prise the house into this measure, was also an ill-founded assertion; for they had rather been scrupulous in the opposite extreme. The question was, whether the house should proceed to deliberate in a grave and solemn manner, or should, without examination, pronounce the Union to be unnecessary, dangerous, or impracticable. That gentleman and his friends had, in the course of many years, loudly complained of the mismanagement of the affairs of Ireland, expatiated on the deformity of its constitution, and lamented the miseries of its inhabitants. Would it not then be more prudent to apply a promising remedy at the present time, than to risque the effects of long delay, by which the evils of the country might be aggravated and embittered? These evils had a deep root, being involved in the prevailing character, manners, and habits of the people, in their want of knowledge and intelligence, in the state of property, in the separation between certain classes, and in the rancour of religious dissensions. Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform had been recommended as remedies; but there was little doubt that these pretences covered dangerous designs. If those objects could be obtained by calm investigation, and should seem ade⚫quate correctives, few would decline an acquiescence in them. But if the state of society be such, that laws, however wise in themselves, would be ineffectual as to their object, until the manners and customs of the people were altered....if men were in a state of poverty, in which it was impossible that they could have any comfort....if the progress of civilization depend in a great measure upon the distribution of wealth....if the improvement of that wealth depend much upon the distribution of capital....if all the advantages to be derived from an increase of national wealth depend much upon the temper of the inhabitants....if those advantages, together with the still greater advantage of mental improvement, be all retarded by the distractions and divisions of party, by the blind zeal and phrenzy of religious prejudices, by old and furious family feuds....if all these causes combine to make a country wretched, what was the remedy? A legislature standing aloof from local party connection, sufficiently removed from the influence of contending factions to be the advocate or champion of neither; being so placed as to have no superstitious reverence for the names and prejudices of ancient families, that have so long enjoyed the monopoly of certain public patronages and property, which custom had sanctioned, and which modern necessity might justify; a legislature that would neither give way to the haughty pretensions of a few, nor open the door to popular inroads, to clamour, or to the invasion of all sacred forms and regularities, under the false and imposing colours of philosophical improvement in the art of government,

All that was wanted for Ireland. Where was it to be found? In the country where the evils which he had enumerated existed, or in this? Where should that legislature deliberate? In a place where the utmost effort of what was called patriotism amounted to nothing more than an aim at temporary popularity, as was evident from what had happened, or in a place where the discussion was calm and temperate? Certainly the latter; that is, in England. To neglect the establishment of such a legislature, when it was possible to do so, was an imprudence, which nothing could justify.

Mr. Pitt did not assent to Mr. Sheridan's observation, that England had oppressed Ireland for three hundred years; but he would say, that for one hundred years this country had followed a very narrow policy with regard to that kingdom. When the connection with Ireland was something more than a name, when that connection was ascertained, and the imperial parliament of this country exercised a supremacy over Ireland, it did happen that during that period the narrow policy of Great Britain, influenced by views of commercial advantage, tainted and perverted by selfish motives, treated Ireland with illiberality and neglect, and did not look upon her prosperity as that of the empire at large. He reprobated, as much as the honourable gentleman, that narrow-minded policy as mischievous and pregnant with the most fatal consequences to both kingdoms. These jealousies, however, would be buried by the plan, which would soon be brought forward. They all had in their mouths a sentence, importing that every good Englishman and good Irishman felt they must stand or fall together; that they should live and die together; and yet without such a measure as that which was about to be proposed to them, there could be no security for the continuance of that sentiment. The happiness of both countries ought to be perpetual. As it then stood, it was liable to a thousand accidents; it depended upon the violence of the moment; it might be governed upon views of temporary popu larity, or by the personal convenience of a few individuals; a tenure upon which the happiness of a nation ought never to depend.

Of the settlement of the year 1782, he said, the very authors of the measure were not satisfied with their own work, as appears from the journals of the house. They saw the imperfections of their own measure; and, as a supplement, it was recorded on the journals, that such other terms should be settled as should be agreed on between the two nations. But nothing had been done to give it effect, and therefore he had their own authority to say that it was defective.

He added, that it was incumbent on those gentlemen to show the bad tendency of the present measure, rather than requisite for its advocates to enlarge on its probable benefits; for the conduct of the former proclaimed the necessity of making some new attempt in favour of Ireland. Those who sanctioned the independence of the Hibernian parliament, without any security that the two legislatures would never differ essentially upon any point, in which the happiness of the British empire might be involved, were particularly bounden to show, that such a difference was not likely to happen, or that it might easily be remedied. How stood the case in point of experience as to the regency. The honourable gentleman said there was no difference between the parliaments as to the regent. There was indeed no difference as to the person who was to be regent; but there was an essential difference as to the principle, on which that person was to be regent: the Irish parliament decided on one principle, the British parliament on another; their agreement with regard to the person was accidental; and upon the distinct principles on which they proceeded, they might as well have differed in the choice of the person who was to be regent, as in the adjustment' of the powers, which were to be granted to him. Would any one say, there was no necessity for arrangement, for securing an uniformity of opinion on points essential to the existence of the empire, and guarding against all those evils which must arise, when two bodies, which should act in concert, move in contrary directions? That they had not hitherto differed in the great and momentous events, which had been agitated before parliament, was a good fortune, which had arisen from one general cause; from the Union of all descriptions of persons against one common enemy, with the exception only of a few, whose counsels, happily for both countries, and for the civilized part of the world, had lost all their influence.

Could any man say, that such difference as was manifested in the time of the regency would never occur again? When they came to treat of peace, for instance, or to consider the subject of alliance with any foreign power, or any question of trade or commerce, might not local prejudices occasion a difference between the legislatures upon points essential to the welfare of the British empire? What would have been the consequence both to England and Ireland, had the dissensions in Ireland been the same in point of force against the executive government in parliament, since the commencement of the present war, as they were at the time when the Irish propositions were rejected? If, in the present contest, the leaders of opposition should have as much influence in Ireland as they formerly possessed, a vote for peace might pass, and the efforts of Great Britain might be para

lysed. Would the honourable gentleman say, that the parliament of Ireland might not in such a case neutralize its ports,. prevent the raising of recruits for the army and navy, strike a fatal blow at the power, and endanger the existence of the empire? Let any man maturely reflect on the dangers that might result from the present situation of both countries; and he would tremble at the perils, to which they were exposed. Under these circumstances, could they do justice to either country by neglecting to bring forward the proposal of Union.,

After a renewed exposure of the deplorable state of Ireland, and an additional enforcement of the necessity of incorporating that realm with Great Britain, he said, "I see the case so plainly, "and I feel it so strongly, that no apparent or probable diffi"culty, no fear of toil, or apprehension of a loss of popularity, "shall deter me from making every exertion to accomplish the great work, on which, I am persuaded, depend the internal "tranquillity of Ireland, the general interest of the British em"pire, and perhaps the happiness of a great part of the habitable "world."

When the question was put for the amendment, it was rejected without a division; and the address was immediately voted.

On the 31st of January, the message being again read, Mr. Pitt rose, and in a long speech supported the grand object, which his sovereign recommended. He began with a reference to the late proceedings of the House of Commons in Ireland. That the parliament of that kingdom had the right and the power of rejecting a proposition of that nature, he did not presume to deny; yet, convinced as he was that the measure would not only tend to the general benefit of the empire of Great Britain, but would particularly increase the prosperity and ensure the safety of Ireland, he deeply lamented the unfavourable reception of the scheme in the Irish House of Commons. He did not mean

to speak disrespectfully of the conduct of that house; but, while he admitted and respected their rights, he felt that, as a member of the parliament of Great Britain, he also had " a right to exer"cise and a duty to perform." That duty was to express, as distinctly as he could, the general nature and outline of a plan which he considered as pregnant with the most important advantages. If the British parliament, upon full explanation, and after mature deliberation, should be inclined to favour the scheme, he would propose that its opinion should remain recorded as a determination by which it would abide, leaving to the dispassionate judgment of the legislature of Ireland the future adop tion or rejection of the plan.

With regard to the general principle of the measure, both sides of the house seemed to consider a perpetual connection between Great Britain and Ireland as essential to the true interests of both.

Assuming it then as a proposition not to be controverted, that it is the duty of those, who wish to promote the interest and prosperity of both countries, to maintain the strongest connection between them, he asked, what situation of affairs had called them to the discussion of this subject? This very connection, the necessity of which had been admitted on all hands, had been attacked by foreign enemies and domestic traitors. The dissolution of this connection was the great object of the hostility of the common enemies of both countries: it was almost the only remaining hope, with whch they still continued the contest.

A close connection with Ireland having been allowed to be essential to the interests of both countries, and that connection being dangerously attacked, it was not to be insinuated that it was unnecessary, much less improper, at that arduous and important crisis, to see whether some new arrangements, some fundamental regulations, were not requisite, to guard against the threatened danger. The foreign and domestic enemies of these kingdoms had shewn, that they thought this the vulnerable point in which they might be most successfully attacked. Let us derive advantage, if we can, from their hostility; they felt the most ardent hope, that the two parliaments will be infatuated enough, not to render their designs abortive by fixing that connection upon a more solid basis.

The nature of the existing connection evidently did not afford that degree of security, which, even in times less dangerous and less critical, was necessary to enable the empire to avail itself of its strength and resources.

The settlement of 1782, far from deserving the name of a final adjustment, was one that left the connection between Great Britain and Ireland exposed to all the attacks of party and all the effects of accident. That settlement consisted in the demolition of the system which before held the two countries together. A system, unworthy of the liberality of Great Britain, and injurious to the interests of Ireland. But to call that a system in itself....to call that a glorious fabric of human wisdom, which was no more than the mere demolition of another system....was a perversion of terms.

Mr. Pitt then quoted the parliamentary journals, to prove that the repeal of the declaratory act was not considered by the minister of the day as preclusive of endeavours for the formation of an ulterior settlement between the kingdoms; for under his auspices, an address had been voted, requesting his majesty to take