severities made use of, which I am forry to hear the Right Honourable Gentleman justify. It was from them that all the evils which have fince been complained of arofe. I fay, Sir, I am forry to hear the Right Honourable Gentleman juftify these severities. I have not altered any of the fentiments which I entertained of that horrible opinion expreffed by high authority in the fifter kingdom, that in any country the extorting confeffions can be juftifiable. I fay, that nothing can render torture neceffary in the present state of civilization in Europe. Will the Right Hon. Gentleman, or will any man, juftify the practice of torture for the purpofe of gaining political information? Nor has any thing which the Right Honourable Gentleman has faid about connexion with the enemy juftified a practice so abhorrent to humanity. The Right Honourable Gentleman contends, that these were feverities which the circumftances of the times rendered unavoidable. He means to justify the whole fyftem. Does he know that it was, not the practice in a few cafes, but the general practice to extort confeffion by the fevereft tortures? But to pursue my argument. I fay, Sir, the evils are not imputable to the feparation of the legiflatures, but to the fyftem adopted by government. Are the Irish discontented with a feparate legiflature? Have they come to the bar and told you fo? If they wish to change their form of Government, there is an end to my oppofition, at leaft upon this charge. Or will the Right Honourable Gentleman say, that the Parliament of Ireland have adopted measures which he could not controul, and which without another Parliament cannot be controuled? If then the system adopted in that country is one which he would have recommended to an united Parliament; a fyftem which, as far as he dares, he has carried into execution here-if I fee that to this fyftem these evils are to be attributed, then I fay, he has not made out this indifpenfible preliminary, that the Union of the legiflatures is a matter of neceffity. But my argument does not ftop here. The Right Honourable Gentleman was bound, I affert, to fhew that the measure is not inconfiftent with the rights of the Irish people, and that it might be entertained without any danger; and this leads me to the final adjustment of 1782, upon which I have not much to add to what has been faid by my Honourable Friend. And here I think the Right Honourable Gentleman played rather the dexterous debater, and by the ufe of a word endeavoured to divert the attention of the Houfe. He fays there could be no final fettlement or adjustment at this time, because it

was

was even then expreffed that fomething was left to be done. But he knows well enough, and he ought to have the candour to acknowledge, that there may be a final adjuftment, and. yet fomething be left to be done; that is, that there may be a final adjustment of one thing, and another be left to be fettled, and which indeed was the cafe. The final adjustment referred to the political independence of the Irish legiflature; but the point to be fettled was one that related to trade. Before that adjustment I will fay, that I think no country was lefs indebted to another, itself a friend, than Ireland was to Great Britain.-Undoubtedly, Sir, by the measures and misconduct of Government, things had been brought into fuch a fituation, that a fettlement could no longer be refused. A bill was brought in to repeal the obnoxious act, the 6th of George I. and that was confidered as all that was neceffary to be done upon that point. Mr. Grattan himself, whofe opinion has been alluded to on a formér debate, said himself, that, that act being repealed, the conftitution stood upon its true grounds-but doubts afterwards arofe in the courts, chiefly in a caufe exifting previoufly to the repeal of the 6th of George I. and it was a remarkable feature in the proceeding, that the Irish Parliament had not taken this up. But Lord Temple (now Marquis of Buckingham), the then Lord Lieutenant, felt that this was fo likely to create difcontents between the two kingdoms, that Mr. Grenville came over to fettle them. The Right Honourable Gentleman, upon that occafion, faid that he confidered the faith of Great Britain pledged, not to invade the fettlement of 1782, and that nothing was fo likely to contribute to the prefervation of harmony, as to remove all doubts. Accordingly Lord Sydney, then Mr. Townshend, brought in a Bill to lay all jealoufies afleep, fo that they might never rife again, and that Great Britain fhould never retract that faith which she had pledged. Leave was given nem. con. to bring in a Bill for removing all doubts which have arisen, or might arife, between the two countries. On a former debate the Right Honourable Gentleman stated, from what he called a more authentic record than the ufual accounts of Parliamentary proceedings, that an Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Fofter), who, I affert, contended for the fettlement of 82, and no more, had contradicted that opinion. And here I cannot help alluding to an observation, that we on this fide of the Houfe are difpofed to treat the Gentleman adverted to with more refpect than formerly. Sir, if we are difpofed to treat him with more refpect, the

Right Honourable Gentleman seems inclined to treat him with lefs. Now, of the two motives which is the beft, I will not pretend to decide. I confess I have not forgotten the fhare which that Gentleman has had in fupporting the measures of the Minifter of this country in Ireland, nor have I changed my opinion of their deftructive tendency. I think of them now as I have always thought of them, that many of them are most unjust and odious; yet, when I see a man in direct oppofition to what may be called his own perfonal intereft do that which appears to be right; when I fee him oppofe the measures of the Right Honourable Gentleman with whom he has acted fo long, and that not upon any doubt that the power of the Right Honourable Gentleman is declining; but when it is as high as ever, and when ́ I reflect that, from his knowledge of the temper of the Right Honourable Gentleman, he must be aware of the effect of differing from him; I fay, when I fee all this, I own I am induced to treat a man who thus fhews an independent fpirit, I am induced to treat him with more respect than I did formerly; and I think his conduct entitles him to the efteem and gratitude of his country. But the Right Honourable Gentleman quotes the words of the person I have alluded to—what are they? "If this infatuated coun"try gives up this offer, fhe may look for it again in vain.

Things cannot remain as they are; commercial jealoufies "will be roufed; they will encrease with an independent legislature, and without united interefts, the political "Union will receive many fhocks."-I really thought, Sir, upon hearing this extract read, that Mr. Fofter could mean only this, that the independence of the legiflature being fettled, unless there was a commercial fettlement, discontents might arife. But how does this impeach his opinion, that

this was a final fettlement?

In the very fame authentic record, however, this Gentleman fets out with faying-" I cannot remain filent upon a measure in which I had the honour to take a part. I fhould think myfelf unworthy of the name of an Irishman, if I could barter an atom of the Conftitution for all the commerce in the world." The Right Hon. Gentleman oppofite' me now fays, facrifice the whole of your Conftitution, and I will give you commerce. Mr. Fofter ftands up and fays, if commerce is to be purchafed by the facrifice of liberty, take back your commerce. The Right Hon. Gentleman, I fee, catches at the word liberty. He means to contend that liberty will be as fafe as under a feparate Parliament.

But

But that is not Mr. Fofter's opinion. In this record he says again" I will ftand or fall by the bill, that not a line of it touches the Conftitution." What was that Conftitution? A Conftitution of King, Lords, and an united Legislature ? No, Sir, it was an independent Legiflature. And here I cannot help thinking that the Right Hon. Gentleman has not quite treated Mr. Fofter with the candour which old friendship might have claimed. But what is it in fact to the Houfe, whether Mr. Fofter has changed his opinion or not? I have only taken up the matter in reply to the manner in which it was introduced, and the stress that was laid upon it. Sir, if we were to argue upon changes of opinion, the public lives of Gentlemen would afford us an inexhaustible fund of debate. But if that Gentleman is accused of inconfiftency on one fide, let us fee whether perfons who were for the independence of Ireland have not come over to the other fide. Some perfons have loft their places, others have been promoted. But let us fee whether a perfon whom the Right Hon. Gentleman refpects, has not changed his opinion. The prefent Chancellor of the Exchequer in Ireland was an enemy to the propofition. He faid (I am reading from the fame authentic record) "The principle which I am againft, is the fourth propofition. The mover is indebted to the courtesy of Parliament for not confidering this attack upon out independence, not as temerity merely, but as the greateft audacity."

But what was the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Great Britain? In 1785, there was not one word of this legislative Union, but merely a dry detail of commercial advantages, and recommending the measure only on this ground, that that alone was left to be done. "There is not," he faid (I am reading ftill from the record)," a man of any party who will not agree that fettling commercial difputes between two nations was one of the greatest topics and moft defirable things.-If he had thought the fourth propofition could be made inftrumental for the purpofe of creating alarm, or be confidered as an attempt to effect a refumption of a right on the part of the English Parliament, he would rather abandon the plan altogether, than risk the danger." These were the fentiments of the Right Hon. Gentleman. He called our attention to this record, and I have accepted the invitation, Whether then this was or was not a pofitive settlement, and whether all that was to be done did not relate to commercial arrangements, I leave to the Houfe to decide. But the Right

Hon.

Hon. Gentleman, in addition to thefe exifting evils, proceeds to the pollible dangers arifing from a difference of opinion in cafes of peace or war, or in fome others between the two Parliaments. Two inftances only were mentioned; the commercial propofitions, which, as they did not relate to peace or war, or to the Conftitution, can hardly, I think, be confidered as dangerous. But the question which was moft dangerous was the Regency. What was the fact? The Parliament of Ireland invefted the Prince of Wales with full powers as Regent. If the Right Hon. Gentleman is inclined to dispute the propriety of the meafure, I must call upon one Hon. Gentleman who fits near him for its defence. The Irish Parliament thought the investing the Prince with fuch powers was most natural. I know not whether they confidered them as matter of right. What was the difference here? The Parliament of England thought another arrangement neceffary, which, if the Right Hon. Gentleman is disposed to attack, I fhall call upon two Gentlemen who fit near him to defend. They thought that certain. Officers fhould not be in the gift of the Regent. Where then was the great difference? Was it dangerous to the peace of the two countries, that the Prince of Wales, a native of England, refiding in England; was it, I fay, a thing very threatening to the two countries, that the Regent fhould have greater powers in Ireland than in England?But were the fituations of the two countries alike? By no means. In this country there is a vaft deal of power and influence which attaches to the fovereignty independent of that which is properly to be called Government-in Ireland there is none. When therefore they voted a Regent, they had nothing but the power of Government to give.-The cafe was otherwife in this country, and therefore the one having given the whole without restraint, and the other reftraining, did not in reality differ, as might have been thought upon the first view of the matter. But the Right Hon. Gentleman fays that the principle is the whole thing to be confidered; that they might as well have differed on the perfon as the power of the Regent:To which I anfwer, that this is an extreme cafe; and that for all the ufual and common purposes of Government, there is not the least probability of any material difference arifing between the two Legislatures upon any practical meafure. They might alfo, in questions of peace or war, decide differently from this country. But is it, I afk, at fuch a crifis, when we have difficulties enough, is it right to agitate the queftion,

upon