conftitution was its coercive form; it was like a garrifon in the midft of a conquered town: it was a mere provisional government, deriving its exiftence, form, and power, from another state. Much of the mifery of Ireland also arose from the barbarous ignorance of its people, who had been rendered ferocious by the animofities which exifted among them. That ferocity had given occafion to new restraints on the part of the government, which redoubled the fury of the people. The conftitution, therefore, and the grofs ignorance which it encouraged, were the remote caufes of the distractions of Ireland; but the proximate caufe was undoubtedly the inoculation of French principles, which could never enter into the blood without producing death. Unfortunately the contamination had reached Ireland, and to its baneful influence might be attributed the late horrible diforders of that kingdom.

Mr. Tierney was surprised that ministers should have propofed an Union to this parliament without having been previously affured of the confent of the Irish legislature; but he was ftill more aftonished and even alarmed at their prefent perfeverance, after the ftrong difapprobation of the measure in Ireland. The Catholics perhaps might profit by the measure; but their expectations had not a very firm bafis. Industry might be more prevalent, wealth might increase, and good morals might become more general; but these points might be gained without an Union. He was among those who doubted the competency of the Hibernian parliament on this occafion as a delegated body could not be justified in surrendering the truft repofed in it by the people.

Mr. Grant spoke to three points. The first had reference to the affent of the Irish parliament, which Mr. Sheridan had hinted might be enforced by military terrors: he denied that there was any ground for fuppofing that the deliberations of the Irish legislature were or would be influenced or governed by force. If the army fhould overawe the members, he allowed that a free affent could not be given; but it did not appear that the presence of the troops in the country had any effect on the freedom of deliberation. The Irish did not feem to be under the least restraint in the delivery or propagation of their opinions. The second topic was the competence of parliament. This body, he faid, was morally incompetent to do any thing improper or unjuft; but it was legally competent to do any thing whatever. The third point was, whether it were proper to difcufs the measure after the late proceedings in Ireland. * Now Sir William Grant, master of the rolls.

VOL. II.

5 F

He

He contended that the refufal of taking the fubject into confideration in the Houfe of Commons of that realm ought to operate as an additional reason for ftating the terms, that the offer might not be finally rejected before the true nature of the scheme fhould be known to the public.

Mr. William Smith fpoke fhortly against the profecution of the plan. The queftion for the Speaker's leaving the chair was carried by 149 against 24, who oppofed it. A committee of the whole house was immediately formed, and the refolutions were moved and carried.

On the 11th of February, the minifter having moved the order of the day for the house going into a committee for the further confideration of his Majesty's meffage,

Mr. Sheridan recommended a fubftitute for legiflative union. He was of opinion, that the abolition of all disabilities, which had been incurred in civil affairs by religious diftinctions, would tend more to the improvement of the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland than the measure brought forward. He had the authority of the premier himself for the expediency of emancipating the Catholics of Ireland from the incapacities, to which they were fubjected. Such was the opinion of the leaders of the cabinet in the year 1795; and, though Earl Fitzwilliam were not then defired or permitted to propose the emancipation, he is allowed to have been exprefsly authorised to give it "a handsome support on the part of government." But a change of fentiment foon occurred; and the confequences of that change were deeply to be lamented.

Having cenfured the impolicy of neglecting that great object, and of recalling a viceroy, who was the avowed advocate of the Catholics, Mr. Sheridan contended that his propofal would remedy much of the evil and mifery, which exifted in Ireland, by extinguishing religious feuds, and promoting an union of interefts; that no danger would attend the adoption of it, as all fears of the prevalence of popery were groundless; and that it would increase the ftrength of both countries, without injuring the conftitution of either. He then moved, that it should be an inftruction to the committee to confider 'how far it would be confiftent with juftice and policy, and conducive to the general interefts, and especially to the confolidation of the ftrength of the British empire, were all civil incapacities on account of religious diftinctions to be done away throughout his majefty's dominions.'

Mr. Pitt objected to what he called a very extraordinary propofition. He

was

was surprised that one, who profeffed himself a warm friend to the independence of the Irish parliament, should propose what would be an obvious encroachment on that independence, an act of dictation and control. The motion itself, and the declarations of the mover, were, he said, inconsistent with each other. He denied that the rebellious difturbances in Ireland originated in any degree from the refufal of granting emancipation to the Catholics, or that Earl Fitzwilliam was authorifed to hold out any hopes or make any promifes which were afterwards withdrawn or retracted.

The motion was now rejected without a divifion; and a fresh debate arose, when Mr. Pitt moved that the Speaker fhould leave the chair.

Lieutenant-general Fitzpatrick, who had acted as fecretary to the viceroy of Ireland (the Duke of Portland), afferted, from his own knowledge of the views of the cabinet in 1782, the constitutional finality of the compact which was then adjufted, and completed in the following year. An incorporative union, from its tendency to a fubverfion of that settlement, deserved in his opinion the feverest cenfure. What fecurity would the Irish have for the continuance of any promifed advantages? How would a minority be able to enforce the execution of the terms? In every cafe of rivalry British fuperiority would overwhelm the interests of Ireland.

The honorable Mr. Dudley Ryder warmly defended the Union. Inftead of violating or fubverting the independence conceded in 1782, it was in itfelf a strong recognition of that claim; and Ireland, after an Union, would be as independent as Great Britain. The apprehenfions of a fubfequent inattention to the interefts of Ireland were alfo ill founded, as all rivalry would be loft in community of intereft and mutuality of benefit.

Mr. Tierney, to prove that the fettlement in queftion was underftood to be final, referred to an addrefs (voted on the 28th of May, 1782), in which the Irish House of Commons affured his Majesty, that no conftitutional questions 'between the two nations would any longer exift, which could interrupt their ' harmony.'

Mr. Dundas allowed that the independence of the Irish parliament had been completely acknowledged in 1782, but denied that this agreement could preclude its free affent to any future measure whatever, and affirmed that it was the intention of government at that time to propofe new arrangements. The Solicitor General (Sir John Mitford *), fpeaking of the adjustment, ob* Now Lord Redefdale, chancellor of Ireland.

ferved, that, from the nature of the tranfaction, it could not be complete or final, and that the expectations of ulterior arrangement were general at

the time.

The honorable Mr. Percival* concurred with the gentlemen who denied the finality of the adjuftment of 1782; he reprefented the Union as a beneficial fcheme; and exhorted the house to adopt the refolutions, that its fentiments might be recorded and fully known.

Mr. Sylvefter Douglas † obferved, that his opinion of the competency of the parliament of Ireland to adopt an Union, was confirmed by the opinions of the chiefs of the four great tribunals in Ireland. Very few of the antiunionists themselves ventured to dispute the point.

Dr.

* Now folicitor-general. This gentleman spoke more fully and explicitly than any other gentleman in debate upon the case of Mr. A. O'Connor's trial at Maidstone, and the nature and tendency of the evidence given by feveral gentlemen of the Oppofition (particularly Mr. Sheridan) in his favor. He particularly animadverted upon Mr. Sheridan's affertion, that with what he then knew, he should, if he were again called upon to give evidence to the character of the person in whose favor he appeared, hold the fame language which he did at Maidstone, and express himself still more ftrongly in his favor, viz. "That Arthur O'Connor was one of the moft open of mankind, and one "who was leaft inclined to have recourfe to French affiftance!" Such was the character which the honorable gentleman gave of that man upon his oath. If he reflected, he would furely admit that it was an unguarded manner of giving the character of a man guilty of the most atrocious treasons ; and the honorable gentleman was reduced to the dilemma of either admitting that he had been grofsly mistaken in the character of O'Connor, as the most open of mankind, or that he did not state the whole of what he knew upon oath.

+ Now a peer of Ireland by the title of Lord Glenbervie.

These were, the Earl of Clare, Chancellor; Lord Kilwarden, Chief Juftice of the King's Bench; Lord Carlton, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and Lord Chief Baron Yelverton : who, he afferted, in preparing the bill for Legislative Independence in 1782, made no fcruple to declare, that it was in his views and his wishes, that the tranfactions of that day fhould lead to the happy measure of an Union. To those opinions the honorable gentleman contrasted some of the United Irishmen's fentiments upon the fame fubject (8 Parl. Reg. 37); that fraternity had from its first institution, in 1791, been alarmed at the idea, that an Union between the two kingdoms might defeat their projects. In 1795, at a meeting in Dublin, where those perfons, and others of the fame fort, had defamed the character of the Irish Catholics by affuming that defcription, when many of them were, in truth, Atheists, and of no religious perfuafion, the apprehenfion of an Union being then strong in their minds, Mr. Lewins declared his opinion of the incompetency of the parliament to fuch a measure, in the following terms : "Who shall dare to affert that the Parliament of Ireland can do this? No man but an enemy to both countries; a traitor to the King and the People." And

"

Dr. Laurence urged against the propofal for an Union, that the people of Ireland were fond of their parliament; and their parliament was not, as it had been reprefented, torn by factions; the Oppofition of it had done all that could be done for their country; they were, indeed, low in numbers, but not in estimation. When a lord-lieutenant had been recalled because he had given his confidence to them, if in confequence of it, and of being perpetually kept out of power, Mr. Grattan took up fome question in a light which he did not approve; it was only fuch conduct as no man not more than mortal could help adopting. Since that time he had been made the fubject of much mifrepresentation, when his only fault was that of fullen retirement from the fenate. He then went at confiderable length into most of the points connected with the fubject.

On the division of the house for the speaker's leaving the chair 131 voted for it, and 19 against it. The house then refolved itself into a committe pro forma, and then adjourned.

When Mr. Douglas had taken the chair, on the 12th of February, Mr. Hobhouse suggested the propriety of abandoning all further proceedings for the prefent, as not only the parliament, but the whole people of Ireland appeared to be decidedly against the measure of any Union at all. And Mr. Bankes grounded his objections to an union upon the difordered state of Ireland, which rendered it not only inexpedient but unfafe to coalefce with her. An union, he said, would not remedy her evils; but her own parliament might gradually redrefs her grievances. That legislature ought to retrace fome of its steps, and, drawing a line between the difaffected and the loyal Catholics, re-enact reftrictive laws against the former, while the latter should be admitted to all the privileges now enjoyed by the Proteftants. British intrigue and faction ought alfo to be ftudioufly checked in Ireland, as they had been productive of much evil. The propofed incorporation, he thought, would not tend to tranquillize that country.

The speaker of the houfe (Mr. Addington*) viewed the fubject very differently from Mr. Bankes. He was convinced, from the fituation of Ire

And Dr. M'Nevin expreffed himself thus: "Parliament is incompetent to such an act of national "fuicide. Can the creature of the people, with parricidal arm, destroy the author of its existence? "The attempt would be high treafon against the nation, and put it out of the protection of society." These opinions were quoted from "The authentic Statement of the Proceedings of a Meeting held "in Francis-ftreet Chapel, 9th April, 1795."

* Now first commiffioner of the Treasury and chancellor of the Exchequer.

land