WAR WITH FRANCE. January 11th, 1793. On the 10th of January, Lord Westmoreland opened Parliament with a speech full of momentous statements, and notable omissions. It complained of the discontent of Ireland, but said nothing of the corruption, extravagance, and alien policy of Ministers, which had provoked the fierce cry for Reform. It complained of the invasion of Holland by France, but was silent of the European conspiracy against the young Republic-a conspiracy which, having been defeated in a war which it had opened with a view to level Paris, prepared larger forces to avenge itself and the Bourbons. And it recommended a relaxation of Catholic fetters, but did not connect therewith the motives of the advice :Custine had conquered the Rhine, Dumourier had won the battle of Jemappes,† and annexed Belgium. The speech also stated that government had increased the military establishment, and it recommended the formation of a Militia. This last was a stroke at the Volunteers. The Address, moved by Lord Tyrone, and seconded by John O'Neill, was, of course, an echo to the speech. Grattan moved a trivial amendment. His speech was eminently bold and able, and I give one passage, illustrative of the time : "I have heard of seditious writings of Mr. Paine, and other writers. These writings may be criminal, but it is the declarations of the ministers of the crown that have made them dangerous. Mr. Paine has said monarchy is a useless incumbrance, a minister of the crown comes forth, and says he is rightmonarchy cost this country, to buy the Parliament, half a million at one period, and half a million at another. Mr. Paine has said an hereditary legislative nobility is an absurdity-our minister observes he has understated the evil; it is a body of legislators whose seats are sold by the ministers to purchase another body of legislators to vote against the people; but here is the difference between Mr. Paine and our authors the latter are ministers, and their declaration evidence against their royal master. They say we love monarchy-we love the king's government, which, however, we must acknowledge, governs by selling one house, and buying the other. So much more powerful agents of republicanism are the Irish ministers than such authors as Mr. Paine, that if the former wished to go into rebellion in '93 as in '82-some of them went into sedition-they could not excite the people to high treason, by stronger provocation than their own public declarations; and the strongest arguments against monarchial government, are those delivered by themselves, in favour of their own administration. -Debates, vol. xiii., pp. 7, 8. Before giving the meagre report_which exists of Curran's speech, it is needful to remind the reader of the form which the political elements of Ireland had taken. The majority of the people-the Catholics-whose petition of 1790, had been kicked out of the Commons, had acquired spirit and organization. The latter they peculiarly owed to Wolfe Tone, and both in a great degree to him, to John Keogh, Byrne, Todd Jones, and M'Cormick. The Catholic Committee negotiated with the government, and as the successes of France compensated to them for the baseness of their aristocracy, they seemed about to obtain all they sought-complete Emancipation. Powerfully assisting them, though formed primarily to gain Parliamentary Reform, were the United Irishmen. † November 6th, 1792. October 21st, 1792. The bolder Dissenters of Belfast, sympathizing with France, and inspired by the possession of a Volunteer army, looked to forming an Irish Republic; so did Tone, the founder of the Club: but the purpose of the mass of members was limited to Reform, till Ministers showed they preferred rebellion. In opposition to the Catholic Committee, and the United Irishmen, the government stimulated Protestant bigotry and Catholic division. Out of doors they got the exclusive Corporation of Dublin to address the other Irish Corporations against Emancipation, and they intrigued with the aristocracy (lay and clerical) of the Catholics. In parliament they found the relics of the old exclusion party. Flood was no longer there to repent of his error in resisting the increase of his nation by three millions; but those who had not his genius, or his virtue, or his capacity for improvement, were there to misquote his example; and there were crowds besides who were ready to mimic the contortions of fanaticism for money, place, or title. The Minister got an Emancipation bill passed which left division and weakness behind-left the Protestants some wrongs to guard-the Catholics many favours to cringe for. He got 20,000 regulars and 16,000 militia, a Gunpowder bill, and a Secret Committee. Thus armed he commenced his crusade of prosecuting and persecuting, obtained fresh laws from time to time, and, after the truce of 1795, drove the quarrel to an insurrection and an Union. Mr. Curran-I wish to call the attention of the house to our public situation abroad and at home. We are on the eve of a war with France, and are the part of the empire most likely to be the scene of it, and to feel its dreadful effects. It is a war of that kind which resembles nothing in the memory of man. It is not a war of any definite object, nor does it look to peace on any definite terms. The mode of carrying it on is as novel as its object: a war, in which a strange political fanaticism was the precursor of arms; a war, to be resisted only by the union of the British empire, and probably encouraged on the part of France by a sense of its disunion. For, at the moment when the British minister should have held out to French ambition the united resistance of the British empire, at that moment the voice of three millions of the Irish nation was heard declaring to the throne, that they laboured under a slavery which was too terrible to be longer endured, and that, of course, our enemies had not any such united resistance to apprehend. Our object, then, is, in the first instance, to take away such a hope from our enemies, and such a danger from ourselves, by making that union complete. By no other means can the empire act with the necessary energy; by no other means can the executive power of the • Flood died December 2nd, 1791. empire provide for its preservation. To this great end every jealousy should be laid aside. The smallest attack from without must bring you to the earth, if you are already unpoised and reeling with intestine discord. You must make your government strong; and to do that, you must unite your people-and to do that, you must destroy those foolish distinctions that have separated them from each other-and you must change that conduct that has destroyed their confidence in this house and in this administration. An honourable baronet [Sir John Parnel] has very fairly admitted that even the parliament has become unpopular in the country. I have a very high opinion of that gentleman's talents and integrity, but I differ with him in thinking that the speeches of opposition have occasioned that unpopularity; on the contrary, the government has become unpopular and odious by its corruption and weakness, and the credit of parliament has become a victim to the same cause. How could the credit of parliament survive its independency? And where is the latter to be found? What portion of the property or sense of the people can be found in the present deplorable state of this house? Deplorable I will call it; for I differ much from those who reproach gentlemen for not acting with more principle than they showed. A great number-much more than half of us-have no manner of connexion with the people. We represent their money. But what money? That of which the possession makes them rich and independent? No; but that which they have parted with, and thereby become poor and dependent. What, then, can we represent but that poverty, and the cries of those wants which we have lost the honest means of relieving-the cries of nature for that bread which we have sold in order to become senators? Let no man blame us for acting as we do. As little let any other trader think this political traffic more beneficial than his own. If he should, let him observe the progress and the profit of this traffic:-Sir Francis sells his estate and buys a seat; brings madam and miss to town, where, I dare say, they are likely to make many edifying discoveries; is introduced to a minister, who, as the right honourable secretary says of himself—and, I am sure, justly-knows not how to be uncivil to any man. Well, sir, Sir Francis takes a squeeze for a promise, and, full of future place, comes down and speaks for the good of the nation. He soon finds he has unluckily neglected one necessary preparation-the learning to read his eloquence cannot live long upon "hear him.” He finds he is better any where than on his legs; he, therefore, betakes himself to his seat-pops his chin upon his stick-listens and nods with much sapience-repays his "hear him," and walks forth among the "ayes," with good emphasis and sound discretion. Thus he works on for seven sessions, and, at last, gets not one place, but three places in the stage-coach, for himself, and madam, and miss, to go back to a ruined farm, with ruined healths, and ruined morals; unworthy and unfit for the only society they can have; a prey to famished wants and mortified pretensions; with minds exactly like their faded Castle silksthe minds too feeble to be reformed, and the gowns too rotten to be scoured. Sir, I join in the laugh, that, I find, I have unintendingly drawn upon this melancholy picture. I intended it as an appeal to compassion and forgiveness. I intended it as an answer to the obloquy which has been, unthinkingly, cast upon How can the people, sir, blame a man for acting unwisely or unworthily for the nation, who does not act wisely or worthily for himself? Or what right have the people to question the conduct of any man who does not represent them? Sir, it comes shortly to this: the disunion of the people from this house arises from this-the people are not represented. And to restore the union, you must have the people restored to a fair representation; in other words, by a radical reform of the Commons. us. Sir, a most important question next arises; namely, what is the people? Is it the soil of Ireland, or the men who live upon it? I do not know of any moral or political quality that an acre of land can possess. And, therefore, for my part, I have no other idea of any country, with respect to its rights, than the aggregate of its inhabitants. In Ireland we have tried an experiment on another principle-namely, whether she could be free upon the exclusion of three-fourths of her population; and we have found that she is not free, and that, therefore, she is disunited and infirm. Sir, upon this question, respecting our Catholic brethren, my opinion is most materially changed since the last session. I was then actuated by a compassion for their depressed and unhappy state. I knew and loved their virtues, their order, and their loyalty; and I was among the very small number who endeavoured to open the gates of the constitution, and receive them as my fellow-subjects and fellow-Christians. But I thought I was acting merely from regard to them; I now think that without them the country cannot be saved. The nation has felt this necessity, and I am a convert to it now. Bind them to equal exertion in the public cause, by giving them equal interest in it. Give them no qualified emancipation. I would not rely upon that man's defence of liberty, who can himself be content with equivocal freedom. Do this emancipate your fellow-subjects, and reform their representation, and you unite Ireland with herself and with Great Britain, and you restore the energy of the empire when it needs it most. Nor is this the first time that we have laboured in this house for this necessary reform. This reform consists of two parts: the one, external, by restoring the franchise of the elector; the other, as essential, by securing the independency of the representative. This we have laboured for in years past, but in vain ; for this have we, in vain, pressed a place, a pension, a responsibility bill. In vain shall the people vote without for a member, if there is no law to guard his independency within. No, sir, the vital principle of parliamentary reform was contained in those measures which we have pressed, and, therefore, has the whole force of administration been exerted to defeat them. [He then adverted to what had been said respecting the strength of administration.] I agree perfectly. It is the crisis of internal and external danger. A hated government, an unpopular parliament, a discontented people. I do not believe Great Britain is fairly apprized of our state. If she were, I am confident she could not be so infatuated as to suffer these abuses, which have kindled the present flame in Ireland, and endanger the union between the two countries. [He then took a view of the persons and measures of the present administration, which, he said, was a system of incapacity and profligacy. He inveighed against the sale of the peerages, the attack on the charter of Dublin, and the corruption which, he said, was openly avowed in that house.] What avails your strengthening the people, by restoring their rights and their union, if you strengthen not the executive hand at this |