mit the probability of a change in the disposition of the people, he must contend, as the measure was to be suspended, that it was at least imprudent to pledge the British parliament to specific resolutions, which might be superseded by the future relative situation of the countries. Was it to be supposed, that the tenour of the resolutions would alter the sentiments of the Irish nation with regard to a measure, which they had contemplated in the aggregate with such distaste? Were the provisions judiciously calculated to promote such an effect? By one of the resolutions the test act was to be still operative against the Catholics and the Protestant Dissenters of Ireland. Did not this go to establish a strong jealousy, if not estrangement, in the breasts of such a majority of that community, whose confidence and concurrence were so desirable? The earl had predicted, that the system of government which had been pursued in that country could not go on, and he had unfortunately proved too true a prophet. That, however, was not a consequence flowing from the constitution of Ireland: it was solely the result of a frantic exercise of severities on the part of government, as much in contempt of that very constitution as in defiance of every principle of policy, that had hitherto been current among men.

He animadverted on several parts of the speech of Lord Grenville, particularly on that, in which the secretary had said, that a case might occur in which the parliament of Ireland might refuse to pay the troops, and seemed to think that his position on this ground of argument was strengthened by the difference of the test taken by the military body of Ireland from that, which was taken by the troops of England: but a man might be a brave soldier, and a trusty supporter of his country's cause, even though he should believe that there were seven sacraments; in fact, there was no separate regular Irish army; his majesty might call away any regiment to this country, and replace it by another from England, without any explanation to the legislature of Ireland. There was, indeed, a stipulation that Ireland should have a certain number of troops for her defence; and those troops she engaged to pay. But the secretary argued that she might refuse to pay them. So might the British parliament refuse to pay the army in this island. The question, by which the house ought to form an opinion respecting the expediency of bringing forward those resolutions, was not what the Irish ought to think, but what they did really think upon the subject. Whether justly or not, it appeared, they did think the demand upon Ireland was nothing less than the whole body of her laws, her rights, her liberties, her independent parliament, the blood, the labour, the wealth and resources of the people. And under what circumstances did the mass of the Irish nation come to weigh such B b

VOL. V.

a supposed demand? Disgusted by recent outrages, still smarting from the lash of late severities, and irritated by threats of continued infliction, how was it to be supposed, that they could meet with temper the proposition for drawing closer the ties by which they had been mischievously told, all their past sufferings were occasioned? For it was one of the most serious evils of the late troubles, that those who were trampling upon the feelings, the properties, and the lives of their fellow creatures, disguised their own passions under the profession, that such acts of violence were necessary for the preservation of English connection; thereby falsely representing English connection, which ought to be the source of every blessing to Ireland, as the spring from which all their calamities had flowed. The Irish government stigmatized with the name of rebellion that which was only indignation at some unconstitutional measures; and, having once made the charge against its opponents, thence deduced the right and the necessity of abandoning the paths of the law, and of making its own conception of expediency the exclusive rule of conduct towards the multitude. The legislature readily lent its aid in passing the most severe penal statutes, and these even their angry and vindictive ministry soon refused to abide by. Any thing that bore the semblance of law was too tardy for their impatient spirit. Forgetting that the corrective conduct of a government ought to be sober as well as firm, dignified and conciliating as well as vigorous, they even seemed to affect the peevishness of individual animosity; and in that temper they proceeded with eagle swiftness and more than eagle fierceness to pass a sweeping condemnation of the whole people of Ireland. Mercy, justice, and policy, were left far behind, as unprofitable

associates.

He did not accuse Earl Camden of having given directions for such horrible outrages; but hinted, that the viceroy, being taught by the cabinet to believe that extraordinary rigour was necessary, had connived at excesses which arose from that system. If it were true, that so great a proportion of the adult and effective population of the country as 500,000 had engaged in the traitorous conspiracy, it was the greatest censure that could be passed on any government. When to the misconduct of the British ministers he laid the evils and the miseries of Ireland, it was to their misinformation and ignorance of the state of the country, not to deliberate inhumanity that he ascribed them. He trusted, that the time would soon arrive, when remorse would take place of apathy, and when they would earnestly wish that their system of conduct had uniformly enforced on their servants the necessity of respecting with awful veneration the rights of humanity.

Lord Grenville had imputed the rebellion in Ireland chiefly to the propagation of French principles; but the effect of these, without ministerial misconduct, would, said the earl, have been inconsiderable. It was remarkable, that the noble secretary should suppose mere barbarians, whom he represented as incapable of comprehending the meaning of Catholic emancipation or parliamentary reform, to be fully competent to the admission of ideas respecting the principles and forms of government, and the sovereignty of the people. Of that sovereignty his lordship observed, that it did not, as some had ignorantly or invidiously asserted, imply the authority or the power of the mob. The misconstruction of the phrase had produced much mischief in that country, by aiding the views of certain zealots, who from the most malignant motives, confounded the maintenance of constitutional doctrines with the support of jacobinical tenets. The principle, properly understood, was opposed to the odious doctrine of divine indefeasible right. It was not plebeian but national sovereignty; the rights of the people, not of the populace were the basis of the English constitution.

Lord Holland, though he did not consider the adjustment of 1782 as a bar to a new agreement, disapproved the proposal of an Union at a time when it excited strong disgust in that kingdom. The policy of the measure, at any time, might be doubtful; the experiment would be hazardous, and the consequences might be highly detrimental to the interests of both

countries.

Lord Mulgrave thought it highly expedient to examine the propositions, and record them as the deliberate offers of this country, which would induce the Irish parliament to consider the subject with coolness and complacency, instead of viewing it with prejudice.

The Earl of Carlisle said, the discussion was expedient and seasonable. A knowledge of the terms might allay the ferment of the Irish nation; the insinuation of force was disclaimed by the chief members of the cabinet; and there was no reason to apprehend, that they would ever have recourse to it.

The Earl of Westmoreland was induced, by some recent parliamentary elections in Ireland, to believe that many of the opponents of the Union had begun to think favourably of it, and that there was a chance of obtaining at least a patient hearing of the terms, which, he trusted, would recommend themselves by their beneficial tendency.

The Duke of Portland admitted, that though he deemed the adjustment in 1782, a sufficient remedy, at the time, for the grievances of Ireland, he did not regard it as superseding a legislative incorporation or any other measure, which might be devised by the same or by subsequent ministers,

The house agreed to the resolutions without a division; and a day was fixed for proposing an address on the subject.

As soon as Lord Grenville had moved, that an address should be presented to his majesty with the resolutions, Lord Auckland rose to discuss the subject at large. As many of the former arguments were used, by different members who spoke in the subsequent debates upon the Union, the report only of what appears new, will be given. He observed, that, even if Ireland had a complete equality with Britain in extent, opulence and strength, yet the existence of separate and independent legislatures, with one executive power, would render an union desirable, rather than degrading or detrimental to either. Immediately previous to the attainment of a supposed freedom of constitution and trade in 1782, that kingdom was subordinate to this realm both in legislation and judicature: it had no more than the name of the British constitution, the semblance and mockery of a free government. Even after the Irish freedom, as it was called, had taken place, their government was still founded in the pretensions of a small part of the community to a monopoly of the representation, patronage, and resources of the whole, and could not therefore contribute to the prosperity, tranquillity, or safety

of the nation.

The remaining part of his lordship's speech chiefly related to the commercial advantages, which would flow to Ireland from the Union.

It was not to be expected that capitals and commercial credit should be transferred to a country struggling under an anoma lous, incompetent, and disturbed government, and maintaining a claim of right to adopt at any time adverse connections and interests? Nothing less than Union could satisfy these questions. They could not rest on the flimsy and undefined protestation so often repeated, and so imperfectly realized, that," the "affections of Ireland were inalienable, and that both kingdoms should stand and fall together." Let the Union take place, and all commercial distinctions and political jealousies would be annihilated; for there could be no competition between two parts of the same kingdom, having incorporated interests directed by one legislature.

The Bishop of Llandaff, had so long ago as the year 1785, intimated his opinion to the late Duke of Rutland, that he and his friend the minister would gain immortal honour, if, instead of the propositions which were then under discussion, they could accomplish, by honourable means and upon equitable terms, an Union of the two kingdoms; but his grace had answered, that the man who should venture to bring forward a scheme of such a nature at that time would have been tarred and feathered.

Whether the repugnance to the measure were then general, or were confined to the leading men of the country, the prelate did not know; but was fully convinced of the policy and utility of the scheme at any time. It would enrich Ireland, and would not impoverish Great Britain. The consolidation of Ireland with this country would render it the strongest empire in Europe. If the lands in Great Britain and Ireland should be well cultivated, as in the event of an Union they probably would be, they would maintain a population of thirty millions, six millions of which number would be capable of bearing arms; and this population, in case of necessity, might afford one million to be in arms, without distressing agriculture, manufactures, or commerce. Then we might with safety despise the politics of the continent, and without contributing our forces or our wealth, allow the princes of Europe to settle among themselves the equilibrium of despotic power, while, conscious of the blessings of liberty, we must lament that despotism should exist in any part of the world.

With regard to the Catholics, some contended, "that, as they formed the most numerous class of the community, they had a right to some kind of ecclesiastical establishment, and to an exemption from political disabilities. This point was rendered difficult by the distribution of property, which was in the hands of a small minority, who would have no interest in, and would derive no benefit from such establishment. The point was of great delicacy and importance; but, the sooner it should be agitated, the better. In the mean time he would recommend to both parties the advice given by a father of the church on another occasion, that both should give up little things in order to secure great ones, tranquillity and peace.

The link which now held the two countries together was very imperfect; it was the sameness of one of the branches of the legislature in both. This link, by what had been foreseen, and what was unforeseen, might be endangered, and the interests of Ireland might be exposed to hazard; but, when three parts of the legislature of Ireland should be incorporated with the legislature of this country, the failure of the link would be impossible, except in an event dreadful even to contemplate, the absolute destruction of the whole government and constitution.

In urging the necessity of close connection, he affirmed, that Ireland, as a shoot from the stem of Great Britain, had brought forth fruit; but that, as a separate plant, it would neither strike its roots downward, nor spread its branches above; it would bear no fruit for at least an hundred years. It must either be shaded by the British oak, or it must be poisoned by the pestilential vapour of the tree of French liberty....that tree which had brought