be the work of peace and of time: it should be the refult of difpaflionate judgment and of calm confideration. It was not, however, the firft queftion to be examined; there were other questions, the confideration of which fhould precede that of the Union, and one of them was, whether it was poffible for the affairs of Ireland to go on as they are now governed; the other, if an Union was to take place, what fhould be the nature of that Union; and whether it fhould be a Parliamentary or an incorporating Union;-Can, then, the affairs of Ireland go on, if they continue to be governed as they now are; or do they require fome remedy? If they do, is the projected Union that remedy?-This was the point to be confidered; but fure he was, that it was morally impoffible that things fhould go on as they now are governed in Ireland. In proof of this affertion it was not his intention to follow the Noble Secretary of State through the long feries of historical details into which he had entered. The history he would refort to, was that of more modern times-of times which he himself had lived in. When he was a young man and just come of age, he happened to fee by accident the correfpondence of a great Minifter of this country (Lord Chatham), with a Noble Duke (Bedford), who had lately affumed the Government in Ireland. In their correfpondence were these remarkable expreflions to the Lord Lieutenant. "What is the reafon that in Ireland the laws have loft all their energy; the magiftrates all their authority; and the Parliament all reverence?" The Noble Duke in his answer fays, "You ask me why the laws have loft their energy; the Magiftrates their authority, and the Parliament its reverence? I anfwer, that it is owing to the fhameful negligence and inattention which have prevailed, by which Government is proceeding to its diffolution, and I expect that it will foon be impoffible to enforce the neceffary obedience without a military force." This was in 1759. His Lordship faid that he should not go into the hiftory of the Octennial Bill, into the opening of the commerce, nor into the transactions of 1782; though, fpeaking of that period, it would be incumbent upon him to answer what had fallen from a Noble Lord. In the first place, however, he would proceed to the position, that it was impoffible for Ireland to go on as it was. He would only allude to public acts which had occurred a few years back.-In 1791 the Roman Catholics firft prefented their Petition to the Irish Parliament: it must be in the knowledge and recollection of every Noble Lord how

that

that Petition was received, and what provocation it occafioned. In 1792 they prefented it again; but it met with the fame contumely as before. In 1793 the Roman Catholics and the Proteftants became fomewhat warmer against each other. The Proteftant afcendancy was eftablished, and had recourse to the interference of the grand juries to concur with them in discountenancing the Roman Catholic body. The Roman Catholics (he knew not by whose advice, but it was a prudent advice), obferved a more temperate behaviour, and came over hither to represent their grievances. What was the confequence?-Their Petition was graciously attended to; a mandate went from hence in their favour-they were immediately relieved, though not indeed to the extent of a total emancipation. In 1793 every thing remained quiet; great gratitude was expected for the favours conferred on the Catholics, but the very contrary happened-they fhewed no obligation to the Parliament of Ireland; hence their disregard of Parliament, and hence the lofs of authority and reverence fustained by that Parliamene. In 1794, Ministers irritated at this unexpected return of ingratitude, had recourfe to measures which produced great difcontent. They then fent over the Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam), during his fnort administration, however, of about three months, all was tranquil-all was well affected and loyal; there then exifted no foreign connection with the enemy. But unluckily fome malignant ftar blafted thefe fair hopes; and Government returned to harsh language, and coercive measures. Sorry he was that that Noble Lord had not been fuffered to go on as he had begun, for if he had been, we should not, he verily believed, have been under the neceffity of entering into the prefent difcuffion. That Noble Earl went in 1795, and during his fhort administration of three months, every thing became tranquillifed.-Some melancholy ftar, however, interfered, and recourfe was had to coercion. The remainder of that year was spent in the return of hard language. In 1796 it was pufhed ftill farther, infurrection and other Bills were brought in, and what was the effect? In May 1796, a negociation was opened with France, an ambaffador fent, and fo well received, that from May to Auguft a treaty was made, which, in his conscience, he believed, fubfifted at the prefent moment. In December 1796, and the beginning of 1797, an invafion was put force. In 1798 another invafion took place; and in 1799, we were informed, from the best authority, that a directory

were

were still fitting in Ireland, and that they prefided over the disturbances that ftill exifted. The fame authority alfo declared, that that directory were under the certainty of being affifted from France. Let any man recollect these things, and he would find the total want of any original mind in the Irish Parliament. He would fee the fatal violence with. which they paffed from one extreme into another, from meafures of mildness to the infurrection, and thofe other acts. After an experience then of fix years, ought any one to say that the Government of Ireland fhould continue as it is, or that they ought to be entrusted with that power which they had fo mifufed? Another circumftance he would mention, which he would put to the account of that Parliament, and which he was utterly astonished had never been stated before; he meant the attainder of Lord Edward Fitzgerald's family, the attainder of him after his death, a precedent new and perfectly incomprehenfible. If any one thing had rendered this country great more than another, it was that beautiful lenity which pervaded our laws; it was that system, of which juries only made part, which overfpread our laws, and if he were to name what was, almoft beyond juries, it was that principle of our laws which protected the innocent from fuffering unjustly. The conftruction of the whole refembled the nicer parts of the human body. Men were protected, as long as there was the flighteft chance of their being able to prove their innocence. They must be indicted, and then tried. Judgment must be paffed in the most folemn manner; even then, an arreft of judgment might be moved. After all that, he was not attainted by the laws of England. It was not till after he was afked if he had any thing to fay why fentence of death fhould not be paffed upon him, it was not till fentence was pronounced, that he was attainted. Here however, was an act paffed, without any ceremony, upon a dead man. Why? To beggar his innocent children-to turn them paupers upon the worldto make them criminals, who could not phyfically be criminal, and all this carried with fuch perfecution, even to the fhutting out thofe creditors who had lent their money upon a fecurity, the fufficiency of which no lawyer would deny. That Parliament had the confcience to país this act, which in all the rebellions of centuries had no parallel; and this was done while they were pardoning thofe who had actually been found guilty. This fubject he had often refolved to mention, not from regard to the family, with which he was

not

not acquainted, though he refpected it, but it was from a regard for himself, for his family, for the family of every Noble Lord who heard him. He would fuppofe that any one of their Lordships had a fon inflamed with the zeal of democracy, deluded by the principles of revolution, and acting under the impulfe of a caufe which he might conceive to be good and patriotic, let them place fuch a fon in the fituation of the unfortunate young nobleman to whom he alluded, and he would ask them what their feelings must be at witnessing the attainder of that fon after his death; and at beholding his innocent children converted at once by an Act of Parliament into criminals and beggars ?-If this was not tyranny, he knew of nothing that could deferve that name? Was it then poffible for a Government where such acts were paffed, to continue for any time? If what Lord Chatham wished for 40 years ago, had been done, we should not witness what now has come to pass. There was no remedy for all these evils but a Union. Ireland, England, and Scotland, fhould fay like the Roman Catholic and the Diffenter-let us unite and we shall be able to crush all our enemies. Yes, an Union was at all times defirable, but at prefent it is indifpenfible. The refolutions respecting it hould not continue to lie on their Lordship's table-they fhould be acted on immediately; for our very existence is at ftake. This question of the Union fhould be ftripped of all irrelevant matter, as a fkilful Surgeon removes every covering and obftruction from a wound, that he may fee the bottom of the fore, and afcertain where it lies.

But as to what paffed in the year 1782, the noble Marquis faid, he owned, making the exception of one perfon, the cabinet at that time confifted of as great and worthy men as any he had heard of in this country. They were ten in number, and only three of them dead; confequently there were fix of them now to bear teftimony of the truth, or the inaccuracy of what he was about to fay upon this subject; and he confeffed he had no with to conceal any thing that was done at that time-there was no reason why he thould. But before he faid any thing upon that point, he would take the liberty of faying there was no ufe in making the comparifon between the proceedings of 1782, and of the proceedings of the prefent time. The proceedings of 1782 had for their object the feparation of two Parliaments, in order to make them independent of one another. The proceeding now before their Lordships was for the purpose of joining

two

two Parliaments. In 1782, the idea of what was now pro pofed, never entered the imagination of any one of the Members of the cabinet. But that ought not to have any effect on the prefent point, for it amounted to nothing. He was ready, however, fince the matter had been alluded to, to give an account of what took place in 1782, he had no incli nation to conceal fo much as a private letter, and indeed he had negligently left one private letter fent to him at the office. He was fo far from withing to preferve any fecrecy upon this matter, that he would have no objection to publishing every thought that came into his mind upon the fubject in agitation between the two countries; and here he obferved that he had made fome communications in 1782 about a plan which he had much at heart, but which was not proceeded upon. It did not go the length of a difpatch. It related to what might be called the expence of the fyftem which was carried under the two Parliaments-not the Corruption, but the reputation of the Corruption of the two Governments. This had nothing to do with a Union; there was in it not the most remote idea of glancing towards a Union, nor of declaring againft fuch a measure. Thofe who had taken fhare in the proceedings of 1782, had entered into no pledge whatever about a Union. It might be asked, why he had not gone farther at that time, and brought forward the meafure of a Union? He could only fay, he went as far as circumftances would permit him. And to those who put this question to him, he would in his turn afk, why the prefent Minifters did not bring forward the prefent measure of a Union in 1785, inftead of contenting themselves with the commercial propofitions? He thought that matters had been brought to the prefent crifis in a great measure by the mif management of Minifters; but this being the cafe, he saw no other resource than a legislative and incorporate Union between the two countries. It was extraordinary that any body should refer to it on the difcuffion of the prefent measure. Moft clear it was, that those who favoured the idea of a Union at this moment were no more acting in violation of any pledge in 1782 than those who were now oppofing that idea, neither having entered into any pledge upon the fubject. In fhort, he could not conceive how any man poffeffed of a clear understanding could think of introducing the idea of any pledge to do nothing as between the two countries fince the proceedings of 1782.

Having then difmiffed, as irrelevant, totally the proceedings of 1782, and protefted that he should have never alluded No. 29.

7 G

to