close of the present session, and the permanence of which would be a violation of the rights of the people of Ireland, and a subversion of the spirit and practice of our free constitution."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Percival) moved the previous question. Mr. Windham declared that he believed the bills were necessary, but stated that he would not oppose the motion; Mr. Dillon, Mr. C. Johnsone, and Lord William Russell spoke in favour of the resolution; if, said Lord William, there was a French faction in Ireland, why pursue that system under which it has grown? The Irish people had received a pledge at the union, that they should participate in the blessings of the constitution, and when was that pledge to be redeemed? Mr. Herbert said he could not support the motion; that it was only by the adoption of such plans as had at various times been proposed by Mr. Grattan, that the people of Ireland could be conciliated.

Mr. GRATTAN began by observing, he wished he had been in the House on the report of the arm's bill, because he should have voted for the shorter time, and afterwards he should have voted for the bill; he mentioned this to give a public testimony he was not to be influenced by an outcry. The two bills now being passed, it was desirable that the people should receive them with temper, and the government with moderation. I admit the talents with which my right honourable friend has made his motion, and also the discretion by which, in a part of his speech, he had made those talents appear particularly conspicuous; and as far as the motion went to bring forward into consideration the affairs of Ireland, it shall have all my most hearty concurrence, but I would not agree to that part of it which reflected on the bills.

The arm's bill had in view to disarm those who might get their arms by robbery, as had been some time ago the case, and who kept their arms for the purpose of insurrection; and it seems reasonable, where a banditti had disarmed the farmers by force, that the banditti itself should be disarmed by the law; it seems also reasonable, that those who kept their arms for public service, and for safety, should not be disarmed by those who kept them for mischief- for robbing the farmer and assisting the French.

The insurrection act had in view, the prevention of illegal oaths, and the security of evidence, and so far it was not objected to by any one. The framers of the bill had a further view, namely, to prevent a rebellion, and therefore I think it reasonable, when a district was considered in rebellion, that persons who could not give an account of themselves, and could not be found in their houses after a certain hour, should be proceeded against by means more summary than the common law — but, certainly, by means much less

summary than those contained in the former insurrection act, as by that act they were left to be tried by two magistrates; whereas by the present bill, they must be brought before the bench of justices, where the assistant barrister and a King's counsel must be present, and where no conviction against the opinion of that counsel could be had without the concurrence of the Lord-lieutenant — a mitigation most considerable, still leaving the bill a very strong measure, but not more strong than a suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, nor more strong than some other laws which have passed without an opposition, and have existed without a murmur, from those by whom these bills have been so violently condemned. I am warranted to say, that the description given of these bills cannot be supported, when you examine the bills themselves, and still less, when you advert to the authorities by which they are defended. It will be recollected that the late Lord Kilwarden has been spoken of in the course of these debates, as that constitutional lawyer, who, in his dying moments, expressed his regard for the law and the constitution: yet, he was the Attorney-general who framed the insurrection act, of which, this bill is an essential mitigation. Lord Avonmore had been also mentioned in the course of these debates, as a most constitutional lawyer, (he certainly was so, and was a sincere friend to the liberties of his country;) he has been quoted as having expressed his abhorrence of the violent proceedings of 1798, and of bills to indemnify the same; yet he gave no opposition to the insurrection act, not in 1796, nor 1797, nor 1800. The law servants of the Crown in Ireland, under the late administration, were distinguished for their knowledge of the law and love of the constitution, and were, by being on the special commission, particularly informed of the state of the country. The Attorney-general (Mr. Plunket), distinguished for legal knowledge, and constitutional knowledge, and for a contempt of salary, equal to a regard for law, with a recent knowledge of the state of the country, framed this bill, assisted by another person, the Irish Solicitor-general (Mr. C. Bushe), an individual not merely known, but celebrated for his genius, as well as his professional knowledge and love of the constitution, and just arrived from the scenes, where he had the best opportunity of knowing the state of the country; these individuals had framed the present bills. It has been said, that the ministers past and present, have not mentioned that the bills were necessary- I must deny that position. The confidential ministers of the last administration had the other night in so many words stated that the bills were necessary, and the present ministry had (if I under

stand them) said no less, and a former minister of Ireland, distinguished for his mildness, had not, as was observed, denied the necessity, but had in another place voted for the bills, and given, as appears from the papers, his reason, that HE thought they were necessary. The late Irish ministry had not only declared the bills to be necessary, but in conjunction and with the approbation of the leading law characters in their confidence, had framed them. With such authorities I do not hesitate to vote for the bills; and further, I do not hesitate to say that they were not, that they could not be what their opponents had described, and the outcry against them I would pronounce was. wholly void of foundation. Under the above mentioned circumstances, I not only do not fear to vote for the bills, but I should have feared to have voted against them; for if they erred on one side, and the bills were not necessary, the extent of the evil would be, that Ireland would be for two years and some months subject to laws much milder than had existed for the last eleven years. But if the error were on the other side, and that bills necessary to prevent insurrection should not be re-enacted, in that case, on the success of an insurrection, we should be subjected to France; or on the event of its failure, we should be subjected to all the evils of abortive rebellion; the violence, the oppression, the rapine committed on the people, and, finally, to a permanent iron government, the natural consequence of miserable revolts repeatedly subdued, and returning; I have no hesitation to say, that the liberty of Ireland could not survive a repetition of abortive rebellions; and I am therefore defending not merely the government of the country, but the liberty of the people. I am defending both against the danger of a foreign yoke, and against the danger of abortive insurrection. I have observed the late progress of France, and have considered the present crisis, as far as it concerned Ireland. I believed in its extent, and therefore I have taken a leading part to declare my sentiments. From the letters I have received from Ireland, I am warranted to say, that my sentiments and my conduct on the late bills have, by the most intelligent part of my countrymen, been approved of; and by their approbation, justified and gratified. I will not yield to an outcry, or capitulate with popular error; but, conscious of the justice, and truth, and integrity of what I deliver, I will maintain the honesty of my sentiments against the disaffection of one description of men, and the mutability of another.

I beg to observe, that they who argued most powerfully against the bills, have argued abstractedly, without relation to the countries connected with the subject, omitting Ireland,

and omitting France, they forgot what was and had been the state of Ireland, and they forgot what was now the state of France. My right honourable friend (Mr. Sheridan) had acknowledged there was now a French party in Ireland, and had added, there had ever been one in that country: if, then, France had always had a party in that country, how much more dangerous must that party be now, when France has subdued the continent of Europe? And how much more necessary, after what has lately happened in Ireland, and has recently happened in Europe, to be vigilant with regard to that party, which, however insignificant, as I hope it is, at this moment from its numbers, yet is now extremely sanguine, and from its potent alliance, if not watched by the state, may become extremely formidable? Here I appeal to every intelligent man, who, free from prejudice, free from influence, and free from guilt, knows Ireland, and loves it. It is a ridiculous affectation to say that the character of Ireland is impeached, when we pass a law against the partizans of France. Laws had been made against the White Boys; did they impeach the character of the country? And against the Hearts of Steel, and the Right Boys; did those laws impeach the character of the country? Those or similar disturbances, are frequently, if not always, to be found. You remember the mob in 1780, in London; in great and populous nations they are eruptions of a strong body, and prove not its infirmity, but its vigour. The people of Ireland are loyal and well affected, and yet there is a French party in that loyal country: you must guard against that party, without regard to its clamour, or the clamour of those who join in every outcry.

They who have argued against the bills, had resorted to reasoning which would go equally strong against all acts passed against public disturbance, and all those occasional laws which the circumstances of the time render necessary. The privileges of the constitution are suspended in the mutiny act; Why? that the state may have an army. You suspend the privileges of the constitution by the present bills. Why? that in Ireland the French may not have an army. If gentlemen wish to be still further informed of the necessity of the laws made against insurrection, I would refer them to a report of the trials lately had on a special commission in the west of Ireland, and to the speeches of the counsel and the judges on that occasion, and there they will find that the disturbances in that district, had not a little prevailed from an opinion, that the laws against tumultuous risings had expired, and they will see the wisdom of the then government, in not resorting to the powers given by the insurrection-act; and also the prudence of the same

government in framing those bills, whereby some of the powers of the insurrection-act were under mitigation, and for a limited time continued.

The motion of the right honourable gentleman, introduces not only the subject of the two bills, but also the state of the nation. I wish to consider it, at present, under three heads: education, agriculture, and religion. Regarding the first, a commission has been appointed to enquire into its funds; and it appeared, that, by royal donation, about 8000 acres had been granted for the purpose of establishing grammar-schools: these produced about 5000l. a year; and, probably, if let to the value, would produce much more; but the number of scholars do not exceed three hundred, of which not more than fifty-eight were free scholars. Of that number, one school alone, whose fund is 100%. per annum, educated 40 free scholars; and all the others, whose funds were 5000l., educated only 18. From that view, and from a more minute investigation of the subject, it would appear that the plan had not succeeded, and that it might be eligible to establish two or more great public schools resembling those of Eton or Westminster, or Winchester, subject to constant visitation, which schools might be supplied hereafter from the royal funds, as the present schoolmasters should fall off, and in the mean time by public grant. Some of the present schoolmasters, I believe, are not only competent to instruct, but are men of distinguished capacity; yet I insist the plan of small free schools on royal foundation has not succeeded; and that it would be better to plant learning in considerable public schools, or colonies, where it might propagate, rather than to place it in small bodies, where it would perish. Having dwelt upon this for some time, he observed, that by the twelfth of Elizabeth, every diocese was to maintain a free school, so that, by law, there should be 34 free grammar-schools, besides those on royal foundation. There were also funds by individuals, for the support of grammar-schools, of no inconsiderable amount. By the 28th of Henry VIII., the clergy were obliged to provide each parish with an English school; and it had appeared in the year 1788, or about that time, that in less than 400 of those schools, 11,000 children had been educated. In forcing this act with much qualification, and like the other act, namely, the 12th of Elizabeth, in favourof diocesan schools with qualification and mitigation also, it would be found that the present laws, if enforced, had provided both the upper and lower orders of the people with funds for instruction. Having dwelt for some time on the provision for charter schools, amounting to above 20,000l. a year, he proceeded to the second head,