the claim at all. Another argument is used, which, I think, has as little foundation in fact, and is not very easily to be reconciled to the other-it is, that the Catholics make their claim with insolence, and attempt to carry their object by intimidation. Let gentlemen take this fact, if they please, in opposition to their own denial of it. The Catholics then do make the demand. Is their demand just ?-is it just that they should be free?-is it just that they should have franchise? The justice is expressly admitted. Why not give it, then? The answer is, they demand it with insolence. Suppose that assertion, false as it is in fact, to be true, is it any argument with a public assembly, that any incivility of demand can cover the injustice of refusal? How low must that assembly be fallen which can suggest as an apology for the refusal of an incontestible right, the answer which a bankrupt buck might give to the demand of his tailor-he will not pay the bill, because "the rascal had dared to threaten his honour."

As another argument against their claims, their principles have been maligned; the experience of a century is the refutation of the aspersion. The articles of their faith have been opposed, by the learned doctor, to the validity of their claims. Can their religion be an objection, where a total absence of all religion, where atheism itself, is none? The learned doctor, no doubt, thought he was praising the mercy with which they have been governed, when he dilated upon their poverty; but can poverty be an objection in an assembly whose humble and christian condescension shut not its doors even against the common beggar? He has traduced some of them by name: "Mr. Byrne, Mr. Keogh, and four or five ruffians from the Liberty;" but this is something better than frenzy; this is something better than the want of mere feeling and decorum; there cannot, perhaps, be a better way of evincing a further and more important want of the Irish nation, the want of a reformed representation of the people in parliament. For what can impress the necessity of it more strongly upon the justice, upon the humanity, the indignation, and the shame of an assembly of Irish gentlemen, than to find the people so stripped of all share in the representation, as that the most respectable class of our fellow-citizens, men who have acquired wealth upon the noblest principle, the practice of commercial industry and

integrity, could be made the butts of such idle and unavailing, such unworthy, such shameful abuse, without the possibility of having an opportunity to vindicate themselves-when men of that class can be exposed to the degradation of unanswered calumny, or the more bitter degradation of eleemosynary defence? [Mr. Curran touched upon a variety of other topics, and concluded with the most forcible appeal to the Minister, to the house, and to the country, upon the state of public affairs at home and abroad.] I insist that the measure is not, as it has been stated to be, a measure of mere internal policy; it is a measure that involves the question of right and wrong, of just and unjust; but it is more; it is a measure of the most absolute necessity, which cannot be denied, and which cannot safely be delayed. I cannot foresee future events; I cannot be appalled by the future, for I cannot see it; but the present I can see, and I cannot but see that it is big with danger: it may be the crisis of political life, or political extinction; it is a time fairly to state to the country whether they have anything, and what, to fight for; whether they are to struggle for a connexion of tyranny or of privilege; whether the administration of England will let us condescend to forgive the insolence of her happier days; or whether, as the beams of her prosperity have wasted and consumed us, so even the frost of her adversity shall perform the deleterious effects of fire, and burn upon our privileges and our hopes for ever.-Debates, vol. xvii., pp. 104-10.

Duquery's speech on the same side was most noble, but the motion was lost by 143 to 19.

HOCHE'S EXPEDITION.

January 6th, 1797.

SECRETARY PELHAM having brought down a message from the Lord Lieutenant full of English palaver, in reference to France and especially to the Expedition of Hoche, Grattan moved an amendment, censuring the inactivity of the British navy during the recent danger. Ponsonby supported, and Pelham and others resisted the amendment. There is a short speech of Sir Jonah Barrington's, then Mr. Barrington, and a hopeful lawyer, which I give as I find it :

"Mr. Barrington (in full uniform) was also against the amendment literally vi et armis. He repeated those arguments which he generally uses, drawn from the tendency of opposition speeches to inflame the public mind, and encourage the disciplined banditti of France again to attack us. He informed the house that on the present occasion he talked to them only as an Irish soldier ; when he should have taken off his uniform he would talk to them in his other capacity. He confessed his surprise that the right honourable gentleman who moved the amendment did not at this time of danger become an Irish soldierhe was astonished that at such a crisis the right honourable gentleman's hand hid its head."-Debates, vol. xvii., pp.171, 2.

Duquery replied to his impertinence with overmuch apology, saying that Grattan was an enrolled Volunteer. After some further debate Curran said:

I strongly reprobate the mode used to hurry the house into a decision on subjects which require to be very maturely considered. The address may be considered, as it relates to the defence of the country by the British fleet; the negotiation with France; and as pledging the country to continue the war. With respect to the first, nothing is more clear than that it is a subject which deserves inquiry, and which the House cannot as yet have examined. All that is yet known on the subject is, that it has been understood for three months past that a design was entertained to invade Ireland. The British minister affected, indeed, not to believe this, and went so far as to say, on the very day when the French fleet were in Bantry Bay, that the report was but the frenetic rumour of the day. The armament, however, arrived, and on the whole coast of the kingdom of Ireland, a British line-of-battle ship was not to be seen. Why was this? I do not mean to criminate the admirals who commanded, nor the British cabinet; but I contend for it, the affair at first view appears such as deserves to be inquired into; and I will say more, that if parliament do not inquire, they will abandon their duty to their country and to themselves.

Ireland has a right to protection from Great Britain, and if it is not given, it becomes her parliament to inquire. I know, indeed, that the contributions of Ireland in a pecuniary way are laughed at by the great monied interest of Great Britain; but if the proportion of our wealth to her's were considered, it would be found we contribute a full share. But, besides our wealth, we contribute what to Britain is more essential than wealth-we contribute that, without which wealth would be useless to herwe give one hundred thousand men to her navy and to her armies. Ireland is entitled then to protection, but she receives it not. If parliament neglect, or refuse to inquire why she did not receive it, let them answer it to their country.

The house is also called on to decide on the negotiation-to say that it was broken off by the arrogance of France. What proofs are there of that? The house must be omniscient, if they can determine, without having read any one paper in support of or against that proposition. To me it seems that the case is far from being a clear one, that the fault was in the French. Lord Malmesbury goes to Paris, and tells the Directory that he is come to negotiate for peace. They ask him, has he a power to treat for the allies? Oh, no-he has no power to treat for the allies. Has he any powers to treat for a separate peace ? No, he has no power to treat for a separate peace; but he comes to treat for peace-but whether a general or a separate peace he cannot say. It is exactly such a case, to use a professional illustration, as if a man came to compromise a suit between two parties without having powers from either. So bungling a contrivance was never before made use of to attempt deceit, and gain a colourable pretext for continuing a quarrel! The French are charged in the address with terminating the negotiation arrogantly. I do not exactly know in what that arrogance appears. If it was arrogant in France to insist on, as a sine qua non, the retaining of Holland, it was surely equally arrogant in England to insist on the cession of Holland, as a sine qua non. I cannot, therefore, unprepared as I am, determine at the moment, that the negotiation was broken off by the fault of France; so far as I am yet informed, I think the contrary.

On the subject of the war, I feel most deeply the danger and the mischief of pledging the country to support it until the

Netherlands are restored. I confess I am of the number of those who originally agreed to support the war. I never approved of its principle; but when once Great Britain had embarked in it, I feared it might damp her ardour and give vigor to her enemies if it were opposed in Ireland. Of the merits of the war, my opinion has never changed-I have always thought it, and will always think it, a war begun in interested ambition, and carried on against the liberty of mankind; but had a powerful opposition risen against it in the Irish parliament, it might have rather been taken by the enemies as a signal for turning the tide of war upon our island, than been looked on by the minister of Great Britain as a salutary admonition to his folly. Now the circumstances are changed-the minister has been taught wisdom, if he be capable of instruction, by four years' calamities—and France is now too well acquainted with our situation for me to fear that any new information may be conveyed to her by what passes in this house. How France came to know our supposed weakness and distraction, let them answer who passed a gunpowder bill and a convention act, as if the people of Ireland were too ill affected to be trusted with arms or suffered to speak their sentiments. Let them answer who at midnight came to this house, and, as if in the tumult of a rebellion, passed an Habeas Corpus act, making the crown the arbiter of the subject's liberty, and suspending, as if treason stalked through the land, every privilege of the laws and the constitution. What are the feelings of those gentlemen at this hour, when, after thus treating the people of Ireland as traitors and rebels, by acts which reduced them, as to suffering and disqualification, to a level with the rebel,-what are now, I ask, the feelings of those men when they are now forced to come forward and declare, that to the loyalty, the zeal, and affection of those very men they owe the safety and the existence of the country which the neglect of his Majesty's ministers left exposed to the enemy during a space of twenty days? The people have saved the country-the administration have destroyed the constitution. What is there left of Irish freedom?-what is there left in Ireland of the British constitution? Have not the people been deprived of every valuable privilege of speaking and acting in a public way?—have they not been subjected to prison and