refide in Ireland ?—————-Let me briefly add upon this fubje&t, that Union has not hurt the trade or manufactures of Scotland. You quote, with confiderable triumph, the language of the British Minifter. He has most frankly and liberally faid that, until lately, the fyftem of Britain to this country had been

66

haffhand unjust, and as impolitie as it was oppressive??→→→ Will Britain renew the conduct from which the had departed, and which her government has fo defcribed? Will any Minister, though he was no partial friend to Ireland, refume a policy which Lord Grenville has acknowledged to have been "abfurd, as well as barbarous," and which however it "might have contributed" (fays Mr Pitt) to the partial "benefit of diftricts in Britain promoted not the real firength

23

of the Empire?"Thus does not the policy which Britain has fully recognised, or, if any man prefers a more jealous and invidious epithet, does not British selfishness safford sa guaranty for British kindness?—and need we fear an Union, with an adequate Irish Reprefentation Why call our hundred Representatives a mockery ? Would their voices be more feeble than thofe of the Yorkshire Members? Would their fentiments be lefs attended to? Would their local knowledge be more neglected? Why idly contraft the Irish with the British Members, when they are the indiscriminate Reprefentatives of a cemented Empire?-When the profperity of Ireland is the aggrandizement of that Britain, over whose interefts you fuppofe the 558 will fo closely watch?-May not an Irish Member share in, or even guide the Councils of the Empire? I fhall not dwell on fuch a man's predilection for his country, for his duty undoubtedly would be impartially to confult the interests of the whole United State; but at least Ireland would not fuffer under fuch an adminiftration.

But admitting that articles might be devifed to fecure che Irish trade and purfe, (against thofe whofe intereft it sis? to protect both,) in the alledged omnipotence of Parliament you 3.q. beton grizs difcern

mum g. tel bat,esudago) own set to nowtubiuso, she moawted

u

difcern) a power, to defeat, or mutilate this compact. Excufe me, if I day, that fach reafoning is unworthy of you. It foars inter apices juris, in order to perch on a fuppofition, fubverfive in its confequences, and refuted by experience. The Impes

fforial Legiflature" (as I have on a former occafion stated,) "may be competent to disfranchife Wales, or Yorkshire, or sto violate the ternist on which the Sifter Countries fhall have "been united, but I fee no moral, poffibility of their applying

their tranfcendant authority to fuch a purpofe." If by a maxim of the conflitution, the King can do no wrong, ftill lefs can that Legillature, of which he but conftitutes a part; and if we are to ramble into the boundlefs, regions of abstract poffibility, I will reply, that fubftantially to violate the articles sof the Union, would be to fubvert the Imperial Conftitution, and be sone of thofe extreine and not fuppofable cafes, which might abfolve the Irish fubject from his allegiance, and juftify fan appeal from the Legislature to the fword. word not plaasge

V

y

But we are to look to Scotland, in vindication of your fears 1292XHS Saveto -I imagine myself to have been one of the firft, to whofe lot MANGARD it fell to expofe the abfurdity of alledging the Malt Tax, as an infringement of the Scotch treaty of Union. The talk was free from difficulty; and was performed by a fhort quotation previolation o from the hiftories of that period. But the violation on ‡ which you choofe to rely,

is not the tax on malt, but upon income. In urging this objection, you defert the fpirit, in order to faften on the letter of the treaty. I anfwer it by obferving fhortly, ift. that all taxes muft ultimately affect income of every kind; and therefore, if your reafoning were well-founded, there would be but one way of avoiding a violation of the Scottish Union, viz. by abstaining from taxing Scotland altogether: 2dly, the very fpirit and object of that > provision in the treaty, which you notice, the very end which the Scotch nation must have proposed to itself in inferting it, aowas that which is accomplished by the Income Tax; namely, the taxing Scotland in proportion to its means, and striking between the contribution of the two countries, the fame ratio

that there was between their wealth and income.ning dly, the recent exigencies of that united kingdom, of which North Britain is an integral part, imperiously demanded of the Scots, as they tendered their existence, to contribute to its prefervation.

I shall not follow you in your examination of the effects of Union upon Cork. That quarter of the kingdom is probably beft acquainted with its own interefts; and entertains an opi-. nion different from yours. I fhall content myfelf by anfwering the question, and the remarks, which you apply to this part of the difcuffion.

་

You ark" what could induce the establishment of a dockyard, after a Union, more than before "The abolition of all fears and jealoufies, that were the creatures of our diftinétnefs: the abrogation of all maxims of fufpicious policy: the intimate blending and identification of the two countries: the taking away from Britain every queftion upon the fubject of where the fhould eftablish a dock-yard,-except the fingle one of---which was the best naval flation ?

In order to confole Cork, however, for the difappointment which you predict, you remark that no trade exifts where great dock-yards are established.-I do not, for my part, know how the fact may be ; but fuppofing it to be as you ftate it, I prefume other adequate caufes could be affigned for that want of trade, which I am unable to fee how the establishment of a dock-yard fhould produce... ed mol

© 1

རྗ

But we fhould not address ourselves to Cork; we should fpeak to Ireland. You do fo, when you afk, if we want

to be better than well?" I proteft if we be well, the fymptoms of our political health are very ftrange ones. I fpeak not of that late rebellion, which you may tell me was but a crifis, that has operated to throw off impurities, and reftore the vigour of our conftitution. I fpeak of thofe military efcorts which attend our judges round their circuits, to protec them

them from the rude and ramping health of our people: I fpeak of the number of troops which have come from England, to bear withefs to the political fanity of Ireland: I speak of that regimen of Martial Law, which the Legiflature has juft prescribed, to check the imprudent frolicks of an over-vigorous people, and prevent their health from becoming too plethorick. I could enumerate other fymptoms, but fhould tire my Reader, and myself; and therefore fhall conclude, by doubting whether the phyfic which you are for rejecting, be quite fo unneceffary as you think it.

In page 100, (as I follow in your winding courfe) I find you recurring to the example of Scotland, and denying all fimilarity between our fituation and hers.

Scotland, you tell us, by the junction o by the junction of the crowns, "became fubject to English influence, in all her national concerns their Darien fettlement was deftroyed by the Foad jealous interference of England Scotch feelings were continually hurt, by the haraffing proceedings of their power"ful and jealous rival," who depreffed their country in "her trade, and in every thing of value in her flate; and upon all these grounds, you conclude that Scotland had reason to accept an Union ; and to expect in it, a remedy for the grievances above mentioned. gab saqil, l'

30

From Great Britain's partial conduct against this Country," from her having," for forty years, haraffed our "victualing trade, by embargos," and from the oppreffive and jealous tenor of her entire conduct, you conclude that hG 61 a? ''རོ॰ an Union muff injure Ireland.

V

Are the above arguments confiftent? or, by which of them will you abide? If your premifes were admitted, your

first reafoning would be the jufteft; and would extend, to prove the utility of Union to this Country.ied bag boel a 190

But, in pointing out the diffimilarity of our fituation to that of Scotland, you obferve that fhe was connected with Enge land, only by the accidental circumftance of the English Crown having defcended upon her Monarch. On this, allow me to obferve, that as high-founding phrafes will not ftrengthen, neither can difparaging epithets diminish, the firmness of that connexion, by which two countries are held together! That! connexion, which by ftyling it accidental, you imply to have been precarious, and unlikely to endure,-depended on a no Jefs ftrong fupport, than thofe rules and maxims of hereditary defcent, which in England and Scotland were the fame, and which have latted to the prefent day and, if the Abdication of James II. and confequent Revolution, A&t of Settlement, &c. had not operated on the British fyftem a change as rare and violent, as it was useful,(a change, against which, if they had happened to encounter, our fealing-wax and parchment would have made as ineffectual a ftand, as the venerable rules of hereditary right,) I fay, if this extraordinary change had not taken place, that Union of the English and Scottish Crowns, which had happened on the demife of Elizabeth, would have conti nued as long as there were heirs of the House of Stuart. And thus much for the durability of the Scotch and English con nexion, (in the junction of their Crowns ;) as contrafted with that which holds thefe countries together; accompanied with all its appendages-of Great Seal, Annexation Act, &c.19* *> Lin blup love put

You deny that Scotland had a Conftitution like Britain: I might have controverted your position, though you had but denied her to have had fubftantially the fame.When a man afferts that an establishment, confifting of three eftates,—a reprefentative body, (particularly organized, but ftill repre fenting the fame clafs in the ftate, as our Commons do,) a ing of ila me going chamber

* Page 100.

N