Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Union has had considerable effect in pro- | ducing it. I say, it is not disrespectful to the parliament of Ireland for us to proceed: we have a right to lay the measure in the view of that country, that it may decide upon it, not by passion, but by cool deliberation. The House certainly is not bound, in vindication of its character, to proceed; but if it entertains an opinion in favour of a union, I think it will act wisely in going into a committee upon the resolutions. It is true that the resolutions might be made known to Ireland without their having been agreed to by the parliament of England; but is there not a material difference between having them published in a pamphlet, and their being agreed to by the parliament of Great Britain? Gentlemen have not shown us in what this disrespect consists; but if we merely state the grounds upon which we have agreed to the measure, and then add, that we have only agreed to it as conceiving it to be beneficial to Ireland, I cannot conceive how it can be considered as disrespectful to that country.-The hon. gentleman has gone into an argument upon the general competence of parliament. On this subject I should have no objection to enter into a discussion with him, if this were a proper time. I, however, perfectly agree with the opinion advanced by my right hon. friend, that there is no such thing as a sovereign power in abeyance in the people. Whether there may exist any moral right which may be exercised in extreme cases, is another question; the imagination of man can conceive such a moral right, but I am convinced there is no such political right. I am sure the hon. gentleman will not find any thing at our Revolution, or connected with our constitution, which will justify such a doctrine; but, on the contrary, the greatest pains to prevent any idea of that kind being established.

Mr. Tierney said:-Sir; I never thought the right hon. gentleman would have brought forward a measure like this, without having examined, in the first instance, whether or not it was likely to be acceptable; nor did I think, after what has passed, that he would have persevered in it. He has, however, thought proper to persevere, and he must take the consequences. What advantages can be gained by a union, which cannot be obtained without it? I am clearly of opinion, that these resolutions would produce the same effect if they were sent over without par

liament being pledged to them. It is said that we abused the Irish parliament: if gentlemen allude to the statement of there being 116 placemen in it, that assertion was made in the parliament of Ireland.I really do not see that the advantages which the measure holds out are likely to compensate for the danger that may result from it. Much has been said of the advantages it holds out to the Catholies. All that you can now give them is, the privilege of holding certain places, and of sitting in parliament: but the latter would be a very trifling privilege; for such is the distribution of property in that country, that in fifty years, fifty Catholics would not get seats in parliament. I do not think that the measure would prevent the attempts of the enemy, nor put an end to intestine troubles; for we now see that its effects would be to create still greater divisions than exist at present in that unhappy country. It has been said, that there are many instances in which the competence of parliament has been tried, and the Union with Scotland has been alluded to; but that does not appear to me to be in point, for I think the parliament can do every thing but destroy themselves, and in the case of the Scotch Union the parliament of England did not destroy themselves; and this is, I think, a very obvious distinction. It is said, that something must be done for Ireland; and then we are told, that these resolutions are not to be acted upon: if so, I should be glad to be informed what is to be done for Ireland. No doubt, the people of Ireland will treat the right hon. gentleman's resolutions as they have treated his speechthat they will paste them on the walls as arguments against the union. If this were all, I should not mind it; but if you agree to the motion, it will not be the ministers, but the parliament of England that is implicated. If you persevere, every step you take will be looked upon with suspicion. If you send over more troops, the object may be misrepresented. One of the strongest reasons against this measure is, that there is no necessity for its immediate adoption. I am, by no means, contending, that it is radically a bad measure, or that we ought to abandon it for ever, but after the opinion which has been expressed in the Irish parliament, and throughout that country, against it, the minister ought, at least for the present, to abstain from pressing it. It is said, that the parliament of Ireland may change

383]

their opinion upon this subject. I am
by no means inclined to think so; but I
am sure there is much less probability that
the people of Ireland should be brought to
change an opinion which they have almost
unanimously expressed. Considering this
subject in another point of view, I cannot
but recollect that I stand here represent-
ing commercial people, and I think I
should betray their interests, if I pledged
myself unnecessarily to resolutions by
which they may be ultimately affected. I
cannot conceive upon what principle I,
as a British member of parliament, should
pledge myself to certain resolutions, when
the parliament of Ireland refuse to pledge
themselves to any thing. I cannot con-
ceive why we should pledge ourselves to
give up a part of our constitution, while
the parliament of Ireland have declared
they will not give up any part of their's.
If, however, we are to have these mem-
bers from Ireland, they ought at least to
be purified before they come here. I do
not refer to any idea of parliamentary cor-
ruption, but to a statement of Mr. Cook's,
who says that they are chosen in Ireland
merely for the purpose of keeping out the
Catholics. On what principle is it that
the number of spiritual peers is to be in-
creased in the other House? It cannot
be said that the reverend bishops are in-
attentive to the interests of the church,
and that we must have some from Ireland,
in order to secure the Protestant ascend.
ancy. As Ireland has rejected all consi-
deration of the subject, why pledge our-
selves to resolutions which we may find
hereafter extremely inconvenient? I am
afraid the truth of all this is, that the right
hon. gentleman's pride has been hurt. I
have heard that he has not yet forgiven
the parliament of Ireland, for their con
duct upon the propositions; but all I ask
of him is, that we should not be made par-
ties to his resentment. If he is deter-
mined to play Guy Faux towards the par-
liament of Ireland, let him do it, if he
pleases, but let us not furnish him with a
cloak and dark lantern. Deprecating, as
I do, the farther progress of this measure,
I implore the right hon. gentleman and
the House not to persevere in it at pre-

sent.

Mr. W. Grant said :-The object, Sir, of those gentlemen who oppose your leaving the chair is, to prevent the discussion of these propositions, because, they say, the discussion of them at present may be productive of mischief; and, in order to +

prove the propriety of not doing it, they
have entered very fully into that discus-
sion. They say, we think the measure
you have proposed is wrong; and we also
think you ought not to have an opportu-
nity of showing that it is right by going
into the committee; we are not pledged
to adopt the propositions. The arguments
against your leaving the chair are three:
In the first place, that it is not a proper
time for the measure, because, in the pre-
sent situation of Ireland, the free assent
of that country cannot be obtained. The
second was, that the Irish parliament could
not give their assent; and the third, that
after what has passed in that country, the
discussion is unnecessary and improper;
unnecessary, because it can have no effect;
and improper, because it may tend to in-
crease the animosities that now exist in
that country. With respect to the first
objection, that the Irish parliament is in
that situation that it cannot give a free
assent, that objection has been answered
by an hon. gentleman on this side of the
House; because, if it be admitted that
they can give a free dissent, it follows
that they had the power of assenting if
they chose. But the hon. gentleman says
"No; because their assent may be
forced." This argument implies that we
are to employ force to obtain it. But if
it appears that you do not employ force,
then the argument falls to the ground.
If there was any reasonable ground for
supposing that the deliberations of the
parliament of Ireland were influenced or
governed by force, then indeed the hon.
gentleman might say that it could not
give a free assent; but is there any thing
in the situation of Ireland which shows
that they were not perfectly free to decide
this question in any manner they thought
proper? He undertakes to assert, that
Ireland is not free, when Ireland herself
asserts that she is. As to the competence
of the parliament of Ireland to adopt this
measure, I can only say, that if that par-
liament cannot do it, there exists no
power that can. This question about the
competence of parliament, is one that ad-
mits of much discussion; and perhaps
when we had done, it would be found that
there was not much real difference of
opinion between us. It might be found,
perhaps, that I was thinking of moral,
while others were thinking of legal com-
Parliament is morally incom
petence.
petent to do any thing that is wrong; but
parliament is legally competent to do any

that we ought not to consider it after what has passed in Ireland, because it would tend to inflame the passions of the people in that country-this I consider as not treating the parliament of Ireland with respect; it is rather treating them like children than as men of rational understandings; but if the gentleman contends, that by persisting in this measure we shall treat the parliament of Ireland with disrespect, he reduces us to a curious dilemma. If this measure is ever to be passed by both countries, it must be passed on the same day, or on different days: if it be passed on the same day, the consequence must be, that it must be passed in the dark, because neither can know what the other will agree to: if it be passed on different days, then we are open to this objection, that we ought not to pass the measure until we know whether the Irish parliament will accept of it or not, and consequently the objection will be eternal. It seems to me, that as the vote which has passed in the Irish House of Commons was, that the subject should not be taken into consideration, that it is more incumbent upon ministers to bring forward the propositions, and that the House should agree to them, if upon consideration they think they ought to do so. It would be highly improper in us, wishing that a union should take place, to leave them in ignorance of the terms we meant to propose; we owe it, therefore, to the people of Ireland to state them: we owe it also particularly to those who, in that country, are in favour of the union. The conse quence of keeping back the propositions will be, that every man who is inimical to the union will have an opportunity of representing them just as he pleases. If this were a case of two hostile nations opening a negotiation with each other for a peace, and the one found the other unwilling to listen to the first general overture for negotiation, then it might not be prudent to produce the terms meant to be offered, because the continuance of the contest might produce a change in our situation; but between two nations, situated as Great Britain and Ireland are, surely it is the most generous, open, and liberal policy, to state candidly the terms we meant to propose. If ministers had adopted a different line of conduct, and had dropped the resolutions without making them known, gentlemen would have condemned it as a piece of close policy, and would have said, that ministers

thing. Parliament may do that which the people at large may do for themselves. This is my idea of the competence of parliament. But the arguments of the hon. gentleman go to show, that there is no remedy for an evil which is admitted to exist; for if there is no competence in parliament, it does not exist any where. It may be said, that competence resides in the people at large; but how can you collect the sense of the people? Would you assemble them in convention on Salisbury plain? If you lay down rules by which their sense is to be determined, then you influence their determination: besides, if the question is to be decided by the people at large, what right have you to make rules for them at all? How is it to be decided who shall have a right to assist at the determination, whether persons of twenty years of age shall or shall not have that right? But the hon. gentleman seems to think, that the assent would be good if the electors agreed to it. I should be glad to know why, if the parliament is incompetent, the electors are competent? They themselves exist like the parliament, only in consequence of the constitution, and the body of the people might say to them, "You, the electors, can do no more constitutionally than what the parliament could, and consequently must resort back to us." I have already shown, that, arguing upon first principles, the suffrages of the people can never be taken; and the consequence then must be, that there exists no mode whatever by which a nation, either collectively or through its representatives, can give its assent to a measure of this kind; so that if every man in the two kingdoms were perfectly agreed as to the beneficial consequences of the measure, by this mode of reasoning, they would be rendered perfectly helpless, and unable to effect an object which they knew was for their common good. For even if you could suppose that every man's vote could be taken upon the question, yet that would not be sufficient, unless every man voted for it; because you have no right to say that the majority shall determine the question, for the first point they would have to discuss would be, whether the majority should or should not decide. The hon. gentleman has alluded to the case of the Revolution, but I do not think it has furnished him with any argument in support of his opinion.. With respect to the last objection, namely, [VOL. XXXIV.]

[ocr errors]

kept their propositions secret, with the intention of varying them as circumstances altered. It is stated, that this is

an attack upon the independence of Ireland: it cannot be necessary to enter into any arguments to refute this proposition, because the measure itself is founded upon a recognition of its independence. The parliaments of the two countries are put upon an equal footing, and nothing can be done without the mutual consent of both. How, then, can this be considered as an attack upon her independence? The first two men that entered into society were independent of each other; but if one of them proposed to come to some agreement for their mutual benefit and safety, it could not be considered as an attack upon the independence of the other. With respect to the settlement of 1782, I think it can in no sense be understood as precluding the two parliaments from treating with each other. can it for a moment be contended, that by that measure the parliaments of the two countries disabled themselves for ever from making any propositions, however calculated to their mutual advantage? Without entering into the views of the persons by whom that settlement was made, it is only necessary to say that there was nothing at that time finally settled. There was indeed something unsettled, and nothing substituted in its place.

Mr. W. Smith did not think the union absolutely a bad measure, but contended, that having been rejected by the Irish parliament, we ought not to persevere in it at present.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Feb. 11. On the order of the day being read, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee to consider further of his majesty's Message,

Mr. Sheridan said, it certainly was not his intention to say any thing more against going into the committee, but he understood that some hon. friends of his meant to take occasion of doing so this night, having hitherto had no other opportunity; at the same time he would fairly own, that whatever had the effect of delaying this measure, was in itself far from being reprehensible, and would, if duly considered, be received by gentlemen on the other side as a boon. He now rose, because he felt it incumbent on him to propose an instruction to the committee. This he knew it was in his power to move in the committee itself by way of resolution, but he considered this to be preferable to that mode of proceeding. The question had been twice discussed, and at each discussion it had been decided that the Speaker should leave the chair upon the measure now before the House; but the House had as yet not made itself responsible for the project of the right. hon. gentleman, and therefore any other member might, with strict regularity, bring forward whatever measure he might think fit. The proposition which he had to make had for its object the putting an end to those religious feuds which were so much: complained of by the right hon. gentleman, as existing in Ireland. He did not mean that any steps should be taken for that purpose which should have the least appearance of trenching upon the independence of the Irish parliament; he had taken care to word his motion so, as to avoid any such construction. He intended that its operation should be left entirely to the force of example, which, aided by the stronger necessity that existed for its application in the unhappy circumstances of the sister kingdom, would, he had no doubt, speedily incline the independent legislature of that country to its spontaneous adoption. He did not conceive that the right hon. gentleman would contend that the time was im

or it would be incumbent on him to show very strong reasons for suddenly abandoning a measure, which he admitted to be of more service to the British empire than any thing that could happen short of union. The primary object of lord Fitzwilliam's administration was, the complete emancipation of the Catholics. It was known by every member of the Irish parliament, and to every man in the country. It was equally well known that it constituted the avowed ground of his recall: and yet so far was it from exciting their displeasure, that there never was a lord lieutenant who left Ireland with testimonies of more general regret for his departure. The right hon. gentleman had broadly stated, that it was frivolous to assert that the settlement of 1782 was final, or to suppose that it was then intended that the connexion between the two countries should be entirely left upon that footing, that the evils which had since arisen could be no otherwise radically cured than by a union, and that this

proper for such a measure. Whether its fitness at the present crisis would or would not be disputed, it possessed this recommendation at least, that it was considered by his majesty's ministers in 1795 to be a measure of prudence, safety, and indispensable necessity. [Here Mr. Sheridan read an extract from earl Fitzwilliam's Letters to lord Carlisle, stating the agreement of the duke of Portland and Mr. Pitt in the opinion that the emancipation of the Catholics was necessary for the preservation of Ireland, and that though it was thought more advisable to delay the measure until a period of greater tranquillity, yet that, if brought forward, he was authorized to give it a handsome support on the part of government.] Thus the measure which he wished to be given in instruction to the committee was then considered by the gentlemen opposite to be consonant to the principles of sound policy and justice. He would be glad to know, whether the events which had since happened in that distracted country, and all of which had been pre-remedy, if not adopted now, might be put dicted by earl Fitzwilliam, were not such as to induce the right hon. gentleman to regret, from the bottom of his heart, that he had not permitted the measure to be brought forward at that time. If he should say, after witnessing the melancholy consequences of the recall of that nobleman, that he still felt no regret at the proceeding of the British cabinet, the House and the whole country would certainly hear that avowal with astonishment. Considerations of much weightier importance than any that could arise from mere curiosity, required that the right hon. gentleman should explain the motives of that sudden change in his sentiments. His present gestures seemed to indicate that there had been no change. The natural inference then was, that when he appeared to countenance the scheme of emancipation, he never entertained any idea of carrying it into execution, and that he sent over lord Fitzwilliam merely to dupe the Irish Catholics for a time, to suit his own purposes. To this conclusion, however, it was not very probable that the right hon. gentleman would accede, for it would incur a much stronger imputation on his character than an acknowledgment that he had changed his mind upon the question of emancipation, in consequence of unfitness of time, or change of circumstances. But either he must submit to that imputation

off ad Græcas kalendas. Was it to be inferred from this, that abandoning all idea of the necessity of the free consent of the Irish nation, and considering their representatives as worthy of being put in straitwaistcoats, he would proceed at once to cram it down their throats? He had said, that he wished to wait for a moment of calm, when the irritation occasioned by the first view of the measure should subside, and its many advantages could be impartially considered; yet his conduct was in direct contradiction to this principle, for he loudly talked of the necessity of an immediate remedy. There was an opposition between his professions and proceedings which was apparently inexplicable. If the right hon. gentleman would avow that he designed to carry it by coercion, his anxiety to have his resolutions carried would then excite no surprise. But if it was his real intention to wait for the result of calm and temperate discussion in the Irish parliament, what security could he give that the adoption of it would not equally be put off ad Græcas kalendas?— The remedy of an union was, then, contingent and precarious; but that which his motion contained was of present use, and whether applied by the British or the Irish parliament, in the first instance, would be productive of the most beneficial effects. The right hon. gentleman expressed a hope, that the Irish

« ZurückWeiter »