391]

39 GEORGE III. Debate in the Commons on the King's Message [392

House of Commons would resume the
consideration of the measure, in a calm
and dispassionate temper. He likewise
entertained the same expectation. It was
not very likely, indeed, that they would
take it up again with much favour, when they
reflected upon the strange terms that had
been used in that House as applicable to
their proceedings, such as intoxication,
wolves, &c. &c. But he hoped they would
reconsider those prejudices which led them
to reject the claims of the Catholics, and
generously admit them to a share of the
little they had it in their power to give.
He hoped they would reflect, that Catholic
exclusion was the cause of their own
weakness, and had been made a reason
of wresting from them their independ-
ence. Such were his expectations from
the fair and manly manner in which Mr.
Barrington and several other members
had confessed their former errors. He
hoped the Irish parliament would reflect
upon how little they could impart to the
Catholic, which was no more than the
power of sitting with themselves, and
being admitted to a share of a few offices;
and to this would join the reflection that
now almost
Britain and Ireland were
the only countries in Europe where civil
exclusion was still maintained on account
of religious distinctions. They would
reflect, that if the Irish Catholic acquired
the possession of property, it must be
through the medium of that industry
which would civilize its habits, and fit him
for becoming a peaceful and valuable
member of the community. When they
dispassionately viewed the effects that had
arisen in many parts of the continent from
the abolition of religious feuds, he hoped
they would cast off those absurd preju-
dices which induced them to consider
their Catholic brethren as the advocates
of foreign supremacy. He had no doubt
that they would re-consider the question,
but he had as little doubt that the effect
would not be favourable to a union.
would conclude with moving, "That it
be an Instruction to the said Committee
to consider how far it would be consistent
with justice and policy, and conducive to
the general interests, and especially to
the consolidation of the strength of the
British empire, were civil incapacities, on
account of religious distinctions, to be
done away throughout his majesty's do-
minions."

He

Mr. Pitt said, that of all the speeches he had ever heard the hon. gentleman

make, that which he had just concluded
was the most extraordinary; for he began
by saying, that though he rose to move an in-
struction to the committee, yet he did not
think any was necessary; that it was
equally competent to him to propose his
motion in the committee itself; and there-
fore that he would not oppose the Speaker's
leaving the chair. He could hardly think
from this strange mode of proceeding,
that the hon. gentleman had any serious,
intention of persisting in his motion. But
passing this over, he would say a few
words upon the main object which it pro-
fessed-which was, the consolidation of
Irish Catholics and Protestants. This was
certainly a very fit subject for the atten-
tion of the House, if it was to be consi-
dered as an article of union. Viewed in
that respect, the motion very properly
embraced the whole extent of the British
dominions. But if taken as it had been
opened by the hon. gentleman, and the
abolition of religious disabilities here was
intended to operate by way of example
upon Ireland, there were three points
which ought to be maturely weighed
before the House gave its assent to it:-
the first was, what probability there was
that the adoption of such a measure by the
parliament of Great Britain would induce
that of Ireland to adopt it: the second,
whether their acceding to it would have
the desired effect of annihilating religious
animosity: and the third was, supposing
these two objects accomplished, how far
it would go towards strengthening the
connexion between the two countries,
Admitting that religious disabilities were
abolished here, he could not perceive
how it was to operate upon Ireland, which
a separate kingdom. Would the
was
hon. gentleman argue that because they
had been taken away in a country where
the numbers, property, and power of the
Catholics were a mere nothing in compari-
son with those of the Protestants; they
would therefore be destroyed in a nation
where almost the whole property of the
country was in the hands of the minority,
and where the whole Protestant constitu
tion rested upon the foundation of Ca-
tholic exclusion? The hon. gentleman
might say, that it was a stronger argument
in its favour that the Catholics constituted
the majority. But he ought to recollect,
that the very consideration which would
operate most upon a Protestant parlia
ment, was the dread of Catholic ascen
dancy. With respect to religious feuds,

he was convinced they could not be so promptly or completely extinguished by any scheme that could be devised as by that of union, which would alone put an end to that disparity and weakness which now occasioned the exclusion of the Catholics. He conceived that every concession to the Catholics, while Ireland was a separate country, would tend only to increase that jealousy and hostility between the two sects, which had too long existed.

The Speaker said, that if the House were of opinion, that the tenor of his majesty's message did not warrant the introduction of the motion, to discuss it at present was irregular. If, on the other hand, it did come within the power of the committee, it was not regular as at present worded. It was necessary that, after the word "consider," the words "in the first instance," be inserted.

Mr. Sheridan said, he would assent to the proposed amendment. Nothing could be more silly than to say, that he attacked the independence of the Irish parliament. This was a strange comment upon his motion, by a man who had himself brought forward resolutions tending to procure a total surrender of that independence. He had argued, that it was unsafe to grant Catholic emancipation without union; why, then, had he authorized lord Fitzwil. liam to promise it? Why had he raised that expectation in the minds of the Catholics, of the fallacy of which he had since endeavoured to convince them by a system of cruel massacre and torture of every denomination ? The House, in adopting his motion, would only repeat the sentiments of his majesty's ministers in 1795, and give greater effect to the pledge which they had then given.

Protestant subjects. Now, what can he mean by this, but that the parliament of Britain should hold out encouragement to the Catholics of Ireland to expect what, as a distinct legislature, we have no right to dictate to the parliament of Ireland? But here, Sir, in referring to the transactions of 1795, I must again and again deny, that the circumstance of refusing to give to the Irish Catholics, at that time, their requests, was the cause of the insurrections which have since taken place. We have vouchers sufficient, and on testimony not easy to be erased-the testimony of the hon. gentleman's friend, and in defence of whose character he has appeared upon oath-that the insurrection of Ireland did not originate from this cause, that it did not arise from any thing which lord Fitzwilliam held out to Ireland having been afterwards withdrawn. As I formerly asserted, I now aver, that there were no hopes which lord Fitzwilliam was directed to hold out to Ireland, and which were afterwards withdrawn; and I assert, that the cabinet of this country never gave him any such authority, and that therefore such authority never remained to be withdrawn.

Mr. Sheridan's motion was then negatived, without a division.-On the question being put, "That Mr. Speaker do

now leave the chair,"

General Fitzpatrick said, that in 1782, he was officially employed in carrying into effect what he would venture to say was then universally considered as a final adjustment between this country and Ireland. He would affirm, that if ever there was a compact solemnly entered into, between any one state or kingdom with another, binding upon both, the compact of 1782 was of that description. It might be Mr. Pitt-I repeat, that nothing I said, that the union now proposed was not have said can be fairly construed to be inconsistent with that settlement. But no inconsistent with the acknowledgment of two things could be more inconsistent the independence of the Irish parliament. with one another than the recent speech of The present measure grows out of that ac- the minister and the spirit of the settleknowledgment, and is a proposal to do ment of 1782. This union, he said, grows something by no means inconsistent with out of the independence of the parliament that independence. What the hon. gen. of Ireland, that was to say, out of the settleman proposes is, to do something tlement of 1782. Now, to bring a meawhich, I apprehend, the British parlia- sure into one parliament and to enter into ment will be of opinion it is incumbent resolutions upon it, that is to say, in the upon the Irish parliament to do them. British parliament, by which the other, selves. He proposes that, in the year that is to say, the Irish parliament, is to 1799, the British parliament should de-surrender to the other, was totally inconclare, for the greater security of the Irish sistent with the independence of the parCatholics, that, without a union, they liament of Ireland which was established should be entitled to all the privileges of in 1782. He would say, that the inde

395] 39 GEORGE III. Debate in the Commons on the King's Message [396

duct of the French, that, in point of breach of faith, was more atrocious than this measure would be towards Ireland if carried by the British parliament. Not even the conduct of the French in Switzerland was worse than this. It was not necessary, in the view he had of the measure, to say any thing about terms; the whole was founded upon a flagrant breach of faith. The better the terms appeared to be, the more he should, perhaps, be induced to dread them-" Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."- For what security would the Irish have for the continuance of these good terms? How could they enforce them from those who were stronger than themselves? He should be glad to know, when the Imperial parliament met, what chance Cork, which was said to be a place in which this measure was approved of, would have with Bristol, if the interests of the two cities should clash? He could not help remembering that Mr. Burke lost his seat for Bristol, in consequence of the share he took in a measure supposed to have been advantageous to Ireland. If this measure had originated in Ireland, the entertaining it here might be fair, but that it should originate in the British parliament was abominable. Without complimenting the parliament of Ireland, he had not so mean an opinion of their common sense, as to think they would consent to annihilate, at a blow, the whole of the constitution of their country. Accordingly they had decidedly declared against the measure, and it was universally odious to the people of Ireland. Under all these circumstances, he was unable to comprehend the reason of the right hon. gentleman's persisting in this measure.

pendence of the Irish parliament must be sacrificed before any union could take place. But to return to the establishment of the independence of the legislature of Ireland. He had a seat in the House of Commons there when the resolutions passed in 1782. He held, at that time, It was wished, at an official situation. that time, to talk them over, which they were very fully, after they came to that assembly. The whole of that assembly almost was well disposed to these resolutions; but there was one member of that House, who was afterwards a member of this, who was not very well disposed to them he meant Mr. Flood. He called on him, as an official person in that House, to say, whether there was any other measure to be grounded on that resolution? to which he answered, and assured that gentleman, from the authority of those with whom he acted, that there was no constitutional measure to be brought forward. Surely the union was a constitutional point, and therefore was so far inconsistent with the settlement of 1782. He would venture to say, that for the fifteen years following this resolution, there had been no doubt entertained upon the independence of the Irish legislature in a He was, constitutional point of view. therefore, surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman say any thing of a slight nature against the settlement of 1782. It was a settlement which not only had the approbation of the right hon. gentleman, but of many of those who were now his friends and adherents. Lord Auckland (then Mr. Eden) moved the repeal of the statute of the 6th of George 1st. Now, the right hon. gentleman called the settlement of 1782 a childish settlement; upon what He seemed to Mr. Ryder said, that the right hon. geground, he knew not. think much of the difference which took neral had assigned, as a principal reason place between the parliament of this coun- for his opposition, a desire to justify himtry and that of Ireland upon the question self from any charge of inconsistency. of the regency: that was a dispute which This, however, was founded upon an erfortunately never came to an issue; but roneous idea of the present measure; as all difference upon that subject might be if the right hon. general's opposition to laid aside for ever by a single act: and in- the union was necessary to the consistency deed he saw no reason why the spirit of of his conduct as a supporter of the indethe law, which provides that the same per-pendence acquired by Ireland in 1782; sonage shall hold the sovereignty of both countries, should not be extended to the case of a regency. It would certainly be just and salutary to have such an act, and it was easy to make one, and therefore it was childish to object to the two independent parliaments existing together on that ground. He knew of nothing in the con

whereas, the measure proposed, instead of violating that independence, was in itself the strongest recognition of it. This was the opinion of many of the most active supporters of the measure of 1782. Those very gentlemen who brought forward the repeal of the 6th of George 1st, had it undoubtedly in their minds to proceed to

equally proved the point for which he was contending.-If the right hon. general was right in his assertion, that by entertaining the present question, the House was acting against the independence then finally settled, that would preclude, no doubt, all discussion upon the subject; for if it were a breach of faith to open a negotiation between two independent kingdoms with independent legislatures, for the purpose of an arrangement of points essential to their interest, by mutual consent, on fair and equitable terms, such a breach of faith had certainly been committed by the proposal of the present measure.-But he would ask the right hon. general, how far he meant to carry this argument? In the present case, he seemed, indeed, to wish to narrow the ground, merely on account of the relative situation of Ireland, which being less than England, must consequently have a less share than England in the imperial legislature. Did the right. hon. general mean to contend, that, in all cases of union, the two countries uniting must be of the same extent, in population numerically equal, and singularly circumstanced in every particular, or else that the smaller country must, by uniting, give up its independence? Suppose this perfect equality, even then, according to these doctrines, independence must be given up on both sides, as it might then be contended that it was far from the same thing to have the sole management of your own concerns, and to share that management jointly with another. These principles might, indeed, be pushed much farther; but the real question was, whether a union would be ultimately for the interest, not only of the country of greater extent, wealth, and population, but also of that which had the less, and would be likely to contribute equally to the strength and prosperity of both? On this point, experience fully confirmed the dictates of reason. Was Yorkshire less attended to than Cornwall? Were the interests of Wales or of Scotland, whose representatives bore so small a proportion to those of England, the less attended to on that account? If, then, a union should take place with Ireland, what reason was there to suppose that the same beneficial effects would not be felt, which have followed the union with Scotland, and all our other unions, or that her inferiority in wealth, population, and extent, and consequently in representation, should render her less an object of the impartial care of an im

some farther measures, as necessary to
the permanent connexion of the two king-
king-w
doms. If any imputation was thrown
upon the government of that day, it was
thrown by the right hon. general and his
friends, who represented that government
as supposing that the repeal of the 6th of
George 1st was all that was necessary
in direct contradiction to their own decla-
rations at the time and at subsequent pe-
riods, as well as to the unanimous resolu-
tion of the House, passed after the resolu-
tion for the repeal of that act. The mem-
bers of that administration did not consi-
der it as a final settlement. The general
application of this term had led to error:
a final settlement it certainly was, in the
limited sense in which only it should be
understood, as relating to the independence
of Ireland; but as a final settlement of all
points, imperial and commercial, between
the two countries, it never was regarded
or intended to be understood. He might
refer to what was now almost become his
tory, to prove that the language of the
secretary of state, who moved that repeal
and that resolution, was inconsistent with
the idea that a final settlement could be
accomplished by that repeal alone. Was
it not even then stated by him, that after
parliament had done what it was conceived
necessary for it then to do, it was the
duty of the Crown to look to the rest.
The business might be begun by his ma-
jesty's servants in Ireland-negociations
might be entered upon by commissioners,
and a treaty established, which should be
sanctioned by the most solemn forms of
the constitutions of both countries.-That
the settlement of 1782 was final in the
most extended sense, could not be con-
tended to be the opinion of the parliament
in 1783, which passed an act for com-
pleting what was left imperfect in the only
point which was then settled: still less
could it have been the opinion of the par-
liament in 1785, which adopted the com-
mercial propositions, involving not only
regulations of trade, but the most impor-
tant questions of navigation and revenue.
The right hon. gentleman before alluded
to, had indeed declared, at that period, in
opposition to those propositions, that the
questions reserved for consideration in
1782, were of an imperial, and not of a
commercial nature. The right hon. gene-
ral now conceived they were commercial,
and not imperial. He must leave the
right hon. general and his absent friend to
settle this difference as they pleased: both

399]

this country, before the parliament of Ire-
land, of the terms of fairness and equality,
upon which they conceived a union might
be formed for their mutual advantage and
security. A statement, to enforce which
no arms were proposed to be used, but
those of reason a statement which ap-
pealed to calm and deliberate considera-
tion, because such a discussion the ques-
tion had not yet received; and because
we hoped, when these advantages were
laid before the people of Ireland, that
cool and deliberate consideration would
remove all the objections now entertained
against the consolidation of two indepen->
dent parliaments into one common legisla→
ture.

perial legislature? The right hon. general
appeared to take it for granted, that that
distinctness of interests must continue
after a union, which it was the main ob-
ject of that measure to annihilate for ever.
The right hon. general had stated, as an
illustration, that the people of Cork would
be extremely deceived if they flattered
themselves with an increase of commercial
And what
prosperity from the union.
was his reason for inspiring them with that
distrust? Why, because Mr. Burke had
lost his seat at Bristol, in consequence of
his supporting a question favourable to
the commerce of Ireland. If, before a
union, the member for Bristol could sup-
port a question favourable to Cork; and
Mr. Pitt said:-I beg leave, Sir, to offer
if, in spite of the rivality of Bristol, such
a question could be carried in the parlia- a few words upon the final adjustment on
ment of Great Britain, what ground could which gentlemen place such great re-
there be to imagine, that, subsequent to liance. I mean the adjustment of 1782,
in which the right hon. general was pecu-
a union, such rivality would be more suc-
cessful? Would not every real ground liarly concerned, and in which I am also
of jealousy which that city, or any other, said to have had a considerable share. I
might entertain respecting Ireland, be think it necessary once for all to state,
done away by that measure? and would that I never said it could not be altered;
not the only bar be removed, which was I only maintained that it was to be consi-
But so far from
now the obstacle to her full participation dered as a final recognition of the inde-
of all the commercial prosperity of this pendence of Ireland.
country? But the right hon. general considering it as a final settlement between
thought she could have no security for the two countries, I was decidedly of opi-
those advantages. Had not the commer- nion, that it only led to future arrange-
cial advantages been conferred on Ireland, ments between them. This sense of that
before a union, which she now continued measure was most unequivocally under-
to enjoy ? And was it natural to suppose, stood, and could not at that period be
that when they became rights, they would liable to misconstruction or perversion.
be less secure than when they were fa- The lord lieutenant, to whom the right
vours? With respect to the object of hon. general was secretary, went to Ire
this plan, and the means of effecting it, land with that express view; and such was
the right hon. general had thought proper the opinion of his right hon. friend (Mr.
to institute a parallel between the conduct Fox), who is occasionally absent from
of this country and that of France. If, this House, who gave it as his conviction,
amongst the recent events in Europe, that the country was pledged to bring
there was one more particularly calculated about a final adjustment. The present
to excite feelings of pity and indignation, measure has naturally grown out of the
it was the revolution of Switzerland. That adjustment of 1782; consequently that
in the wide range of his imagination, the arrangement was incomplete. In support
right hon. general should be able to find of this, I have only to refer to the Jour-
one common feature between the two mea-nals of the House. It was resolved, after
sures; that from all the infamous projects
in which France had been engaged, her
conduct to the Swiss should be selected
for a comparison with the proposition
made to Ireland, excited in his mind the
greatest astonishment at the strange shape
in which some facts presented themselves
A revolution
to the minds of some men.
attended with such atrocious circumstances
was compared to what? To a statement
intended to be laid, by the parliament of

the adjustment of 1782, that the connexion between both kingdoms should be settled on a solid and permanent basis. If the opinion of this House is to be consi dered as of importance, it must follow, that the connexion was not then finally settled. It is, on the contrary, evident, that a farther agreement was deemed absolutely necessary. But as no doubt can exist, with respect to the full recognition of the independence of Ireland, I ask,