given to it. He should confine himself to the evidence he himself had given on O'Connor's trial. He did not retract that evidence, and he called upon a learned gentleman who had been present at the trial, to point out any inconsistency in his conduct. He knew that Mr. O'Connor always spoke in strong terms of any interference of foreign force in the affairs of England, and his mind seemed so much impressed with the superior grievances of Ireland, that he would not admit that on the comparison England had any cause whatever to complain. He might have differed from Mr. O'Connor respecting the remedy that was to be applied to the situation of Ireland; but upon that point he was not called upon to say any thing. The learned gentlemen, the Attorney and Solicitor General, both as lawyers and as gentlemen, had forborne to put to him any question respecting that point, because it had nothing to do with the particular charge at Maidstone, and because they were not disposed to perplex him by any irrelevant question. Mr. O'Connor never had made him his confidant. He knew too well his opinion respecting foreign interference to give any reason to suppose that it was a thing which he (Mr. O'Connor) could encourage. With respect to the provocation of Ireland to pursue any particular mode of resistance, he should say nothing; it was enough to say, that he never could permit Ireland to be seized on as a post from which this country could be attacked. He might pity the hardships of Ireland, but as an Englishman he could never suffer the enemy to obtain such a favourable point from which to direct their attack against our existence as a nation. Such was his answer to the insinuations thrown out, and which, from the manner and tone, he had reason to suppose, were in a particular manner levelled against himself. To return to the subject then-to the fatal policy which dictated the recal of Earl Fitzwilliam, was to be attributed the calamities by which Ireland

had been distracted. It was a matter of no light importance. Those who advised that fatal step were responsible for its consequences. The retraction of that concession which Earl Fitzwilliam was authorised to support, had prepared the Catholics for the share they had taken in the late disturbances. Ministers had been challenged by the noble Earl to deny that the point was arranged, and that he went over with conciliation to the Catholics as a leading object of his policy. But, it was said, that the emancipation of the Catholics was not the object of the conspiration; but could it be denied that the discontents of the Catholics was the instrument by which the conspirators promoted their own purposes? The conspirators had shewn, that they feared concession as likely to frustrate their hopes, and rejoiced in the irritation which the disappointment had produced. They were apprehensive of the return of Earl Fitzwilliam, as calculated to give that satisfaction to the Catholics as would disappoint their views. He concluded with urging the danger of continuing the agitation of the question at the present moment.

The house divided; for the Speaker leaving the chair 131; against it 19.

FEBRUARY 12.

UNION BETWEEN IRELAND AND GREAT

BRITAIN.

The order of the day for the house to go into a committee upon His Majesty's message respecting the Union with Ireland.

Mr. SHERIDAN.-Sir, I certainly do not rise for the purpose of detaining the house any length of time, but I cannot agree with the honorable baronet that there was an understanding on the part of gentlemen on this side of the house, that they were not at full-liberty to oppose your leaving the chair. There was, indeed, an exhortation from the right honor

able gentleman (Mr. Pitt) opposite, not to give that opposition, but I should not have suspected the honorable baronet of being very desirous to obey that exhortation. The manner, too, in which the right honorable gentleman put that point, conveyed a sort of whimsical compliment. He stated; that many gentlemen had not yet spoken who might be desirious of delivering their sentiments, but he strictly charged his friends and supports not to reply to any thing they might urge. Why should they not reply? It is but an ill compliment to them to suppose they could not say any thing deserving a reply, nor is it much better to his own friends. I suppose, however, the right honorable gentleman will adhere to his own compact; and though he has thus muzzled his majority, yet I shall not be surprized if some of them should exert an independent spirit of loquacity in the teeth of his restraint. But, Sir, I merely rise to say a single word to two points which have been subject to discussion in the course of the measure before us. I do it before the house goes into the committee, otherwise I shall have no opportunity, for the moment you leave the chair I shall leave the house, and leave the gentlemen to adjust the details of the measure just as they please and judge proper. The first point, Sir, is this-It has been asserted that, during the whole course of debate upon this subject, no one member has asserted that union, abstractedly considered, may not be good for. Ireland, if it could at any future period be carried with mutual harmony and good intent. Sir, I rise most decidedly to contradict that, and to state it as my opinion, though now the attempt would be attended with multiplied dangers; yet, at no time, it would be a desirable measure. That it must endan-, ger the separation of the kingdoms, and not increase the happiness of either, and in the end must be attended with dangers to the constitutioanal liberties of both. The other point, Sir, upon which I wish to explain my sentiments is this: an honorable gen

tleman has assumed that no one has ventured directly to assert in this house, that parliament was not competent to give sanction to a Legislative Union. Sir, I have hitherto most cautiously avoided going into that topic, but at the same time I have formed the most decided opinion upon it. Notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, I maintain that there is a broad and visible distinction in the cases of two parliaments; the one incorporating, and the other surrendering its independence. I have no hesitation in saying, that I think parliament is not competent to surrender an independent legislature; and I now publicly avow my opinion, or hereafter it may be urged upon as a thing universally admitted, when the question may be the surrender of some of our own dearest and most valuable privileges. It may be brought as an argument hereafter, when such admissions may be of dangerous tendency. I, therefore, now, do not hesitate to say, that the parliament of Ireland have not and cannot have the right to surrender their independence. They cannot do it consistent with their duty to their constituents. It is not reconcileable to the trust upon which they hold their places. With respect to the precedent of Scotland, which has been urged as conclusive, it has a most distinguishing feature; they were summoned for the purpose expressly of considering and debating the specific question of Union. I, however, will not give my assent to add a second bad precedent, because there is one already existing. But, Sir, the question may be put in a stronger way, in which it will come more home to the bosoms and feelings of Englishmen. Suppose the question was, that we should be called upon to surrender our independence, and be united to another kingdom. What would our feelings in that case be? Suppose George, Prince of Denmark, had succeeded to that kingdom, or that Philip had succeeded to the crown of Spain during his connection with Mary-if at either

of these times it had been in question at Madrid or Copenhagen to unite this kingdom with either of them, what would the people of this country have said? Unquestionably they would, without hesitation, have told their parliament that they had no right to surrender them and their independence. Sir, I shall add no more, but I thought it proper to say thus much, that my opinions might not be mistaken. One word more, Sir, and I have done; I think all civil incapacitations on account of religious distinctions ought to be done away, and on some future day I shall submit that proposition to the house.

MAY 21.

COLD-BATH-FIELDS PRISON.-COL. DESPARD. Sir Francis Burdett moved, " That the report on the state of the Cold-Bath-Fields prison be re-committed." Mr. Sheridan seconded the motion. Mr. Wilberforce Bird, Sir William Young, Mr. Buxton, and Colonel Elford followed.

Mr. SHERIDAN observed, that the honorable gentleman who spoke second in the debate, in the early part of his speech said, if the house would look at the report, it would be seen immediately that the resolutions it contained were so founded upon evidence, that it ought to be adopted in every one of the resolutions; before he sat down he gave up the detail in that respect, and alleged what could not be admitted, that there were others more able than himself to execute the task. He had listened, he said, with great attention to three honorable gentlemen, all of whom were of the committee, whose report was now before the house; but he was bound to say, that what they advanced, instead of supporting the report, and satisfying the house that it ought to be adopted, they satisfied him that the report ought to be rejected by the house, and that a farther inquiry ought to be entered into.

It was a little aukward, he said, for those who complained of him for not always attending the