when he was in the gallery, he had heard a young lawyer named Babbler. He did not recollect that there were sponsors at the baptismal font, nor was there any occasion, as the infant had promised and vowed so many things in his own name. Indeed he found it difficult to reply, for he was not accustomed to pronounce panegyric upon himself; he did not well know how to do it; but since he could not tell them what he was, he could tell them what he was not. He was not a man whose respect in person and character depended upon the importance of his office; he was not a young man who thrust himself into the foreground of a picture which ought to be occupied by a better figure; he was not a man who replied with invective when sinking under the weight of argument; he was not a man who denied the necessity of a parliamentary reform at the time he proved the expediency of it, by reviling his own constituents, the parish clerk, the sexton, and grave-digger; and if there was any man who could apply what he was not to himself, he left him to think of it in the committee, and to contemplate upon it when he went home.

SPEECH OF MR. CURRAN,

ON THE

COMMERCIAL RESOLUTIONS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, SATURDAY, JULY 23d, 1785.

MR. CURRAN.—I can easily excuse some inconsistences in the conduct of the right honourable secretary, for some accidents have befallen him: when we met last, he desired us to adjourn for three weeks; we did so; and now he wants above a fortnight more. But will that help forward the business before the house? will it expedite the progress of a bill, to say, let us wait till the packet comes in from England, and perhaps we shall have some news about the propositions. Did the British minister act in this manner? no; when he postponed from time to time the consideration of the, propositions, he did not postpone the other business of the house: he did not say, let it wait till the packet comes from Dublin. This the Irish minister is forced to do: I say forced, for I am sure it is not his inclination; it must distress him greatly; and I sincerely feel for and pity his distress.

When we had the eleven propositions before us, we were charmed with them. Why? because we did not understand them. Yes, the endearing word, reciprocity, rang at every corner of the streets. We then thought that the right honourable gentleman laid the propositions before us by authority: but the English minister reprobates them as soon as they get to England, and the whole nation reprobates them: thus, on one hand, we must conclude the English minister tells the Irish minister to propose an adjustment; and, when it goes back, alters every part; or that the Irish minister proposed it without any authority at all. I am

inclined to believe the latter; for it would add to the gentleman's distress to suppose the former.

Now let us mark another inconsistency into which the right honourable gentleman is driven, no doubt against his will. Time to deliberate was refused us, when we had something to deliberate upon; and now, when we are told we have nothing before us to consider, we are to have a fortnight's recess to enable us to think about nothing. And time indeed it will take, before we can think to any purpose. It will take time for the propositions to go through, and perhaps to be again altered in the house of lords. It will take time for them to be reconsidered in the British commons. It will take time for them to come over here. It will take time for us to consider them, though that time is likely to be very short. It will take time to send them back to England. It will take time for them to be returned to us again and then time will be required to carry them into execution.

But a rumour hath gone abroad of a studied design to delay the discussion of this business until there shall be no members in town. But away with such a suspicion; I think too honourable of the right honourable gentleman: but yet I should be glad to hear him say, there is not even an idea of the base design of forcing them down our throats.

Mr. Secretary Orde moved, that the house do adjourn to Tuesday se'nnight.

Mr. Curran.-Sir, the adjournment proposed is disgraceful to parliament, and disgraceful to the nation. I must explain myself by stating a few facts, though they relate to a subject that I own I cannot approach but with reluctance. The right honourable gentleman early in the session produced a set of propositions which he was authorized to present to us as a system of final and permanent commercial adjustment between the two king. doms. As a compensation for the expected advantages of this system, we were called upon to impose 140,000l. a year on this exhausted country. Unequal to our strength, and enormous as the burden was, we submitted; we were willing to strain every nerve in the common cause, and to stand or fall with the fate of the British empire.

But what is the event? I feel how much beneath us it would be to attend to the unauthenticated rumours of what may be said or done in another kingdom; but it would be a ridiculous affecta

tion in us not to know that the right honourable gentleman's system has been reprobated by those under whose authority he was supposed to act, and that he himself has been deserted and disavowed. I cannot, for my own part, but pity the calamity of a man who is exposed to the contempt of the countries as an egregious dupe, or to their indignation as a gross impostor; for even he himself now abandons every hope of those propositions returning to this house in the form they left it. On the contrary, he now only hopes that he may be able to bring something forward that may deserve our approbation on some future day. He requests an adjournment for ten days, and he promises that he will give a week's notice, when the yet undiscovered something is to be proposed, which something he promises shall be agreeable to this nation, and authorised by the English minister. On what his confidence of this is founded I know not, unless he argues, that because he has been disavowed and exposed in his past conduct by his employers, he may rely on their supporting him in future.

But however the right honourable gentleman may fail in drawing instruction from experience or calamity, we ought to be more wise; we should learn caution from disappointment. We relied on the right honourable gentleman's assurances-we found them fallacious we have oppressed the people with a load of taxes, as a compensation for a commercial adjustment; we have not got that adjustment: we confided in our skill in negociation, and we are rendered ridiculous by that confidence. We looked abroad for the resources of Irish commerce, and we find that they are to be sought for only at home, in the industry of the people, in the honesty of parliament, and in our learning that negociation must inevitably bring derision on ourselves, and ruin on our constituents. But you are called on to depend on the right honourable gentleman's regard for his own reputation: when the interest of the people is at stake, can we be honest in reposing on so despicable a security? Suppose this great pledge of the right honourable gentleman's character should chance to become forfeited, where will you look for it? When he sails for England, is it too large to carry with him? Or, if you would discover in what parish of Great Britain it may be found, will the sacrifice be an atonement to the people, who have already been betrayed by trusting to so contemptible pledge? See then what we do

by consenting to this short adjournment: we have been obscured already, and we neglect every other duty, in order to solicit a repetition of that abuse. If this something should arrive at all, it will be proposed when the business of the country will engage every county member at the assizes: for as to his week's notice, it either cannot reach him in time, or, if it should, he cannot possibly obey it. Is it then our wish to have a new subject of such moment, as a contract that is to bind us for ever, concluded in half a house, and without a single representative for a county in the number? Is it wise to trust to half the house in a negociation in which the wisdom of the whole has been already defeated? But what is the necessity that induces us to acquiesce in a measure of so much danger and disgrace? Is this nation brought to so abject a condition by her representatives, as to have no refuge from ruin but in the immediate assistance of Great Britain? Sir, I do not so far despair of the public weal: oppressed as we were, we found a resource for our constitution in the spirit of the people; abused as we now find ourselves, our commerce cannot fail of a resource in our virtue and industry, if we do not suffer ourselves to be diverted from those great and infallible resources, by a silly hope from negociation, for which we are not adapted, and in which we can never succeed. And if this great hope still is left, why fill the public mind with alarm and dismay? Shall we teach the people to think, that something instantly must be done, to save them from destruction? Suppose that something should not, cannot be done, may not the attempt, instead of uniting the two countries, involve them in the consequences of discord and dissension? But, if your compliance with the right honourable gentleman's requisition does not sink the people into despair of their own situation, does it not expose the honour and integrity of this house to suspicion and distrust? For what can they suppose we intend by this delay? The right honourable gentleman may find it worth his while to secure the continuance in his office by an expedient, however temporary and ineffectual? but, sir, if we are supposed to concur in such a design, our character is gone with the people; for, if we are honest, it can be of no moment to us whether this secretary or that minister shall continue in office or not. I know it has been rumored that the right honourable gentleman may take advantage of a thin house, to impose upon this country the new set of