a curious production running, perhaps, in these terms—"Where as it has been deemed expedient for the peace and good of Ireland, for good and valuable considerations, to take the constitution of that country into the keeping of the crown: I on the part of the crown do promise and declare that it shall be returned when it is deemed expedient." But suppose a project formed to withhold this constitution altogether—suppose it were resolved to establish absolute despotism, such as would justify the resistance of a free people—how is that resistance to be made after the arms of the people have been taken away?—What ministers ultimately mean to do with respect to Ireland, it is really difficult to divine. They promise, to be sure, to restore the constitution, and to do many other things; but the people of Ireland know by whom the promise is made. They remember those who promised so much at the time of the Union, and never kept their word in any one point—No, not one. Indeed, their conduct towards Ireland in this respect, puts me in mind of the promises made to children. The parent presents a favour to the view of the child: but declines to give it. No, no, the child would spoil it, and the parent keeps it for fear he should. Thus precisely are the people of Ireland trifled with as to promises; and thus are those promises fulfilled. How have they acted upon the subject of the Catholic question? I am not now going into the discussion of that question; but was not the grant of that measure held out as one of the first consequences of the Union? Such was to be collected from the words of several of the principal advocates of that measure, and, among others, even Dr. Duigenan. Mr. Pitt and the noble lord (Castlereagh) held out a hope, upon their retirement from office in 1801, that their return to office might be deemed the signal for Catholic emancipation. But yet they returned to office, and no such grant was proposed. Were not the frequent disappointments of the Catholic body—their hopes deferred—one of the principal causes of the Irish discontents?—Here Mr. Sheridan entered into a review of the conduct of the several members of the present cabinet with respect to the catholic question, and contrasted those who formerly promised so much to the Catholics with those who had lately endeavoured to put an 1196 eternal bar to their hopes, and had raised the abominable yell of "No Popery." There were some of the latter who were, no doubt, actuated by conscientious motives. He was most sincerely disposed to do credit to the motives of his majesty, and had no doubt he was actuated by the purest dictates of conscience. In his honourable mind he was confident there existed as much abhorrence of the authors of any cry which could disunite and distract his subjects as any man in the nation could feel. He had no hesitation in saying, that those men who would raise any thing like eternal obstacles to the views of the Catholics, must act disagreeably to him whose scruples upon the subject might be removed by time and consideration. The right hon. gent. concluded this part of the subject by referring to the conduct of the last administration, whose promptitude in dropping the bill respecting the Catholics he approved, perhaps much more than he did of their original introduction of it.—I think, said Mr. S., they began at the wrong end. They should have commenced the measure of redress in Ireland at the cottage, instead of at the park and the mansion. To have gone first to the higher orders of the Catholics—to have sought to make them judges, and peers and commoners—I do not know that such a proceeding, had it taken place, would not rather have served to aggravate discontent, as it might have been construed into a design to divide the interests of the Catholics. Sure I am, that with a view to serve or to conciliate the Catholic population, I mean the poor, the peasantry, its effect would be nothing; indeed it would be quite a mockery. It would be like dressing or decorating the top-masts of a ship when there were 10 feet water in the hold, or putting a laced bat on a man who had not a shoe to his foot. The place to set out with in Ireland for the relief of the people, is the cottage. The distressed state of the peasantry must be first considered, and above all, the tithes. I should hope that every man of good sense and sound heart would be forward to devote some part of his attention to this important question. A great deal of information with respect to the state of the Irish peasantry, and the best means of relieving them. may be collected from private sources. I have had many communications on the subject, and I have looked into several valuable books and pamphlets respecting the Irish peasantry, but have been particularly 1197 interested by Mr. Bell's treatise upon them. It would not require much reading after this book to make gentlemen fully acquainted with the state, habits and character of these poor peasantry, whose sufferings have so long and forcibly appealed to the humanity and justice of the legislature. I have heard it said, and I have always been shocked at the assertion, that the Irish peasantry might be comfortable if they would, if they chose to be industrious; and that it is idle to attempt any improvement of their condition. It is abominable to hear blame laid on Providence instead of laying it on man. Can any set of men, I would ask, be found who manifest so much of the qualities of which these cruel calumniators would deprive them, as the Irish peasantry? But they are only calumniated by those men who would degrade them below the level of the human creation, in order to palliate their own inhumanity towards them. We were told in England, that the unhappy Africans were insensible to the ordinary feelings of humanity, in order to render us indifferent to their sufferings, and to the custom of the slave trade. On similar motives the character of the Irish peasantry is so foully misrepresented by some men in this country and in Ireland also. But what palpable evidence do the Irish peasants, wherever you meet them, afford of the falsehood of their slanderers. Can any men exhibit more of enterprise than those peasants, in coming to this country in search of employment, or more of affection for country and family, in returning home with the pittances they earn here? Is it not manifest to every one of you, that the charge of indisposition to industry cannot apply to those poor men, who, in fact, do all the hard work of this metropolis? When, then, the Irish exhibit such a character in this country, it is impossible that such a difference at home as some gentlemen assert to exist, can proceed from any other than gross misrule. If I were proposing this enquiry in time of profound peace, I should expect your acquiescence in it. But in the difficulties which now surround the country, the claim is, in my mind, irresistible. I know it has been long the hacknied cant, that such and such is the most perilous period the country has ever known. But without any such cant—without any exaggeration whatever, I defy any man to shew me a period in our history so full of peril; and where shall we look for aid? I 1198 am sick of continental alliances, of hearing about your magnanimous emperor Alexander, and all the rest of them. When, however, I look at the conduct of that sovereign, triumphing at Petersburgh upon acquisitions of territory plundered from Prussia, her ally, to whom, were he really magnanimous, he ought rather to have given territory, I cannot endure the idea of turning to the continent for any thing to confide in for our existence. When I look at France, not as Mr. Burke described it, 'a blank in the map of Europe;' but when I see nothing almost but France—when I look to the state of the East Indies, and to that of the West also—I find, indeed, that on Monday you pledged yourselves to enquire into the state of property in those islands, and very properly too; but when you thus pledge yourselves to enquire as to the property of the West-India planters, is it too much for me to propose a pledge that you will take into your consideration not the property of the Irish, but their allegiance, liberty, and right—when I look at America, but in mentioning that country I should be sorry if understood at all to speak in terms ill calculated to encourage a disposition to surrender that privilege which we cannot surrender, without abandoning power arid importance—when I have thus reviewed the state of our colonies, connections, and allies, and find the appearance so gloomy, is it unreasonable that I should ask you to look at your statute book, and to study the means of conciliating the alliance of your own subjects? While such menacing danger hangs over us, I cannot without serious pain reflect upon the manner in which you employ yourselves—one party charging the other, and vice versâ—"you did that job"—"No, but you did worse,"—"My plan raised more recruits than your's"—"No, but it did not." As if men were recruiting for a wager, and the only object of debate was to criminate each other. I cannot patiently think of such petty squabbles, while Buonaparté is grasping the nations—while he is surrounding France, not with that iron frontier, for which the wish and childish ambition of Louis the 14th was so eager, but with kingdoms of his own creation—securing the gratitude of higher minds as the hostage, and the fears of others as pledges for his safety. His are no ordinary fortifications. His Martello towers are his allies—crowns and sceptres are the pallisadoes of his entrench- 1199 merits, and kings are his centinels.—In such a state of the world then, and with such an enemy, viewing this country as the almost remaining object of his ambition to destroy—surely the policy of looking to all the means of strengthening yourselves is too obvious to require comment. Let me then exhort you to consider the means of rendering that country really serviceable to you. I have heard of subsidies. Your subsidies to Prussia were considerable in amount, and yet quite unproductive in effect. Why don't you subsidize Ireland? And all the subsidies I ask for her is your confidence, affection and justice to her people. These, I call on you to grant before it be too late. If you refuse to see the danger that menaces, and will not consider in due time about the means which I propose to you for providing against it, it is a bad symptom. The first character of courage is to look at danger with a dauntless eye, and the next to combat it with a dauntless heart. If with this resolution we front our dangers, history will do justice to our feelings and character, whatever may be the exertions or the success of the formidable tyrant who would destroy us, or of those who succeed to his power and his views. The honest historian will not fail to yield a just tribute to our reputation. If faithful to ourselves, if united, we shall in these two little islands, to which, as to an altar, freedom has flown for refuge, be able to fight with all the valorous fury of men defending a violated sanctuary.—The right hon. gent. then concluded with moving "That this house will immediately, on the meeting of the ensuing session of parliament, proceed to take into their most serious and solemn consideration, the State and Condition of Ireland, in the anxious hope, that such measures and remedies may be safely adopted, in regard to the discontents alleged to exist in that country, as may render unnecessary the continuance of those provisions which the legislature of the united kingdom has deemed it expedient reluctantly to adopt at the close of the present session, and the permanence of which would be a violation of the rights of the people of Ireland, and a subversion of the spirit and practice of our free constitution."—After he had read his motion, the right hon. gent. expressed his readiness to acquiesce in any amendment which should leave its main object untouched. It did 1200 not matter to him by whom the object was taken up. His desire was to have the thing done; and if any gentleman on any side of the house, would follow it up, he would be entitled to the gratitude of Ireland, and should have his warmest thanks.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it did not seem to him to be necessary to enter into any argument on the subjects touched on by the right hon. gent. He begged leave, however, before he even troubled the house with the few words which he should have to offer on the subject of the right hon. gent's. motion, to correct a mistake into which he had fallen. The right hon. gent. had said, that the military defence of Ireland had been greatly reduced within a short period by the removal of troops from that country. Any reduction of this kind, however, which had taken place, was trifling in the extreme; and when he mentioned that there were at this moment in Ireland 50,000 men of the regular army and militia alone, independent of volunteers, gentlemen, he was convinced, would agree with him, that the military force in that part of the country had not been reduced in any improper degree. Having rectified this mistake in the statement of the right hon. gent., he should now offer a few words on the grounds upon which he called on the house to concur in the present motion. Great part of what had fallen from the right hon. gent. on this head seemed to him not so much applicable to the right hon. gent.'s present purpose, as to two bills lately before the house, and on which, as it would seem, the right hon. gent., having omitted, or not having seen, a favourable opportunity of delivering his sentiments, wished still to avail himself of that privilege. The harangue of the right hon. gent. taking it in this point of view, so far from being calculated to produce unanimity, could alone tend to discontent and division. When the right hon. gent. stated, that the renewal of the bills alluded to for a series of years was only to prepare the people for a total extinction of their liberties, was that not calculated to irritate rather than to reconcile? The measures, too, to which the right hon gent. alluded, had only lately passed through that house, and had been regarded universally as acts of imperious necessity. It was, therefore, rather an extravagant expectation in the right hon. gent. that having so recently declared the measures necessary, the house should now, with the circumstance fresh in their recol- 1201 lection, contradict what they had so lately enacted. The house had lately discharged an important duty to the people on this and on the other side of the water: it was extravagant in the right hon. gent. to hope that they should so soon falsify what they had done. That the house would be ready at all times to consider every thing that could be done for the good of Ireland, there could be no doubt; and this being the case, there could be no necessity for entering into a pledge to that effect. It was only for the right hon. gent. at any time, to bring forward any measure which in his judgement might be for the good of the united kingdom in general, and Ireland in particular, and he should be ready to give it every support in his power. He denied that the right hon. gent. was correct in saying, that ever since the union the interests of Ireland had been treated with indifference. He knew that the house would be eager at all times to shew every attention to the state of that part of the country without the necessity of any pledge on the subject. He should therefore forbear from introducing any unprofitable discussion on the present occasion, but should content himself with moving the previous question.
§ Mr. Grattanbegan by observing that he was glad that the present question had excited so great a portion of the public attention, because it she wed that the people of this country were not indifferent to the common cause. Ireland was linked to that cause, and every thing which related to Ireland naturally excited the public interest. It was the cause, not of Ireland only, but of the two islands together; the greatness, that is, the being of this great empire, was identified with the cordial co-operation of Ireland, and every question that related to the one, naturally involved the dearest interests of the other. With regard to the term of the Insurrection bill, he had certainly voted for the shorter period, and he still believed that it would have been more wise to confine within as narrow limits as possible, the period of the suspension of the British constitution. This much he said in confirmation of the assertion of his right hon. friend (Mr. Sheridan), who had, on that night, re-asserted his claim to the due applause of past times, and the disinterested admiration of impartial posterity. He had fought a good fight in the cause of Ireland; he had evinced a statesman's firmness and a patriot's love, and his display in the cause of 1202 his native country, was not the less luminous, because a commendable moderation served to augment its splendour and invigorate its force. He (Mr. Grattan) approved of that moderation, and approved of the sentiment—it was not in the sentiment he differed from his right hon. friend—no, far from it; he heartily coincided with him in the sentiment; it was in the application of that sentiment that he had the misfortune to differ from him. In the first place, he could not agree with his right hon. friend, that there were no just grounds for the passing of the two bills, the Irish Arms bill, and the Irish Insurrection bill, which had been enacted by parliament. His right hon. friend had said, that there was no just ground for passing the Insurrection bill, and yet had not his right hon. friend admitted that there was a French party in Ireland? He did more, he said that there had been ever a French party in Ireland. He allowed the justice of that statement; but he begged the house, and his right hon. friend, to recollect, that there was a very great difference between a party that had existed, and a party that now existed, and not only that, but there was also a great difference in the times, and now that France was become such a gigantic power, and a French party existed in Ireland, that was alone, in his opinion, a good reason for adopting a strong measure. There might be times when the common law of the land was by no means sufficient for the safety and security of the country; and when that was the case, strong measures must be resorted to. He did not mean to say that the people of Ireland were in general disaffected; on the contrary, he joined with his right hon. friend in the belief that they were generally loyal and firmly attached to the government of this country. It was not, however, sufficient to say that particular counties were undisturbed. Mr. justice Fox, he had no doubt, was very right in what he had said of the counties of Tipperary, Wexford, and Kilkenny, but there might be discontented parties in other quarters, which were sufficient to justify the extraordinary powers given by the bills lately passed. His right hon. friend had stated that the people of Ireland were in a state of perfect tranquillity, and that a person of the highest authority, in another place, had given it as his opinion that the Arms bill was unnecessary. That high authority might think so, but he could not agree with him on that head. The great 1203 object of the Arms bill seemed not to be fully understood; it had in view the disarming, not the great mass of the people, but certain portions of them who were rebels, and who went about the country to the houses of farmers, and gentlemen who were known to have arms, and plundered them of the same, to use them for rebellious purposes, and one of the chief objects of the bill was to take from those robbers the power of doing that. Another object of the act was to prevent compulsory oaths from being administered, and other matters which tended to promote and diffuse insurrection. Was it oppression to check such a banditti in their career—the career that must finally arm them against all law and social order? He did not think it was, and he therefore voted for the enaction of the Irish Arms bill. But, it had been his crime too, to vote for the Insurrection act. He had done so, and he did not think he ever should have cause to regret that vote. It did go to suspend the constitution, but its operation was confined to a state of rebellion only; that is, an aweful emergency alone was to render its application necessary. The remedy was violent—granted—but the evil was deadly. The trial by jury, however, was not even in rebellion to be abolished, and the judicium parium was justly considered equivalent to any such emergency; with all this he was ready to admit that the remedy was unconstitutional. But at the same time he felt that it was necessary. It was no new or sudden remedy; the first insurrection act had originated with the late lord Kilwarden, chief judge of the king's bench in Ireland. He had drawn it up, and that person was no enemy to the established laws of his country, for at his death he had announced his wish that his murderers should be brought to justice by the law of the land only, and not by any extraordinary means of intervention. A still greater authority had supported the principle of the bill, the late lord Yelverton, viscount Avenmore, then the chief baron of the exchequer. That great constitutional lawyer had approved of the principle of this bill upon the ground of its urgent necessity. He spoke in the Irish house of lords in favour of the principle in 1796, in 1797 he supported the principle, and in 1798 proved that he was not wrong in supporting it. But, as to men yet living, they were not without authority: the late attorney-general for Ireland was known enough even in that house to be there the authority he was 1204 so justly in his own country; he had approved of the principle; the solicitor general for Ireland had approved of the principle of the bill—a man, perhaps, of the first genius in that country, and of a spirit of patriotism liberal and enlightened as his talents. The present bill had been supported by them both; and was it so culpable in him (Mr. Grattan) to yield to his own impulse when sanctioned by such great constitutional authority? The bill he believed to be necessary, and so rooted was his conviction, that he should have supported that bill had he been left in a trifling minority—nay, continued Mr. Grattan, had I stood alone I should have voted for both bills—the state of Ireland justified them. I am not speaking against Ireland, but I am advocating the cause of Ireland against France. I would put Ireland herself against the distempers that would sap her constitution—it is a strong constitution—nature has done much, but something may creep in to abuse the bounty of nature—at the same time they are not to be looked upon as symptoms of weakness—the bodily habit is physically strong, and the eruptions on the surface prove rather a certain kind of inane violence, that may be purified into salutary strength;—correct the external pruriency, and you have all the advantages of inward health and substantial vigour—the pimple on the face of the fair one does not dim the lustre of her beauty or contract the fascination of her charms. In the same manner, if Ireland had expressed any indignant sense of measures that were deemed oppressive, the feeling that was strong in resentment for alledged sufferings, would be lively in gratitude for projected benefits. Ireland might murmur for what she had suffered, but would be grateful for what she was but promised. So much for Ireland. With respect to those two laws, they are enacted not against Ireland, but for the empire. If the suspension of the constitution is objected to, I answer that the Mutiny bill is a suspension of the constitution in England; of the dearest privileges of the Bill of Rights; yet, why was it enacted? That we might have an army—a standing army—in England, and why are those bills, the Irish Arms and Irish Insurrection bills, enacted?—why, that the French may not have an army in Ireland. It is good to talk of abstract principles; but it is better to apply such principles to existing difficulties. I would therefore suspend the English constitution in Ireland, that Ireland may have 1205 it and maintain it ever after. I like abstract principles most where they can be best applied; those wide, vague, cosmopolitan principles were useless if they did not apply, and perhaps were dangerous if they did. So much for the bills which I have supported; and now as to the general state of Ireland I would say a few words. If you would remedy Ireland, look to it in three points of view: look to it in its education, its agriculture, and its religion. The system of education is bad; it is, as far as relates to the free schools, a monopoly—the number of petty schools are injurious to the cause of literature. I would go not only to educate the rich but the poor. Eight thousand acres of land support but 18 free schools, averaging the 8000 acres at 10,000 pounds—those free schools have not succeeded; I am not prepared to say why. Many of the principals I know to be men of capability, assiduity, and learning; but yet the schools have declined. Perhaps it is owing to the niggardly policy that defeats its own object in the manner of the institution. The petty schools are too many, and the great ones too few. The result of such an economy may be readily anticipated. Two or three great public schools would be better than a horde of these minor inefficient schools. When you plant a little school in a wide extent, and yet a limited vicinity, you ingraft imbecility upon ignorance: it perishes by its own weakness. Whereas, colonize learning, and you assist its propagation. I would recommend, therefore, a principal school in each parish. As to the second consideration—the agriculture; it involved at once the question of tithes: tithes made the hot-bed of discontent in Ireland. I would propose some modification with respect to the mode of collecting them. Let the government, suppose, guarantee the payment to the clergy, and thus exonerate the struggling peasant from the many restrictions that at present hang over him, as to the culture or management of the little spot that gives him an interest in the fate of Ireland, by enabling him to feed his wife and family; this subject is peculiarly worthy the attention of parliament, because tithes have been the source of all past disturbances in Ireland. Tithes gave rise to the "Hearts of Steel." Tithes called together the "Right Boys." Tithes were the cause of the "White Boys." Tithes were the cause of the "Peep of day Boys." Tithes were the cause of "Threshers." Tithes were in a manner a 1206 kind of watch-word to summon the oppressed to act in common cause against their oppression. I would propose, then, a commutation of Tithe. This subject deserves the most serious attention, for if you remove this one cause of discontent, it will go in a great degree to fritter away the rest.—The third head is religion: upon this I shall be very brief, because it is too obvious to receive any elucidation from what I could offer here. I most heartily concur with my right hon. friend—the door is shut, and the population of Ireland is excluded—and excluded from what? from the means of defending you—from the generous spirit to defend what they have not, and the disinterested zeal of co-operating with you in defence of what you have and enjoy, and that too immediately by them; to whom you refuse the same blessings. The parliament have no right to refuse their religion to a people that obey faithfully and fight ardently in behalf of the laws that it enacts. No one set of men can justly dictate to another the creed of their own orthodoxy—no government has a right to obtrude into the sanctuary of the human mind, to decide between its God and its responsibility. But it has been said, that the faith of the Catholics of Ireland related to foreign powers and engendered foreign affections. It is denied by the Catholics in their professions and conduct. The leading sentiment among them is hostility to France and French principles. I will read the resolutions of the Protestant Grand Jurors of the county of Kilkenny—I will read also the answer of their Catholic brethren [here the right hon. gent. read the resolutions]. Is it, then, to be endured, that such men could in general be suspected of harbouring a thought favourable to French politicians? Let England look at her strength, and ask herself how much she owes of it to Ireland. The Catholics have gone hand in hand cheerfully with you in all dangers; will you now turn your back on them, and deny them a share of your privileges? If you object to them pigmy scruples of bigotry and party, how will you answer to their mighty appeal to the battles they have fought, and the victories they have shared in? It is a bad policy to tell the men covered with wounds in defence of your rights, that they shall have no rights to plead for; but my hopes are founded on something sounder than your provisions. If the people of Ireland see their situation with a mind truly great—if, as formerly, 1207 their strength of mind be but proportionate to the extent of their calamity—if with a dignified compassion they pity and forgive the pitiable virulence of party animosity—if they forget every thing but themselves and what they have been, and what they have done; in 1779, when they got a trade, and in the memorable 1782, when they got a constitution—if Ireland but remembers this, and looks to the present momentous crisis with the eye of a gallant general, and a high-minded nation, then will she best refute the calumnies of ignorance; she will not turn aside from the cause of Great Britain, of Europe, and the globe, to listen to the moody mutterings of any shabby mutineer—the night-boy, or the white-boy, or any other ragged rebel. She will look to what such a policy did for her in 1779; she will see constitution following commerce in 1782; she will ponder upon them and not disgrace the example of those hallowed times. French politics are their own remedy. Ireland need not look to Holland, where commerce invited plunder, but could not glut it. Ireland need not look to Genoa, where prostration was the consequence of an ill-placed and hasty confidence. She need not look to Italy, where all that was made sacred by time, by habit, by national prejudice, by religion, served only by the richness of the spoils, to heighten the splendour of the conflagration that consumed them. Let her remember that she has qualified herself in pursuit of the rights she has obtained, by the freedom that sought, and the allegiance that acknowledge them. Ireland has fought boldly and faithfully to secure to England the constitution Ireland so naturally wishes to share the blessings of; but she will continue in the pursuit of them, as she has done in the pursuit of a legitimate object—by legitimate means. Let it be for you to answer her accordingly, and let no narrow policy prevent you from making the Irish Protestants a people, by making the Irish Catholics free men. Such are my sentiments as to the state of Ireland; agreeing, as I do, with the sentiments of my right hon. friend, whose exertions this night in the cause of his native country, are above my poor praise, and do equal honour to his talents and to his patriotism; still I differ from him in the application of that sentiment. Besides, the motion in its present form goes to censure the late proceedings of parliament, with respect to that country; and I do not think that the house would readily 1208 acquiesce in imposing a censure upon itself. I am willing to give every credit to the motives of my right hon. friend in making the present motion, but it is not to be expected that I am now to censure my own act in voting for the two bills, which the present state of Ireland, and that of Europe, as affecting Ireland, in my mind rendered necessary.
Mr. Dillondeclared, that the adoption of the proposition before the house, must be considered as a solemn pledge of a new system of policy to be pursued with regard to the government of Ireland. It was a question of two modes of governing a country, which was admitted to be in a perpetual state of radical discontent. With regard to the government of such a country, two modes only could be resorted to—the one which he should recommend, namely, by removing the causes of such alleged discontent; the other, by adopting such vigorous and restrictive measures as those lately adopted, the effect of which was to guard against the ill effects of the bad system of policy pursued—a system which would consecrate abuse and reign only by arbitrary power. As to the effects of such a system, he must be allowed to state an axiom which had been agreed upon at all times, and by all the eminent persons who had ever written or spoken upon political economy—this axiom was, that a state would sooner recover from the effects of war, and conflagration, and general devastation, provided the period which should ensue should be one in which such a state should have full advantages of excellent laws and excellent government—than a state which had not been afflicted by such calamities, but had habitually groaned under bad government, restrictive laws, or commercial and civil liberty, during a period of unprofitable monotonous peace. To illustrate this axiom, he had only to look to the history of Ireland during the period of the two last centuries and he was constrained to give the preference to the former century, although disturbed and afflicted by frequent wars, over the last century, although a period of profound peace. Here he took a view of the state of Ireland from queen Elizabeth's reign to the year 1698, when the woollen trade was destroyed, and the articles of Limerick infringed, proving how much Ireland had comparatively flourished when laws had been passed in favour of commercial and civil liberty, though in a most disturbed pe- 1209 riod: and how low she had been since, owing to such restrictive laws, up to 1799, when she recovered her trade. He earnestly recommended the people of Ireland always to look to the period of the glorious æra of 1782, and not to the disgraceful one of 1798; in the one they obtained their liberties—in the other they lost them; that they should follow Mr. Grattan's advice, and pursue legitimate objects by legitimate means.—With regard to that intolerable grievance, the present tithing system, he anticipated objections on the part of the chancellor of the exchequer, on the score of danger to the church, by meddling with church property. But this had been done already by lord Castlereagh, who had brought in a bill at the time of passing the act of Union, exempting pasture lands from the payment of tithe of agistment, as it was called—a most invidious and oppressive exemption.—It was impossible to argue more at length, when the gentlemen opposite would not condescend to notice any observations from his side of the house—there was nothing for him to refute. He concluded by giving his warm support to Mr Sheridan's motion.
§ Mr. Windhamthought the disturbances in Ireland were to be imputed solely to an ill-judged system of misrule in that country. The Irish had been long asking, not so much for the rights of the constitution, as the rights of nature. As to a French party in Ireland, he not only believed that there was a French party, but that there ever had been a French party there, and, was it wise to give that party strength by the refusal of concessions, to which the population of Ireland had so just a claim? At the same time, he did not mean in the least degree to call in question the propriety of the late two bills—the Insurrection and the Arms bills. It had been satisfactorily proved to every individual in that house, that there was an existing necessity in Ireland for the enactment of those measures, on the great and incontrovertible authority of his right hon. friend upon his left hand (Mr. Grattan). He had stated, that there was a French party in Ireland, and that those measures were necessary; if his right hon. friend had not information to be relied on with respect to Ireland, he (Mr. Windham) did not know who had; and if the same character had not an interest in every thing connected with that country, he was really at a loss to find out who had. He disapproved, too, of the 1210 manner in which his right hon. friend upon his right (Mr. Sheridan) had thrown out his objections with respect to the state of Ireland. In exciting Ireland to discontent, he was afraid it was spurring a willing horse, though he did not wish at the same time to have it understood, that he thought the conciliatory effort of his right hon. friend in making the motion he had submitted to the house, like the sly horseman; who,
While his off-heel, insidiously aside,Provokes the caper which he seems to chide,he did not mean to insinuate that; but he should certainly be very cautious how far he would hold out to a people promises of relief, when there were no means of relief in his power. The attempt of the late ministers had been defeated, and in a manner that left no room for hope. It was one thing to talk of relief to the great mass of a population, but it was a different thing to administer it. He acceded most cordially to the principle, that that house should not lose sight of Ireland. It was the out-post, and an out-post that endangered in its loss the safety of the place itself. He was convinced that their union was essential to the very existence of Great Britain. Ireland was the most vulnerable, and at the same time the most mortal part of the empire. He did not much like tampering with her. It was like the abrupt removal of bandages: the bad handling of the bandages might do a great deal of unintentional mischief by giving rise to a considerable portion of irritation. As to the specific object of the motion now before the house, he did not know well how to refuse his assent to it: he should hope that the pledge was unnecessary, but nevertheless, when required of him, he did not think he could consistently refuse it. He was willing to pledge himself along with the house, that the state of Ireland should have their early and most grave consideration; for he felt that such a pledge was due to the discontents existing in that ill-treated country. He earnestly hoped that the house would, in the present instance, have no objection to pledge itself to do what was acknowledged upon all sides to be its duty, and a duty of the first magnitude.
§ Lord William Russellfelt peculiar regret at being obliged to differ, in the slightest degree, from his right honourable friends, as he hoped his sincere admiration for the talents and character of both would allow 1211 him the privilege of calling them, (messrs. Grattan and Windham); but he could not forbear expressing his dissent from some of the points they had respectively urged, in justification of the two bills which had lately passed that house, the grounds of which, it was the object of his honourable friend's motion to bring under the future revision of parliament: he felt indeed more imperiously bound to attempt some explanation of his sentiments, as one honourable gentleman (Mr. Grattan) had rested a main part of his argument on the circumstance of the persons who composed the late administration of Ireland having adopted a similar measure.—For that government, in all its parts, it would be easily believed, no person could possibly entertain a higher respect than himself; to the noble duke who had been at the head of it he was bound by every tie that could attach man to man, not only by the nearest consanguinity and the most affectionate intimacy, which had subsisted between them from their earliest infancy, but also from a perfect reciprocity of opinion on all political topics; the authority of that noble person was with him all but omnipotent: he had likewise so favourable a judgment of all those who were associated with his noble relation in the administration of his government., that, had they continued in office, he should have consented, by his vote, to the provisions lately enacted without hesitation, though certainly not without deep regret; giving full credit to their representation of the necessity, and entertaining an implicit reliance on their discretion and forbearance in the exercise of the extraordinary powers entrusted to their hands: but the confidence he should have reposed in them, he could not extend to their successors.—It had been the grand principle of the government over which his noble relation had presided, to conciliate all the differences, to allay the jealousies and animosities that had so long distracted that unhappy country; to restore the blessing of harmony, to unite all description of man, and, above all, to establish that most important desideratum, a mutual confidence between the people and their magistrates and rulers.—He challenged single instance in which they had departed from that wise and beneficent plan.—Of the noble duke (Richmond) who had been appointed to succeed him, he did not wish to insinuate any thing the leas disrespectful; he knew him to be possess- 1212 ed of many great and excellent qualities, and of his merit in any respect he did not entertain the smallest doubt:—but that noble duke was now officially connected with a party in this country, whose system of policy he more than doubted; he was convinced it was fundamentally bad; the duke of Bedford's moderation had been condemned in that house, by persons now high in the administration of this country, who had deprecated the effects of what they termed his mistaken lenity.—What had resulted from the opposite course which had been pursued with little intermission for centuries?—The necessity of the late bills!—And was it really thought possible that the same treatment which had occasioned the disease should afterwards operate as its cure?—It would be an unwarrantable trespass on the indulgence of the house to go into a detailed examination of the plan on which Ireland had been governed ever since her conquest under Henry the Second, and deduce a regular train of consequences from a perseverance in the same line of conduct towards her, during a period of 600 years; though such an investigation would undoubtedly open a field of reflection from which many very useful lessons might be drawn: we had throughout treated her only as a conquered country, we had never appeared even to suppose the possibility of her interests being identified with ours; instead of nourishing her strength, as an addition to our own resources with the fostering care of an anxious parent towards a child; we had exacted her services as a task-master from a slave, and consequently, both nations had viewed each other with the natural distrust of persons standing in so odious a relation.—It was necessary, however, and sufficient for the present purpose, particularly to draw the attention of the house to the history of the last eleven years, during which the present laws had existed; they were first adopted, he believed, for 4 years;—did they in that time remedy the grievance?—No—they were then renewed for seven, still the condition of the country remained the same; and we had now been called on to continue them for three more.—We had had sufficient time to judge of the merit of the tree by the fruit it had produced, and surely it was now time to abandon a project that had so indisputably failed. Were we to content ourselves with ringing the changes on the number of years for which such measures were to be passed, and set with our 1209 hands before us in these times of danger, patiently waiting to see different effects, flow from the same causes? He feared those who encouraged such hopes would be lamentably disappointed:
Rusticus expect at dum defluet amnis; at ille Labitur, et labetur in omne volubilis ¶vum.Nothing short of a revolution in the whole moral world could bring about such a state of things, as to produce security from a long continuance of rigour and restriction; as long as the human mind remained as it was, so long would force alienate love, and oppression engender faction, tumult, and rebellion. His right honourable friend (Mr. Grattan) had dwelt with much force on the actual existence of a French party in Ireland; on such high authority he did not question the fact; and he thought the cause of its existence might be traced in the uniform neglect of that liberal counsel, which the honourable gentleman had himself suggested through an honourable and long political life. The honourable gentleman had drawn with his wonted energy of expression, a just and horrid picture of that misery, that had invariably fallen from French alliance, on the unfortunate countries who had been in their turns her victims or dupes. But, much as he admired the brilliancy of his eloquence, highly as he admired the principle from which it sprung, strongly as he felt the justice of its application; still he would take the liberty of saying, that it was at present almost unnecessary; since the fate of Holland, of Genoa, and of Italy, were so notorious and apparent, that even in the least informed classes of society there were few who were not in some measure acquainted with the atrocities that attended them: yet in spite of all this, in the face of such examples, it was said there still existed a French party in Ireland! Gracious God! was it possible to imagine more irresistible argument for a grave, impartial, and thorough investigation into the whole state of that country, than a fact so monstrous, as that, in defiance of these terrible warnings, there were yet men so disaffected, so impatient of British dominion, as even to prefer to it the destructive aid and poisonous embrace of our implacable enemy, and this too among a people as brave, as generous, and naturally as affectionate as any race under heaven.—In the course of the debate, a great deal had been said of the concessions made to Ireland during his present ma- 1210 jesty's reign; but he confessed, he wished the value of them was more apparent to him, or rather that he could think they were so considered by those on whom they had been bestowed. In the year 1782, he had indeed granted them, in the repeal of Poyning's law, the important boon of an independent legislature, but then he thought it could not be denied that, subsequently by the union, that valuable privilege had in fact been virtually cancelled; for it was obvious that in the united parliament, British councils, and British interest must predominate, and therefore he feared Irish objects were only to be attained by the adherence of her representatives to the ministerial side of the house. To that union, however, much as he had objected to it, he was, now that it was established, as desirous as any one of giving permanence and stability, but he was afraid it was the general impression in Ireland, that it had been obtained under false pretences. As the price of her consent, Ireland had been promised all the blessings in spirit as well as form of the British constitution, the Catholics of Ireland had been promised a free participation in all the rights and benefits enjoyed by their fellow subjects; and the name of a great departed minister had been pledged for the performance, but the pledge remained unredeemed. He saw on the opposite bench a noble lord (Castlereagh) who had been principally instrumental in carrying that measure into effect; but he did not see a right hon. gent. now high in the administration of the affairs of Ireland (Mr. Foster), or he would have wished to address himself to him. He remembered to have heard that hon. gent. charge the noble lord, directly, and to his face, with having carried the union by the means of corruption, and an undue exercise of arbitrary power.—They were now closely allied, and both holding high situations in the administration of the country: What were the Irish to feel when they saw nothing proceed from such a junction but renewed restrictions on them? when they received no attention from government, but for the purpose of coercion? He concluded by repeating, that, as he should readily have voted for the "Arms and Insurrection bills," had they been only as means of defence in prosecuting a system of a different nature, yet he had not been able to approve of them as a material part of the system itself—though 1211 he could have granted them as auxiliaries, he could not as principals, but as they were now passed, he thought all that remained was, if possible, to obtain some pledge, that parliament would resume that enquiry into the state of Ireland which the late government had set on foot; he thought the motion of his right hon. friend was well adapted for this purpose, and he was happy to find that he should concur in the vote with many of those friends, with whom, in a former instance, it had been so painful to him to disagree.
Mr. Lockhartwas surprized at the indiscretion of the right hon. mover; for to represent Ireland as treated worse than a conquered country, and as having neither arms to fight with, nor any thing to fight for, and as oppressed or neglected by the legislature, contrary to the fact, tended to irritate that country, and to promote disunion between the united kingdoms. He was also surprized, that the right hon. gent. should represent the acts of a legislature, that was distinguished by cosmopolitan beneficence, as the evil of which Ireland had to complain. So far from being a suspension of the constitution, these acts were but the exercise of it. To call forth the powers given by the constitution for the protection of the peaceable and loyal subjects, was but to put the constitution in force. He was happy that the example of the right hon. gent. had not been followed by the other right hon. gent. who spoke from the same bench, and had pointed out certain measures for the relief of Ireland. As to the measure respecting education, he entirely agreed with that right hon. gent.; and as to a composition for tithes, if that should be necessary, he would not oppose it, provided that composition were to be progressive with the times, and as well secured as tithes were in this country to the clergy. As to the question of emancipation, his difficulty was, that the principles of the religion would, in the event of the Catholics getting power, be dangerous to the Protestant ascendancy. He thought that all governments, from which concessions or boons were demanded, should secure a due obedience to the laws before granting them, lest they should be received as proceeding from weakness, and not from wisdom and benevolence, and thus excite contempt instead of gratitude. He should vote against the motion, because it implied a dereliction of duty on their parts, and a censure upon acts of the legislature, the ne- 1212 cessity for which had been admitted on all hands.
Mr. Herbertobserved, that it was by the adoption of such plans as had been suggested by the right hon. gent. (Mr. Grattan), that the people of Ireland were to be gained over. He could not support the motion in its present shape; but, if the right hon. mover would consent to leave out all after the word "session," he should then vote for it.
Mr. Lockhartwas surprized at the indiscretion of the right hon. mover; for to represent Ireland as treated worse than a conquered country, and as having neither arms to fight with, nor any thing to fight for, and as oppressed or neglected by the legislature, contrary to the fact, tended to irritate that country, and to promote disunion between the united kingdoms. He was also surprized, that the right hon. gent. should represent the acts of a legislature, that was distinguished by cosmopolitan beneficence, as the evil of which Ireland had to complain. So far from being a suspension of the constitution, these acts were but the exercise of it. To call forth the powers given by the constitution for the protection of the peaceable and loyal subjects, was but to put the constitution in force. He was happy that the example of the right hon. gent. had not been followed by the other right hon. gent. who spoke from the same bench, and had pointed out certain measures for the relief of Ireland. As to the measures respecting education, he entirely agreed with that right hon. gent.; and as to a composition for tithes, if that should be necessary, he would not oppose it, provided that composition were to be progressive with the times, and as well secured as tithes were in this country to the clergy. As to the question of emancipation, his difficulty was, that the principles of the religion would, in the event of the Catholics getting power, be dangerous to the Protestant ascendancy. He thought that all governments, from which concessions or boons were demanded, should secure a due obedience to the laws before granting them, lest they should be received as proceeding from weakness, and not from wisdom and benevolence, and thus excite contempt instead of gratitude. He should vote against the motion, because it implied a dereliction of duty on their parts, and a censure upon acts of the legislature, the necessity for which had been admitted on all sides.
§ Mr. Sheridanrose amidst cries of "question," and expressed his hope that the house would indulge him with the privilege usually granted to persons who brought forward a motion, and hear his reply to such arguments as seemed to him peculiarly to call for attention. Of this privilege he would not avail himself at any length. First, then, he should have no objection whatever to alter his motion in the manner proposed; and, indeed, to any alteration that did not destroy the substance of his motion, he had already pledged himself to agree—[The Speaker here interrupted the right hon. gent. and informed him, that consistently with the resolution of 1778, and the usages of the house, there could be no alteration in the motion after the previous question had been put].—Mr. Sheridan, in continuation observed, that in that case he had no doubt the right hon. gent. opposite would withdraw his motion, in compliance with the general wish of the house. He wished to have his answer. [No answer.] Well, the time for answering was not yet come perhaps. However, nothing in the world had been more misunderstood in this respect than the motion which he had submitted. Gentlemen seemed to suppose that he had censured the passing of the late bills, and thereby called upon the house to censure its own acts. He never had such intention, nor could his motion by any one who took the trouble to attend to it, be supposed to carry any such meaning. He had distinctly declared in his speech, that he had no such intention. But, it might be said, that though not in his speech, it might be in his motion. What, then, was his motion?—"That the house should take such measures as would render the provisions of the bills, lately with reluctance passed, unnecessary." What did his right hon. friend and his hon. friend over the way (Mr. Herbert) object to? They could not surely object to the word "reluctantly." His hon. friend over the way said, that he would join with him if he would strike out the latter part of his motion. What was that? Why, that the permanency of such measures would totally destroy the constitution. Did any one object to this? Then, he would be glad to see the man who would stand up in his place, and say that such enactments ought to be permanent, or that, if permanent, they did not completely overturn the constitution. These acts were to be in force for 3 years; and under these circumstances there was at least a reversion 1214 of the constitution. But, if you thought that the permanency of such acts did not infringe the constitution, then you ought to make them permanent at once, for in that case where was the use of hesitation? Such enactments could not be considered in any other light, than as infringements of the constitution; and therefore it was the duty of every man to limit their duration, as much as the necessity of the case would allow.—He felt it necessary to make some observations on what had fallen from the hon. gent. on the bench below him. With all the respect he had for that hon. gent.'s (Mr. Lockhart's) abilities; with all his deference to his means of information, and to the authority which he appeared to have with some, yet, not being intimately acquainted with the hon. gent., and not having an opportunity of observing those talents and information that had been ascribed to him by those who knew him better, he was perfectly excusable in not giving him that entire confidence that had been given by others. That hon. gent. had said, that he had listened with great anxiety to his speech, because he expected that he (Mr. S.) would have first stated the evil, and then the remedy. The hon. gent. might have listened to his speech with anxiety, but he had certainly done so with more anxiety than attention. He said, that he (Mr. S.) ought to have pointed out the grievance. Certainly not. He never thought that he was bound specifically to do that in the present instance. When ministers came to him, asking him to give his assent to such regulations as these, the onus probandi lay with them. They were to shew what grievances called for such measures and that, too, before the measures were passed. "But no," said the hon. gent., "pass your bills first, and then let us hear of grievances." Enquiry ought to have preceded the passing of these enactments, and the necessity for them ought to have been proved. However, the house had passed the bills, and all he wanted now was, that they should give a pledge to enquire whether they had passed them on good grounds or not. This was all he asked. His object was to keep this subject perpetually before the house. If the bills had been enacted only for a year, there would have been less cause for his motion. But as the period of their duration extended to three years, his object was, and he hoped the result of an en- 1215 quiry would prove it unnecessary, to continue them for more than one year. This, he was, for his own part, persuaded, would turn out to be the case, unless gentlemen chose to continue in ignorance, and rejected the means of acquiring information. But the hon. gent. dwelt a good deal upon general doctrine, and said that a boon ought not to be granted till you were strong, and had enabled yourselves to crush your petitioners if you chose! He (Mr. S.) had really thought that men could distinguish between good and bad treatment, and that the one produced gratitude and attachment, as naturally as the other did revenge and hatred! "But no," said the hon. gent., "make them fear you first, that they may love you afterwards!" Then the hon. gent. accused him of having said that Ireland had been used worse than a conquered country. Certainly, he had said that England had adopted a more ignorant and barbarous system of management with respect to Ireland, than ever any one nation with any pretensions to civilization had adopted with respect to another. The hon. gent. said, that he was taken a-back with regard to this statement, when he allowed that concessions had been made in the present reign, and consequently the system charged. This, he supposed, was meant, for he did not pretend to understand the phrase "taken a-back," not being a naval man, as the hon. gent. probably was. That the concessions had been made with a very ill grace, he had certainly said. He did not wish, as he had said before, to produce any irritation whatever; but it the times and circumstances when these concessions were made were considered, it would be found that they had rather been wrung from most unwilling minds, than conferred in an open, liberal, and generous manner. He (Mr. S.) deprecated waiting for such times and circumstances. He was for conferring favours when they might be ascribed to a sense of generosity and justice, and not for waiting till they could be demanded, when you would not dare to refuse them. Now, his right hon. friend on the bench near him, (Mr. Grattan,) had made a more able speech in favour of his motion than he himself could possibly do. That speech was characteristic of his wonted genius and eloquence, and every thing must be full of genius, animation, and eloquence, that came from him. This very speech Was one great instance of the benefits to be 1216 derived from the motion now submitted to the house; for his right hon. friend had in the course of it thrown out more information respecting the state of Ireland than ever had been communicated by any other member, or at any period for some time past.—But, another member accused him of libelling the legislation of this country, and our cosmopolitan and philanthropic parliament! But what had our most philanthropic parliament done for Ireland? Why, they had legislated without enquiry for that country; but, if his motion had been proposed and agreed to, 2 or 3 years ago, parliament would have been better able to have legislated for Ireland. For the proof of this he would only refer to the speech of his right hon. friend, who had exposed the abuses with respect to tithes, the non-residence of the clergy, and the state of the Protestant schools. The hon. gent. seemed to be mightily offended at his saying that government had not been attentive to Ireland. For a proof of this, too, he referred to the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr. Grattan), who had stated that 8000 acres of land only supported 18 Protestant schools; and yet, with all this before them, some gentlemen pretended that government had paid the requisite attention to the state of Ireland! He hoped, however, that an attention of a different sort would be given it. Ireland expected this; England expected it; and the result, he had no doubt, would be beneficial to both countries—His right hon. friend bad a[...]verted to the state of tithes in Ireland, and [...] the ill-constructed method of collecting and managing them, had deduced a great part of the evils under which Ireland laboured. The "Hearts of Steel"—the "White Boys"—the "Bright Boys"—and the "Threshers," all arose from the tithes which appeared the most cruel of the burthens under which the lower ranks of people in Ireland groaned. Why, then, did not this sufficiently account for the disaffection in Ireland, without having recourse to the idea of a French faction? His right hon. friend admitted the general loyalty of the people of Ireland; but still said, there was a French party in Ireland—a French party but contemptible—a miserable faction destitute of talents and energy, and of trifling numbers. What he wanted, then, was, to have the nature of this danger ascertained, to see in what it consisted, to find out the strength of this French faction, and, if so contemptible as his right 1217 hon. friend had said, to apply a remedy equal to the disease, and not to overturn the whole constitution of the country on account of a wretched faction. His right hon. friend close by him, (Mr. Windham,) had said, that he seemed to hold the concessions to the Roman Catholics cheap. He certainly had never done so, and his right hon. friend was mistaken. He had said, that if what was called Catholic emancipation was granted without some other measures in favour of the poorer classes, it might excite envy and jealousy in them—the benefits to them they would consider as not running pari passu, with those of their superiors, and certainly without some caution what was intended to promote harmony, might become the excitement to contention. But, what did the bill proposed by the late administration in favour of the Catholics do?—It certainly did a great deal indeed when it proposed to abolish the restrictions on the Roman Catholic officer, when he came to a certain rank; an officer who stood in the singular situation, that he rose till he had an opportunity of doing some act worthy of preferment, and however great the services he might perform, there he stopped, and the disabilities under which he laboured, damped his ardour, and rendered him less fit or disposed for enterprise and exertion. The unfortunate Catholic officer might, therefore, be said to rise to his degradation. The removal of such restrictions was doing much, and the best effects would certainly have followed from the adoption of such a measure. Was it not better to put confidence in the Irish than to bind them down by restrictions? The enemy might hope to break their chains, but they could not expect to turn towards them those hearts, that had been conciliated by kindness and confidence. Instead, therefore, of putting them on trial, his wish certainly would be, to give them the benefits of the constitution before they mustered in the field. Instead of the yoke of slavery, he would hang the privilege of the constitution about their necks, and arm them with their rights. He again repeated, that if no other good effect should result from this motion, than an acknowledgment, on the part of parliament, of the importance of the subject, the motion ought to be adopted. Charles the First asked Seldon "What was the best way to put down a rebellion?" to which Seldon answered, "remove the cause." He begged of the government to apply this 1218 answer to Ireland, and put an end to disaffection there, by removing the cause.
§ Mr. Fullerthought that a proper and just view of the state of Ireland, could not be obtained without an enquiry.
Mr. Cochrane Johnstonesupported the resolution; and thought that parliament would become discredited in Ireland, if on all occasions a deal ear was turned to the complaints of the people of Ireland.—The house then divided; For Mr. Sheridan's motion 33; Against it 76.
List of the Minority. Bradshaw, C. Laurence, Dr. Barnard, S. Moore, P. Cavendish, Lord G. Maxwell, J. Cavendish, W. Noel, G. N. Calcraft, J. Petty, Lord H. Coombe, H. C. Parry, J. H. Craig, J. Piggott, Sir A. Dillon, H. A. Phillips, R. M. Dawson, R. Romilly, Sir S. Folkestone, Lord Russell, Lord W. Gipps, G. Sheridan, R. B. Grattan, H. Somerville, Sir M. H. Herbert, H. A. Sharpe, R. Hibbert, G. Windham, W. Johnstone, C. Ward, J. W. Johnstone, G. A. Wilder, F. Lambe, W.