ceffity of exclufion would be done away by the adoption of fome plan fimilar to that propofed in his Majefty's most gracious Meffage. He ftates it as an unavoidable alternative either that fuch a plan, that is, a plan of Union, must be adopted, or that fome mode must be devised for the fortification of the Proteftant afcendancy. This fortification Dr. Duigenan would fain build on the re-enactment of the Popery Code; but he admits that this would be unneceffary in case of an Union between the two countries. According to him one or other of thefe alternatives must be adopted. Here, therefore, we have the creed of the Proteftant party. It appears that they are willing to adopt an Union, or in failure of it, conceive themfelves obliged to continue a struggle for every thing that is dear to them in rights and pre-eminence, and in religion, Afk now the other, the Catholic party, and what is their anfwer? Why, "let us have a Union, or a continued ftruggle on our parts, for that which you have hitherto denied us, viz. a repeal of the remainder of the Penal Code." Here then are two parties in oppofition to each other, who agree in one common opinion. And furely if that middle term can be found which is to affuage their animofities, to heal their difcords, and reconcile their jarring interefts, it should be eagerly and inftantly feized and applied. That an Union is that middle term appears the more probable when we recollect that the Popery Code took its rife after a propofal for an Union, which propofal came from Ireland, but which was rejected by the British Government. This rejection produced the Popery Code. In cafe of an Union therefore, the re-adoption of the Popery Code would be unneceffary. If it was in confequence of the rejection of an Union, at a former period, that the Laws against Popery were enacted; it is fair to conclude, that an Union would render a fimilar code unneceffary-That an Union would fatisfy the friends of the Proteftant afcendancy, without paffing laws against the Catholics, and without maintaining those which are yet in force. Unless then fome plan lefs liable to these objections is fuggefted, and better calculated, to remedy the exifting difeafes of Ireland, there is a prefumption in favour of that which perfons beft acquainted with the interests of Ireland, and beft informed refpecting the contentions that now diftus its internal tranquillity, and moft deeply interested and implicated in them, on each fide, are inclined to countenance and adopt. But then it is contended, there is fomething in the present crisis which renders this an improper period to propofe fuch a measure. a measure. This furely is ftrange reafoning. If an Union would quiet the agitation of that Country, and restore it to reft, why should we wait till the ftruggle was over, before we administer the remedy? Surely, if two combatants could be parted, there would be but little either of wisdom or humanity in poftponing the interference till the battle was over. Some gentlemen indeed are fo fond of a boxing match, that they had rather fee it fought out, than that the parties should be feparated; but when it is recollected that the parties in this contest are two great National Divifions, and that the prize they are contending for is the Exiftence of the Government and the Connexion between the two Countries, it surely must be a rash fondness for the sport, that would delay for a moment the plan of interference and reconciliation. What elfe is there in the circumftances of the present time which renders the meafure improper? It cannot be that the continued efforts of France for the fubjugation of Ireland have been detected and hitherto defeated;-because whatever delicacy there might be in interfering between two National Parties, there can be none in preferving Ireland from France. It is ftill the avowed defign of France to attempt an invasion of Ireland, and to complete a feparation of it from Great Britain; and furely my hon. Friend is not difpofed to bar any thing that may effectually interfere between France and her intended prey? Is he for waiting till France hall fit out another fleet, and difembark another army in Ireland, to meet with the fame fate that attended her former rafhnefs and audacity, before he would endeavour to reconcile and unite all parties, and thus confolidate the interests and the resources, and the strength of the whole Empire? But fomething is infinuated of the deliberations of Ireland being influenced and intimidated by the Armed Force in that Country. My hon. Friend has ftrongly infifted upon the intimidation which the prefence of that armed force is likely to impress on the public mind in Ireland. Is it not by promoting fuch an union of interests and affections as this measure will enfure, and thereby quieting internal diffenfions, and arraying the whole ftrength of the country against foreign invafion, that we may hope to remove the neceffity of keeping a large armed force in Ireland? and by removing that neceffity my hon. Friend would remove one of the objects of his own cenfure and complaint. But in truth the effects of that intimidation which my hon. Friend fo much apprehends, are not eafy to difcover. It furely does not feem to affect either the Liberty of Speech, or the Liberty of the Prefs; both of which have been pretty freely indulged indulged in on the prefent fubject. Every gentleman, I believe, is acquainted with the circumftance of feveral perfons in Ireland having declared their fentiments on the fubject freely, and without any appearance of being intimidated by any caule or confideration whatever. A very refpectable Gentleman in Ireland, who fills the fame fituation which you, Sir, fill in this country with fo much credit, and fo much advantage to this House and to the Public, has availed himfelf of the opportunity of delivering thofe fentiments out of doors which he could not do within, in a manner that does not favour of intimidation on one fide of the queftion at leaft. But God forbid that fuch intimidation fhould prevail! It is natural indeed that Dublin, under the influence of the firft impreffion, and of the first ardour that has been kindled by the agitation of a queftion (as it conceives) fo materially involving its peculiar interefts, and ap plying fo immediately to feelings of national pride and local importance, fhould be warm, if not intemperate, in the expreffion of its fentiments. Dublin is as yet loud in its reprobation of the meafure; but other places of note and celebrity in Ireland, places that ftand as high in commercial importance, are on the contrary as forward in beftowing upon it their most marked and decided approbation. There is one topic in the speech of my hon. Friend which has ftruck me with no finall furprize, and that is the panegyric which he delivered upon the vigilance and refolution evinced by the Irish Parliament in detecting confpiracy, and crushing rebellion. Such compliments to the Irith Parliament, from that fide of the Houfe, I was not prepared to expect, much lefs was I prepared to hear that the armed force in Ireland was to be employed to overawe the proceedings of a Parliament, to whofe vigilance and activity co-operating with, and watching over the employment of that very force, for fome months paft, I am ready to fay that the falvation of Ireland is' to be afcribed. Is it then the Parliament of Ireland that Englith foldiers are to coerce and reftrain? A Parliament fully armed with every conftitutional power to controul that or any other army? Thefe Sir, are infinuations against which I must moft loudly and pointedly proteft. They are infinuations which if not timely met and refuted would when they get abroad, affume the form of broad affertions. I fhould be now glad to hear therefore if there is any man in this House who will take upon himself to affert that the Irish Parliament is to debate under the immediate intimidation of the English troops? Is there a man who believes that if fuch an intimidation was attempted, the Irish Parliament, with the powers which the conftitution has vefted in their hands, would proceed proceed to difcufs a queftion under the terror of an armed force? I am perfuaded, Sir, no fuch opinion can be seriously entertained. Sir, my hon. Friend wandered from the limits within which he promised to confine his obfervations, when he thought himself at liberty to compare the incorporation of the two legiflatures, with the incorporations made by France for the further aggrandifement of her already gigantic dominions. In what poffible point of view can fuch a comparison be inftituted between the conduct of France and Great Britain? Does France attempt to incorporate other countries for the purpose of extending their common commercial interefts? Or have the French been the authors, not of contributions and confifcations, but of means of wealth and profperity to the incorporated countries? And have they only required of them to bear a common fhare in common terms, for the defence and advancement of a common cause? Do the countries which they endeavour to incorporate, refemble France in conftitution and in laws? Do they contain: perfons who speak the fame language, who are attached to the fame cuftoms, who are linked together by the ties of affinity and blood? If not, where is the comparison between the state of the countries which France has chofen to incorporate, and that which exifts between Great Britain and Ireland? Where is the analogy between fuch difcordant connections, and one between two countries united already by the clofeft ties of friendship, by blood, by the fame fpecies of government, both obeying the fame Sovereign, and enjoying the fame Conftitution? Is there any Irish Proteftant,-however anxious and apprehenfive of any interference on the part of Great Britain, which might fhake what they confidered as the only fure foundations of the Proteftant afcendency-is there any Irish Catholic,-however galled and angry at the exclufion of his feet from Parliament, and from a few offices of public truft, who founds on thefe their partial grievances, a general diflike to the British conftitution? Have we as yet found thofe who would tell us, "Take away "your boafted conftitution? It does not fpeak our language; "it is not congenial to our inveterate habits; it does not accord "with the ufual tone of our feelings?" No, none, undoubtedIv, except thofe of whom I am loth to fpeak as part of the people of Ireland, the traitors who have attempted the fubverfion of that conftitution which we cherilh, and a diffolution of that connexion on which depend the fafety, the interefts, the profperity and the exiftence of the two kingdoins. The most ftrenuous friends of reform in Ireland have frequently faid that VOL. 1. 1799. 3 U they they wanted only to be brought nearer to the perfection of England; and defired that they might enjoy the fubstantial benefits of the conftitution; that they might be bleft, not with a mock splendour under which they could neither enjoy fecurity, nor thrive in profperity, but the real, infpiriting, and enlivening fun-fhine of English liberty. Ireland they know and feel would indeed be a paradife of real bleffings, if British connection could be extended there in a manner which might bring about a refemblance between the fituation of the people there and in this country. But among all thofe people whom France has fucked into the vortex of her defpotifin, was there one who wished for the conftitution offered to them? Did the people of Piedmont, (to take the instance cited by my hon. Friend,) tell them, "We love your liberty and your conftitution: let us thare the bleffings of both," did they fay, "we are tired of a King, give us your Five Directors-we dislike the enfigns of royaltygive us a tri-coloured cockade; we diflike our government, take away our King, his family, and those friends who have supported him?" No, the people of Piedmont have faid no fuch thing. Let the House but recollect what paffed in Piedmont, in the laft act of the dreadful tragedy the French had performed in that country-a beloved Monarch, for no crime against his people (to use the cant of modern republicanifm), for no breach of faith with his new allies, was ignominiously driven from his dominions, for no other reafon than because the French wanted Piedmont for a retreat for their army in cafe it fhould be compelled to retreat from Italy. The unhappy Monarch, as the last degradation of human infamy, was obliged, on his knees, to beg the French to let him take his Brother* with him, whom the French wanted to keep as a pledge of his good conduct. Good God! to afk a pledge for his good conduct, after they had driven him from his dominions, and forced him, poor, powerlefs, and degraded, to feek refuge in Sardinia to compel a Sovereign who had been guilty of no offence to God or man, to grovel on his knees, and to fupplicate for mercy and compaffion at the bloody hands of the agents of the Directory! Let the Houfe confider of this feene, and then let them pronounce whether, whatever be the refult of this question, it was candid to treat it in fuch a manner; to compare the difcuffions of two free and independent States, The Duc d'Aofte, upon |