the minds of the Catholics, are telling them that they have nothing more to expect. And now, Sir, a few words upon the grievances of the Catholics and Dissenters. I know an opinion has gone forth, that the Catholics have now no substantial grievances to complain of ; that the Presbyterians have still less. It is said that the Catholics have had ceded to them all the privileges of the most importance; that they cna vote for members of parliament, and that they are not distinguished from the Protestants but by being excluded from the high offices of state, and from being members of parliament. If this were all, I should still say that they have a right to all the privileges possessed by the Protestants. Upon what principle ought they to be excluded? On what grounds of justice? Sir, upon no grounds of justice; the only reason, therefore, must be a reason of policy, which is a sufficient proof of a hostile mind against them; but let us consider it in other points of view. Is it nothing to have no share in the government, and to be excluded from the higher offices of the state? But it is invidiously objected by the Government, that to the Catholics it is not civil liberty which they wish, but it is power and emolument which they pursue. To this I would answer for the Catholics, yes nor is it any discredit that they should be actuated by such desire. I would say, that civil liberty can have no security without political power. To ask civil liberty without political power, would be to act like weak men, and to ask the possession of a right for the enjoyment of which they could have no security. I know that distinctions have been made between civil and political liberty, and I admit that it is possible for whole classes, whole casts and descriptions of men to enjoy the one without possessing the other. Still, however, I assert, that it can be only by sufferance. I admit, that civil liberty is of a higher kind; but this I contend, that

political power is the only security for the enjoyment of the other. The Catholics may justly say, therefore, that

is not this or that concession that will satisfy us, but give us that which alone can give us security for its continuance. It is objected also that the Catholics are not merely ambitious of power, but actuated by views of private emolument. But if this were true, is it improper that the Catholics, contributing so largely to the support of Government, should be desirous to share the emolument which it bestows, as a compensation for what they sacrifice? The compensation, indeed, is triffing: but still, should they in point of right be excluded from their proportion? Yet, how strongly will their claim be felt, when it is considered who are the disputants? Are the Catholics to be told by a few monopolizing politicians, who engross all places, all reversions, all emoluments, all patronages, "Oh, you base Catholics, you think of nothing but your private emolument. You perverse generation, who have already been permitted to vote for members of parliament, are you so base as to urge the disgraceful demand of a share in personal emoluments?" The Catholics are men, and are to be governed. The expence of maintaining all governments must be considerable, and that of Ireland is certainly not a model of economy. Of the emoluments arising out of the establishments of government, the Catholics have a just right to participate; and for a small and interested minority to imagine that they can monopolize all these advantages to themselves, is a pretension which will not be admitted : mankind are not to be treated in this manner, and it is not now a-days that such claims will pass current in the world. The loyalty and activity of the Catholics upon the late attempted invasion, is now the theme of the highest panegyric; but it is empty, unavailing praise: laudatur et alget is the situation of the Catholic loyalty. The qua5

lities

lities which are so much extolled, ought to be rewarded by conferring upon their possessors those just claims which are yet denied them, the total abolition of all distinction: to remove every mark by which religious differences could be known, is a condition which a minority, one should think, would be glad to accept with a joy bordering on gratitude. I know that the meaning of the word Protestant is much limited in its signification by some, and that the Presbyterian Dissenters do not receive even the name of Protestants; still, however, I am desirous to retain the word, as I do not exactly coincide with the zealous distinction of those to whom I allude. What have the Protestant Dissenters to complain of? It is said, they may serve in parliament; and as the Test act, which here has been held so necessary to the security of the church and the defence of the monarchy, is no longer thought requisite, they may hold offices without any obstacle or difficulty. Before I proceed to consider the situation of the Protestants, there is one point relative to the Catholics which I ought to explain; it has been said that the Catholics are intitled to vote for members of parliament, and the fallacy of this boasted privilege ought to be exposed; except in the counties, the representation of Ireland was in what is here known by the name of Close Corporations. The animosities which formerly subsisted are anxiously kept up by the Executive Government, and they favour the determination to exclude the Catholics from the corporations, so that their privilege is thus almost entirely evaded. They thus confer in theory a power, which they are careful to defeat in practice. Those who esteem this privilege, then, must be very fond of theories upon paper, and very unconcerned about their practical effect; yet however good theorists they may be upon such principles, they are not likely to act in such a manner as to afford much satisfaction, or produce much

HH3

much benefit to mankind. The Preytsberians consider their grievances to consist in the abuses of the government, which they have not means to remedy. They wish for the substantial blessings of the English constitution; they wish for the political principles on which that constitution is founded. Whoever imagines that a practical resemblance existed between the government of Ireland and the English constitution, would find that the Irish government is a mirror in which the abuses of this constitution are strongly reflected. I will not speak of the abuses of which we have been used to complain, but if I were desirous to reconcile any one to the abuses of the British constitution, it would be by a comparison with those of Ireland. Whatever may have been thought of the plans of parliamentary reform which have been agitated here, still it was always admitted that the House of Commons should be at least a virtual representation of the people. It certainly was stating the point of virtual representation very high when it was asserted in this House, that though all the representatives of England were chosen by the county of Middlesex, it would be no reason for reform, so long as such a parliament discharged its duty as a parliament. But are the people of Ireland unreasonable when they complain that they have not the advantage even of virtual representation? when they complain that the jobbing system of influence and patronage, for purposes of personal advantage, is an abuse that totally destroys the spirit of their form of government, and a practical nuisance which cannot be endured? To suppose that a large, industrious, active, and intelligent body of men can be governed against the principles they have imbibed, and the prejudices by which they are guided, is an idea which history and human nature prove to be ab. surd. What is the situation of affairs with respect to Ireland? You have raised enormous burdens both in

England

you must

England and in Ireland. You have produced great discontents, and you are reduced to such a point that take a decided part. In fact, we now are precisely at the point in which we stood in 1774 with America; and the question is, whether we are to attempt to retain Ireland by force, instead of endeavouring to gain by concessions, and to conciliate by conferring the full and substantial blessings of a free constitution? The circumstances in some respects are different, and it may be discovered that the distance of America, and its population, extended over an immense tract of country, were disadvantages peculiar to that contest. I remember, however, that the extent of the territory of America was stated as an advantage, as it would prevent sudden collections of people. So favorable were circumstances supposed to be, that an officer boasted that with a single company of grenadiers, or a single regiment, I do not remember which, he would march from one end of America to the other and though he had been able to realize his boast, I know not what mighty advantage it could have produced. I well remember that at that period to which I allude, the expression of the American war, which I was the first in the House to use, was treated with the utmost ridicule and to call some riots at Boston by the appellation of a war, was considered as a great absurdity. Some may treat the idea of a war with Ireland with the same contempt and ridicule; and I sincerely hope that experience will not decide so triumphantly in my favour as on the former occasion. Whenever I see a government desirous to decide by force against the will of the majority, in these circumstances I see the danger of civil war. There is this difference now in our situation, that the state of our finances may deter us from encountering such hazardous enterprizes. In the other case we were wealthy and prosperpus. Stultitiam patiuntur opes might then be said of our situation

HH 4