We wish for the opportunity, and will try to convince them that the plan propofed is preferable to that they live under at prefent. If that cannot be done, why they must retain their independent legiflature; but I deny that the sense of the country is yet proved to be against the measure; the question is by no means decided in Ireland. I am confident they will, at a future period, fee their true interefts in the adoption of the measure. A period of eight years had elapfed from the firft agitation of the Union with Scotland to the time of its final fettlement. The Honourable Gentleman oppofite him would not pretend to fay that the Scotch had been corrupted in order to carry that measure. The people of Ireland would, I am fure, think in a fimilar manner. I can by no means agree with the Honourable Gentleman in his propofitions, either that the Parliament of Ireland have clearly decided against the measure-or that on account of the reception it has already met with, it fhould not be revived. I pofitively deny that the Parliament of Ireland have rejected the propofition.-Are there not estates conftituting that Parliament-and is not there a third of equally effential importance with either refiding in this country? What have the Irish Houfe of Lords done?-Have they not acknowledged the propriety of the principle, and do not the moft extenfive properties, power, and influence of any in the kingdom veft in that branch of the legislature? -Well-there is then one Houfe of Parliament against the other-which has the beft fide of the argument? I clearly am of opinion, the Lords. What right has one hundred and eleven Members of their House of Commons, which, by the bye do not conftitute half the Houfe, to fay they fpeak the fenfe of the whole Nation? Is it becaufe fuch a proceeding has taken place; and even there a motion for the purpose of binding the Houfe never to entertain the question mifcarried, or what is equivalent to it, was withdrawn. Is it because a majority of five or fix, on a particular day, vote unfavourably to the meafure, that its difcuffion fhould not be revived by a Meffage from the executive, or that the Irish Parliament at large fhould be precluded from all future opportunity of reconfidering the fubject? Certainly not.Might they not, on maturer deliberation, fee juft grounds for altering their opinions? Moft afluredly.

What we urge at prefent is, that the Irish Parliament might have an opportunity of knowing what we are willing to treat with them about; and on what terms we would willingly fix as a basis for a treaty of Union. The proceed

ing by no means affects the independence of the Irish Parliament-fo far from it, that the very proceeding on the part of the Parliament of Great Britain pre-fuppofes the independence and the full powers of the Parliament of Ireland. With refpect, Sir, to what has been faid of the impropriety of agitating the question at the present time, I fhall only fay, that, fo far from entertaining any doubt upon that point, I am convinced that the late occurrences in Ireland amount to an irrefragable demonstration that the time could not be better chofen, or with propriety delayed. I allude to the terrible and widely extended confpiracy in Ireland-the notorious and avowed object of which was to feparate the countries; this measure was therefore propofed as the means of putting an end to that confederacy. And the confideration of the prefent alarming crifis, recals, Sir, to my mind the cause which ultimately effected, or at leaft much expedited, the Union with Scotland. -I have before obferved, that different attempts were made at a Union of the two kingdoms, by fucceffive monarchs, which failed from various caufes, fome of which were in confequence of the diflike originally entertained to the measure in England. It used to be faid, by way of fimile, that to unite with Scotland would be like opening the communication between a rich and a poor field, and that the half-starved fheep in the poor field would run in and devour all the grafs which those in the rich field had to feed on. But one great view in atchieving the Union was, the detaching Scotland entirely from its antient connexion with France. However, after a fuccessful oppofition against the measure at various periods, the miniftry of Queen Anne fat about the work with great earneftnefs and zeal-the English nation was at that time, as now, engaged in a glorious ftruggle, in order to restrain the inordinate ambition of France; and about the fame period the Scots Parliament paffed an Act altering the line of fucceffion to the crown, the refult of which might be, that the crown of Scotland might be placed on the head of a dif ferent person than the one filling the English Throne. This alarming proceeding brought the people of England to their fenfes. They were engaged in an expenfive Continental War; they beheld all the horrors which a difputed fucceffion might bring upon their nation, and they fuddenly became as zealous for a Union with Scotland, as before they were to oppofe it; they dreaded the effects which must arife from the Northern part of the Inland being ever again placed under the influence, or in the hands of their inveterate enemy No. 21. 5 M

the

the French; and under thefe impreffions the measure was expedited. I will now afk Gentlemen on the other fide, if there is not a striking fimilarity in the fituation of Great Britain with respect to Ireland now, and of England and Scotland then? Were not the defigns of France apparent in both cafes? Are they not now fomenting a powerful faction in Ireland for the purpofe of feparating it from Great Britain, with a view to diminish the power of both countries, fo as they fhall not be able to refift them? By an Union we ought in this manner to convince them that their attempts would be fruitlefs, and that the revenues, the ftrength, and resources of the two countries would be confolidated for mutual defence and common fafety. By a confederated Union of the two countries alone, I am convinced the defigns of the enemy can be completely fruftrated, and religious diffentions in the fifter kingdom radically done away; and these confiderations, Sir, I am convinced, would be feen and felt by every defcription of the inhabitants of Ireland, were the proposals of our Parliament allowed a full, fair, and free difcuffion. By a proper Legislative Union of the two countries, the preju dices and animofities of all parties can alone be healed-the Catholics as well as the Proteftants would fee the propriety of acceding to the meafure. I am happy to fee, that under the foftering care of the Parliament of Great Britain. The Catholics of this country were fecluded from certain privileges as well as thofe of Ireland; but did they feel their interefts neglected by the British Parliament? There was no fuch thing as jealoufy, no fuch thing as animofity exifting againft them. But the cafe is very different with the Catholics of Ireland, for the reafons I have already stated. In the event of an incorporated Union of the kingdoms, the jealousies and animofities of that very numerous part of the people of Ireland, might be radically done away-the attainment of which very defirable end, as well as all the great advantages which must accrue from fuch a measure to the empire at large, and to Ireland in particular, renders me a decided advocate for it, and as fuch I will vote for the Houfe going into the committee.

Mr. Sheridan.-Having, Sir, already taken more than a due fhare in the debate of this evening, I fhould not have ventured again to trouble you, but for the extraordinary nature of the arguments which I have heard advanced by the Right Hon. Gentleman. The speech which he has just delivered is, indeed, in one refpect peculiarly proper for the occafion,

occafion, the recommendation of peace, amity and concord, from the good humour which it breathes throughout; but I confider, on the other hand, that this very quality is dangerous in as much as it is calculated to miflead the House as to the importance of the fubject now under confideration, by putting it in too light and frivolous a point of view, and tending to induce Gentlemen to confider it as of lefs confequence than it really is. It was not poffible to conceive that it could long continue an eafy matter to mislead on fuch fubjects, and the more it was fought to divert men's minds from the queftions eminently entitled to confideration, the greater was the neceflity for putting Honourable Gentlemen to the teft on their own principles. The Right Honourable Gentleman profeffed to have heard the arguments which were advanced by my Honourable Friend (Mr. Grey), and confidered himself as having anfwered them; nay, he even adverted to an indirect converfation which took place on this fide the House, and seemed to with that he had heard more arguments, that he might have answered them too, a task to which, from what I have heard, I do not think him compe tent. The Right Honourable Gentleman pledged himself to fhew various inconfiftencies in the fpeech of my Honourable Friend, which he has not done, but he did not notice that part of the speech, which I confider as very material to the point in queftion-the objection to the time at which the prefent measure is brought forward. The Right Honourable Gentleman has ftated, as the foundation of his arguments in favour of the Union, the state of the Catholics in Ireland, with refpect to the divifions between them and the Proteftants, and the intentions of the French with respect to Ireland. True it is, indeed, that the French have entertained views with respect to Ireland; but on what have those views been founded? They have prefumed upon internal divifions, which divifions I affert will be much increased by the meafure under confideration. I have heard this day, what I trust is not true, that it has been difcuffed in Ireland with great animofity-that feveral meetings of countries have been, and fecond meetings of those which had already affembled on the subject, for the purpose of difcuffing the competency of their Parliament to deliberate on fuch a question. The Right Hon. Gentleman has mentioned the animofities of the Catholics as affording an argument in his favour, and he contends that they must be fenfible that their claims are more likely to be difcuffed with candour and liberality in a British than in an

5 M 2

Irish

Irish Parliament; but what pledge may I afk, can they have of this fuperior liberality? What acts of liberality has the British Parliament done towards the English Catholics, refpecting whofe fituation none of thofe apprehenfions can be entertained; to whom none of the difficulties arifing from the poflibility of the Catholic overbalancing the Proteftant intereft are applicable? The Parliament of England has continued to exclude them from a place in the legislature, and yet you appeal to their liberality, and hold out the legislation of the English Parliament for Ireland as a temptation to them: you invite them to a fubmiflion to a Parliament which has, in the circumstances in which its Catholics ftood, acted worle towards them them than what they complain of in their own Parliament. But, fays the Right Honourable Gentleman, the Union of the two legislative bodies will extinguish the jealoufies, and bring the queftion relating to the Catholics before a more impartial tribunal. The Right Honourable Gentleman indeed fays fo, but does he prove it? Far from it. He fays, "we, the English Government (for one of his arguments in favour of the measure is the control of the British Government over that of Ireland), will not fuffer the Parliament of Ireland to be the channel of conferring bleffings on the Catholics of their own country, advantages which, we contend, on the other hand, muft flow from a Union." Has the Right Honourable Gentleman forgot what was the conduct of the Irish Parliament during the adminiftration of Lord Fitzwilliam? Will he fay that the Irish Parliament, which he represents as fo little inclined to thew indulgence, would not have granted to them the pri vileges they required. If Lord Fitzwilliam, inftead of having been deferted by treachery by the British Adminiftration, had been fupported in the conduct which he pursued, would not the Parliament of Ireland have given to those who complained what they required? Would not Ireland have refted contented and happy, and all the miferies and calamities which have fince befallen the country, have been prevented. What then have the Irith Catholics to expect from the promised liberality? They have feen, in the inftance which I have cited, that the whole conduct of the Irish Parliament, when immediately influenced by the Parliament of Great Britain, was more unjust towards them than the unin fluenced and unbiafled conduct of their own Parliament would have been.

The Right Hon. Gentleman then comments on an expreffion of mine, in which I alluded to the phrafe, that