its ears--but with that power, would perish the whole fabrick. of the constitution: whift this endures, the theoretick power. of Parliament being unbounded, we are relieved from ail preliminary trouble, of enquiring into its right of accomplishing any measure which is before it,--and may proceed at onceto investigate the merits of the plan itfeif;---fince, in demonftrating its utility, we fhali bring it within the sphere of parliamentary competence to achieve. It is a glorious prerogative of the British Conftitution, that there is no political blefing for the people, which lies beyond the reach of their Parliament to obtain.

The grounds I have thus laid, Sir, will fornith a refutation of your hypothefis, that if the omnipotence of Parliament can confolidate two feparate Legislatures, it may equally confolidate the three eftates of each; or take the purfe of the nation out of the custody of the Commons.

No, Sir: this confolidation would be no bleffing,--but a curfe: a maniïeft subverfion of the liberties of the people: fuch a meas fure is, on the face of it, fo mifchievous, and deformed, forepugnant not only to the principles, but to the very existence of our Conftitution, that its adoption by Parliament must not, even in the way of hypothefis, be fuppofed:" there are points" (as you truly obferve)" where the powers of the legislature end,-i-and "thofe of the people, at large, begin;"t and it may be added, that fuch extreme cafes can never furnish illuftrationit may be added, that, under no possible circumftances, could a confolidation of the three eftates of the legislature be beneficial. But can it be contended---will you contend,--that under no fupposable circumstances, on no devifable terms, could an incorporation of these two parts of the Empire be advantageous? And would our Parliament be then incompetent to obtain its benefits for the people ?--Muft we, as a preliminary ftep to its attainment, depofe Parliament from its fupremacy? and in doing fo, diffolve the Government, and annihilate our whole establishment? You will not contend for fo ruinous a doctrine; and,cro. in abandoning it, will acknowledge Parliament to be competent to enact Union. ɔ ɔre slitso nwo słoów cɔn to

I have now, Sir, (I hope, confiflently with that refpect, in which is fo juftly due to you,) gone through your several arguments, feriatim; and given them fuch anfwers, as my fmall abilities could fupply; but whether or not I have fucceeded. in refuting you it is nots for me, but for the Publick, to pronounce that getardsomst at ssad

Let me here, while I am haftening to my conclufion, be allowed to introduce one or two obfervations, though not directly in answer to any thing which has fallen from you, and bu

"

You have more than once contrafted the 100 Irish, with the 558 British reprefentatives. Let us purfue this idea, by examin-. ing thofe contrafts, which the Parliament of this country will internally afford. The members for counties, cities, and commercial towns, will be found to form a fmall portion of the 300,---compared with those who fit for what we call close boroughs. The meaning of this epithet fclofe"it is not my.ok business to determine; but I believe it is neither untrue, formas unparliamentary, to fuggeft, that this majority of our House of i... Commons does not more truly reprefent the landed and comentand mercial interests of this country, than they are reprefented by f. › the 64 county, and the city members. Now I have heard it w faid, and I believe with truth, that if an Union fhould take place, the fyftem of Irifh reprefentation was likely to be most dified in this refpe&t,that the entire number of country mens bers remaining, and the principal commercial towns also re-obsed turning representatives, the number of thofe who fit for boroughs would be materially abridged. Indeed it is plain they nuft best w fo; if the number of reprefentatives fecured to Ireland, by the terms of Union, be as hundred. For when from this fum wenoort deduct 16 county members, and fome repréfentatives for cities & and commercial towns, the number remaining for borough ch members (by an arrangement resembling the Scotch, perhaps,), to make up, will be extremely limited. Thus the Irish por tion of the Imperial Parliament would be compofed wholly of ons the genuine reprefentatives of our landed and commercial oinade o terefts of men whofe own welfare was clofely allied tothesus or profperity of their country. If feats in Parliament were venal,

:

the

the benefit refulting to this country from fuch an organization, would be the more fignal: for this abridgement of the comparative number of boroughs would prevent British money from gaining a feat amongst our legiflators; and would fecure us a thoroughly Irish reprefentation.

If this be fo,--it feems to me that Union affords the only probable or fecure path to thofe grand popular measures, of which for fame years back we have heard fo much. It might give Catholick Emancipation; and must produce Parliamen tary Reform.

ཝཱཝཱ

Limitate your example, in declining thofe difcuffions, which regard the ftate of our religion in this kingdom; both, because I have on a former occafiont published my opinions on this fubject, and because I concur with you, in confidering it to be a delicate topick. Thus much however, may without impropriety be faid;---that this country is not a fcene of the moft perfect religious concord: that Adam Smith has fuppofed Union would mitigate religious prejudice; and make the inha bitants of Ireland confider themfelves as one people ;---a confummation, which must be most devoutly wifhed, by every friend to the connexion, to the empire, to his country: that the temper and genius of the times are not fuch, as to render this the propereft moment, for upholding an irritating fyftem, with a strong hand that the fituation is arduous and perplexing, in which, while it may perhaps be dangerous to grant, it is not liberal, if perfectly fafe policy, to withhold: that Union would extricate us from fo embarraffing a dilêmına,--by making the religion of the people, the religion of the state.

The tendencies of Union in other refpects, I have, in the foregoing pages, had occafion to difcufs. If these were fuch as you defcribe, I should heartily join with you to cry, No Union but, perfuaded as I am, that its tendencies would be to baffle all attempts at feparation: that by giving vigour to the Empire, it would give fecurity to Ireland: that it might remove fome

P. III.

From p. 65 to 74, of an Addrefs to the People of Ireland.

fome of the risks, and difficulties, which obftruct found and moderate religious, or political reform: that it would bring an orderly rank of perfons in contact with the mass of our people; and fill up, as it were, the chafms of our incoherent community: that it would, by their example, improve the morals of our low ranks; initiating them in industry, and communicating to them a tafte for the decencies of life :---in a word, that it would raife and civilize our barbarous and degraded people; and fit them to enjoy the freedom it conferred that it would bury, in a complete identification of intereft, whatever jealoufies may have fubfifted between the kingdoms; would affuage that internal difcord, of which we have fo long been the victims, and permanently enrich and tranquilize our country ---fatisfied as I am, that fuch would be the effects of Union, I fay to my Countrymen "accept the offer; and "adhere to the Conftitution of 1782."---Preferve the Contitution, which you then acquired: it must be invaluable; for it is that of Britain: but abolish a diftinctness, which impedes the practical enjoyment of its bleflings; and is at variance with a connexion, on which your happiness depends. I have the honour to be,

&c. &c. &c.

DUBLIN, April 27th, 1799

WILLIAM SMITH,

“Reject the offer; and adhere to the Constitution of 1782.”

Speaker's Speech-p, 197.

THE END.