But I think I can prove that nothing which appears on the records, or usual reports of the proceedings in Parliament, or on the face of the thing, fhows that either party meant, on that occasion, to fhut out in future all question of Union, but quite otherwise; that the progreffive improvement in the trade, manufactures, and general prosperity of Ireland fince, has not been owing to that transaction; that this profperity is not fecured by it; that it depends in a very princípal degree on the policy and wifdom of Great Britain; and that the only certain fafeguard of its permanence would be found in that very measure, which it is pretended would have the contrarry effect. There were four grievances then stated on the part of Ireland: one and the principal of which was the claim of the British Parliament to a legislative power over that kingdom. The meffages from the Throne to both Parliaments mentioned the King's concern to find that discontents and jealoufies were prevailing on matters of great weight and im'portance; and recommended that the fame fhould be ta<ken into confideration, in order to such a final adjustment * as might give mutual fatisfaction to both kingdoms." The addreffes of the Irish Houfes specified the four gfiëvances, as the principal causes of the prefent discontent ⚫ and jealoufy' of that country. The only one of the four Of what, in God's name? Surely, of those matters of weight and importance, on which jealousies and discontents were then prevailing. b9th April 1782,-16th April 1782. I 2 which which a British act could redress, was the claim of legiflation. On the 17th of May a resolution was come to in this Houfe, that the act affeṛting that claim should be repealed, and immediately afterwards another, declaring it to be in< difpenfable to the interefts of both kingdoms that the connexion between them should be established by mutual con⚫ fent on a folid and permanent basis,' This laft refolution, and the addrefs by which it was communicated to his Majefty, both confidered by themselves and in the connexion of this with the other resolution which preceded, have given rise to a great deal of what I must take the liberty to call ingenious cavil and chicane. The Right Honourable Gentleman who moved the refolutions, now proposed to be carried to the foot of the Throne, in mentioning that addrefs of 1782, had expreffed what he had endeavoured to prove to be its true import and meaning, viz. that his Majefty would take farther meafures to ftrength< en the connexion between the two countries ;' on which it has been remarked, with a hypercritical nicety, that the word farther is not in the addrefs.-Neither, I believe, is the word 'ftrengthen.' But the point is, whether the meaning was not, that measures ulterior to thofe then proposed were in the contemplation of the House when it came to the refolution and voted the addrefs-I fay they clearly were. What is the argument triumphantly preffed to fhew the contrary? Why, that the refolution and addrefs were voted before the bill for repealing the declaratory act of George I. and renouncing the claim to bind Ireland, was prefenteda. Surely, Sir, this is a strange fallacy. • Mr. Fofter's Speech, p. 19. The The Minifter of the day, when he moved the two refolutions, is stated to have introduced them by a fpeech mentioning the four grievances of Ireland, the claim of legislation, Poyning's act, the mutiny bill, and the appellate ju rifdiction. The firft, he faid, was to be redreffed here, the others by acts to which the Lord Lieutenant was to be inftructed to give the royal affent in Ireland; and after having explained this clearly and forcibly, he proceeded to express himself to the following effect: That Ireland could have no reafon to complain; the < terms acceded to by England, were propofed by herself; the manner of redress had been prefcribed by herself, and all her wishes would now be gratified in the way which the ⚫ herself liked beft: but as it was poffible, that if nothing < more was to be done, than what he had stated to be his in tention, Ireland might perhaps think of fresh grievances, ⚫ and rife yearly in her demands, it was fit and proper that fomething should be now done towards establishing on a firm and folid bafis the future connexion of the two kingdoms. < But that was not to be proposed by him here in Parliament; < it would be the duty of the Crown to look to that; the business might be first begun by his Majefty's fervants in Ireland; and if afterwards it should be neceffary to enter into a treaty, commiffioners might be fent from the Bri⚫ tifh Parliament, or from the Crown, to enter upon it, < and bring the negotiation to a happy issue, by giving mutual fatisfaction to both countries, and establishing a treaty which should be fanctioned by the most folemn forms • of the conftitutions of botha," a Mr. Fox's Speech, 17th May 1782, Parliamentary Register, vol. vii. p. 172. Is Is it poffible, after reading this, which there is no reason to believe to be an inaccurate report as to the fubstance of what the Right Honourable Gentleman faid, that it can be imagined or ferioufly argued that no ulterior, no farther measures were then in his contemplation and in that of the Miniftry, whofe organ he was, and of which he formed fo eminent a part? This difficulty feems indeed to have been a little felt, and therefore another method is attempted of reconciling to what really then paffed, the idea that all political or conftitutional arrangements were meant by the parties to this bufinefs of 1782 to be finally closed, fo as that this country could never, with good faith, agitate in future, or propose to Ireland for her confideration and voluntary adoption or rejection, any thing of that fort. The fact,' we are told, feems to be, that the resolution, in respect to future mea<fures, (where is the mighty difference between future and farther?) had commerce only in viewe.' But, Sir, what does the fame Minifter fay on that point? He is ftated to have declared in this Houfe, in 1785, That no idea of a commercial regulation had been entertained by the admini* ftration of 1782, in propofing the refolution in question". After the Duke of Portland communicated the two resoJutions of 1782 to the Irifh Houfe of Commons, and informed them also of the King's difpofition to give his affent to bills to be paffed there for redreffing the other grievances, e Mr. Fofter's Speech, p. 21. a Mr. Fox's Speech, 22d July 1785. Parliamentary Register, vol. xviii. p. 577. 17th May 1782. they they affure his Majefty, in a new address, That, gratified in those particulars, no conftitutional question between the two nations will any longer exift, which can interrupt their har'mony .' In the anfwer to this, the King told them that this declaration was very pleafing to him., At the clofe of the feffion, the Commons fay to the Lord Lieutenant, "We fhall have feen this great national ar rangement (the fole and exclufive right of legiflation in that Parliament) established on a bafis which fecures the ⚫ tranquillity of Ireland, and unites the affections as well as ⚫ interefts of both kingdoms." Laftly, for I think I have now quoted all the paffages on which the chief stress has been laid, his Grace, in his fpeech on the prorogation, fays, Convince the people in your fe⚫veral diftricts, as you yourselves are convinced, that every 'caufe of past jealoufies and discontents is finally removed; that both countries have pledged their good faith to each other; and that their best fecurity will be an inviolable • adherence to that compact: convince them that the two 'kingdoms are now one, indiffolubly connected in unity ' of constitution and unity of interests d' Now, Mr. Speaker, I must confefs I cannot fee any thing in all this but the expreffion of, firft, an opinion that the past causes of difcontent and jealousy were then finally removed; and what has happened to prove that they were not? Has the Parliament of Great Britain renewed her claim to bind Ireland? Has there not been an annual mutiny a 28th May 1782. 23d July 1782. b 13th June 1782. act |