of corruption to a system of coercion, and so on to military execution, accompanied with a declaration, that it were to be wished the people would go into a rebellion. They tell you they are in a state of rebellion already, in order to justify government to put them under a state of military execution; and they add, no, they are not yet in rebellion; but it is wished they were. For what purpose? to ride over them! We have been censured by a charge of inflaming the people, by those who condemn us also for recommending good order to the people, and express a wish, on their part, at the same time, that the people would rise in rebellion. Thus the system displays itself; to such a pass has it come! The ministry enter into a contest with the people; they did so with the Catholics, and they do so now with the Protestants; their passions become furiously engaged; they proceed from violence to violence, until they precipitate themselves on the last act, which so far transcends all other acts of fury and violence, that they call for a rebellion in order to justify it. Rebellion! and what is to be the consequence? carnage! They are to act upon the people. Surely His Majesty is called upon to interfere to change this system; it is impossible but that every sensible man in England as well as Ireland, except those whose passions are inflamed in the struggle with the people, must see such a thing cannot go on; it is impossible. What! the French threatening to invade you; the Catholics refused their claims, and the Protestants of the north informed, that it is wished they should rise in rebellion, that government might act upon them at once! From this, however, the northerns may learn a prudent lesson; they may be aware of the snare that is laid for them; they may see that their good order is their safety, and their insurrection their destruction. I see, therefore, the necessity of their good order in a stronger point of view than I did before, and I see the propriety of repeating the recommendation of it. They are now fully apprized of their danger. I cannot sit down without adverting to another argument in support of this measure, which comes under the head of folly, more than most of the things I have often heard said and supported; I mean that argument which defends the measure of putting the north under military government, as the most likely means to enable the government to withdraw the troops to oppose the French if they land. Military government will enable you to do it without the army; so it is argued. It is gravely said, when you have put the north under military government, you may withdraw the troops to meet the French in case of an invasion. In the same way the same persons argued for an insurrection bill; it was to secure tranquillity. They imprisoned the traders of the north to secure tranquillity; and now they put the province under military govern. ment, to enable them to withdraw the army. In this kind of way, have they uniformly argued in support of this kind of system; and it is by arguing in this way, and supporting this kind of system, they have brought themselves into their present situation. It is impossible it can last; the thing to be wished is that it may be put an end to with as little disturbance as possible; but to suppose that a system of this sort can go on, or that it is framed for the temper of the people of this country, is frenzy. A gentleman had spoken as if he himself was not originally, when the Catholics petitioned in 1792, a friend to their entire emancipation, or uniformly a friend to the reform of Parliament; he requested to correct that error, by assuring the House he was then, as now, a friend to the whole and entire emancipation of the Catholics; and was then, as now, and at all times, a friend to parliamentary reform, and had voted for it in every shape in which it had appeared in Parliament. The gentleman seems to think that on these subjects we cannot, on the supposition of coming into power, if that were likely perform our engagement. I thank him for an observation, which gives me an opportunity of declaring, that I can never agree to have any connection with a ministry that shall not in the most full and ample manner concede to the people of Ireland these two great objects. Another honourable member (Mr. Egan) was pleased to say much to the prejudice of my Lord Fitzwilliam's administration; to that I have only to answer, it was a little unfortunate for the honourable gentleman's political consistency, that he did not much sooner discover the errors of that adminstration, which, while in power, was the object of his strenuous support, and the subject of his warm panegyric. At the same time that I am to thank that honourable gentleman for the support, I would say, the unsolicited support which he gave to that administration, no doubt, with the purest intentions, and without any view to patronage; for the honourable member is his own patron; I own I am not much surprised at his language. A minister in the zenith of power seldom wants the support of very warm friends, though, when he is out of that power, he must endeavour to console himself for their desertion. The honourable member has said a good deal of the bad intentions by which, he thinks proper to alledge, I and my friends are actuated; and this in a style of moderation peculiar to himself. The honourable member, to be sure, has odd methods of making. the House laugh. He has talked much of French principles and of insurrection; and, I believe, amongst other things, said something of cutting off my head! and this in a manner so peculiarly his own, in the fury and whirlwind of his passion, that though I did not actually behold the guillotine, of which he spoke, I thought I saw the executioner. However, as to the kind of imputation thrown out against me in this kind of way, I regard them with utter contempt. The honourable member has said, that I and my friends are mortgaged to the country for certain measures which we have always professed we are so; and I thank the honourable member for the opportunity he has given me, on this occasion, of declaring, once for all, my firm resolution that the total emancipation of the Catholic, and a reform of the representation of the people, which he may have a good cause for opposing, but which I have a much better cause for supporting, are the indispensable conditions upon which I can ever be connected with any authority in the government of this country. Mr. Egan rose, and with considerable warmth replied to Mr. Grattan ; but as his remarks proceeded to much personality, it is not necessary that they should here be repeated. Mr. Grattan was then induced to rise a second time; and, after another reply, concluded by the following quotation: "There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats ; For I am armed so strong in honesty, That they pass by me as the idle wind Which I respect not." * The House then divided on Mr. Grattan's amendment; - Ayes 16, Noes 127; Majority 111. Mr. Smith's amendment was then put, and the numbers were, Ayes, 12, Noes 116; Majority 104. * To prevent any unpleasant consequences, the Speaker sent for Mr. Grattan and Mr. Egan, who had both left the House, and a mutual reconciliation was effected. MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE INSUR- MR. PONSONBY MOVES THE REPEAL OF THE INSURRECTION ACT. March 24. 1797. MR. GEORGE PONSONBY rose in pursuance of notice, and entered into an examination of that system by which Ireland had been governed of late years. He took a review of our contest with France, and regretted the disasters that had befallen Great Britain; they could only be repaired by the union of all parties at home; but, instead of such a system, the people of Ireland were debarred from these common rights and privileges, which were allowed to the people of Great Britain. Government had, for four years past, gone on, backing penal law by penal law, every subsequent law more severe than the preceding, and the consequence has been more discord and more weakness. Coercion, he said, will never do; the enemy will take advantage of our discontents, to make Ireland a party against Great Britain. He said, he imputed no bad motives to the authors of these strong measures, but that the system they adopted was mischievous, and, if persevered in, must prove fatal to the peace, as it has to the liberties of the country. He then moved : "That leave be given to bring in a bill, to repeal an act passed in the 36th year of His present Majesty, entitled an act for preventing and suppressing insurrections, and disturbances of the public peace." The motion was opposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Parnell), Sir Henry Cavendish, Mr. Coote, Lord C. Fitzgerald, Colonel Blaquiere, Sir Hercules Langrishe, Sir Edward Newenham, Sir Frederick Flood, Mr. Osborne, Sir Laurence Parsons, Mr. S. Moore, Mr. Ogle, Mr. Ormsby, Mr. Bushe, Mr. Knox, Mr. Marcus Beresford, and Mr. Alexander. They grounded their objection to the motion, on the disturbed state of the country, which required a strong government. That the convention bill, and the present bill, were absolutely necessary to repress the seditious spirit that was afloat; and if the motion was acceded to, it would look like concession to men arming and arraying themselves against the state, and would only serve to encourage and assist them, instead of detaching them from their pursuits and reconciling them to the laws, and to the government of the country. The motion was supported by Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Tighe, and Mr. Grattan. They contended that the violent measures resorted to by the administration would produce effects the very reverse of what was expected; they would increase discontent and sedition. They had been tried of late and had failed. The sys tem of coercion must be changed. Government had not only withheld what the people asked, but had passed the severest laws against them; they had superseded the constitution. The origin of the evil was the convention act, and that having passed, stronger measures bccame necessary to support it; nothing could be so severe as the conduct of government; they had passed penal law after penal law, and nothing is now left but the infliction of military execution. They proscribed the people by provinces; they placed the north under martial law; and God knows how it will terminate; it cannot be peace. Mr. GRATTAN rose, merely to declare his conviction, that the repeal of this law was a measure necessary for the peace of the country. The honourable gentleman who spoke last, said he had given a melancholy assent to these bills last year; his assent was melancholy only, because he knew they were inconsistent with the constitutional liberty of the subject, and could be justified only by the necessity of the times. Experience had now shown, that they had, not answered the end for which they were designed, and therefore, as they were both inefficient and unconstitutional, the repeal of them appeared to be a necessary and just measure. Mr. Ponsonby replied, and the question was then put upon his motion, when the House divided, for the motion; Ayes 14, Noes 127; Majority against the repeal of the insurrection act Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. William Tighe. Noes, Mr. C. Bushe and Mr. Osborne. 113. COMMITTEE of secrECY. TREASONABLE PAPERS ARE LAID BEFORE THE HOUSE BY ORDER OF THE LORD-LIEUTENANT. ON April 29. 1797. N this day, Mr Pelham presented to the House the following message from His Excellency. “ CAMDEN, "Upon information of the meetings of certain persons, styling themselves United Irishmen, for the purpose of concerting plans for the subversion of the constitution, and of the established government of this kingdom, two committees in the town of Belfast have been arrested, and their papers seized. They contain matter of so much importance to the public welfare, that I have directed |