the misrepresentations to which by such a conduct, I may be exposed. There are questions of such magnitude and importance to the public interest, that in treating them freely and manfully, we ought to despise all little obloquy and petty attack. In such cases to fear the misapprehensions of ignorance or the misrepresentations of malice, is to forfeit every title to our own esteem, and meanly to shrink from the discharge of the most sacred duty. Such are the feelings by which I am actuated, and such the temper with which I approach the discussion of this great question. | the ambitious designs of the enemy will be frustrated-that their attempts to separate the empire will be frustrated. The enemy, we are told, persevere in their design of effecting a separation. What, then, is the course which ministers pursue to defeat this attempt? What is the mode they embrace to fortify and consolidate the empire? In this state of things which they describe, after a rebellion newly extinguished, they come forward with a proposition calculated to cherish the hopes of those who have long pursued rebellion, to divide those by whose exertions rebellion was subdued. Who then encourages those designs, which are stated to be the object of the enemy? I did, indeed, hope, that, after the glorious achievements of our inestimable seamen ; after the defeats which the enemy re would have abandoned their design. When they find, however, those who aided to protect their country from rebellion and hostile attack treated as unworthy of confidence, when they find some of the oldest and most faithful servants of the crown dismissed from their employments; is it wonderful that their hopes should be revived, and their design still pursued? In the message with which this subject is ushered into the House, the word union is not mentioned. The right hon. gentleman, however, will not surely intrench himself, behind a piece of form. Every one knows that here adjustment means union. Every one knows, too, that the terms are, to a considerable extent, already fixed, and that a certain person in Ireland, who fills in that country the office which you, Sir, fill here, has publicly declared his hostility to the measure. Sorry am I to see likewise, in the dismissal of the chancellor of the exchequer of Ireland, an instance of the mode by which the scheme is to be supported. There is something in the conduct of those who now so boldly introduce this question to our consideration, strangely inconsistent with the affected delicacy which, on former occasions, when the affairs of Ireland were the subject of discus-ceived on their attempts at invasion, they sion, they observed. We recollect the time when they felt how tender a thing it was at all to discuss any point with which the independence of the sister kingdom could be supposed to be involved. "What," said they" Beware of touching the jealous spirit of independence by which Ireland is actuated!" That trembling delicacy, however, seems now to be completely removed. Without explanation, they now come forward with a plan by which the independence and separate existence of Ireland is to be annihilated. I hope, then, that we shall hear no more of the objection that the discussion of such a subject is calculated to irritate and to incense the people of Ireland. Those who have brought before us a question which demands such extensive consideration, such ample discussion, ought to have reflected what was likely to be the tendency of their own measure. It is our duty to canvass it freely and fully; to speak out manfully; to utter our opinions firmly. I sincerely believe that ministers think the measure which they propose to be for the real interests of Ireland and of the empire; that they press it in order to continue a connexion, which I, as well as they, consider essential to the prosperity and to the existence of both. In declaring this to be my conviction of the motives by which ministers are actuated, I claim it equally from their justice to believe, that I am as little likely as themselves to promote any measure by which the connexion could be affected, or to encourage those who would unite Ireland in a fatal connexion with our cruel and rapacious foe. I trust that In contemplating, then, the fatal effects of bringing forward the question at the present moment, the object of the amendment I shall propose will be to put a stop to the farther progress of the design, not with a view to prevent discussion, for I have no objection that the subject should be fully discussed both here and in Ireland, but to prevent the attempt from be ing carried into effect in the present situ ation of affairs. In proceeding to consider the question in this point of view, I assume as a position, to establish which no argument is necessary, that separation would be ruin to both countries, ruin | tive intimidation. Will not the people of more or less rapid, but that a connexion Ireland have reason to suspect the motives of Ireland with France is the worst of sending troops to them; and when alternative that can be supposed, and they find a proposal for putting an end to pregnant with immediate destruction. their separate existence so soon brought The next point which I shall endeavour forward; when they find their independto establish is, that a union at present ence thus threatened with insult, and without the unequivocal sense of the Irish every effort exerted to intimidate those people in its favour, that a union effected who distinguish themselves in its defence, by fraud, by intrigue, by corruption, by what then may be the effect of such re intimidation, would ultimately tend to en- flexions as these in any future insurrection danger the connexion between the two that might unhappily take place? Should countries. In the next place, is it possi- any future rebellion occur, I will not say ble that Ireland, in the present circum- that it will be justified, but its pretences stances, can act as a free nation upon this would have a colour and plausibility far most important question? Upon these different from the last. Would they not grounds do I rest the argument against say, We rise to recover our independence, the progress of the measure. I hope we our separate existence, of which we have shall not hear it contended that we are been deprived without our consent? The best qualified to judge what is for the last insurrection was supported partly by interest of Ireland. Those then, who, the Catholic, partly by the Presbyterian, looking at the importance of close con- partly by the wild republicans; but the nexion, of joint effort and vigour, agree pretence of a future insurrection would with me in thinking, that to press such a address itself to all equally, and be reproposition as that in contemplation would commended as a struggle for independence lead to disunion and weakness, will oppose unjustly taken away. Such would be the the progress of the measure at present. consequences of a union effected in the If those who propose the scheme consider present circumstances. I do not say that the means by which it is to be carried as insurrection for such purposes would be nothing, they may think the present op- justifiable, but in point of fact it cannot portunity very favourable to their views, be denied, that the Irish people have no will they follow the advice of a certain of liberty to judge of the measure by which ficial pamphleteer (Mr. E Cooke), who they are to be so deeply affected, in horecommends them to profit by the exam- nour and in interest.-We must admit the ple of the old volunteers, who took advan- impolicy which has marked the conduct tage of the embarrassments of the coun- of this country to Ireland for three centutry, and retort upon the people of Ireland ries; and, when at last she wrung from their own game? Will they avail them- our tardy justice those rights which it was selves of the embarrassment, the weakness a shame and a scandal for England, that of Ireland, which the person to whom I assumed the character of the superior allude states to be considerations so fa country, to refuse, is it not incredible that vourable to the project? But, if any man sixteen years after her rights were con could be so mean as to pursue this un- firmed, she should be called upon to reworthy policy, what then would be the si- sign that parliament to which she is intuation of Ireland? What would be the debted for the attainment of her just feelings of Irishmen if they could say to claims? Has the Irish parliament, then, England-"You took up our cause in a forfeited the title which it gained to the moment of difficulty and danger; you as confidence of the people? The supporters sisted us with your force and your re- of the plan of union will hardly contend sources; but at last you took advantage that the parliament ought to be cashiered of our weakness; with forty thousand of for demerit. Has not that parliament your troops in the bosom of our country, been congratulated, that by their wisdom, you did not wait a willing consent, but their patriotism, the country has proscarried into effect a union, upon which pered? But a rebellion has taken place. we could not exert an independent choice. Here again the parliament is not only exThe nature of the means by which it empted from reproach, but is held up to is to be carried there is too much reason admiration. By the vigilance, ability, to suspect. Those who can enter into the and firmness of parliament, domestic treadistinction of negative success, will be at son, and foreign invasion have been disconno loss to understand the effect of nega- certed and defeated. Are the people of Ireland then to be told, that they will be | which an Irish clerk or secretary bas 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 thought proper to throw out in his official pamphlet. What are we to think, however, when we see marquis Cornwallis, either by his own authority, or in consequence 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 effect 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 hymeneal 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 adyice? 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 admiristration? 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 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 cabinet are supposed to be averse to it. Its stability may rest upon accident, upon the death of a single character, upon the change of a minister, on the temper of a lord lieutenant; and the policy of this system is much doubted by the people of England."-Such arguments as these, indeed, do not seem very well calculated to "soften acquiescence into consent." To the Protestant he says, that the only chance of their being able finally to overcome the importunity of Catholic claims, is from the character of the British parliament, while to the Catholics he holds out the temptation of their claims being there admitted. This inconsistency does appear somewhat extraordinary as both arguments appear in the same pamphlet. As the pamphleteer probably understands Irish as well as English, it is surprising that he did not give the one in Irish and the other in English, to suit both the parties whom he was anxious to convince; in their Such are the arguments by which the present state of opposition they may not union is recommended to us at the preprove satisfactory to either. For the mis-sent moment. I have only referred to chiefs occasioned by the English opposition his remedy is rather comical: it seems that our speeches, in the reports through the newspapers, have so much influence, as to create faction in the Irish parliament. What is the remedy? Why, to bring his members into the very focus of sedition, to hear all our speeches by way of counteracting the inflammatory tendency of our speeches in the newspapers! It must be confessed that the remedy is somewhat in the Irish style. His third argument is, that the legislatures may differ. Is not experience, however, against this argument? He instances the commercial propositions and the regency. But what probability is there now that they should differ, when unity of councils was more than ever felt to be necessary for both? As to the case of the commercial propositions they were given as a boon by this country, and rejected in Ireland, as containing conditions derogatory to their independence. In the case of the regency, the difference was not in principle, but merely in the degree of restriction which was to be imposed on the executive government. The next argument of this English secretary, who has thriven in Ireland to what he now is, provokes mingled contempt and indignation. Hear what he says to show the propriety of seizing the present moment :-as to a time of war, it is true that the volunteers took advantage of the embarrassments of these: nor is it my intention at present to enter much into the consideration of the union as it regards England. Suppose, then, that the Irish parliament was to sit in this place, that the Irish sceptre were placed under your mace, and we were to receive the tributary members whom Ireland should be allowed to send. I know that there is in human nature a dispo sition to think that in proportion as others are degraded, we acquire a kind of dignity ourselves. I will not inquire then, with what kind of sentiment the proposal will be viewed in the northern parts of the country. It may be thought that Ireland cannot be degraded, by doing that which Scotland has already done. Of the many points in which the cases differ, I shall at at present say nothing. In what I am about to move, I am not sure even of the support of a single voice, and my hopes of success therefore are not very sanguine; but is it nothing to England that should the scheme take place, that respectable and meritorious class of men, the English Roman Catholics, must feel themselves totally cut off from the hope of being admitted to share the rights to which they are entitled? Does the right hon. gentleman, think, too, that the one hundred Irish members will infuse into the constitution that new life and vigour which his great father pronounced necessary, and which, in other times, he pro |