tion; and if the noble author would export all those who defpife the honourable name of Irishman, it would probably prove the most beneficial mode of refloring peace to this perturbed land. Irishmen really united (I do not mean to use the language of difaffection) could defy either England or France; and if ever the day arrives in which religio and political diffenfions fhall be annihilated, the inhabitants of this ifland will be equally adverfe to French invafions, and British Unions; equally hoftile to French troops landing with the avowed intention of effecting a revolution in the country, and British armies pouring in for the pretended purpose of protecting it from danger. The English Minifter is little acquainted with the Irish fpirit, if he does not perceive that he is laying the foundation of a complete revolution: he must know that Ireland is at this moment retained to the British empire by force of arms, and he cannot be igno rant (for he has been repeatedly warned, both here and in England) that until there is fome attempt to conciliate the nation, he mult continue to preserve the connexion with the fword. This may poffibly be just what he defires, for this method of governing a nation, is the moft favourable for a system of corruption. The talk-mafters of Ireland may furnith excufes for new taxes, and the United Irishmen in London for new penal laws; but in the midst of his ruinous career, let not the Minifter forget that this fpecies of connexion cannot continue long, and that even before the death of Pitt, the tie may be diffolved. The Minister, and his partizan the noble

hoble author, will find, that in regard to their fa vourite project, no efforts will have fufficient power to remove the deep-rooted prejudice of Ireland."

The queftion of competency," has been fo often and fo ably difcuffed, that I am unwilling to enter on the subject; but as the noble author wishes to know, why the right of fixing the Constitution in 1782, was better than that of refigning the Irish Parliament in 1799? I will anfwer him for the fame reason that a man would have a better right to accept for his hungry child food than poifon. The Parliament of Ireland had a better right to accept of the final fettlement of 1782, first, because it was generally confidered as a real and unequivocal benefit to the nation; and fecondly, becaufe that if it had proved to be an erroneous arrangement, the next Parliament would have had it in their power to correct and reform thofe parts which might require al→ teration. But in refpect to the prefent plan, it is far different; first, because the measure appears to be generally deemed an undoubted and pofitive injury to the nation; and fecondly, that it deftroys every poffibility of future revifal or correction. When this pernicious measure fhall be once fixed, we shall have no refource but in a revolution, and a revolution it will infallibly produce.* The noble

T

* Men will always feel their ftrength, when they cannot reafon upon it,

or are afraid to do so.

Cato's Letters, 3d Vol. p. 126.

Those who have power, will endeavour to keep it, and those who suffer under it, will endeavour to take it away, and the event will be in the will of Heaven alone.

E

Cato's Letters, 3d Vol. p. 134. author

author calls "the final fettlement of 1782," a « fatal boon ;" and I, as a fincere friend to the true Irish independence, perfectly agree in the opinion. I think that had it not been for that fatal boon, which has for seventeen years preserved this country to the British empire, we fhould long fince have been a free nation, enjoying all the natural and po litical bleffings for which we appear to be fo pecu liarly adapted. Our harbours would be filled with fhips, our towns with riches; our nobles would be virtuous, our peasants happy; our government would be juft, our people contented; our friendship would be courted, our refentment feared. In fhort, the clouds of anarchy would be past, and the bright fun of peace would illumine our happy island. Good God! How melancholy the contrast! I cannot trace the foul-revolting picture." That this final fettlement was impoffible to laft"-I do not pretend to doubt; but that it has aided in preserving the connexion between England and Ireland longer than it would otherwise have continued, I have no doubt. A connexion between two countries fo feparated, must ever be unstable; for notwithstanding all the cant of the fashionable loyalifts, it will always require an extraordinary degree of address to preserve a connexion so unnatural.

The noble author has taken infinite pains to demonftrate the iniquity of British Ministers, in their conduct to this country. He imagines that the time is arrived, when thofe offences may be fafely difplayed, and he fancies that the Irish mind will be fo struck, that in the first paroxyfm of horror at the

developement of this glaring injuftice, it will plunge in the abyss of an Incorporate Union, as the only fafeguard from future villainy. But he has entirely overlooked another train of ideas, which this exhibition of depravity may chance to produce in the minds of Irishmen, and which I do not think neceffary to detail in this place. His catalogue of offences is certainly juft-I attempt not to deny the multiplicity of placemen and penfioners; the venal titles, and the faleable peers; "the empire of the Custom-house," and the proftitution of military honours. On the contrary, I rather believe these matters to be even worse than the noble author represents them; and I perfectly agree in opinion with him, that a remedy is defirable, but not an Union; for that is a remedy worse 'than the difease.

It is extremely abfurd, and fuppofes a wonderful degree of ignorance in his readers, for the noble author to infinuate that the Irish Parliament has been peculiarly adverse to Catholic emancipation; as it is well known in this kingdom, that the ill fuccess of that measure was entirely produced by the intrigues of British Minifters. The recal of Lord Fitzwilliam, and all the tranfactions immediately. preceding and fubfequent to that event, are too recent to be forgotten by Irishmen; and we are all well convinced, that even the present Parliament, would be easily induced to accord those privileges defired by the Catholics of Ireland. Was the repeal of fo many penal laws, a matter « beyond

* If permitted by the Minister.
E 2.

the

the reach, controul, and anthority of her indepen dent Parliament? And is it probable, that thofe would have been repealed in an Imperial Senate ? Are the English people lefs prejudiced against the Catholics, or have they hitherto evinced more libes rality than the Irish Parliament? If we are to judge by the present state of their penal code against the Catholics of England, and by the writings of fuch Englishmen as the noble author, we must confider them to be ignorant, malicious, and difhoneft. The noble author affects to speak with great commiseration of the diftreffes of Ireland. The country may poffibly be the scene of much mifery, but the wretchedness of the inhabitants may also be much encreafed by an Union. He muft allow that there are many degrees of wretchednefs; if he does not, he knows little indeed of the Irish poor.

I do not exactly poezialy comprehend the pahegyrics on English manners, and cannot help confidering thofe of the lower clafs as much less civilized than the manners of the Irish peafantry, who are ge nerous and hofpitable, and confequently civil and friendly to strangers. The noble author's oblique cenfures of the Orange party, will not produce the effect he imagines, of conciliating the Catholics; and I am well authorized to affure him, that fome trifling cónceffions, in regard to à removal of the existing disqualifications, would have more power in soothing their diffatisfactions, than the keenest hopes of revenge; for his affertions refpecting the defpair and revolt of the Catholics," are as thoroughly devoid of foundation as many of his other declarations.