having been commenced and in progress. from the very beginning of the reign of Queen Anne, and when affairs abroad wore a very gloomy aspect. As to those at home, they must have caft a very careless, or a very partial eye, on that period of our history, who do not perceive, in the circumstances of a difputed fucceffion, the yet recent concuffion of the Revolution, the numerous adherents of the exiled family in both kingdoms, the jarring interefts of the two countries, and the diffenfions between them on account of religion and commerce, a complication of political difficulties as great, though of a different nature, perhaps much greater, than any that exist at present.

In truth, though at first fight it appears reasonable to think that times of tranquillity are beft adapted to the difcuffion and accomplishment of great political arrangements, this fpeculation, on clofer attention, does not seem to be warranted, either by the nature or hiftory of mankind. On the contrary, I believe it will be found, that men and nations are too indolent for great exertions,

enterprises of pith and moment,' while in the undif turbed enjoyment of quiet profperity; and that to all their most memorable efforts of that fort, they have been ftimulated by the urgency of perfonal or national calamity, or at least of private or public difficulties and embarraffment.

I admit that the idea of a legiflative Union was long familiar in Scotland; but I deny that it now comes unawares, and by furprise, upon Ireland. I am, on the contrary, well persuaded, that fuch à plan for that country must have been uniformly present to the minds (I will not fay always in the intention) of every minifter, every

statesman,

ftatesman, every politician, every enlightened member of Parliament, every man, in fhort, in that kingdom, qualified and entitled to judge of fuch queftions, for a space of time confiderably longer than what elapfed between the Union of the Crowns and that of the Parliaments of this country. I will endeavour to prove this to the fatisfaction of the House, by a deduction of clear, hiftorical facts.

To fay nothing of the actual, though imperfect and illegal incorporation under the Ufurper, you know, Sir, that in the reign of Charles II. by a Report of the Council of Trade in Ireland to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council there, dated the 25th of March 1676, that Board exprefsly recommended, That endeavours fhould be used for the Union of the kingdoms under one legiflative power, proportionably, as was heretofore done in the case of Wales.' I cite the very words of the Report, which is stated to have been drawn by Sir William Petty, and who, in his treatise called

The Political Anatomy of Ireland,' written, I believe, a few years before, had delivered his individuak opinion to the fame purpose. If,' fays he, both kingdoms were under one legiflative power and Parliament, the numbers whereof should be proportionable in power and wealth of each nation, there would be no danger fuch a Parliament should do any thing to the prejudice of the English intereft in Ireland; nor could the Irish ever complain of partiality, when they fhall be freely and proportionably represented in all Legiflatures.'

6

Petty's Political Anatomy of Ireland, p. 31.

In

་

In the year 1698, Mr. Molyneux, in that paffage of his famous pamphlet called The Cafe of Ireland,' which was mentioned by the firft authority in this House in the Committee on the Refolutions,' clearly points to a representation of Ireland in a united Parliament as a most desirable arrangement for that country. His words are these :

If, from these laft-mentioned records, it be concluded that the Parliament of England may bind Ireland, it must alfo be allowed that the people of Ireland ought to have their representatives in the Parliament of England. And this I believe we should be willing ⚫ enough to embrace: but this is an happiness we can hardly hope for."

And here I cannot help noticing a very fingular fraud, or negative fort of forgery, Committed in an edition of Molyneux's work, which was printed in Dublin in the year 1783. In that edition the words and this I ⚫ believe we should be willing enough to embrace: but

this is a happiness we can hardly hope for;' were totally omitted. This circumftance I firft faw pointed out in a note to a very able pamphlet lately published, entitled,

Reasons for adopting an Union between Great Britain ⚫ and Ireland.' I have fince been favoured by the author of that pamphlet with a copy of the castrated edition, the publisher of which could not have proved fo ftrongly, in any other way, at once his own hoftility to the measure of a Union, and the fenfe he juftly entertained of the weight

7 Vide Mr. Addington's Speech, p. 18.

• London edition in 1770, p. 74. There is a preface to this edition, reported to have been written by the late Mr. Flood, with which it was republished in Dublin in 1773.

weight of fuch an opinion in its favour as that of Mo≈ lyneux, the able and learned advocate of Irish independency.

But, Sir, in 1703, at the time when a fimilar meafure was fo particularly in the contemplation of the English Government with regard to Scotland, a legiflative Union was in a manner fued for, and fued for in vain, by the Parliament of Ireland. This appears fufficiently from the Journals of the two Houfes of that Parliament; but I have had an opportunity alfo of feeing the correspondence at that time of the Duke of Ormond, then Lord Lieutenant, and of his Chief Secretary Mr. Southwell, and the Lord Chancellor Cox, with the Government here, from which it is still more manifest that many of the leading characters in the country, the Chancellor particularly, Mr. Brodrick the Speaker, and I think even the Secretary himself, were very defirous of the measure, but that the Lord Lieutenant was lukewarm, and the miniftry in England totally averfe to it.

That Parliament met on the 21ft of September, and on the Ift of October the Lords voted an address to the Queen, which concluded with thefe words: As we are * fenfible our prefervation is owing to our being united to the Crown of England, fo we are convinced it would tend to our farther fecurity and happiness to have a more comprehenfive and entire Union with that 'kingdom'. I fhall fhew immediately the aufwer sent from England to this addrefs.

As it appears not to have been the intention of the Administration here to listen to such a suggestion for the

T

Irish Lords' Journals, vol, ii. p. 8.

king

kingdom of Ireland, and supplies, not general measures of policy, seeming to have been confidered as the material business of the feffion, one is not surprised to discover in Mr. Southwell's first dispatches on its opening, confiderable impatience as a minifter, whatever his private opinion as to a Union might be, at finding the House of Commons more willing to deliberate on matters of that fort, than ready to fatisfy the pecuniary exigencies of the Government. On the 25th, in a letter to Lord Nottingham, he fays, It is a miferable fatigue we are under. We are forced to use a great deal of claret, and a great many arguments, and all little enough. There is a most strange mixture of Scotch and fanatical principles, which fours the mafs. They are jealous of every thing; and were it not that my Lord Lieutenant has a great perfonal intereft, nothing at all • would be done.' This he means in regard to the fupplies, which the Lord Lieutenant endeavoured to obtain for three years, but which attempt, after every effort, he was obliged to abandon, a grant even for two having paffed with difficulty.

In a fhort time, both houfes formed themselves into Committees on the ftate of the nation. Two days before that of the House of Commons fat, Mr. Southwell writes to Lord Nottingham' his conjectures about the event, as follows: Next Monday is appointed to confider of the state "of the nation; and I believe it will end in this, after ' confidering fome difficulties they lie under, to make fome representation, full of temper and moderation, for gaining fome relief in those points; and many even "talk of a Union.

* Ott. 2, 1703

When