calculated to excite feelings of pity and indignation, it was the revolution of Switzerland, and he was furprised that in the mild temper with which the Honourable General had deprecated all irritation, and the wide range which he had taken of hiftorical events, he should have selected none out of the many, but the atrocious conduct of France towards unhappy Switzerland. That the Honourable General, in the wide range of his imagination, could find any common feature between them; that from all the infamous projects in which France was engaged, her conduct to the Swifs fhould be felected for a comparison with the propofition made to Ireland, excited in his mind the greatest astonishment at the ftrange fhape in which fome acts prefented themselves to the mind of fome men. How else can it be accounted for that a comparison could be inftituted between the most atrocious act of the most atrocious government; an act of the most atrocious infolence and barbarity; an act, not folicited, but forced against the will of the people; with one that is fimply propofed by the British Parliament, to be difcuffed with the full, free, and mature deliberation of an independent Legiflature, of an independent country; a difcuffion in which no arms are to be used but those of reafon, and the refult of which is to depend on the free, uninfluenced confent of the two countries-an Union, the advantages of which become more clear by patient difcuffion, and which is opposed by nothing but a falfe, though a natural national pride, and which is not intended to infringe upon and violate the independence of a country, but to melt its Legiflature into that of another equally independent, cannot furely enter into comparison with that that has been affimilated to it, where the reverfe has in every point been practifed; he was at a lofs indeed to conceive how fuch a comparison could enter the mind of any man, unless it were an effort of wit, which endeavours to find out a resemblance between objects the most remote.

General Fitzpatrick explained. He denied, as the Hon. Gentleman feemed to affert, that he was confcious of fome other points referved in 1782, as well imperial as commercial. He did not recollect any imperial-by imperial he meant of a conftitutional nature. Exclufive of regulations ftrictly commercial, there were others of minor confideration, fuch as Courts of Admiralty, the Poft Office, &c.But as to the fettlement being a final one touching all matters of imperial concern, that was evident from the Address voted to his Majefty by the House of Commons, in which

all

all the friends of the Duke of Portland concurred, which ftated that this being done, there could remain no further conftitutional points to be fettled.--As to the repeal of the 6th of George I. there was a difpute between two Gentlemen (Mr. Grattan and the late Mr. Flood), which many confidered a race for popularity, as its being fufficient for establishing the independence of Ireland, but all were agreed in confidering the meafure as a final and complete fettlement. He denied that he had defended the conduct of France towards Switzerland, as the Honourable Gentleman had infinuated. That conduct all muft deteft, and none execrated it more than he did. He only compared it, perhaps erroneously, to the prefent measure; but he grounded the comparison on the ftatement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which, he faid, he confidered Ireland as the part where Great Britain was vulnerable; and that he grounded his idea of an Union on the fuppofed neceffity of uniting it more clofely to England, in order that the whole empire might be in a greater ftate of fecurity. So the French might fay that Switzerland was the part in which they were most vulnerable on the fide of the continent, and therefore it became neceffary to fecure it. In this point of view, therefore, there certainly appeared fome fimilitude in the motives of both measures.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke to the following effect-Sir, there are fome points which have occurred in the Right Honourable General's fpeech, that it is impoffible for me to hear without a confiderable degree of emotion, and which I cannot fuffer to escape without that marked notice to which, from their extraordinary nature they are entitled. He has made an allufion with respect to the treatment of Switzerland by France, as if the fair and equal queftion of conftitutional and commercial arrangements, between this country and Ireland, could in any fhape, however tortured by the wildest flight of extravagant fpeculation, be compared to any one of the violent unprincipled and brutal tranfactions which have for feven years difgraced, de graded, and rendered infamous the Government of France, and particularly in that flagrant inftance of ufurpation, fraud, and cruelty, manifefted towards the innocent inhabitants of Switzerland; as if two nations, with separate and independent Legiflatures entering into the candid and impar tial difcuffion of their respective claims and interefts, with the great and ultimate view of confolidating an establishment for the increfed profperity and permanent fecurity of the

whole

whole, could, with any kind of confiftency, be compared to two nations, one of which tyrannically affumed the power of annihilating the rights and independence of the other, while that other, unable to refift the wanton attack of fuperior force, was compelled to furrender up every thing that conftituted its dearest and most valuable confiderations.The Hon. Gentleman fays that he did not intend to compare the two measures to the whole of the extent to which it was imagined that he compared them. He has attempted to qualify the application by stating, that it might be supported from the principle, that, as France intended, to attack the British Empire in Ireland, which was her moft vulnerable part, the measure now under difcuffion has been brought forward to fecure the British Empire from the danger the was exposed to in that quarter. Arguing on this principle, he fays, that France would alfo have been vulnerable, had Switzerland been left in the fituation in which it was before, feparate and unconnected with the Government of France. For my part I fhould be glad to accept of any explanation; but to make the comparison lefs alike, he was pleafed to admit that the French, in their conduct towards Switzerland, never fet up any fuch juftification. Even fo, and admitting France had availed herself of fuch a juftification, it would be but a flight ground indeed for the comparifon. For in no other inftances, he believed, in all the unlawful fchemes and aggreffions of France, was the ever detected in a departure from her barbarous and bloody policy, fo far as to make felf-defence the fole motive of her conduct; but fhould fuch be the cafe, and fhould she be found in any inftance acting for felf-preservation, odious as her general example muft prove, he faw no reafon why England fhould be regardless of felf-prefervation, or decline a measure calculated for so useful and meritorious a purpose. Yet the Honourable General admits, that France has not justified her conduct in that proceeding. Here then, from his own concelhon, is no kind of juftification advanced, even after the commiffion of the groffeft acts of tyranny and ufurpation, While every measure is adopted on our part, previously to any act whatever, that can lead to a full, free, and liberal investigation of reciprocal benefits and mutual advantages. What, then, Sir, is the refemblance which has been stated? If fuch principles are once admitted, there is hardly any maxim that will not be contaminated by their adoption.Since no example or comparison can be derived from France contaminated as he is by the admillion of fuch ini

quitous

quitous practices, yet if France was ever capable of acting towards another country from a fyftem of wife policy, can' it be argued that it would be improper for Great Britain to act from fimilar principles? If France, indeed, fhould fay to Switzerland "our interests are involved in a common caufe, our interefts are equally vulnerable, because we have a free and virtuous government, because our existence is effential to yours; because you are fituated in our neighbourhood, and unless you retain the enjoyment, and even an augmentation of your political and commercial blessings, you must not only fuffer yourselves, but expofe us to danger, the resemblance might in a certain degree be allowed. But if, on the contrary, they have, by every base machination and infidious art, undermined the Government of Switzerland, and finally fubverted it by open violence and brutal force; if they have prostituted the word liberty to reduce the people of that unfortunate country to a state of the most abject and deplorable slavery, there is an end to the comparifon." If they had again faid to Switzerland, "We are two independent empires, connected, it is true, by the deareft relations of mutual intereft; engaged in an arduous contest with a common foe, the foe of every thing that is honourable, juft, and virtuous; we wish to draw nearer the relations that exift between us; we defire to knit the ties that bind us closer together, not by an iron link of bondage, but by the links of affection, of fincere friendship, and cordial regard; we wish to melt them together in one mafs, not in making one country nothing, and the other all, not in the complete depreflion of one, and in the unqualified representation of the other;"-the resemblance attempted to be drawn by the Honourable Gentleman might so far be granted. But while the recollection of the barbarous proceedings of the Government of France with refpect to that unhappy country, is fresh in the mind of every man, the Honourable General's fuppofition is abfurd and ridiculous, the parallel is unfounded, and miferably weak. In the meafure now fubmitted to our confideration, we only propofe to join in a more firm, compact, and advantageous manner those who are already united by motives of the most irresistible nature. We only defire to unite and confolidate with us those who are already affimilated to us in their con ftitution, manners, and views, and whose interest and existence cannot be feparated from our own. Is it then, Sir, on this extraordinary fort of comparison that the Right Honourable General relies with all the talents and diftinct

nefs

nefs for which he is remarkable, in order to prove what he is pleased to call a grofs breach of faith on the part of this country to Ireland, inferior to none, not excepting even the cafe of Switzerland? The only ground on which it can be defended is, that of its proceeding from the exercife of wit, the peculiar province of which is to combine and affociate ideas the most diftinct and remote from each other in nature, and I am ready to admit that in the display of wit few are fuperior to the Right Honourable General. Yet though he may have been very happy in the extravagant brilliancy of combination on the prefent occafion, he mutt permit me to fay, that we have been infenfible to the effect which he wished to produce, and this infenfibility muft have proceeded either from his manner of delivery, or our dullnefs to the shafts of his wit as well as to the powers of his eloquence. But, Sir, the Right Honourable General declares, that having been abfent from the House during the debates which have taken place on this important queftion, he has come forward this night to defend and vindicate the consistency of his conduct. It was matter of regret truly that he came fo feldom, but now that he did come, he began to talk of defending his confiftency, when he had done nothing, unlefs perhaps, his coming was the inconfiftency he meant to guard against; and I am afraid, from the fentiments which he has delivered in the courfe of the debate, that he has involved himself in the embarrassment which he fo anxiously wifhed to avoid.

Now, Sir, I beg leave to fay a few words with respect to the inconfiftency which is imputed to our proceeding. Let me put the queftion; Is there any thing inconfiftent in the conduct of two feparate Legiflatures rendered perfectly independent by the adjustment of 1782, in difcuffing and entering into agreements and regulations, which any two States, equally feparate and independent of each other, might do? Would any man fay, that if Ireland never had been independent of Great Britain, fhe would not be as competent to adopt fuch a measure as any other independent ftate which was never fubject to the controul of Ireland? Can the Right Honourable General maintain, that by any recognition of the independence of the Irish Parliament in the year 1782, we made Ireland more incapable of treating of the question of Union, or of any other grand political confideration, than any other country whatever? Where then, Sir, are we to find any ground for the charge which is brought forward againft us of a breach of faith? And it 5 S

No. 22.

must