shameless system of government,-when the most gross and monstrous fallacy [as to the East India Bill] that ever duped and deceived a credulous country,-have been propagated and worked with all imaginable subtlety and diligence, for the purpose of rendering me unpopular throughout the empire, have, with a steadiness, with a sagacity, with a judgment, becoming men of sense and spirit, defeated all the miserable malice of my enemies; vindicated themselves from the charge of caprice, and changeableness, and fluctuation; and, with a generosity that binds me to them by every tie of affection, supported me through the late contest, and accomplished a victory against all the arts and power of the basest system of oppression that ever designed the overthrow of any individual.

ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, 1795.

My design has not been to induce the discussion of what has already been discussed, but to inquire into the conduct of the war in general. It is perfectly consistent in gentlemen on the other side of the House to say that they do not wish an inquiry; an inquiry is likely to influence the opinion of the House upon the conduct of ministers; and an address to the throne for their removal will be the probable result. But, rather than they should lose their places, is the country to be lost? A hint has been insinuated that, if the minister and his associates were dismissed, neither his Majesty nor the public will look to the supporters of the present motion for their assistance. Were the war to be carried on, even by more able ministers, upon the same principles hitherto avowed, and for the same object, there is nothing his Majesty could offer to menothing that any prince in Europe could offer to me that could induce me to take any share in it.

With respect to the motion being mistimed, my side of the House has not been negligent in bringing forward questions upon war. I deny having introduced the present motion on

account of affairs in Ireland, and appeal to the time in which notice of it was given in proof of the assertion; but I think a full investigation of that business of great importance. The Cabinet certainly interfere in the affairs of that country, and I wish to know upon what principle it should do so, more than the Parliament of this country? I have been told that I endanger Ireland by such an inquiry, but I wish to know who most endangers it,-I, who respect both that country and this, as much as any man in this House, or those who conduct themselves as if they had no regard to the interest of either, when in competition with their own power?

The right honourable gentleman says that my conduct, it not counteracted, tends to lower the dignity of this country. That a man who has himself so lowered the dignity of this country, who has brought it to the verge of ruin by the obstinacy and madness of his conduct, should presume to think that any man else should lower it more than he has, is, I own, rather extraordinary. I desire to know, and I ask the minister to inform me if he can,—I ask any man in the House to inform me,—when it was that I endeavoured to lower the dignity of this country? I allude to the present war-what has been my conduct, and what did I advise this House upon that subject? I would have offered reasonable terms to France before the war commenced; and for that purpose I proposed negotiation; he affected to disdain it. What has been the event? Will even he himself attempt to say that there is a chance of making as good a peace now as there was then? Does he even hope he can ever negotiate with the French in a situation less dishonourable to us than the present? I would have negotiated with them before a fight. He must negotiate

after a fight, and after a defeat, too, if he negotiates at all. I would have negotiated with them while we were rich in our resources, and our commerce entire. He must negotiate when both are desperately impaired. I would have negotiated before our allies were defeated, and while they were yet supposed to be in union. He must negotiate after victory

has declared in favour of the enemy, and the allies have been deserting us, and abandoning one another. After this, that such a man could possibly suppose that he is supporting the dignity of the country, and that he should put himself on a footing with any gentleman who has not the misfortune to be in the present administration, is an extraordinary thing; but it is an assumption of merit which is peculiar to his Majesty's present council. In the meantime, it is with heartfelt satisfaction I reflect that in everything I have proposed I have supported the dignity of this country; I regard it as a circumstance of good fortune to me, that I never gave an opinion by which one drop of British blood was shed, or any of its treasure squandered. The right honourable gentleman has insinuated that neither I nor those with whom I act ever The fact is notoriously

mention the glory of the British arms. otherwise; we have been proud to praise them. Is it endurable, then, to hear a man accuse others of endeavouring to lower the dignity of this country, when we are doing all we can to save it, and are calling for an inquiry into the conduct of that man who has brought us to the last stake, with which we are now contending for our existence? And shall it be still a question, Who is the best friend of the honour of Great Britain? But I wish again to ask-Who are the allies of this country? What is our relative situation with Prussia-what with the Emperor? What has been the conduct of administration with regard to the war? What is the situation of Ireland? To all these questions I can only answer, I cannot tell you any of these things. The House of Commons would not grant me an inquiry; they went hand in hand with the minister.

OHN PHILPOT CURRAN was of humble origin, and born near Cork in 1750. Educated at Trinity College, Dublin, he went to London, and studied

law in the Temple. At first he met with great difficulties in his career, but his talent for defence and debate soon caused him to be distinguished. He was a member of the Irish House of Commons in 1784, and on the Whigs coming into office in 1806, he was made Master of the Rolls in Ireland. He held this office till 1814, when he received a pension of £3000, after which time he for the most part resided in London. He died in 1817. The following 'vindication' is from a speech delivered 29th January, 1794, in behalf of Michael Hamilton Rowan, when indicted for the publication of a seditious libel.

A VINDICATION OF IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Gentlemen,-The representation of your people is the vital principle of their political existence. Without it they are dead, or they live only in servitude. Without it there are two estates acting upon and against the third, instead of acting in co-operation with it. Without it, if the people are oppressed by their judges, where is the tribunal to which their judges can be amenable? Without it, if they are trampled upon and plundered by a minister, where is the tribunal to which the offender shall be amenable? Without it, where is the ear to

hear, or the heart to feel, or the hand to redress their sufferings? Shall they be found, let me ask you, in the accursed bands of imps and minions that bask in their disgrace, and fatten upon their spoils, and flourish upon their ruin? But let me not put this to you as a merely speculative question. It is a plain question of fact; rely upon it, physical man is everywhere the same; it is only the various operations of moral causes that gives variety to the social or individual character and condition. How otherwise happens it that modern slavery looks quietly at the despot, on the very spot where Leonidas expired? The answer is easy: Sparta has not changed her climate, but she has lost that government which her liberty could not survive.

I call you, therefore, to the plain question of fact. This paper recommends a reform in Parliament. I put that question to your conscience: do you think it needs that reform? I put it boldly and fairly to you: do you think the people of Ireland are represented as they ought to be? Do you hesitate for an answer? If you do, let me remind you that, until the last year, three millions of your countrymen have, by the express letter of the law, been excluded from the reality of actual, and even from the phantom of virtual representation. Shall we then be told that this is only the affirmation of a wicked and seditious incendiary? If you do not feel the mockery of such a charge, look at your country: in what state do you find it? Is it in a state of tranquillity and general satisfaction? These are traces by which good are ever to be distinguished from bad governments, without any very minute inquiry or speculative refinement. Do you feel that a veneration for the law, a pious and humble attachment to the constitution, form the political morality of the people? Do you find that comfort and competency among your people which are always to be found where a government is mild and moderate, where taxes are imposed by a body who have an interest in treating the poorer orders with compassion, and preventing the weight of taxation from pressing sore upon them?