fituation, be dangerous to grant, it may, on the other hand, ✨ (if a divided people is an evil) be impolitick to withholds

ཤཱ ཁྱོད་ཀོང་། Thefe feveral facts and circumftances, and the reflections which they fupply, may have furnished many arguments for an Union, which did not offer themselves in 1782; and, by reducing theory to practice, may have confiderably ftrengthened thofe reafons, which exifted even then: in fhort, there are a thousand obvious caufes, which may have prevented the accomplifhment of an Union at that period, and which it would be nearly as little difficult, as it would be material to enumerate. And, if after all, the measure has been too long delayed, does it follow that it ought in prudence to be finally abandoned and this, at a moment, when the events paffing in the world demonftrate its expedience, emphatically and clearly; and even render it doubtful, whether Union ought not to be adopted, on terms lefs advantageous than it is in our power to enfure? In vain do you afk" what reliance we can place "on the British Minifter's adherence to any compact, on "which he might reft his projected Union, if he has already"violated a compact folemnly made and ratified? Youry r question affumes that the agreement of 1782 has been ignor fringed; a pofition, which I have denied, and, as I hope, dif proved. But this renowned adjuftment, (which you are mil milwa taken in supposing that Union will disturb,) has showered to "down upon us, bleffings, trade, and affluence,"§ almost incalculable. After having begged to except from this lift of bleffings the internal difcord the attempts at feparations the deep-laid confpiracies the Rebellion and invafion, which we have witneffed-and are ftill witneffing, and which have all occurred fince 1782, I would express my doubt, whether thefe advances in commercial profperity are fairly attributable to s the adjustment in question. Without the aid of any adjusto lo ment, if we believe Rofe and Chalmers, (nay, if we do not shuts our eyes on an obtrusive truth) Great Britain haswim the fame " interval, made advances as enormously exceeding thofe, which

she had made in former periods. We cannot impute these to any thing that paffed in 1782. Why then fhould we trace the din e accelerated progrefs of Irish profperity to

Hoaglay allons the constitutional occurrences of that period? Events, from which might have 101 atasmoys yakm boðinn oven yet waggulong How been more naturally expected that domeftick content, and

D

LOW.

quillity, which they have utterly failed to produce! Why may we not rather attribute fuch rapid ftrides to affluence, to thofe caufes, whatever they be, which have aggrandifed Great Britain, and confider them as our portion of the common benefits CRESTEDSTVA 360 have aggrandifed Great of imperial greatness, and as a motive for ftrengthening that connexion, from whence they have flowed? From our free trade,t they may indeed be in a great degree derivable but that freedom will not be abridged by Union, and was not acquired 941 aniq alasve ono ned/ in 1782.

on

tesla bas y'kndriques „ssasibagro ati verfacasb plow I have already protested against being held to any more ftrict bytombs arrangement, than a mere regular purfuit of your reafoning will supply -I am anfwering your argument, and cannot, if I wifhed it, be more fyftematick ck than you are; unless I deviate from that courfe which you have prefcribed, and to which it is my bufinefs to adhere.-Therefore, having followed you in your investigation of the adjustment of 1782, having digreffed motion,pagnt with you from the tranfactions of that period, and with yourrecurred to them again, I now accompany you to the difcuffions gyom asıl (die Hw aoiLU SMS genoqqul me m9ABÍ Jomis nuvia kwa phart agaibeld su nogy awob ** The Duke of Rutland, at the opening of the Seffion, reso commends to the earnest investigation" of Parliament "thofe old objects of trade and commerce, between Great Britain and "Ireland," (you fay mark the expreffion,") which had

of 1785.

J.

១៤៖

“ not yet received their complete adjustment."* The meaning of thefe expreffions is fufficiently apparent they were made ufe of on thesfubject of commerce, merely, and involve ho more di than the affertion which you yourself make, that from 1782 "no advance was made as to commerce in general, except aoifw „slori galessons yhwommons as aɔɔnneba obsa wha 3sat

19:

what was done by Yelverton's Billy the inadequacy of which you had fhewn in page 30, and also fhewed by your fupport of the commercial arrangement in 1785. And you muft allow me to take this occafion of acquiefcing in the truth of your pofition, in page 45, that to felect general expreffione made ufe of on the fubject of commerce, and apply them to *the fubject of Conftitution, fhews no great candour in reafoning. This doctrine of yours alfo applies to the obfervation which you make on another part of the Duke of Rutland's fpeech, in which he states a common interest in treaties with foreign States, as forming a bond of mutual connexion."t This paffage you contraft with Lord Caftlereagh's opinion, (in which I moft heartily acquiefce) that the confideration of the federative relations of the British Empire, with foreign States, furnishes strong inducements to a Union! You forget, that the Duke spoke merely of commercial treaties and that as you very properly remark) to felect expreffions, made ufe of on one subject, and apply them to another, fhews no great * candour in reasoning." hrenord sort or beloges

V

With refpect to your own conduct at this last mentioned period, far be it from me to make, what after all might be an unfuccefsful attempt, in demonftrating your inconfifténcy, to detet fpots in the political character of a man, fo fuperior to myfelf. In fhortly contrasting your past, and present conduct, my object is only to tempt you to revife the latter; or, if I cannot accomplish this, then to leffen the weight of your authority against me, by balancing one opinion of yours against the other.

4

-12You admit yourself to have said, in 1785, that things *could not remain as they were: that commercials jealousy **was roufed, and would encrease with two Independent Legi

flatures, if thefe did not mutually declare the principles whereby their powers should be separately employed, in directing "the common concerns of trade; and that without this united "intereft

"intereft of commerce, political Union would receive many fhocks; and-féparation of intereft muft threaten feparation of connexion. In vain, Sir, would you dilute the ftrong effect of thefe affertions, and foften the contrafted colouring with which they relieve your prefent conduct. On what occafion, and for what purpofe, did you make ufe of thefe pofitions? to fhew that the two Legislatures should enter into a compact, (for this is what was proposed) refpecting the mode of forming C their commercial regulations. When you declared that things could not remain as they were, your meaning, exclufively, and evidently, was that fuch a compact was neceffary to the fecurity of the connexion: when you obferved that the jealousy, which was roufed, would encreafe with two Independent Legiflatures, you manifeftly implied that this diftinctnefs was pregnant with dangers to the connexion, which required the correction of fome imperial compact, that, qualifying this independence, fhould be binding upon, both; and in adding that, without that commercial Union, (which nothing but this compact could permanently fecure,) the political Union would be expofed to fhocks, which would threaten the connexion, you, in my mind, promulged a doctrine, which was as true, as it is irreconcileable with your prefent opinions. Oscie. DlW

D

G

Any other interpretation than this, which I have given of the paffages above cited, would render them impertinent to the propofitions which you employed them to fupport. How then can you now, affert that "things do not remain as they were," when you are aware, that no compact has been entered into and that the Irish Parliament is not bound to conform to the British laws, which may be made refpecting certain matters of trade and navigation? or, how can you defire that things fhould not be modified, when you admit they cannot remain as they are? and that the fecurity of the connexion is endangered by the want of that compact, which, in confequence of the diftinnefs of our Legiflatures, has been rejected ?↑ Pellal parciqna vibylu.

+

* P. 45, 49.

1 P. 37.

.

"The paffing" (you fay)" of the Commercial Propofitions "into a law, would have completely anfwered all the purposes "of the prefent project," (of Union :) without acquiefcing in. the rectitude of this doctrine, I may, yet remark that they have not paffed into a law, and therefore, that, even con- 7 formably to your own principles, a Union may be neceffary

すみ

But things, you tell us, have not remained as they were. The evil, of commercial jealoufies, acting upon the laws "of two Independent Legiflatures, has been remedied by the "good fenfe, and mutual intereft of each country, from time to time, paffing all laws neceflary, to prevent the inconvenience "of commercial jealoufies." Sir, the danger is, that the exercife, by diftin&t legislatures, of their undoubted privileges, may produce imperial diffenfion; and that the good fenfe of the countries, in having as yet prevented the mifchief from arifing, has annihilated that rifk, which fprings eternally, and inevitably, from fuch a legislative organization, is a pofition, which it is more neceffary, than it is ealy, to demonftrate.

ર

of

You feem, too, in 1785, not to have forefeen the all-heal ing efficacy of this good fenfe, when you argued fo ftrongly for the neceffity of a commercial compact; nor does it afford an uninftructive leffon of human prejudice, and inconfiftency, to find a perfon of your diftinguished fagacity and talents, in in one place, confidering the Great Seal of Britain to be a better fecurity, than the good fenfe of Ireland, for a continu ance of the connexion between the two countries, and, in another place, preferring the junction, which this good fenfe, you fay, has formed, to the guaranty which a folemn compact would bestow; though a cafuift might doubt whether that roll of parchment, which you fo defpife, be a more frail affurance than the piece of wax, in which you place fuch implicit confidence. Some, I know, have pushed this contempt of parchment farther than you do, and even extended NOY V Set 1 đi at 559itOON WOT

their