ported by the fact is that confidence, that in the year 1779 you were left without an army, and the then secretary informed the people that they must defend themselves. And in the years 1793 and 1794, your whole army almost was taken out of the kingdom, and you were left without arms, artillerymen, or troops of the line. In their stead you had new levies, which were not disciplined, nor armed, nor effective, nor on your establishment and which were neither in substance or in letter, such troops as the provisions of the act required and described. As to the protection which this country had lately received from the minister of England, I have already given an opinion, which I believe was the general opinion of both kingdoms. On the experience, therefore, of so many years I would say, that the defence of Ireland was not to be left to the minister of England. I beg to add, that such a suggestion very much lowered the character of Parliament, and gave to the debates of the House a ridiculous and a servile complexion; that it amounted to this counsel, that we should grant every thing to the minister, and secure nothing to the country. As to the practice of Parliament, I beg to observe, gentlemen had been totally and entirely mistaken; far from being unknown to the practice of Parliament, the restraining the army to home defence of the country was adopted at the time of the augmentation, and it had been pursued in 1795; and you will find, in the resolution of the committee of supply, the House votes 8000 additional men, expressly for the home defence, to which the gentlemen agreed, who now say, that it is unknown to the practice of Parliament. Indeed the ministers of the Crown have often invaded the provisions of the acts restraining it on the disposal of the army, and for that reason I prefer the augmentation of the militia, and that force which, from its nature, could not be taken out of the country. He concluded with some general observations, touching the defence of the kingdom.

The House not agreeing on the mode proposed for defraying the expence of raising the additional force, Sir John Blaquiere withdrew his resolution, on the understanding that provision would be made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a future day.

INTERNAL DEFENCE.

SIR LAURENCE PARSONS PROPOSES AN ADDRESS TO THE LORDLIEUTENANT, REQUESTING HIM TO ADOPT MEASURES TO RAISE 50,000 YEOMEN.

February 24. 1797.

SIR LAURENCE PARSONS rose and stated the danger to which the country had lately been exposed; her inadequate state of defence at present; and the great hazard of defeat, in the event of an expedition from France effecting a landing. In 1794, although the French fleet had been beaten, yet the English fleet was so shattered that it was compelled to put into port. At that time the French fleet fought alone, now she had the Spanish fleet to assist her; she had ships also from Holland. He hoped the fleets of England would always be successful; but he could not forget that in the last war, they had fled from the enemy, and left the Irish shores unprotected. What saved Ireland? her armed population. This country must call forth its own powers. The reason the French had beaten the allies, was that the latter had not called out their population; they resorted to them too late. He conceived, therefore, that an armed yeomanry would be the best, the cheapest force, and most to be depended on. That 50,000 men would be sufficient; therefore he proposed the following resolution: "That a great and immediate armament of yeomen infantry, shall be raised for the defence of this country, in addition to the present forces of the kingdom, and that an address should be presented to His Excellency the Lord-lieutenant, requesting him to adopt speedy and effectual measures for the attainment of this object, the exigency of the present juncture requiring the most prompt and extensive system of defence." The resolution was opposed by Mr. Pelham (Secretary), Mr. Alexander, Mr. Barrington, Mr. Archdall, Mr. Maxwell, Sir Boyle Roche, the Prime Serjeant, Sir John Blaquiere, and Mr. C. Bushe, in a maiden speech. Mr. Pelham said, that the motion implied a neglect in the administration, as if they had not taken care to protect the country. Measures have been concerted with Great Britain, by which a large force would, in case of need, immediately be sent over. The people were zealous in defence of the country; they had shown themselves so on the late trying occasion. The honourable baronet had declared, that he had seen the people drawing with alacrity the cannon of his own battalion; nothing since that time can have changed their good disposition, or could have rendered the proposed measure advisable or necessary.

It was supported by Doctor Browne, Mr. Tighe, M. Jephson, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Curran, who said, it was clearly proved

that, in despite of the British fleet, the French could reach the Irish coast, and make good their landing. When they arrived in Bantry Bay, there were not 1000 men fit to oppose them. An in dividual of great wealth, residing near Cork, applied for leave to form a yeomanry corps; his request remained for three weeks unanswered. At length he got his commission, but received no arms for his men ; and shortly after, the government wrote to know from him, how many of his men were fit to march against the enemy. There were other proofs of negligence on the part of ministers. The country must trust to its own spirit; this had been evinced to the satisfaction even of the government; they should improve that spirit, and show that they placed confidence in the people; and the best way to secure that confidence, would be to interest them in support of the constitution, by admitting them to all its privileges, and by acceding to the measures of reform, and of Catholic emancipation.

Mr. GRATTAN said: That from the vehemence with which the honourable baronet had been opposed, one would be led to imagine that he had proposed to diminish or disband the army or militia, instead of adding 50,000 men to the defence of the country. The honourable baronet says, it is necessary to face a victorious enemy with a large force, and make that force consist of the people. The English servant of the English minister says, "What! would you have me bid for the people?" I beg to say to the English deputy of that English minister, if he does not bid for the people, he had better leave this country. If he would not bid for the people; the monster of democracy, which had conquered Spain, Holland, Germany, and Italy, by bidding for the people, would bid for the people of Ireland. The bidding of the minister will then come too late.

He asks, who could be more interested for the safety of Ireland, than the British minister? He would answer, Ireland herself. To refer to the British minister the safety of this country, was the most sottish folly; it was false and unparliamentary to say, that the House had no right to recommend a measure, such as the honourable baronet proposed. Had it been a proposition to increase the regular standing army, it might perhaps have been a little irregular; but, when an increase of 10,000 to the standing army was proposed by a right honourable baronet the other night, it was not considered as an affront. Now, another honourable baronet comes forward to give an army five-fold as many, and five-fold as cheap, and administration are affronted. Why? because that army was of the people. If the doctrine

the right honourable member advances be true, and that the duty of Parliament now is become nothing more than merely to vote taxes, and echo three millions, when the minister says, three millions are wanted; then indeed actum est de Parliamento, it is over with Parliament; and a reform of the representation is become more than ever necessary. To that part of the right honourable gentleman's speech, which insinuates a design to change the militia of the country for that of England, he could not express his disapprobation of it with sufficient strength. It would be directly contrary to the principle of that institution, and would create suspicion and hostile sentiment, by introducing strangers in the place of native troops.

Sir Laurence Parsons replied. On a division there appeared for the motion 23, against it 125; Majority 102. Tellers for the Ayes, Sir Laurence Parsons and Mr. Grattan. Noes Mr. Maxwell and Mr. Charles Bushe.

VOTE OF CENSURE ON MINISTERS.

MR. PONSONBY MOVES TO CENSURE MINISTERS FOR THEIR NEGLECT OF THE DEFENCE OF THE COUNTRY, ON THE LATE THREATENED INVASION.

MR. GEORGE PONSONBY, in pursuance of notice, rose to make his promised motion to censure the administration, for their neglect of the defence of the country. If he wanted documents to support his charge, it was because the House had thought proper to refuse them; they contained the proofs, but the facts remained. His Excellency, in his speech of October last, acknowledged that administration had notice of an intended invasion. They should therefore have increased the force of the country, they should have demanded protection of the British navy. The French fleet that appeared on the coast of Ireland, consisted of sixteen ships of the line; that of Admirals Colpoys, and Bridport, made together thirty-one or thirty-two. The French fleet eluding the vigilance or negligence of Admiral Colpoys, came to Ireland. The admiral did not know where to follow them, and returned to Portsmouth; he was obliged to return in consequence of want of water; and, when Lord Bridport got ready, instead of going to intercept the French fleet on its return, he came off the Irish Coast. This

showed the mismanagement and negligence of ministers. the home defence, he was informed, that if 5000 men had been landed at Bantry, Cork would have been lost. Although administration had known three months before that a descent was projected by the enemy, they had neither provided troops, magazines, nor artillery; so much so, that if the army had marched to the south, they would not have had magazines, stores, or provisions for twenty days. The people had acted well; they were anxious, to oppose the enemy; the minister had acted ill, who had not provided for defence. His object was to censure his misconduct. He therefore moved the following resolution, "That His Majesty's ministers are highly criminal, by the neglect and unskilfulness which they manifested in the provision, direction, and application of the naval and military force of Great Britain and Ireland, upon the late attempted invasion of this country, by the forces of France, in December last."

The motion was opposed by Sir Hercules Langrishe, Mr. Howard, the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Parnell), Mr. Corry, Sir Henry Cavendish, Sir Boyle Roche, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Ogle, Mr. Barrington, Sir John Blaquiere, Mr. Rochfort, Mr. Osborne, and Mr. Smith. They stated, that the insular situation of the country, must expose her to attacks on every quarter, all of which could not be provided against; the admirals had done their duty, and it was fortune alone that favoured the attempt of invasion, the adverse winds and weather retarded our naval operations. That the present was a party question to bring in one set of men, and turn out another; that the country would not be so safe in the hands of the former, as in those of the latter. The former stood pledged to repeal the convention bill, the gunpowder bill, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act; without which acts, the nation could not be safe. They were also pledged to parliamentary reform, and to Catholic emancipation, the discussion of which subjects would tend to inflame the people.

The resolution was supported by Mr. Curran, Mr. Fletcher, Sir Laurence Parsons, Mr. Hoare, and Mr. Grattan. They entered into a justification of their conduct. Their objects were to defend the country and conciliate the people; they thought it bad policy to incorporate abuses with the constitution; they had supported a measure proposed the other night for the internal defence of the country; they also stood pledged to measures in favour of the constitution, and the country; and from those measures they would not recede.

Mr. GRATTAN spoke warmly in defence of the resolution. The circumstance of the French fleet escaping two British fleets, riding triumphantly for seventeen days, and getting back unmolested, formed a phenomenon in the naval history' of Great Britain which challenged enquiry. The plea urged in excuse, that the admiralty was not acquainted with the destination of the French fleet, was a great aggravation of the

1