an Union had been adopted; and by enquiring whether fuch adoption would be a violation of the compact of 1782 ?

A moment's reflection will convince my reader-that much of the reafoning, which, for another purpofe, I have had recourse to, will prove that this measure would involve nó fuch violation.

For inftance; is England lefs dependent upon Ireland, than this latter country is on her? clearly not. Yet a legiflative Union would not encroach on the independence of Great Britain: then neither can it, include a breach of that compact of 1782, which its most zealous advocate cannot pretend to have done more, than render Ireland as independent of Britain, as Britain is of her.

But Union will diminish the number of Irish reprefentatives. Suppose I should confent to defert the abstract question, and enter upon that which, regarding the terms, is not before me, ftill I may with truth reply to this objection,-that a reprefentation proportioned to Irish territory, population, refources, and contribution, in an Union thoroughly identifying the interefts of the two countries, will be fufficient to secure to Ireland, as complete a participation in the privileges of the British conftitution, (and what more could her warmest friend defire?) as is enjoyed by the inhabitants of any English county; whose numbers would yet (if any one were filly enough to compare them) be found to bear no proportion to the fum. of British representation.

Again: Ireland is not, by virtue of the compact of 1782, lefs dependant on Great Britain, than Scotland was on England before 1706. If an Union then would infringe that independ ence which our compact has procured, it follows, that the * Scottish Union involved a violation of the independence of Scotland. But no loyal fubject, or friend to order will flippantly impeach the juftice or validity of a treaty, on which perhaps

depend

depend the legitimacy of the United Parliament,-the autho rity of its ftatutes, and even the title of his Majefty to his Scottish Crown.*

By the Union, the number of Scotch reprefentatives was abridged; and I fhall no otherwise answer the epithets which you lavish on an analogous system, when you describe Irish Union as "a deftructive and accurfed measure," "a furrender and annihilation of our Conftitution," than, by fuggefting to you the fubverfive confequences, which lurk behind a doctrine,

that may taint the Acts of the British Legislature for near a century; abfolve Scotland from its allegiance, and impeach the title of the reigning family to the throne of that realm; or which at best will leave this great imperial arrangement, to depend for its stability on the frail bafis of acquiefcence, and of an infufficient and fhort-lived prescription, which we can trace to have commenced in an unjust encroachment on the rights and privileges of an independent nation.

The measure of Union can no otherwife violate that compact, on which you fo much rely, than by trenching on the Independence which it guaranteed; and if fuch would be its operation in the cafe of Ireland, fuch muft it have been in the cafe of equally independent Scotland. As invectives are not arguments, (elfe a speech would be logical, in proportion as it was abufive,) I am fure you have too much fenfe and candour, to expect that I should give a farther anfwer to thofe epithets, which you have lavifhed on the measure of a legiflative Union. You do not need to be informed, that if Union were indeed the annihilation of our Conftitution, the many virtuous and enlightened men who are friendly to it, would become zealous converts to your opinion: but thofe perfons hold Union to include no fuch furrender; and if their judgment be erroneous, yet they are to be refuted by argument, and not frightened out of their fentiments by mere vehement affertion. Let me

* Secured to the Houfe of Hanover by an article of the Union.

clofe

close this part of my argument, by felecting a few paffages from the numerous extracts, which you have incorporated into your speech; and by fubjoining a remark on the conclufiveness of fuch documents.

The firft paffage which I fhall tranfcribe, is extracted by you (p. 7.) from an addrefs to his Majesty, voted by the House of Commons, on the 16th of April 1782, and is as follows: "The Crown of Ireland is infeparably annexed to the Crown "of Great Britain; on which connexion, the interests and "happiness of both nations depend; but the kingdom of Ireland " is a difline kingdom, with a Parliament of her own, the fole legislature thereof."

Upon this latter fentence, you feem to me to place fome reliance; but as it ftrikes me, without the leaft foundation. It is manifeft, to any person who reads the paffage, and has even a general notion of the transactions of that period, that thofe who penned the addrefs had no intention of infifting on the diftinctness of this kingdom, or contrafting it with the fituation which Union would produce; but merely meant to urge this diftinctnefs, as an argument against the abuse, of which they complained; and to infinuate the injuftice of their being bound by the acts of a Parliament, in which they were not reprefented and that this is the true interpretation of the paffage is fo clear, from even what I have already quoted, that it is almoft fuperfluous to fupport it by tranfcribing the next, fentence, which, however, is as follows: "there is no body of "men competent to make laws, to bind this nation, except the "King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland; nor any other "Parliament, which hath any authority in this country, "only the Parliament of Ireland.”

fave

The next paffages which I fhall tranfcribe, are extracted from an addrefs of the Houfe of Commons to the Duke of Portland, and of the speech with which his Grace concluded the Seffion, and occur in pages 14 and 15 of your speech,

"We," (fay the Houfe of Commons,) fhall have feen "this great national arrangement established on a bafis which "fecures the tranquillity of Ireland, and unites the affections as well as interests of both kingdoms."

66

"Convince the people," (fays the Lord Lieutenant)" in your feveral districts, that the two kingdoms are now one; "indiffolubly connected in unity of Conftitution, and unity of "Interefts."

Upon these paffages I would remark, that the language which they hold was encouraging and ufeful; calculated to promote harmony between the two countries, and produce that lafting cordiality which it proclaimed. But with all due refpect for the fpeech of a Viceroy, (which yet the conftitution recognifes as the fpeech of the minifter,) and all proper deference for the addrefs of a Houfe of Commons, I would obferve, that both the Viceroy and the Commons, when they travel out of facts, and expatiate in conjectures, rifk falling into thofe errors from which no human creature is exempt. There is but one Potentate, that I know of, who claims to be infallible, and his claim, the tenets of my Religion do not oblige me to admit. But, if I be not bound to acquiefce implicitly in all the obiter opinions, which are promulged by a Viceroy, or a House of Commons,-ftill lefs am I obliged to swallow their predictions. When they turn Prophets, I feel myfelf warranted to doubt their infpiration; though, in the prefent inftance, 1 chufe to fhift from myfelf, on the Societies of United Irifhmen, and hordes of Irish traitors, the disrespectful task of comparing certain events and doctrines which we have lately witneffed, with thofe predictions which foretold the permanent tranquil lity of Ireland, the mutual affection of the Sifter Countries, and their indiffoluble connexion,-as the inevitable confequences of the arrangement of 1782.

The next (and laft) reference, which I fhall rather digrefs. from the train of my argument to notice, is that which you make to the modification of Poynings' law, and which will be

found

found in p. 24 of your fpeech. That ftatute, you lay, " enacts "that no bill fhall pafs into a law in Ireland, unlefs it be re"turned under the Great Seal of Great Britain.”

This provifion you flate, with a triumph which I cannot underftand. To me it feems to involve a fignal acknowledgement of the frailty of that bond by which these countries are connected; and to apply a weak and inadequate remedy to the evil which it admits. What is the cure which it adminifters? Forfooth the refponfibility of an individual to the Parliament of Great Britain. This wonderful Noftrum is to remove all the feparating tendencies, and acrimonies, and eruptions, which may arife from the nature of our prefent connexion, and announce the cachexy of our Imperial Conftitution.-No: 1 advert to the defect which this provifion announces, and place little reliance on the cure which it provides. I confider the law as an argument for a Legislative Union, inafmuch as I do not estimate the vigour of a man, by the number of his crutches, or the ftability of a house by the number of its props.

Having now finished my examination of those documents to which you refer, I return from that short digreffion which, in noticing the laft of them, I have made; and close the answer which I have endeavoured to give to this part of your Argument, by admitting, in the very language which you have chofen to adopt, "that the adjustment of 1782 was final: that "by it the Constitution of Ireland was fully and perfectly established; and that no conftitutional queftion can exist, to interrupt the harmony of the two countries."*

But, as the adoption of Union by an Irish Parliament, independent, and uncontroled, would not unfettle that final adjustment, which did no more than affert the Independence of that Parliament,-as the mode in which the measure of Union has been introduced, so far from affailing that " full and per**fect establishment" of our independence, which was fecured

Page 31, 32.

to