"fhall really acknowledge myself deeply indebted to him.-Will "the noble Lord have the goodness on his return to England to "oblige me by propofing a repeal of the Teft and Corporation "Laws, and the Act of Supremacy, in the British House of "Lords. I am pretty confident the noble Lord will not grant "me this requeft, and he will not grant it because he knows that "if he were to make fuch a propofition there, he would foon "learn that it is treafon to the British Conftitution he would "there be taught to know that the House of Stewart was ex"pelled the British throne for a fimilar attempt, and that any man who fhould dare to propofe fuch a repeal in the British "Parliament, did, by the propofition, condemn the title of the illuftrious houfe of our Monarch to the British throne. "If the noble Lord were to talk of repealing the Teft Laws " and the Act of Supremacy in Great Britain by way of concilia❝tion, he would be told that he retailed the fulfome cant of "James's memorable declaration for liberty of conscience, and I "with the noble Lord to read that famous proclamation, in "which he will find the ftale and fimfy pretext of conciliating "and uniting men of all religious perfuafions, in fupport of Go"vernment and the Conftitution, held out to the people of Eng❝land by that deluded bigot, to reconcile them to the introduc"tion of Papifts in both Houses of Parliament, and into the ❝ efficient offices of the State, civil and military." And yet the Catholics are now to be deluded to affift in the deftruction of the Parliament of their own country, under the deceitful expectation of acquiring the privilege of fitting in the Parliament of another, and fo, far has the deception hitherto fucceeded, that many of them in their refolutions for an Union, have made the acquifition of that privilege the very condition upon which they support the measure; and in particular the Catholics of Waterford have almost in express terms urged their hope of attaining further advantages from the United Parliament, and yet it is well worthy of observation, that in no one of the official answers to addreffes where fuch a demand has been made, or infinuated, has been there a fingle word said upon the subject.-But perhaps the noble Lord will now put an end to all ambiguity and doubt upon the Catholic fubject.-Are they to be admitted into the British Parliament or not, in case of an Union? Has the noble Lord authority to say they will? If they fupport his Union, will he' make their emancipation, as it is called, part of the treaty? Will he now engage before this Parliament, that the Catholics of Ireiand fhall be admitted into the United Legislature? Or can he engage for that which I have fhewn would be confidered as treafon against the British Conftitution? He cannot make fuch an engagement; his filence fhews he cannot. Will the Catholics now fee that their only hope is in their own native parliament, and that' the the pretence of emancipation in that of Great Britain, is but a ftalking-horfe to deceive them, and a mask to conceal the confpiracy which is formed against the liberties of the whole people of Ireland? Thefe, Sir, are an enumeration of fome of the means that have been employed to facilitate the projected Union, and who that hears them, and feels for his country, but must exclaim with the Roman orator-Dii immortales ubinam gentium fumus ? quam rempublicam habemus? in qua urbe vivimus? hic, hic, funt in noftro numero patres confcriptis in hoc orbis terra fanctiffimo graviffimoque concilio, qui de meo noftrumque omnium interitu, qui de hujus urbis, atque adeo orbis terrárum exitio cogitent. We are told, Sir, that this Union will bring great advantages to IrelandEnglish habits, wealth, industry, commerce, and confequent profperity are to flow from it-the Hon. Bart. who moved the amendment, has fhewn with great perfpicuity, that the benefits to be expected are at best but problematical, whereas the loffes to be incurred are little fhort of certain.-Did we obtain our present advantages by being fubject to the English Legislature? Does not the hiftory of our country prove that our depreffion and mifery have been in proportion to the afcendancy of the British Parliament over us, and that our profperity and wealth have encreased beyond all example fince the period of our emancipation from the preffure of its fupremacy and controul.-What fecurity can any earthly contract give us that in the new ftate of things the Parliament of England will be more liberal to us than it was before 17822-Will that Parliament which was, if not cruel, at kaft unkind to us, when its authority was but remote and incomplete, be more mild and merciful when we fhall be bound hand and foot, and enchained at her feet?-does power ameliorate the heart of man?-Or are nations lefs mercenary, lefs felfish, lefs tyrannical, than individuals, when they have the means and the opportunity of being fo?-1 know there are some who think that by this measure we fhall fecure the quiet of the country; does any man think that fuch, a nation as this, will be contented without its refident Parliament ?-without a juft reprefentation in the United Senate without a Gentry-without its Liberty with increased burthens, and decreased ability to bear them with diminished population, and amplified fources of dif content-with a deferted capital, and an uninhabited countrywill this order of things bring us internal quiet? Yes-the quiet of enforced fubmiffion-the repofe of flavery-the tranquillity of death-the peace of the grave-when no voice fhall be raised to vindicate the wrongs of Ireland-when no arm fhall be left to ftruggle against oppreffion-when the pride, and the energies, and the People of this ifland, fhall have been buried under the ruins of the Conftitution. I muft, however, fay, Sir, that though the advantages of the propofed Union, are not visible to to my intellect, the difadvantages of it are moft manifeftly obvious the detail of the calamities which fuch a fyftem would entail upon our country, has been fo often made, that I fhall not now dwell upon them; it is enough for me to say what I am fatisfied would be the refult-that the Union would be, in the first place, deftructive of the Conftitution, which is the birth-right of the Irish People, and in the next place, fubverfive of the popular balance of the English Government, which is the fecurity of English Liberty-that it would destroy one Parliament, but to corrupt the other-that Ireland would be governed by the sword and England become the victim of her own ufurpation-and that while the empire, inftead of acquiring ftrength, would contract weakness by fuch a revolution; the fpirit, the nerves, the bones, the marrow, the heart's-blood, of this our country (to use the words of Mr. Sheridan, speaking of the defigns of France upon England) would be exhaufted and confumed in maintaining the declining glory of an ungrateful and ungenerous friend. Thefe, Sir, are my sentiments as to the measure and the means. I fee no remaining head of observation, but the men who are the inftruments of this moft difaftrous project; and we have been called upon against the impulfe of feeling, and the conclufions of intellect, to give the Noble Lord credit for the wifdom and liberality of his plan-but I beg to know upon what prefumption it is, that the Noble Lord is to be confidered as underftanding the interefts of this country, better than any other man--are men poffeffed of the delufive opinion, that experience is not the compafs by which a ftatefman fhould fteer or will they perfuade themselves (as I prefume he has perfuaded himself) that there is a ray of divine wisdom, a luminous intuition, given to this young man, to remedy the natural deficiency of youth, and to fupply the experience of more adult years there is, in deed, a certain degree of confidence due from the people to those who are fet in authority over them, but carried too far, that confidence may be miferably fatal-are the prefent Ministry entitled to that confidence-a Ministry compofed of men, whofe talents do not rife above the regions of mediocrity, who are hoftile beyond all example to the longevity of former fyftems, and blindly devoted to experiment and innovation,-yet equally unfortunate in demonftrating the utility of their new meafures, as criminal in the deftruction of the old-a Ministry who would reject the affiftance of any man of real talents, who would dare to affert the liberty of his country in the cabinet of the Viceroy-a Ministry compofed of the fhreds and remnants of every faction, and of thofe undiftinguifhed expletives who were hitherto thought too incapable, or too infincere, or too corrupt to have the confidence of any any party-a Ministry whofe public principles admit as much variety as their personal features, but who are alike however, in the want of ability and knowledge, in their devotion to corruption, and in their hoftility to the Conftitution. Such is the Ministry, which has boldly avowed its determination to perfevere in a meafure which is the very fummit and perfection of human wickednefs, to impose the yoke of flavery upon the neck of a free people— not the flavery of conqueft, not the flavery of defpotiím, not the flavery of aristocratic tyranny, or democratic phrenfy, but the worst of all flavery, the flavery of corruption. Sir, I have no hesitation to say, that if they carry the meafure under all the circumftances which I have ftated and obferved upon, it will be a robbery, and not a treaty; an act of constraint and violence, not of compact and volition; a conqueft, not a Union-a Union upon fuch principles, and accomplished by fuch means, Policy never can require-juftice never can fan&tify-Wisdom never can approve-Patriotifm never can reconcile-Time never can cement -and Force never can establish—it might be a Union for a few days, a few months; perhaps for a few years; but it would be followed with ages of ill-blood, generations of hoftility, centuries of contest and defolation, and mifery to this ifland to all eternity-it would be an Union founded on the violation of public faith, erected on national degradation, equally fubverfive of the moral, phyfical, and political fitnefs of things, and equally odious and abominable in the fight of God and Man. Sir BOYLE ROCHE profeffed himself as warm an advocate for it-and declared that it alone was calculated in his mind, to save Ireland, and fecure the British Empire. Sir JOHN PARNELL obferved, that the Minifter, instead of dif cuffing the propofed Amendment, charged fome of the members of the Oppofition with having been the promoters of disturbance and of feparation from Great Britain. That it was was to prevent those difturbauces and fuch feparation, that he fupported the Amendment. That being attached to his Sovereign and to the Baitish Connexion, he would oppose all measures tending to alter the Conftitution, whether they came from the fide of the Minifter, or from any other defcription of them. He defired to know whether discountenancing loyalty, and banishing the landlord from his refidence did not remove that controul, which hitherto had fuppreffed rebellion. That this was the cafe, he appealed to experience. A nobleman of the first property had already fold his eftate, and quit the country, and fo great was the quantity of L money money daily fent to England from the measure of an Union, that the course of exchange had been a long time at 15 per cent, notwithstanding there had been a loan to Ireland to the amount of two millions, which muft have confiderably lowered the exchange, but for the circumftances he had ftated. Many of the official characters whom he whom he addreffed, had already taken houfes in England, and would add to the number of abfentees who would drain the country of all its circulating cash. The Minifter asked time for the difcuffion of the measure, but his real object is only delay, to pursue the same measures he has for fome time adopted. He has removed from office every man who took one fide of the question, and replaced them by others of an oppofite opinion. Any perfon who fuppofes fuch conduct has been adopted in order to influence their conduct as members of Parliament, will withhold from him the delay which he folicits. He did not cenfure him for his removing men in high fituation from office, but when thofe filling the lower fituations are difmiffed, no one can doubt the tendency of fuch measures; that it was owing to fuch means that the Minifter ventured to act in defiance of the fenfe of Parliament. That he had brought forward the meafure by mifreprefenting the fense of the people, experience had proved; that he had been deceived as to the fense of Parliament in the former yaar: that by miftating the fenfe of the people at this time, he favoured revolutionary meafures and endangered the ftate. When the Constitution of this Country, as fettled in the year 1782, is to be fubverted, we were told that the acts of Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland ratifying fuch fettlement were not final, that without entering into the nicety of legal diftinétion, questioning the power of altering any thing however facred and eftablifhed, he would affert, that when the fettlement was in the nature of a treaty ought to be binding, and more efpecially on the existing parties who originally made the contract. Would any one affert the connection between England and Ireland ought not to be final? That Magna Charta ought not to be final? Where policy was connected with good faith, in what light ought thofe to be confidered who wish to diffolve the coutract? - We were told that the Country was to be benefited by English fettlers. Were the people of that country likely to defert the fupremacy which they wished to poffefs, in order to refide in a humiliated and degraded country? That he did not expect to be able to remain in a country to be a witness of the ruin to which he himfelf had not contributed. That he would not haunt the grave of departed Liberty.—That he trufted to the spirit of the House, and to the justice of Great Britain, that a meafure would not be perfevered |