the Right Hon. Gentleman, on the last night of debate, come forward in fupport of a fyftem carried on by fuch means as thofe by which the Union between Great Britain and Ireland is obftinately endeavoured to be supported; and never did I hear any thing with more poignant regret, for what fenfation but that of forrow and regret could arife in my mind, when I heard that Hon. Friend plead the cause of bold and barefaced corruption, and thus cloud and contaminate with its foul fog and baneful breath the pure and early morning of his political life? But furely, Sir, what was advanced by my Hon. Friend was quite fufficient for the purpose; there was no fort of occafion for the Right Hon. Gentleman to have given the Houfe that pledge of his determination to perfift in the object till he attained it; he was not called on even to speak. If he merely rofe by way of encouragement to his friends in Ireland, he must have known that the question then would be difpofed of before they would be able to know his fentiments. My Hon. Friend, I confefs, faid a great deal very applicable to the subject; but the Hon. Gentleman thought it neceffary to add fome thing further. Certainly in all the flowery part of language, the Hon. Gentleman excels. I admit that in the power of culling words and putting them together, no one ever exifted who furpaffed him. I had faid that the Union would leave a pretence to a future rebellion, to this argument my Hon. Friend returned no answer; he felt that it would be a breach of faith of the adjustment of 1782; and therefore, though he fupported the propofition of an Union, yet he eluded the argument by which its propriety was refuted.The Hon. Gentleman, then, thought it neceflary to come forward; he felt that more shame attached to my Honourable Friend than he could well bear, and in the true fpirit of friendship he wished to relieve him of a part of it.-Like another Nifus he threw his broad fhield over his beloved Euryelus to protect him from the vengeful refentment of the Irish nation, calling out to them-Me, me, I, 1 am the man; wreak all your vengeance upon me : Me, me, adfum qui feci in me convertite ferrum, O Rutuli: mea fraus omnis: nihil ifte, nec aufus, He then made that wanton and unneceffary pledge for which I am at a lofs to account. Now, then, with respect to the rejection of the queftion by the Parliament of Ireland, the Honourable Gentleman fays the measure is necef fary to the people of Ireland; and at the conclufion of his obfervation he adds, that he will wait a more favourable oppor opportunity. What does he mean? That he will wait till the Parliament of Ireland is convinced by reasoning? No, he will wait till a day or an hour of additional weakness, when the country shall be still further incapacitated for refifting their enemies, and more intimidated at the confequence of our withdrawing our affiftance. What does he mean by faying he will wait? Does he mean he will wait till a period, as one which may or may not arrive, when he knows he has it in his power to create it whenever he thinks proper? The Right Honourable Gentleman reproaches the oppofition here with bafely making the Irish Parliament the dupes of their prejudices; but not to obferye that this charge implicates the Duke of Portland, and others with whom the Minifter now acts, may I not remark, that though fifteen years in office, the Right Honourable Gentleman has never till now chofen an opportunity to come forward with this measure, till the weaknefs of Ireland had discovered itfelf; and would not this lead to a fufpicion that he had created this weakness in the first inftance, in order to take advantage of it in the fecond? What conclufion will the people of Ireland draw from fuch conduct? Have they not a right to fuppofe, if the measure was never propofed in the hour of their strength and profperity, but is attempted when they are weakened and unabled to refift, that it is not intended as a measure of advantage to them? If when a Lord Lieutenant was fent over to heal the differences refpecting the Catholics; the cup of conceffion was just presented to their lips, but instead of permitting them to taste of it, it was dafhed in their faces, and that Lord Lieutenant withdrawn; if the hoftilities of the Catholics and the Proteftants were not neceffary for him to attend to, what must they confider of his conduct when he attempts to introduce an alteration at a time when their weakness prevents them from refifting it? Does he think that he will by fuch a meafure, fo carried into effect, produce a permanent connexion between the two countries? Does he not confider what will be the feelings of men fo provoked? If the Hon. Gentleman ever confiders the infirmities of human nature, why does not he think of the infirmities of the poor and diftreffed Irish, why does he provoke their irritable minds; why does he heighten the gloom that now darkens their profpects?— but is this the real argument of one who wields the power of national will? When we have already pledged ourselves to fupport that independent legiflation which Ireland claimed as its right, what reafon have we to fuppofe that if we at tempt to deftroy that pledge, we shall not drive that country 5C 2 to to the expedient of gaining afliftance, and repelling our attacks? The Honourable Gentleman treated the pledge of this House and the Government, at the laft adjustment in 1782, as a circumftance of a filly and trifling nature. Among other terms of fcorn and opprobrium, he calls it most childish; at the time he made this affertion, he was not arrived at his full experience; he had been but a year and an half in office; but I fhould like to know what the conduct of the Honourable Gentleman's prefent colleagues had previously been? He reviles the Duke of Portland and the other Minifters who were then in power. There was a Gentleman, now a Noble Lord, I can't remember all the new Noble Lord's names, but he was confidered the mouthpiece of those who carried that bufinefs into execution. He brought up the refolutions, and it will be found they paffed nemine contradicente. Surely, the Honourable Gentleman will plead his tender years at the time, for not remembering this, for it was much about the time when he had the application of Heaven-born Minifter bestowed upon him; but he fays, the refolutions were confidered as childish, because there was one tacked to them which stated, that it was neceffary to do fomething further. It is quite enough for me to know that there could not be any fraud intended by this laft refolution; that it could not be confidered as a caveat against that admiffion of the independence of Ireland, which had been before acknowledged. Ireland fays, "We will have an independent Parliament-Right-but to defeat that, we will put in the journals what fhall have the effect of de"feating the claim." I am perfuaded, it is impoffible fuch a hard conftruction can be put upon that refolution. It is libellous to fuppofe, that any one could mean it in that light. But I will tell you, Sir, to what the refolution alluded:it was meant that with regard to commerce between the two countries, fomething further fhould be done; but as to the 'conftitution of Ireland and its independence, that was finally adjusted. It was fuppofed, that on the fubject of commerce fomething might arife which it might be neceffary afterwards to refer to the arbitration of Parliament. But why was not the Honourable Gentleman's opinion followed up? Why did he adhere to this filly pledge? I believe in the very next year, 1783, when this fubject was again brought forward by Mr. Flood, the Honourable Gentleman did not think of faying there was fomething more to be done; though he must be now fuppofed to have been convinced that fomething further was neceffary, yet he did not intimate that opinion; but now, at the distance of fifteen years, he states there is a neceffity for for following it up. Why has he fo long delayed? Because he never before thought he had a favourable opportunity; because he never before thought Ireland was at his mercy; and now, as the means of carrying his fyftem into effect, he must look forward to thofe feuds and difcords which may weaken Ireland, and lay her ftill more at his mercy. He has alfo affirmed that an equal proportion of the Irish House of Commons, a large majority of the Irish Peers, and an equally large proportion of the people out of doors, were friendly to the measure of an Union; but if he would but look of what that divifion against it in the Commons was compofed, he would difcover that it contained almost all the Country Gentlemen; while if he examined who compofed that on the other fide of the queftion, they would be almost all found to be under the influence of the crown; if, befides this, the difmiffals that had taken place in spite of the fair character of those who were removed, thus unjustly removed from office, it was a fhame to speak of any thing like an equality between those who oppofed and those who supported the propofed Union. Now as to the large proportion of the people out of doors, who are faid to be favourable to it, where were they to be found? He knew of no place but Cork that expreffed any thing like approbation of it, and perhaps Limerick alfo-but was there not a lure thrown out to the former, that they should have a dock-yard built there, and on the other hand was not the linen trade menaced with being deprived of fome of the means that tended to encourage it? Thus to gain his ends, he held out a bribe to the fouth, and threw out a threat against the north-The Honourable Gentleman fays, he must be affured of the continuance of the connexion with Ireland, and then he fays that the Union is the only way to continue it. Is this his propofition or not? Ifay it is fo. But I defy him to men tion any one advantage which he offers to Ireland for their acceptance of the Union, which he might not give without that condition. For inftance, the fubject of tithes has been mentioned; it is faid, that arrangements are to be made refpecting them; but permit me to ask him whether, if the propofed arrangements are right, they cannot as well be carried into effect without the Union as with it? He has faid that every enlightened politician on the continent is convinced what an acceffion of strength it would be to this country if Ireland was united to it (by the way, I do not like this quoting the opinions of continental politicians); but notwithstanding their opinions, let me afk, whether, in pursuing purfuing his favourite fubject, he is not more in danger of acting as the ally of the French, than of affifting Ireland to repel their attempts? If France knows that Ireland is fo far fubdued that he is unable to refift an attack on her independance, will not that affurance be the means of her taking thofe measures by which the may be enabled to strike that dreadful blow fhe has fo long aimed, namely, the feparation of Ireland from Great Britain? The Honourable Gentleman next comes to the question of the advantages to accrue to Ireland by an Union with this country. He fkips over the advantages fhe has acquired fince 1782, and proceeds to give an account of Scotland fince the Union. Whether without the Union, Scotland would not have been in as good a fituation as he is now, is more than I can determine; but is it true, that Ireland profpered from the moment when the fhook off her ignominious dependence, and infifted on a free and independent legiflation? It is argument founded on mere guefs and hazard to fay, that after the Union Ireland will derive an increase of progreffive advantages beyond what he has enjoyed fince 1782. Then he fays that the endeavours of our legislature may, in the course of fixteen years, be defeated by the legislature of Ireland. He argues not from what has been, but from what may be. I may fay, that the two Parliaments have now for above 100 years, gone on co-operating with each other without exception. With regard to what is called the Declaratory Law, he knows that the terms of that law never created any apprehenfion, that it was always confidered as a dead letter. I affert, that there has been a co-operation of 100 years between the two Parliaments, except only in the inftance of the Irish propofitions. It is merely an attempt to entrap and impose upon the House to ftate, that a cafe may occur in which the operations of legislation may be defeated by the want of cooperation in one of the Houfes of Parliament of the two countries. It may as well be faid, if we fend a bill to the Houfe of Lords, and they do not approve of it" See the mifchief of having two Houfes of Parliament whose functions impede each other," or if we send a money bill, and they think proper to make fome alteration in it, we may make the fame objection. If you reafon of what may be, and not of what is, only fee the inconvenience of the argument, particularly in a Conftitution like ours, compofed of shree branches, King, Lords and Commons. It goes to the deftruction of the Conftitution altogether; for the Lords may on fome queftion be against the Commons, the Com mons |