!!

the deliberations of the other two,-and middle term, which connects and confolidates them into one Parliament. But in your imperial fyftem, I perceive the feeds of nothing, but wrangle and repulfion. It is compofed of but two eftates. It provides amply for diffenfion; but nothing for harmony

รา

4 SAT J9W04 His Majefty has, indeed, at the opening of the prefent feffion, in his fpeech to both Legislatures, lefs remembered their dif Kobaby yin Loopbotq tinctness, than that they formed a great council of the empire. But you condemn the minifter who advised this speech : you applaud the Irish Houfe of Commons, which declined the. royal guidance to deliberation; and inveigh against the prefumption of the British Legislature, in having paid more attention to the recommendation of the Crown,

160 I

One word more on this fubject, and I have done to

i

You fay that "Theory fays the two Houfes of Legislature "may disagree and that theory only fays the fame of the d separate Parliaments of the two kingdoms."quistɔ vd

Lanfwer, that if theory had (which it has not, or they would not, have been fo divided,) affirmed that the Houfes of Parliament might mischievoufly difagree, it would have been amply and repeatedly refuted by practice; whereas, if the fame theory had denied that the independent Parliaments of the empire might most importantly and alarmingly diffent,the annals of 1785 and 1789 would be fufficient to contradict them.Nay, the history of the latter year might render it bus mobliw doubtful whether you were warranted in pronouncing that it was unnecessary to fhew that, by law, the Executive is, and ever must be, the fame, and with the fame conftitutional powers

66

"in each kingdom."-Powers limited and unlimited sa to

ས་།

not to be the fame; and therefore the addrefs of both.
Houfes of the Irish Parliament in 1789, appears to me to have
given us an Executive, with different conftitutional powers:
from thofe, which were likely to be conferred in England. I fay,

to

A

o mondiD 0,0quiasi ant hidingɔ bus ex5gting. from thofe which were likely to be conferred in England ; for the British Parliament had not as yet appointed any Regent; and therefore, by our our promptitude, we risked having an Executive different as well in perfon, as in powers. The Regency Bill, which was lately introduced, ere and in support of which you made the Speech which has Pi produced my prefent Letter, admits that, upon that memorable occafion, the diftinctness of our Imperial Legislatures did not obviously contribute to the ftability of our imperial connexion That (not declaratory but enacting), bill has, however, made many other inadvertent admiffions, befides the deliberate one! which I have noticed for having no otherwife efcaped from one class of valid objections, than by exposing itself to others of equal force, in its text and its annotations, its provifions and its rejection, it reluctantly admitted-that the evil which it had recognised, it could not cure; and that none but an empiric would attempt purifying an acrimonious habit, by clapping a plaifter of bafilicon to the eruption,

:

But, fuppofing the prefent ftate of our connexion to be defective, you doubt whether the defect be more than theoretick, and reprobate Union, as a remedy worse than the disease. You illustrate the queftion, by the cafe of juries from the vici nage I have too fincere a refpest for ancient establishments, r to attempt impeaching this legal provifion with refpect to ja ries. But having got on what may, perhaps, be truly called the dunghill of my profeffion, let me fuggeft to you that thengd wisdom and liberality of latter times, guided probably by lol experience, has greatly detracted from the force of your illuftration. The ftatute (of Anne, I believe,) which, instead of packing juries from the ward, directed them to be fum- 21 moned from the body of the county at large, gave a molt 27 chriftian-like enlargement to the culprit, or fuitor's neigh bourhood; and refembled (fo far as the analogy which

ว

*The claufes which had been ftruck out in Committee, were printed in the form of Notes to the Bill, and were as much at variance with the claufes which had been let to ftand, as thefe latter were inconfiftent amongst themselves,

† P. 56.

you have chofen is just,) referring the faits of the Irish people to the tribunal of an Imperial Parliament, pensi sdi bos ben::.

Befides, the law contemplates, and corrects, thofe prejudices, animofities, and friend fhips," which you notice, and to which you fuppofe it blind, -Where there is reafon to fufpect that a fair trial cannot be had in the vicinage, (though that vicinage embraces the whole of a county,) the courts, to prevent injuftice, will change the venue. But prejudices, alas! will spread themfelves from counties to provinces, and may taint an entire kingdom at the laft! and if a fuitor people should distrust the impartiality of the grand inqueft,-how affure them, but in changing the venue, by an Union? But local knowledge is the very effence of a jury's capacity to adminifter its functions ?"-Be it fo; will not Ireland return a pannel to the United Parliament? Is a jury of the county of Louth lefs qualified to perform its functions, fitting in Dublin, than if it fat in the town of Drogheda -And may not the Imperial Parliament combine poffeffion of local knowledge, with exemption from local prejudice? Or will you complain that, on this grand inqueft of the empire, the reprefentatives of its British, as well as of its Irish district, claim to fit ?

is tax

But the British Minifter's object in preffing a Union is ation the grant of eight millions which has been made this year, and which you notice, might alone be fufficient to refute your imputation. But fuppofe it were not; the man who after having obferved, even cursorily, our history for fome years back, after having glanced his eye upon the prefent ftate of Ireland, and the world, and looked as far into our future (civil and religious) profpects as he dares,-can fee no motive, but a pecuniary one, for defiring a Legislative Union, and affign no views but of finance and taxes, to the Minifter wha propofes it, must have a mind very differently conftituted from mine.-Blind and weak that Minifter muft be, who, in a period like the prefent, does not aim at rendering the fubject fatisfied and

1

and happy: who does not prefer poffeffing the hearts, to grafping the purfes of the people who does not perceive that, confidering the fpiriti cof infubordination which has gone abroad, and the jealous keenness, with which even flaws in government are marked, ruling powers ought, if it were but from mere policy, mere policy, to purfae meafores of conciliation, liberality, and juftice: that before they aim at rendering their st fyftem profitable, they fhould take care that it is fecure; and not or like Archimedes, be making calculations when an enemy is at fosq their doors.It is a libel on Mr. Pitt to fays that the purfe s of the Nation is his objectIt is not he, that has taxed the Empire: it is the Directory of France. It is he that has contra trived to lighten the burthen, while he impofed ic; nanditoyen fpread and Itrengthen the commercial bafis by which it was out to be fuftain'd. Under his anfpices itsisi that perpetualit drains he been turned into mere temporary annuities and Publick Credit has been upheld by a mode as fimple as effica cious: that Great Britain has been at once diminishing her saioa pool

which he was to receive

sodebts, of, and adding to her refources; and this in a degree, fo rapid and immenfe, that the incumbrances which he is paying off, the might difregard and that her impots are become little elfe than a fort of import duty on her wealth. But the Minifter, you fay, will not be contented with our purfe: he is alfo defirous to deprivellus of our trade. Thefe charges appear to me to be strangely incompatible with each other. It is as if a parfon fhould wish to spoil the crop from a Rive his ty the; or a landlord to lay wafte paid his rent. It seems tois therefore, that you must elect between the imputations which you would caft on Mr. Pitt'; and cannot bring more than an alternative charge against him will fuppofe that you have. I affigned him, as his motive, the defire of getting the nam tional purse into his poffeffion. Is it not likely then that he declares no more than his real opinion, when he reprefents lan Union as tending to secure and advance our profperity ? Is an i empty pure, the may empty purfe the mighty object of His financial ambition Could he have the cruelty to forbid our putting a few pieces Behog's i oda ad fumastijani ndi sy bes Luild-into : Bodabal Baroul ndo gainshoon te mi loa zaob jnetaiq edi on

9am need he was to be pa the farm out of which he was

me,

F

* P. 59.

answ

into the coffer, of which he held the key himself? Or would he prefer poffeffing all its emptinefs at Westminster, to leaving it here in our cuftody, well fupplied,with the privilege of thrufting his hand into it from time to time?

From this difcuffion of Mr. Pitt's motives, you return * to the question of Regency; and it being my business to attend you in your arguments, I make no excufe for digreffing with you to this fubject.

You fay that, upon that occafion, the difference between the two countries, which you admit to have been “unfortu"nate,” † and which arose from the diftinctness of the Imperial Legiflatures, regarded not the perfon of the Regent, but merely the limitation of his power. Though this were fo, fuch difparity of prerogative would in effect have impaired a principle of our Conflitution; and given the countries two Executives, inftead of one. But you seem to me to abridge the true extent of the difference, which took place between the Parlia

ments at that period. You forget not only that the coincidence with refpect to perfon was accidental, and therefore cannot be relied on as proof of conformity between the Legiflatures, but that, in fact, no Regent was ever appointed for Great Britain. His Majelly's recovery interrupted the British proceedings in their progrefs; and however bordering upon ftrict certainty our conjectures may be, and are, that the Heir Apparent would have been the perfon nominated, this will not leffen the truth or relevancy of my affertion, that the Irish Parliament named a Regent, before one had been named in Britain; and conferred that authority unlimited, which the English Parliament was restricting; and that in doing fo they rifked having an Executive different in perfon, and more than rifked having one different in respect to powers. But they were not (you fay) the Parliaments,they were only the two truncated Eftates, that differed on that occafion. In truth, the act of annexation has (by an Union)

fecured