the fecurity of the people of Ireland! He has, by this meafure, promoted discord and diffention between the two countries at a time when union and co-operation were above all things neceffary; he has been the means of planting feeds of difcord and diffention between the Houfes of Lords and Commons in Ireland; he has traduced the Parliament as an affembly convicted of being the dupes of an English faction. There remains but one thing more for him to do, which is to array the British Parliament against it with all that pertinacity which diftinguishes ignorance, and with all the fiercenefs of men who are to be told that a country ftruggling for its liberties, only wages the war of faction-only wields the weapons of difaffection and treafon. This, however, he has not, and I trust he never will be able to effect. I now come to that part of the Right Hon. Gentleman's speech, in which -he has commented with fuch freedom of manner-has combated with fuch afperity of tone, a fpeech made fome time or other by a Right Honourable perfon of the fifter kingdom -Mr. Fofter. And Sir, if, without breach of order, I could fuppofe that there is in our gallery a ftranger who has been a Member of the Legiflature of Ireland, or in the habits of hearing its debates, I am perfuaded he would at once imagine the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pitt) has detained you and the House almost half an hour to hear him in reply to the fpeech of that Gentleman. Now, Sir, I think I can fhew you, that the arguments drawn by the Right Hon. Gentleman oppofite to me, from the topics in the fpeech of the Honourable Member of the fifter kingdom, do not in any one tittle apply to the prefent queftion. He has attempted, indeed, to fhew the inconfiftency of fentiment by which he tells us the conduct of Mr. Fofter is to be diftinguished. Mr. 'Fofter's opinion was, that the adoption of the commercial propofitions was neceffary to the exiftence of Ireland, and that they could not be rejected without incurring the certain risk of fowing diffentions, and of exciting commercial jealoufies. This, according to the Right Hon. Gentleman, was that statesman's opinion in 1785, and the inconfiftency confifts, as he has this night told us, in his having infifted in his published letters, that the adjustment in 1782 was final. Now, Sir, the Right Hon. Gentleman himself entertained the fame opinion at the period alluded to, and instead of the tame language of Mr. Fofter, that the rejection of those propofitions would lead to commercial jealoufies-we then had the dashing periods of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain ringing in our ears-that if those propofitions

.

fitions were not adopted, he could not continue to hold his fituation.

What is to be collected from this, but that both Mr. Fofter and the Hon. Gentleman fuftained foolish opinions; for it turned out, that although the propofitions did fail, the failure was not the means of introducing jealoufy and fufpicion between the two countries, nor of producing the refignation of the Hon. Gentleman. If, indeed, he can fhew that the failure of the propofitions had produced all those difafters which have fince happened; all thofe fcenes of diftraction and rebellion which the kingdom of Ireland has witneffed; then I admit the argument would be against Mr. Fofter; but has he fhewn that to have been the cafe? On the contrary, the argument relative to Mr. Fofter ftands fimply thus: Mr. Fofter faid, the failure of the Commercial Propofitions would be the ground of future jealoufy and suspicion on the part of Ireland. Well! what is the confequence? He now fays, "though I did fay fo, I find I was mistaken; for it appears to have been the best means of preferving its independence." Sir, there does not strike me as the flighteft inconfiftency in the prefent fentiments of Mr. Fofter, or the question with reference to thofe he formerly entertained; and the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman feem to me to confift in a fort of repartee unworthy his good fenfe and abilities.

"Sir, there is one particular part of the Hon. Gentleman's argument, which I fhall go a little out of the regular courfe of his obervations to refer to, because it developes that fyftem of corruption and intimidation, by which this measure is intended to be carried into effect. He has enumerated what are the advantages which Ireland enjoys, in confequence of its connection with this country, and what are the facrifices made on the part of Great Britain in her favour. He ftates that to withdraw thofe advantages would -be the ruin of Ireland; and yet that thofe advantages, ought only to be granted while the connection between the two countries exifts; and then he adds, that the system of an union is indifpenfibly neceffary to the existence of that connection. What then is the inference? It is, that those who liften to the arguments of Mr. Fofter, or adopt his fentiments, fhall lofe all the advantages of that connection they have folely enjoyed. He fays to the Irish Parliament, give your confent to an union--if you dare to refift, all those advantages which your country poffeffes fhall be taken from you. Is not this a proof that the measure is intended to be

carried

carried by intimidation? Sir, there is nothing like a free Parliament in Ireland, if fuch threats as thefe are held out; but if there wanted any corroboration that fuch is the fyftem, it is to be found in the part of the Hon. Gentleman's fpeech which immediately follows.-He fays that Ireland ought to confent to the union, becaufe fhe is incapable of defending herself against her enemies without the affiftance of her powerful neighbour, who alone is able to protect her.What is this but to ftate that our protection is to be withdrawn, if the refufes to accede to what is propofed. [No, no, exclaimed feveral Gentlemen on the Treafury Bench.]-I repeat that it is the fair and natural inference-he fays, that Ireland is incapable of defending herfelf without our connection, and that our connection cannot exift without an union-can any other inference be drawn from such a mode of reafoning, than that if Ireland refufes the union, she will be deprived of the protection of this country? But is this language fit and proper to be held out? If two countries ftand in that relation to each other, that with refpect to the one it has no trade, no commerce, no manufactures, no advantage of its own, nothing in fact but what it derives from the other, that it is in a fituation in which it is incapable of defending itfelf without the affiftance of its powerful neighbour, is it not natural to ask how it came into that fituation? and may I not ask how Ireland is in the fituation defcribed by the Hon. Gentleman? A country blessed with all the advantages which God and Nature ever beftowed, a healthy climate, commodious ports, and a fruitful foil. Is it, let me afk, wife in the Hon. Gentleman to prefs fuch a difcuffion; and to afford Ireland the opportunity of enquiring how it has happened fhe is not in poffeffion of those advantages which naturally belong to her; and by the enquiry to learn, that it has been owing to the oppreffive, unwife, injurious policy of Great Britain, for a period of near three hundred years? This cruel and abfurd policy the Right Hon. Gentleman fairly confeffes, he detefts, and ready am I to give him every due praife for the liberality of his opinion. Should it therefore be wondered at, if Ireland fhould feel fomewhat fore and indignant at this injurious policy of England in limiting the range, or entirely depriving her of her commercial advantages? And does it not fully account for the ftate of poverty with which fhe is reproached? The Hon. Gentleman fays he confiders the connection between the two countries neceffary to each other, and that England is little qualified to do without Ireland; yet he brings for

ward

ward a difcuffion which leads to that hoftility, that may deftroy the existence of both. With regard to the queftion of the power of Ireland to refift her enemies, let me ask the Hon. Gentleman, what inducement he could have for offering the infult he has to that country? When Ireland had her Volunteers in arms, had she not the means of repelling her foes foreign and domeftic? What affistance did the not afford this country during the American war? Cannot Ireland fay to you, before the fuffers you to reproach her with her inability to defend herself, before the fuffers you to reproach her with your 40,000 militia in the heart of the kingdom (for which you have my thanks), could fhe not say, give me back the 100,000 Irishmen who have loft their lives in fighting your battles? Above 100,000 of her fons have perifhed in America and the Weft Indies, in fupporting your contests, there was no part of the Globe, indeed, in which their prowefs and fidelity had not been fignalized. But now the Hon. Gentleman contends, that her weakness not only leaves her expofed to hoftile invafion, but he alfo feems to feel that the fame weakness leaves her at his mercy, and therefore, he will avail himself of it, to compel her to acquiefce in an union.

The Hon. Gentleman fet out with faying, he wished the queftion to be argued coolly and difpaffionately, diftinctly expreffing himself, that he wifhed to fubmit it to the unbiaffed judgment and independent difcuffion of the Parlia ment of Ireland; but, Sir, I pay very little attention to the Hon. Gentleman's words, I look to his actions; and referring to them, let me afk, Is the queftion left to the unbiaffed judgment and independent difcuffion of Ireland? Is it not on the contrary apparent, that in order to carry it, corruption is ftalking through Ireland with a fcourge in one hand and a purfe in the other? Is the difmiflion of Sir John Parnell from his office, because his fentiments were hoftile to the measure? Is that, I aik, leaving it to the unbiaffed judgment and independent difcuffion of the country? It is the contrary; it is not only a mockery, but an infult to Parliament. Such, at least, it must be deemed by men who regard not the words of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but who look at his actions for their true interpretation and import; and when I reflect upon the whole of his paft conduct, can I believe that this question is to be left folely to the unbiaffed judgment, to the independent difcretion of the Irish Parliament? Surely not, and therefore I moft feriously appeal to the good fenfe and the high dignity of the House,

not

not to lend the fanction of its authority to the fhameful means by which this measure is to be forced upon the reluctant feelings of the filter kingdom. Befides, how can Parliament tell how foon the Hon. Gentleman may adopt the fame line of conduct, with regard to the Parliament collectively, as he has done with refpect to individuals? If he has difmiffed individuals for expreffing fentiments different to his own, may he not, by the fame rule, difmifs the Parliament too, if it prefumes to oppofe him.-The inference is fair.-Was it juít, in the cafe of a Viceroy confulting his confcience, on a question of all others the moft neceffhry, to act according to its dictates? Was it, I fay, neceffary to tell him, because he did fo, he was unfit to be any longer in his Majefty's fervice? I do believe, that inftead of this question even being left to the unbiaffed judgment of this House, any Gentleman in office who fhould vote with me this night, would be pretty certain of being difmiffed to-morrow. I make no doubt the Hon. Gentleman would urge the neceflity of quelling mutiny in the first inftance, and that fuch would be the cafe; muft it not be allowed that the whole of this imperious and threatening conduct on the part of Minifters is a leffon and a warning held out to the Irish Parliament to enforce their affent, or perhaps to hang over them the terrors of a diffolution, or fhew what those who still remain in place may expect from the examples of the punishment that has already been inflicted on fome of the fairest and most diftinguished characters in Ireland, unless they facrifice the dictates of their duty and their confcience to the intemperate imperiousness of an headstrong Minifter? The fame ftretch of infulting power might perhaps alfo be reforted to here, if any Gentleman now in office should venture to confult his confcience and the Conftitution, and espouse the opinion I propofe, the fate of fuch a perfon moft undoubtedly would be, to be turned out to-morrow; for we have been frequently told how important and neceffary it is to reprefs and punifh the firft fymptom of infubordination and infurrection. He fays that time should be given to the people, as well in as out of Parliament, to confider the fubject, and for heats and animofities to fubfide. I believe, that with refpect to the Irish Parliament, his intention is, that time should be given to try the effect of further corruption; and what fenfation will be produced by dif miffing the fervants of the Crown; what the influence of the Crown is; and what are the expectations of those devoted for its fervice. I must confefs I never did feel more dif gufted than to fee an Hon. Friend of mine, who fits near No. 19. the.

5 C