When ministers came to him, asking him to give his assent to such regulations as these, the onus probandi lay on them. They were to show what grievances called for such measures, and that too before the measure was passed. "But no," said the hon. gentleman," pass your bills first, and then let us hear of grievances." Inquiry ought to precede 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 inquire 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 inquiry would be 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. gentleman 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 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 caused revenge and hatred! "But no," said the hon. gentleman, “make them fear you first, that they may love you afterwards ?" Then the hon. gentleman 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. gentleman said, that he was taken aback with regard to his statement, when he allowed that concessions had been made in the present reign, and consequently the system changed. This, he supposed, was meant, for he did not pretend to understand the phrase “ taken aback," not being a naval man, as the hon. gentleman probably was. That the concessions had been made with a very ill grace, he had certainly said. He did not wish, as he said before, to produce any irritation whatever; but if the times and circumstances when these

66

concessions were made were considered, it would be found that they had been wrung from most unwilling minds, rather than conferred in an open, liberal, and generous manner. He deprecated waiting for such terms and circumstances. He was 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 (Mr. Grattan) on the bench near him, 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 everything must be full of genius, animation, and eloquence that came from him. This very speech was one great instance of the benefits to be 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 legislated without inquiry for that country; but if his motion had been proposed and agreed to two or three 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 tythes, the non-residence of the clergy, and state of the Protestant schools. The hon. gentleman 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 (Grattan) who had stated that 10,000 acres of land only supported eighteen Protestant schools; and yet, with all this before them, some gentlemen pretended that the 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 had adverted to the state of tythes in Ireland, and from the ill-constructed method of collecting and managing these, had deducted a great part of the evils under which Ireland laboured. The "hearts of steel," the "white boys," the

"bright boys," and threshers," all arose from tythes, 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 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 had compared the general loyalty of Ireland and her French faction, to a beauty with a pimple on her face; a very gallant illustration, and one that must certainly be admired by Irishmen. But if he (Mr. S.) were to give his advice to this beauty, he would say to her," my lovely charmer, put a patch on that pimple, but do not cover your whole face with a mask.” Apply this to Ireland. Were the whole of the loyal Irish to be deprived of their liberties, because there existed a contemptible French faction? Let the remedy meet the evil, but no more; let not the foul mask of despotism cover the land, but let liberty bloom in all her beauty, where there existed a soil in which she was capable of flourishing. It had been said, that now, in this difficult crisis, was the time for the catholics to show their loyalty and attachment to the constitution, and their worthiness to enjoy its benefits! But this was beginning at the wrong end. If you want the attachment of the Irish, begin by giving them some reason to love you. If you want them to fight your battles, give them something to fight for. But the other way, to deprive them of their constitution in the mean time, was

"Propter vitam, vitæ perdere causas.”

You asked them for bravery, and took away the motives to it. You asked for loyalty, and bid them contend for their laws and liberties, and at the same time deprived them of the benefits of the constitution. But his right hon. friend said, that they were only deprived of this for a time, and that they would have their liberties again after they had achieved some acts that would show

their zeal and loyalty. He had a different view of this subject. He wished to give them the motives to act, before he sent them to action. But why was this proof required of the Irish catholics? Had they not already given it? Where, by sea or by land, had they failed to do their duty? When had they shrunk in the moment of invasion? When had they been deficient in expressions of loyalty and attachment to the constitution? And when have their words been falsified by their actions? Yet his hon. friend seemed to think, that proofs of their loyalty and zeal for the constitution were wanting? You must, however, trust the catholics; you must have them in your Irish militia. Why then suspect them, and subject them to penalties without cause? He might be wrong in this; but if that was so, let it be proved. His right hon. friend close by him (Mr. Wyndham), 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 to 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 restriction on the Roman catholic officer when he came to a certain rank; an officer who stood in this 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 enterprize and exertion. The unfortunate catholic officer might, therefore, be said to rise to his degradation. The removal of such restrictions were 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. Without this, it was impossible to expect that the Irish catholics should be so cordial in their loyalty and attachment to the constitution as they would otherwise be. He had heard nothing more that appeared to him to require any particular observation. But 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 Selden, "What was the best way to put down a rebellion ?" to which Selden answered, "Remove the cause." He begged of the government to apply this answer to Ireland, and put an end to the disaffection there, by removing the cause. He would keep his word, and trespass no longer on the indulgence that had been granted him.

The house divided-for the motion 33; against it 76.

JUNE 15, 1808.

AFFAIRS OF SPAIN.

MR. SHERIDAN rose to call the attention of the house to the affairs of Spain. It had been proposed to him to put off the subject, on the ground, that the gentlemen from that country now residing here, were this day gone to partake of the hospitality of his right hon. friend the secretary of state for foreign affairs. He believed, however, with all the enthusiasm they must naturally feel on such a subject, they would be equally well entertained with his right hon. friend's dinner, as they would have been with listening to what he had to say. He could, therefore, on that ground, feel no hesitation in persevering in the motion of which he had given notice. He understood, besides, that his right hon. friend had dispatched a general belonging to Ireland, to represent him at this entertainment. That these noble foreigners would feel themselves particularly happy in the company of that gallant officer, he could have no doubt; the more especially as it was understood, that his right hon. friend had not sent him to represent himself at his hospitable board alone, but that he was also to be sent to represent this