late for this country, or invade the fupremacy of our courts of justice, or our Parliament, I fhall join with you in protefting against the injuftice of fuch conduct; but until this be shewn, you must allow me to doubt the pertinence of those reiterations, that the adjustment of 1782 was final, which principally occupy more than forty pages of your Speech:You are continually pointing to your premiffes, when I am looking for your conclufion; and wasting your time in laying. foundations which will fupport no fabrick material to the prefent queftion.

Can you, Mr. Speaker, a man of undoubted and diftinguished talents, mean feriously to contend, that the British Parliament in 1782, by disclaiming the right of binding this country by its ftatutes, precluded the Irish Parliament from deliberating on the expediency of a Legislative Union, and adopting or rejecting it, according to the refult of fuch deliberation ?—I am averfe from imputing to you an argument, which strikes my understanding to be fo unfuitably feeble; -yet find it difficult (excufe my freedom) to acquit you of having been rather profufe of irrelevant affertion, unless by attributing to you the defign of perverting those affertions, and founding arguments upon them which a judgment, incomparably beneath yours, should perceive they never can sustain. I am driven to fufpect, that in afferting the adjuftment of 1782 to have been final, you infinuate it to have been preclufive; and that in fettling the controverfies from whence it flowed, (and which alone it could affect) it incapacitated one of two independent countries from fubmitting a fyftem to the confideration of another; and disqualified this latter from investigating the merits of the plan thus offered, and adopting it, if it feemed calculated for the benefit of both.

To me it appears too clear for argument, that the adjuftment which finally disclaimed the right of Great Britain to

legislate

legiflate for Ireland, and thus put an end to all controverfies which had been generated by fuch a claim, did not affect the right of the Irish Legislature, in its wifdom, thereafter, to adopt fuch arrangements as circumftances might require, and as fhould feem conducive to the welfare of this kingdom, and the empire.

To me it appears like fomething worfe than extraordinary doctrine, that the adjuftment which recognised the legislative fupremacy of the Irish Parliament, at the fame time precluded it from exercifing its fupreme authority, by the adoption of a measure, which it deemed pregnant with advantages to that country, over whofe interefts it prefided.

When the British Parliament renounced its claim of dictating to this country, `did it part with the harmless right of recommending a measure to our confideration? Did his Majefty, in affenting to any of the meafures of 1782, deprive himself of the innoxious privilege of fuggefting to a future Irish Parliament, which he fhould affemble to confult de arduis Regni, the confideration of a meafure which, to his royal wifdom, feemed calculated to meet the arduous fituation of the empire ?-Did the Irish Parliament, by the fhare which it took in the tranfactions of 1782, defpoil itfelf of its deliberative capacities, and preclude itself from confidering, adopting, or rejecting, the meafure thus fuggefted from the throne? If fo, the British Parliament, at that period, did more than wave its pretenfions to fuperiority over this country: it furrendered a portion of its inherent powers: it cramped and circumfcribed its own internal authority; and impofed reftraints upon itfelf, whichrender it, with refpect to Ireland, lefs free than it is in its intercourfe with any other nation in Europe, or the world...

The King too, according to this interpretation of the fettlement of 1782, muft be conftrued to have parted (rather inconfiftently

confiftently with the duties of his high flation) with an effential attribute and prerogative of that royal dignity, which is, as it were, the centre round which revolve the liberties of our Conftitution; and the Irish Parliament mult be affumed to have abdicated its fituation, and renounced its right of confulting and advancing the interefts of the nation.-I hesitate to admit a conftruction, from which fuch confequences flow.

The fettlement of 1782 did what? It adjufted the controverfies which had arifen from the claims of Britain to a right of legiflating for this country: a right, which I have your authority (p. 5) for faying, this country had not acknowledged, but had denied. The arrangement of 1782 then, was merely the abolition of an abufe, and a reftitution of the genuine principles of our establishment. Suppofe this abufe had never arifen: that Irish Independence had never been invaded; nor the exclufive Legiflative Competence of our Parliament difputed, either in theory or practice; and let me afk of any Many reafonable man, whether it would be an infringement of this, Independence, for Britain to propofe (fubjecting the offer to our rejection) a Legislative Union of these two Independent Kingdoms? If not, can fuch a propofal be faid to violate a compact, which has done no more (you tell us) than to secure and reinitate us in that independence, of which the fame propo fal would have been no infringement?

Has the compact of 1782 rendered Ireland more independent of Great Britain, than this latter country has at all times been of Ireland? and would it be any invafion of British Independence, if we fhould propofe an Union to the Parliament of Great Britain? No reafonable man can fay it would; becaufe to fubmit to the Legiflature of a country, an offer which that Legislature may, at its difcretion, accept of or reject, can never be conftrued into the flighteft encroachment on the independence of those to whom it is made. Nay, fuch an offer is not only compatible with their independence, but even with fub

ordination

æra

T

ordination on the part of those from whom it comes; and açcordingly, in the reign of Anne, before the era of Irish Independence, we find the proposal of Union coming from the Irish Lords.

Now, can it be faid that a propofal, coming from the British to the Irish Parliament, is a violation of the independence of this.country, or of the compact by which that independence has been recognized,-when the fame propofal, moving from Ireland to Great Britain, could never, by any cafuiftry, be tortured into the flighteft encroachment on the, at leaft, equally undifputed independence of that country?

France or Spain are furely as independent of Great Britain, as this island can pretend to be; yet I will be bold to fay, that in propofing a Legiflative Union with either of thofe States, though England might be guilty of grofs extravagance and abfurdity, fhe could not be taxed with impeaching their independence: Why then should she be accused of infringing ours, or of violating that compact by which it has been fecured, on the ground of having offered that, which the might offer to any State in Europe, without incurring the charge of chaving encroached upon its privileges?

But I am, for argument, fuppofing a cafe which does not exift: the English Parliament has made us no propofal. The alledged violation of the Compact of 1782, has confifted. in nothing more than this, that the King of Ireland has prefumed to recommend it to his Irish Parliament to confider, aud adopt, the beft mode of confolidating into a lafting fabrick, the component parts of the British Empire! In like manner, the King of England has ventured to recommend to his British Parliament, to enter upon a fimilar deliberation; and I have not heard that that high-fpirited nation has interpreted this conduct of its Monarch into an infringement of that independence, which it poffeffes as undoubtedly and fecurely, as Ireland can her's, by virtue of the compact of 1782.

The

1

The propofal of an Union has been introduced in the most legitimate, and unobjectionable fhape poffible: it has been offered to the confideration of the British and Irish Legislature, by the common Monarch of both kingdoms.

*

In the year 1780 we acquired a Free Trade; and in 1782 we acquired a Free Conftitution. Our acquifition in 1780 was not held to preclude a Commercial Regulation in 1785;' and why fhould our acquifitions of 1782 be held to prevent a Conftitutional Regulation in 1799? It was indeed indifpenfable that the arrangements of 1785 fhould be compatible with the freedom of trade which had been conceded five years before; and in like manner it is indifpenfably requifite, (towards their validity,) that any Conftitutional Arrangements, hereafter made fhould be confiftent with the Rights which this Country acquired in 1782; and fhould not violate the independence which we then afferted.

If the British Parliament had attempted, by a Statute paffed in England, to bind this Country to an Union, this indeed would have been to violate the Compact of 1782; but what, on the contrary, has been done?—the Recommendation from the Throne involved a manifest admiffion of Exclufive Competence in the Parliament of this Country to decide upon the queftion; and the British Minifter, in that Speech to which you fo frequently advert, has exprefsly acknowledged the Right of the Irish Parliament to reject the measure of a Legiflative Union. Thus the propofal, fo far from violating the agreement of 1782, has afforded a fignal inftance of adherence to that Compact, and folemn recognition of the Independence which it fecured.

Let me how anticipate, in fome degree, upon a topick which belongs to another part of my Argument, by fuppofing, that inftead of having been merely proposed, the measure of

For no oppofition to the arrangement was on this ground ever made or thought of