there, and then he would ask, if the king of England could be said to possess an efficient controlling power over the ecclesiastical establishments of Ireland? It was loudly asserted, that the only means of saving Ireland was granting Catholic emancipation, accompanied by parliamentary reform. Let the House look to the possible consequences of the adoption of such a measure, in the present state of things in Ireland. By the laws of England, the king was liable to forfeit his crown in the case of his being a Roman Catholic: let them look to the effect of a king of Great Britain, acting under the control of a Catholic parliament.-From the ecclesiastical power he would pass to that next in rank, the judicial. There might exist two distinct modes of administrating the civil power of nations, without much injurious consequence; but this would not hold good with respect to two different modes of administering the criminal laws. When these existed under separate controls, and liable hourly to different interpretations, the case was highly dangerous; the only remedy for this evil was one common and supreme resort to refer to, whose decisions should be final. In this part of the executive government there was obviously no shadow of connexion. It was true the judges in both countries were appointed by the same person, but in course of time these judges must interpret the laws differently; the inconvenience arising from this had already been severely felt in Ireland; for it would be one of the best means of drawing English capital to that country, to show the people here that their properties would be as secure in Ireland as in Great Britain. The next branch of the royal authority regarded its fiscal power; that is, what related to the expenditure and administration of the public money. By the arrangement of 1782, in this particular, the unity of that part of the regal power of both kingdoms was completely annulled. This was an evil, however, that would be gradually extinguished by an incorporated union and in this part of the present system Ireland was peculiarly liable to feel an inconvenience he meant with respect to loans. It was to this country that Ireland, in cases of necessity, must look for a supply, and the difficulty of negotiating them here must be increased, by the idea that the Irish parliament was completely independent of this country. But, in the He event of a union, a system of mutual aid and accommodation, in the line of finance, would speedily be established. From this consideration he next passed to a point which, at the present moment, was of more than ordinary importance; namely, the military power of the crown. would, in the present instance, but dwell lightly on the naval power of the crown, as it the less concerned Ireland as a distinct kingdom; but see the constitution of the military force in the British system of government. The mutiny bill, by which the army was alone supported, was submitted to the discretion of parliament from year to year. The army of the crown in Ireland was in like manner at the mercy of the Irish parliament, and they had it in their power to refuse the supplies for its support. Many cases might be sup posed, wherein this independent legisla tive power, on the part of Ireland, might tend almost to the destruction of the empire at large, and where this part of the identity of the regal power might be null and void. He would cite a particular instance: a very few years ago the parliament of this country thought proper, upon the recommendation of the crown, to augment the pay of the naval and military forces. The parliament of Ireland did the same with respect to the military establishment. What might the consequences be, if it pleased the Irish parliament to exercise their independence, in refusing the augmentation. This part of the subject embraced another very serious point, namely, the qualifications and tests required of persons admitted into the service: these were in some degree different in both countries, the possible consequences of such a distinction might be well conceived for on the cordial co-operation of the military forces of a country its existence depended. The admissibility of Catholics into the army, through the medium of the Irish regulations, was a possible evil of serious magnitude. He had thus gone through the ecclesiastical, judicial, fiscal, and military branches of the regal power. There still remained some other important branches to be considered: the first of these was what related to the concerns of external policy, such as the power of peace and war, and foreign negotiation; and in these respects let it be considered what the possible consequences of the present system might be. His majesty by the advice of the parliament of one country, might be at war with a particular power with whom | malversation of the Irish government, and the Irish parliament might think it the in- not only for that, but even for acts passed terest of their country to be at peace, and in the Irish parliament. engaged in treaties of commerce. Two Having thus touched upon all the parts instances occurred very lately in which in which the bond of the union between the reality of this supposition might have the countries was asserted to consist, and been experienced-the Spanish and Rus- in which detail he trusted he had clearly sian armaments. On these occasions, if proved its nullity, he contended, that the ministers had taken a different turn, the countries were reduced to the alternative proposition might have been at issue: for of either giving up the exercise of the inIreland might with one of those powers dependence of the parliament of the one have strongly conceived it her interest to country, or of all bond of connexion beremain at peace: and that she would re- tween both. There was a particular insume the power of acting differently there- stance, which could be introduced best in upon from England was evident, inasmuch this part of his argument, and respected as the measures of government were then the question of a regency, either as it emsubmitted to the Irish parliament, and de- braced the case generally, or referred to bated; and what did that imply but the the various modes by which the power of power of deciding upon the subject at dis- a regent may be exercised. The case accretion? Let this view of the question, tually occurred in 1789, and, the conduct and these possible consequences, be se- of the Irish parliament thereupon best riously considered! Let their lordships spoke for itself. No specific mode was look to the consequences, if the zealous laid down before that period for meeting exertions and eloquence of certain orators such an exigency. The question was had been successful in persuading the considered by both parliaments, and the Irish parliament to be of their opinion, mode in which the Irish parliament thought that the war was ruinous and unjust, that proper to supply the exigency was one the British government were the aggres- very different from that adopted by the sors, that it was on the one side a confe- British: the person chosen to fill that deracy of despots fighting against the es- high office was undoubtedly the same; tablishment of liberty. These points were but had it pleased Providence to call him enough to prove the insecurity of the bond to perform its duties, he was to have of union in respect to the prerogative of exercised his authority in a different peace and war; there still remained to be way in the respective kingdoms, and held considered the executive power, as pre- the office by a different tenure. The masiding over the internal policy of Ireland; jority of both parliaments might think and with respect to this, it would be a themselves right, but they certainly could mere waste of time to attempt to prove, not both be right. This was one of the that under the present system there was many cases which evinced the necessity of the least bond of connexion when the in- an incorporated union, and this important ternal concerns of Ireland were referred exigency could not properly be remedied to. One point yet remained untouched in any other way; for what signified the -the power of the crown, in the choice nomination of a regent of Ireland by an of its confidential advisers and ministers, Irish act of parliament? The very profor the affairs of both countries. The ceeding implies, on their part, the power question was one of peculiar delicacy, of appointing a regent. Their conduct whether it regarded the advisers of the was an abandonment of the principle upon crown for the concerns of the general po- which the connexion between the coun licy of the empire, or for the administra- tries was always held to subsist, and sution of the particular affairs of either coun-perseded the authority of the British partry: the question of the respective control of either parliament was here to be considered; and considering this control as vesting equally in each for the guidance of the respective ministers of each country, the regal bond of union was here as inefficacious as in any of the other branches of the regal power: but it had fallen to his lot to hear his majesty's British ministers censured for what was deemed the liament, in whom the right vested, to supply such a defect in the regal authority. The same principle that applied to the case of regency also went to affect the king's title to the crown; as it was held an act of treason to deny the power of parliament to vary the succession to the crown. By what was called the Annexation act, the crowns of the two kingdoms were united. Let any well-informed man by the wavering counsels of Charles 2nd, The case of the unfortunate James showed the dangerous power of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and what their views were, with respect to the crown and constitution of England. However, it was not until the reign of our present gracious sovereign that a truly liberal policy was adopted with respect to those people. Every thing that was required on the score of religion was accorded them, and it was evident what little good effect it produced from the present system of government in Ireland. In 1778, the people of that country generally wished for what they called a free trade; that was granted to them in 1780. Great expectations were formed from that measure which have not been realized. The prosperity of Ireland could not be established by such means. It was by an influx of capital into the country-by introducing habits of industry, good order, and morality, among the lower classes of the people, that it could be achieved, and there was little hope of those being carried into effect under the present system. In 1782, his majesty, with that paternal care for the interests of all his subjects which so peculiarly characterizes him, called upon the Irish nation to state the causes of their discontent. They did so and with a li be asked, what constituted the union of the crown? and he will say, the act of Henry the 8th, known by the name of the Annexation act. Now, when the Irish parliament, by its late conduct, trampled so close upon that principle, he would leave the House to judge, whether or not it went to affect the principle upon which the title to the crown rests. In this view of the case, was not the parliament of England called upon to suggest a remedy for those complicated evils? The settlement of 1782 was avowedly not conclusive; it was imperfect, and it became the duty of parliament to endeavour to supply the deficiencies. The only bond of connexion subsisting between the countries was obviously insecure. It was a unanimously received opinion, that some remedy must be applied; and he was confident there existed only one effectual mode-an incorporated legislative union. The connexion between the countries arose from conquest, on the part of this country; but that conquest was achieved gradually. One of the most deeply-rooted causes of the present unhappy state of Ireland was, the religious dissentions prevailing therein. To elucidate this point, his lordship entered into a detailed history of the reformation, as it affected those islands; shortly after its first commencement until the distinction arose of Catho-beral policy, the settlement of 1782 was lic and Protestant. When Protestantism became the religion of the governing powers in England, it necessarily became that of the governing powers in Ireland, but not of the great bulk of the people. These religious distinctions were the cause of the present calamities of Ireland; and not only of the present calamities, but of the frequent cruel rebellions and civil wars, which desolated the island from the reign of Elizabeth 'until the Revolution. A colony of English sectaries was transplanted by Cromwell into the north of Ireland, who had sucked in with their very milk a hatred against Popery-peared that the lower classes of the peothis became a case of increased national animosity on the score of religion. The first English monarch who set himself earnestly to introduce a system of peaceable policy, and some degree of agriculture and commerce into Ireland was James 1st; it was followed by his son during the administration of the great earl of Strafford; but the subsequent rebellion, which owed its cause to religious animosities, undid most of those advanLages, which were not much restored granted to them according to their desires. The events since have proved that they were completely deceived; what they required was granted to them, but all the evils remain still. A few years after, a new light broke in upon the people of Ireland. "Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform" was the cry; and this was raised even by the lower orders of the people. However, no opinion could be more erroneous than that this last class of the people seriously wished for either, as independent of the confessions of avowed and convicted traitors, it ap ple neither cared for Catholic emancipation nor parliamentary reform. Not one in ten ever heard of the words: among those who did, ninety nine out of a hundred were ignorant of what they meant. But these expressions served as a watch word, and the exertions made to corrupt these unhappy persons, served to disseminate widely the poison of French principles. But it was by the restoration of good morals and the reign of industry that those persons could alone be made useful members of society, act of the English parliament, not only since the union with Scotland, but even since its first existence as a parliament, was an infringement upon public rights. This objection was founded in the principles of French Jacobinism; and with the admission of such principles, no government could exist: the admission of the modern doctrine of the sovereignty of the people, would be to destroy the very frame of government; it implied in its very statement an inconsistency and contradiction. The sovereignty of the people did not exist, even in the purest democracy, for in the purest democracy, there had always existed a medium or channel by which the sovereignty of the whole was exercised. A second objection was one which, if well founded, he should certainly feel of great weight: he meant that which regarded the honour and independence of the Irish parliament. But to what did this objection amount? When examined, it would be found that never was there a more groundless misapprehension of terms. For, first of all the very notion of compact, on which this union between the legislature of the two kingdoms was proposed to be founded, implied the indepen dence of each; for unless there was independence, there could not be contract; and the very recognizing of the power of the parliament of Ireland to enter into this treaty, contained an acknowledgment of its distinct independent authority. The forms of proceeding in the present busi and the kingdom at large benefited by a political system, which would draw off the attention of the people from matters of trifling and internal concern, to affairs of greater political importance; as were instanced by the good effects arising from the consolidating of several petty and impotent states and republics, on the continent of Europe, into large and extensive kingdoms. By the application of such a general rule of policy to Ireland, that country would be really benefited in the first instance, and every other practical good would soon follow. The progress of civilization was obstructed by the present system of the Irish government, which could in no effectual way be obviated but by a legislative union. By it the evil designs of the Catholics would be frustrated, and their attention turned to other chan nels. The Protestants, from wishing to preserve an ascendancy in the limits of their own island, would look to aggrandizement and ascendancy through the medium of a united parliament. Such a measure would also have the salutary effect of establishing a scale of ranks and gradations of society in that country which was now much wanted: it was the only means by which capital could be drawn into that island, or effectual industry established there; and above all, of counteracting the perfidious designs of the enemy with respect to Ireland. By the measure of an incorporated union all those grievances could alone be healed, and religious distinctions be radically doneness, all went upon this supposition. His away. The competency of the parliament of either country had been questioned; but the practice of our ancestors, the records of history, and particularly the opinion of that excellent lawyer and statesman, Blackstone, obviated that idea. In the opinion of that lawyer parliament was competent to effect a change in the constitution itself, as it had done in the measure of the union with Scotland. The noble lord proceeded to argue the futility of this objection, from analogy. Had it been admitted, the British parliament could never have been constituted in its present form; for what was the parliament of England but an aggregate of petty states, which had from time to time merged into one? Had it not been enlarged by the union of Wales, and of the two county palatinates? If, then, it were argued that the parliament of Ireland was incompetent to agree to an incorporate union, it must follow, that every majesty had equally submitted to the legislature of each kingdom, the proposition of a union between them. What could more strongly imply, in its very nature, the power and independence of each, when it was left with them either to adopt or reject the plan proposed? If the proposed resolutions went to weaken in any considerable degree this principle of the independence of the Irish parliament, he should not wonder at the repugnance with which the proposition was received. But how stood the fact? This measure, so far from destroying the independence of Ireland, was calculated to strengthen and consolidate that independence, by rendering her a part of the proudest and most solid independence that ever was enjoyed. A similar objection had been started at the time of the Scottish union, but though vehemently urged upon that occasion, it was not allowed. And what had been the conse quence of that event? Had the rank which Scotland held among nations been diminished? Had its dignity been sacrificed, or its prosperity curtailed? Quite the reverse. Before the union, England and Scotland, were, in fact, less independent than when they afterwards composed the kingdom of Great Britain. By this union, each kingdom had become more independent of foreign nations; each country had become more powerful, and had increased in prosperity. In like manner, supposing this legislative union took place, he would insist upon it, that not only no individual would suffer in dignity, rank, or condition, but that in a national view they would receive an addition. It was for the general interests of the empire to consult the interests of every component part of it. In providing for the security of that country, they were at the same time making provision for the common security of the British empire. And what could be adduced as a more powerful motive than this, that both countries were assailed by a common enemy, whose aim was, to destroy Great Britain by making Ireland the medium of that mis. chief; just as, previous to the union with Scotland, it was the aim of France to make that country subservient to their insidious designs? At present, there seemed no principle of resistance to the tyrannical power of France in Europe, but by Great Britain; and in the relative situation of these different countries, and particularly in the present situation of Ireland, that country could only look for support to Great Britain. The promoters of the Irish rebellion were fully sensible of this truth; they well knew that the independence of Ireland was materially involved in its connexion with Great Britain; and that if this connexion with Britain were once dissolved, Ireland would not thereby become independent, but would rather fall under the dominion of France. Such was the situation of Ireland, if left unconnected with this country, that it could not oppose increased resistance to increased danger. And if this were properly considered, the propriety would appear of consolidating the interests of both countries, in order to make a successful stand against the common enemy. After apologizing to the House for having engrossed so much of its time in going over these topics, lord Grenville said, he should move that the Resolutions of the Commons be read pro forma; he should then move, that the House do agree with the said resolutions; after which he purposed to move, that the resolutions be laid before his majesty, in the form of a joint address of both Houses, with an humble request that his majesty would lay them before the parliament of Ireland, at what time to his majesty should seem most proper. Lord Grenville then moved, "That the several Resolutions communicated by the Commons to this House, at a conference on the 18th of February last, respecting the means of Improving, and Perpetuating the Connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, and of augmenting the strength, power, and resources of the British Empire, be now read." Earl Fitzwilliam, said it was not his intention to follow the noble lord through all his statements; and his reason was shortly this, that he meant to press the impropriety under the present situation of affairs, of discussing the subject at all. Avoiding, therefore, the question, whether the measure would be a benefit to Ireland or not, he should contend, that in this, the moment of greatest distress in which this country had been involved, it would weaken, instead of strengthen the means of resistance to the enemy. The parliament of Ireland had explicitly given their negative to the measure. Did any one know the evils existing in Ireland? A rebellion raged against the government. There was, as the noble lord had properly stated, a disunion between the ranks and distinctions of men. Would any man say, that a legislative union could at the present moment, remedy the evils complained of? Was it a matter of course, that, whatever those evils were, they could be removed immediately by an incorporated union? Did the noble lord mean to say, that to the legislature of Ireland these evils were owing? If they were, it must be attributable to the influence prevailing in that legislature. Might not the same influence prevail in the incorporated legislature? Where, then, would be the remedy? You must look, therefore, to different ones, and of whatever nature they may be, none can be effectual but by unanimity. Upon the subject of the distinctions between the orders, would they be remedied by an incorporated union? He had heard, indeed, an insinuation thrown out. But had the House or the people of Ireland, any thing of greater weight than this insinuation? If it was meant to conciliate the Catholics and the |