would be ruin to both countries, ruin more or less rapid, but that a connexion of Ireland with France is the worst alternative that can be supposed, and pregnant with immediate destruction. The next point which I shall endeavour to establish is, that a union at present without the unequivocal sense of the Irish people in its favour, that a union effected by fraud, by intrigue, by corruption, by intimidation, would ultimately tend to endanger the connexion between the two countries. In the next place, is it possible that Ireland, in the present circumstances, can act as a free nation upon this most important question? Upon these grounds do I rest the argument against the progress of the measure. I hope we shall not hear it contended that we are best qualified to judge what is for the interest of Ireland. Those then, who, looking at the importance of close connexion, of joint effort and vigour, agree with me in thinking, that to press such a proposition as that in contemplation would lead to disunion and weakness, will oppose the progress of the measure at present. If those who propose the scheme consider the means by which it is to be carried as nothing, they may think the present opportunity very favourable to their views, will they follow the advice of a certain of ficial pamphleteer (Mr. E Cooke), who recommends them to profit by the example of the old volunteers, who took advan-impolicy which has marked the conduct tage of the embarrassments of the country, and retort upon the people of Ireland their own game? Will they avail themselves of the embarrassment, the weakness of Ireland, which the person to whom I allude states to be considerations so fa vourable to the project? But, if any man could be so mean as to pursue this unworthy policy, what then would be the situation of Ireland? What would be the feelings of Irishmen if they could say to England" You took up our cause in a moment of difficulty and danger; you as sisted us with your force and your re sources; but at last you took advantage of our weakness; with forty thousand of your troops in the bosom of our country, you did not wait a willing consent, but carried into effect a union, upon which we could not exert an independent choice. The nature of the means by which it is to be carried there is too much reason to suspect. Those who can enter into the distinction of negative success, will be at no loss to understand the effect of nega tive intimidation. Will not the people of Ireland have reason to suspect the motives of sending troops to them; and when they find a proposal for putting an end to their separate existence so soon brought forward; when they find their independence thus threatened with insult, and every effort exerted to intimidate those who distinguish themselves in its defence, what then may be the effect of such reflexions as these in any future insurrection that might unhappily take place? Should any future rebellion occur, I will not say that it will be justified, but its pretences would have a colour and plausibility far different from the last. Would they not say, We rise to recover our independence, our separate existence, of which we have been deprived without our consent? The last insurrection was supported partly by the Catholic, partly by the Presbyterian, partly by the wild republicans; but the pretence of a future insurrection would address itself to all equally, and be recommended as a struggle for independence unjustly taken away. Such would be the consequences of a union effected in the present circumstances. I do not say that insurrection for such purposes would be justifiable, but in point of fact it cannot be denied, that the Irish people have no liberty to judge of the measure by which they are to be so deeply affected, in honour and in interest. We must admit the of this country to Ireland for three centuries; and, when at last she wrung from our tardy justice those rights which it was a shame and a scandal for England, that assumed the character of the superior country, to refuse, is it not incredible that sixteen years after her rights were confirmed, she should be called upon to resign that parliament to which she is indebted for the attainment of her just claims? Has the Irish parliament, then, forfeited the title which it gained to the confidence of the people? The supporters of the plan of union will hardly contend that the parliament ought to be cashiered for demerit. Has not that parliament been congratulated, that by their wisdom, their patriotism, the country has prospered? But a rebellion has taken place. Here again the parliament is not only exempted from reproach, but is held up to admiration. By the vigilance, ability, and firmness of parliament, domestic treason, and foreign invasion have been disconcerted and defeated. Are the people of Ireland then to be told, that they will be better secured against the machinations of conspirators, by the vigilance of that parliament, the reports made by which of plots and conspiracies were found by the decision of a jury to be unfounded? In Ireland, indeed, there was a real plot of the most dangerous and extensive nature; and what I maintain is, that the people of Ireland will not easily believe that they 'will be better protected from treasonable attempts by a parliament here, than they were by that parliament to which is ascribed the merit of their safety. Perhaps they are, as it is reported, to be allowed to retain something under the title of a parliament: a national vestry is to sit to do the business of the parish of Ireland! With the mock importance of this ignoble dignity, this unsubstantial mockery of power and greatness, will their interests be better maintained, and their safety better secured? But, is it possible that a parliament with such merits should, by an unbiassed resolution, resign the guardianship of their country's rights and interests? Has the parliament of this country superior knowledge of the affairs of Ireland? No, surely. On this point I can appeal to an authority which many here will be disposed to admit ; that of the lord chancellor of Ireland. Lord Clare says, that the nation and the parliament of England are more ignorant of the affairs of Ireland than they are of any other country. And is it to a parliament like this that the interests of the sister kingdom are to be confided? Is it to you that the people of Ireland are to look for protection, for improvement when their own parliament is cashiered? Are you to leave the rebels unmolested; are you to overlook armed banditti infesting society, and read the Riot act to disperse Lords and Commons? Would you impute to them the merit of having saved the country, and the next moment call on them to resign their authority for ever? Can we doubt, then, that this object is to be carried into effect by intrigue, by corruption, by intimidation? Has not a threat been thrown out, in what may be considered as an official proclamation, that the troops which had been sent to Ireland may be withdrawn, that the money with which she is aided may be withheld, and the country left helpless and devoted? Must not the Irish, then, who have supported the connexion, feel that they are not at liberty to choose? Such are the insinuations which an Irish clerk or secretary has thought proper to throw out in his official pamphlet. What are we to think, how. ever, when we see marquis Cornwallis, either by his own authority, or in conse quence of the instruction he receives from this country, dismissing some of the most respectable servants of the crown as unfit to serve his majesty, because they are not favourable to the projected union? What will be the consequence when the volunteer corps find that they are no longer considered worthy of confidence the moment they show a dislike to lend themselves to the support of this measure? If the lord lieutenant is authorized to extend the system of removal to all who are unwilling to concur, can it be said that free will or choice is allowed? I think, then, that I have shown that Ireland is not free to pronounce against the proposed union that it will afford a dangerous pretence for insurrection; and that this projected adjustment will only unite two wretched bodies, leaving the minds separate. I should like to know what would be said of France were she thus to carry into effect a union, not by shameless oppression of a neutral state, but of one connected with her by the dearest ties, one whose subjects were bleeding in her cause in every quarter of the world? What would be thought of France if she bounteously proffered her assistance, sent her troops, lent her money, and when refusal was impossible, incorporated a subjected people? Would you not treat the pretence of free choice with scorn? would you not mark the insult with indignation? What would you think if the Directory threatened to abandon this people to treason and to invasion? If they arrogantly dismissed all who ventured to dissent from their measures, would you not deride the man who should call such a union the union of consent and of free choice? The king of Sardinia is made to assert his willingness to resign his crown; but who considers it as free consent? When we see intimidation, and corruption, and intrigue, so unequivocally displayed to ef fect this measure, how shall we avoid the charge of that injustice which in others we so justly condemn? We hear French principles reprobated. Let us be careful at the same time to avoid French practices. Let us hold up to disdain and to indignation the conduct of the French, by a studious endeavour to keep ourselves unpolluted by their guilt. Let us avoid all suspicion of corruption and of intrigue, in a transaction of such magnitude. Let the union which we covet be that of affection; let it be that of minds and spirits, as well as of interests and of power. To endeavour to attain the object in the mode hitherto begun, is unworthy of Great Britain. It resembles the marriages which still occur in some parts of Ireland, that begin in fraud, and are carried into execution by force. Forbear the brutal rape, when you may obtain the willing partner. You should not publish the banns of such a marriage by the trumpets of your 40,000 men. Ireland, while she has seen so many of her sons swallowed up in the grave and the dungeon, is not fit for the celebration of bymeneal rites. Forbear then, to pursue a course so unworthy; a course that threatens to lay the seeds of future insurrection, and to end in weakness, not in strength, in distraction, not in unity. Seeing, as I do, the danger of carrying the plan into effect now, I cannot help asking, what is the necessity of such dispatch? why should the present moment be considered so important to be seized? Ministers have not thought proper to favour us with any explanations. In a pamphlet ascribed to a gentleman on the other side of the water, indeed, I find some attempts made to show the importance of the present time for carrying the measure into effect. This performance is well known to be circulated by government, and may be supposed, therefore, to contain the arguments by which they may defend the measure; though I must say, that a more pert, flimsy, offensive performance, never was offered to the judgment of a nation. Disaffection, it is true, may be found in Ireland; but what connexion is there between the disease and the remedy proposed? We seem to resemble the poor man in the play, who is very ill, and exclaims, "What! will nobody give me advice? I am ready to follow any prescription." So here a disease was admitted, and we seemed to act as if any remedy was perfectly applicable. "We never consider whether the remedy is at all likely to cure the disorder. What then are the arguments for dispatch, by the official promulgation of the Castle creed? Whimsical enough, indeed, they will be found. The principal parties against whom it is necessary to guard, it seems, are the pope and the English opposition. In the present state of the English opposition, we should have thought that he needed not have been in great alarm for the effects of their exertions. Hear what he says on this subject-" Add to this the melancholy reflexion, that the Irish parliament has been long made the theatre for British faction. When at a loss for subjects of grievance in Great Britain, they ever turn their eyes to this kingdom, in the kind hope that any seed of discontent may be nourished, by their fostering attention, into strength and maturity. Incapable of beating the minister on his own ground, they change the place of attack, and wound him from the side of Ireland. Need I allude to the question of the commercial propositions, the question of the regency, and the question of the Catholics; when we have seen the leaders of the British opposition come foward to support the character of Irish rebels, to palliate and to justify Irish treason, and almost to vindicate Irish rebellion ?"-As to the Catholics, his object seems to be to cut them off from all hopes of seeing their claims realized, and in this state of despair, he says, that dissatisfaction will sink into acquiescence, and acquiescence soften into consent. This, no doubt, would make a very pretty sentence in a novel for Mr. Hookham; but the pamphleteer has no sort of hesitation in overthrowing entirely the hopes of three millions of people, and applying an insuperable barrier to the attainment of their claims. With more than the pride of human ignorance, and more than the presumption of mortal arrogance, this pamphleteer ventures to set at defiance all experience, to despise all established policy, to conceive that so many men could live content to be excluded from all civil rights on account of religious differences. He pronounces an eternal exclusion against three millions of the people of Ireland from all share in the government to which they must submit. Mark, too, the indelicacy of another argument which he urges to show the necessity of dispatch" What then is intended by a steady and firm administration? Is it a determined, inflexible, support of protestant ascendancy, and a rigorous and indignant rejection of Catholic claims? Who will be a guarantee of that system, and whom will it content? The Catholics will not acquiesce in its propriety. A party of Protestants in Ireland term it unjust and absurd; another party in England term it by fouler names; great leaders in opposition, possibly the future ministers of England may condemn ม Great Britain in the last war, to assert the independence of our parliament. It is likewise true that the United Irishmen in the present war have taken advantage of the supposed weakness of Great Britain to play the game of separation. When, therefore, enemies of the empire take advantage of a time of war and embarrassment to effect its ruin, we should turn against them their own game, and make use of a time of war to establish its security." He remembers what the vigour of the Irish enabled them to obtain, and he points out the mode by which you may retract what formerly you could no longer refuse. He tells you how you may gratify your revenge at the sacrifice you made. If any thing could rouse the indignation of the Irish nation it must be sentiments like these, recommending a policy as unworthy of those by whom it should be employed as unjust to the people on whom it should be inflicted. it; and some members of the British ca- these: nor is it my intention at present to posed by the introduction of one hundred | puting the doctrine, or admitting all the knights from England? As to the sacri- consequences; of either acknowledging fice of pride to which the Irish nation the authority to the destruction of our must submit, though boasting as much liberties, or denying it with the conse Milesian blood as any man, nobody can quence of perhaps justifying insurrection? suppose that such a feeling would warp If they fear such questions, they should my judgment on such a question, pro- avoid starting a subject in which they are vided I saw it as a measure in other re- necessarily involved. A great officer of spects worthy of support. It was no the crown, now in another House, once trifling matter too, the changes which the asserted, that, "though Lords and Commeasure would produce here. Is it a slight mons should pass a bill overturning the matter, that by creating a physical impos- constitution of certain boroughs, it would sibility of many members of this House shake the crown on his majesty's head to consulting with their constituents, it will give his assent to it." If such could be give a practical sanction to the principles the effect in a thing comparatively of less of those who reprobate all communica- moment, what might be the effect in one tions with constituents? It has been said so much greater as that of a parliament by a certain right hon. gentleman, that voting itself a part of a foreign legisla constituents have nothing to do with their ture? We know that the question is so representative, from the day they send discussed, and that there is danger that him to this House till he goes back to his a resolution of such magnitude may at a election, and the argument goes to show, future period be disputed. that ignorance is the best support of a regular government. When I read sentiments like these as coming from a member of this House, I was surprised, and had 1 found them in any other publication, I should have considered it my duty to move, that the attorney-general should be directed to prosecute the publication as I did, when I formerly had the honour to move the prosecution of a pamphlet,* in which this House was represented as not being an essential part of the constitution. These doctrines would doubtless receive much support from the presence of a hundred members, who could not communicate with their constituents; and, truly, after resigning the independence of their own parliament, I should not deem them very likely to support the purity of this. Now, however, when the question forces itself upon our consideration, what right has the Irish parliament, to resolve that instead of going back to their constituents, they shall form part of a foreign legislature? If the parliament assumes such a right, who can say that parliament may not make the king despotic, confer upon the crown the power of the purse, and a "vigour beyond the law?" Precedent may be urged;-but a dangerous and doubtful precedent at a former period will not greatly incline me to give it new force by repetition. If those who complain of the danger of agitating such questions are sincere, why do they reduce us to the dilemma of dis Mr. Reeves's Thoughts on the English Government. See Vol. 32, p. 608. Of the proposal in general, I think that as a remedy it is not suited to the disease, on the existence of which it proceeds. Not merely now, but at all times I am averse to it. Those, however, who only agree with me in disapproving of the time, may vote for the amendment which I shall have the honour to propose. In Ireland the British government has two formida ble enemies, poverty and ignorance. If any measure could be devised, to improve the knowledge and extend the prosperity of Ireland, I should support it with sincere pleasure. How does it happen that the Irishman should be found so superior in foreign countries to the Irishman at home. All over the globe he is distinguished for industry, loyalty, energy of character, and talent in every profession and pursuit. To what can this difference be ascribed, but to the government under which he lives? One great cause of the difference too, is to be found in the man. ner in which men of property exercise their right. Although no written law compels them to any particular direction and use of it, there is a condition para mount to all written laws, which is the tacit condition under which it is enjoyed, but which in Ireland many of the landowners are not careful to observe. Last year I stated, that at one time 12,000 manufacturers, with their families, were com, pelled to live on the charitable contribution of 5d. per week. As to the wretched condition of the peasantry, we have the authority of Mr. Arthur Young, one which, on such a subject, will probably |