SPEECH, &c.

NO common queſtion arreſts the ſerious attention of this Houſe.—I have liſtened, Mr. Speaker, with more than uſual attention to the Speech of the Rt. Hon. Gentleman—and much as I am diſpoſed to admire, much as I believe the Houſe may be induced to approve of, the very eloquent harangue which has been juſt now delivered, yet I truſt that I need not remind it, that there are ſome queſtions of a nature ſo ſerious and delicate, which ſtrike home ſo immedi⯑ately to our deareſt intereſts, that it is peculiarly important that we ſhould be particularly ſuſpicious of the more than ordinary diſplay of mental exerti⯑on, and jealous of that unworthily directed eloquence, that would ſurpriſe our approbation to a meaſure re⯑plete with injury and inſult to Ireland, and, in my opinion, with ruin to the Britiſh empire. We have long ſtood in the moſt trying and difficult ſituation, but that criſis, I think, has now arrived, when it be⯑comes every Gentleman ſeriouſly to catechiſe his heart, before he is led by the eloquence and abilities of the Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, to do that which he might in his ſober judgment reflect upon with pain, and perhaps have reaſon to repent the reſt of his life. I conſider the Houſe, at this mo⯑ment, in that ſituation in which it becomes my duty [2] to appriſe them of the danger of liſtening to the ſpecious arguments by which their minds are at⯑tempted to be influenced. I took the liberty, laſt week, of ſtating to the Houſe, that whether Go⯑vernment thought an Union was eſſential to the proſperity of Ireland, or neceſſary to the ſalvation of both countries, whether the plan by which the Union was to be effected was approved or diſapprov⯑ed, yet that in the preſent criſis of the affairs of that Country, and under all circumſtances as appli⯑cable to both, the meaſure was one which was by no means adviſable. It happened the majority of the Houſe differed from my ſentiments; yet I may ven⯑ture to aſſert, that excepting the Right Hon. Gen⯑tleman, and one or two more whoſe opinions uſually coincide with his, there is not one Gentleman, now in the Houſe, who does not from his heart regret that ſuch a meaſure was ever brought forward in Ireland. The manner in which it has been met in that kingdom, is in my mind an additional reaſon of regret that ſuch a meaſure ſhould ſtill be obſtinate⯑ly perſevered in in this. It is to be regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman ſhould, when the queſtion was laſt week before the Houſe, have expreſſed himſelf in ſo decided a manner. He, unfortunately, and moſt unwiſely, pledged himſelf that he would make the meaſure of an Union between this country and Ireland a favourite object; he diſtinctly ſtated that it was a meaſure from which no oppoſition in this Houſe, or in the Houſe of Commons in Ireland, no loſs of popularity, no conſideration of the offence which he might give thoſe friends he valued moſt, ſhould deter him from endeavouring to carry into execution. He has this day, though not quite in ſuch unqualified terms, repeated that pledge;—but though he has repeated it, the Houſe has not repeat⯑ed it; and I conjure every Gentleman in the Houſe, that he will not only refuſe by his vote this night to [3] ſanction ſuch a pledge, but that he will give his vote in ſuch way as to preclude the hope of its being brought forward on any future time. The Right Hon. Gentleman, by this propoſed meaſure of an Union, has placed Ireland and England in a very awkward and perilous ſituation. The two countries are in that peculiar ſituation, that it muſt appear evident to every one the Independance of Ireland, and the power of the Right Hon. Gentleman to deſtroy it, are incapable of exiſting together. He has ſhewn that one or the other muſt be annihilated; that they cannot co-exiſt, unleſs indeed the Houſe in its wiſdom ſhall interpoſe, and convince him that it will not ſuffer him to uſe his power to the deſtruc⯑tion of that Country. He has, by this meaſure, promoted diſcord and diſſenſion between the two countries, at a time when union and co-operation were above all things neceſſary; he has been the means of planting the ſeeds of diſcord and diſſenſion between the Houſes of Lords and Commons in Ire⯑land; he has traduced the Parliament, as an aſſembly convicted of being the dupes of an Engliſh faction. There remains but one thing more for him to do, which is to raiſe the Britiſh Houſe of Commons againſt the Houſe of Commons in Ireland. This, however, he has not, and I truſt he never will be able to effect; and I hope, ſincerely hope, that the Britiſh Nation would rather that that Gentleman was plung⯑ed in the abyſs of public odium, national execration and unrelenting hatred, than that by any wild, deſ⯑parate, daring and impolitic meaſure, he ſhould be permitted to alienate the affection of one country from the other, or ſtrike at the political conſequence or commercial proſperity of our dear, valued, faith⯑ful, brave and generous ſiſter kingdom. Oh God! Sir, why is it that I interpoſe between the ſyſtem of that Right Hon. Gentleman, and the adoption of it on the part of this Houſe? becauſe, Sir, it is a ſyſtem [4] which is calculated to promote diſcord, and an in⯑veterate alternation of diſguſt and antipathy, when union and affection ſhould be conciliated and con⯑firmed: it is becauſe it is a ſyſtem which muſt as ſure as effect follows cauſe, promote diſguſt and reſent⯑ment; it is becauſe it is a ſyſtem which traduces one of the contracting parties as ſo low, ſo deſperate, and ſo degraded; as in energy incapable to retrieve the Country from the calamities under which it has laboured; and in mind ſo weak, ſo puſillanimous, ſo unenlightened; ſuch a ſhame and ſcandal to the nation over which it preſides, as to be the continual dupe of every paltry, deſpicable Britiſh faction; a ſyſtem, in one word, which is now endeavouring to array the Britiſh Houſe of Commons againſt the Repreſentative Aſſembly, of our dear and juſtly valu⯑ed ſiſter kingdom.

I frankly and honeſtly declare, that by far the greateſt part of that Right Hon. Gentleman's ſpeech was in no ſhape connected with the queſtion which he was pleaſed to introduce. For near an hour of the time which he occupied the Houſe, I was inclined to ſuppoſe, (if ſuch a ſuppoſition was allowable) either that a ſtranger had got into the Houſe, and the Hon. Gentleman was replying to ſome ſpeech which he had delivered in ſome other aſſembly, or that the Right Hon. Gentleman in the warmth of his imagination, had fancied himſelf in the Iriſh Houſe of Commons, and was warmly engaged to (what by the bye I did not conceive him, adequate on the preſent occaſion) a reply to Mr. Foſter, on a ſubject which was deeply connected with the vital intereſts of that much injured, but rapidly advancing young Country. Not one part of his argument relates to the queſtion—he is propoſing a meaſure by which the rights of an independant nation are to be deſtroyed and trampled upon; and he thinks he triumphs by endeavouring to ſhew that the argu⯑ments [5] of Mr. Foſter are unfounded. The whole of his argument is, that Mr. Foſter thought the propo⯑ſitions in 1785 neceſſary to prevent future jealouſy and ſuſpicion between the two countries; and the Hon Gentleman thought if the propoſitions failed, he would be conſidered a uſeleſs Miniſter. What is to be collected from this, but that both Mr. Foſter and the Hon. Gentleman ſuſtained fooliſh opinions? for it turned out, that although the propoſitions did fail, the failure was not the means of introdu⯑cing jealouſy and ſuſpicion between the two coun⯑tries, nor of producing the reſignation of the Honourable Gentleman. If, indeed, he can ſhew that the failure of the propoſitions had produced all thoſe diſaſters which have ſince happened; all thoſe ſcenes of diſtraction and rebellion which the kingdom of Ireland has witneſſed; then I admit the argument would be againſt Mr. Foſter; but has he ſhewn that to have been the caſe? On the con⯑trary, the argument relative to Mr. Foſter ſtands ſimply thus: Mr. Foſter ſaid, the failure of the Commercial Propoſitions would be the ground of future jealouſy and ſuſpicion on the part of Ireland. Well! what is the conſequence? He now ſays, ‘"though I did ſay ſo, I find I was miſtaken; for it appears to have been the beſt means of preſerving its independance."’ Sir, there does not ſtrike me the ſlighteſt inconſiſtency in the preſent ſentiments of Mr. Foſter on the queſtion, with reference to thoſe he formerly entertained; and the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman ſeem to me to conſiſt in a ſort of repartee unworthy his good ſenſe and abilities.

But though the Right Hon. Gentleman may not have ſucceeded in fixing the charge of inconſiſtency on Mr. Foſter, yet the tendency of his ſpeech has fully developed the ſyſtem of foul and rank cor⯑ruption and intimidation by which it ſeems the [6] meaſure is or was to be carried: Does it not throw out an ignominious threat of withdrawing ſuch commercial advantages as Ireland may derive from her connexion with Great Britain, unleſs ſhe baſely conſents to ſtrengthen that connexion, by the plau⯑ſible and ſpecious mode, which is now ſo cruelly ſuggeſted,—the ſurrender of her independence,—and proclaims to an aſtoniſhed world,—her diſpoſition to become a province; though from the earlieſt aera of modern Europe to this day, ſhe has had the ſtrength, capability, and power, to retain the charac⯑cter and conſequence of a diſtinct and ſeparate king⯑dom from Great Britain. Are not the expreſſions which we have heard this night an inſinuated threat to thoſe who look upon a Legiſlative independance of Ireland neceſſary to the continuance of her preſent proſperity? for what end could ſuch ſcandalous and diſgraceful threats be reſorted to, but as the means of intimidation? this is fully corroborated by what follows the taunting obſervations of the Right Hon. Gentleman;—obſervations that evince little reſpect—nay an utter contempt—either for the Parliament, or the People of Ireland:—Ireland, he ſays, ought at this moment to ſpurn the nature of her preſent ſituation, and be particularly deſirous of embracing the offer of cloſer Union:—And why?—Becauſe ſuch forſooth is her weakneſs, that ſhe is incapable of defending herſelf, and muſt therefore rely on the protection of her powerful neighbour to defend her. What was this but calling on a wretched, diſtreſſed, impove⯑riſhed Iriſhman, to ſurrender every thing dear, and valued, and worth defending, for the privilege of being defended, and when defence would be an object of trifling eſtimation? What is this but to ſtate that our protection is to be withdrawn, if ſhe refuſes to accede to what is propoſed? (No, no, exclaimed ſeveral Gentlemen on the Treaſury Bench). I repeat that it is the fair and natural in⯑ference—he [7] ſays, that Ireland is incapable of de⯑fending herſelf without our connexion, and that our connexion cannot exiſt without an Union—can any other inference be drawn from ſuch a mode of reaſoning, than that if Ireland refuſes the Union, ſhe will be deprived of the protection of this country? But is this language ſit and proper to be held out? If two countries ſtand in that relation to each other, that with reſpect to the one it has no trade, no commerce, no manufactures, no advan⯑tage of its own, nothing in fact but what it derives from the other, that it is in a ſituation in which it is incapable of defending itſelf without the aſſiſtance of its powerful neighbour, is it not natural to aſk, How it came into that ſituation? and may I not aſk, How Ireland is in the ſituation deſcribed by the Honourable Gentleman? a country bleſſed with all the advantages which God and Nature ever be⯑ſtowed, a healthy climate, commodious ports, and a fruitful ſoil. Is it, let me aſk, wiſe in the Hon. Gentleman to preſs ſuch a diſcuſſion; and to afford Ireland the opportunity of inquiring how it has happened ſhe is not in poſſeſſion of thoſe advantages which naturally belong to her; and by the enquiry to learn, that it has been owing to the oppreſſive, unwiſe, injurious policy of Great Britain, for a period of near three hundred years? The Hon. Gentleman ſays he conſiders the connexion between the two countries neceſſary to each other, and that England is little qualified to do without Ireland; yet he brings forward a diſcuſſion which leads to that hoſtility, that may deſtroy the exiſtence of both. With regard to the queſtion of the power of Ireland to reſiſt her enemies, let me aſk the Hon. Gentle⯑man, what inducement he could have for offering the inſult he has to that country? When Ireland had her Volunteers in arms, had ſhe not the means of repelling her foes foreign and domeſtic? What [8] aſſiſtance did ſhe not afford this country during the American war? Cannot Ireland ſay to you, before ſhe ſuffers you to reproach her with her inability to defend herſelf, before ſhe ſuffers you to reproach her with your 40,000 militia in the heart of the kingdom (for which you have my thanks), could ſhe not ſay, give me back the 100,000 Iriſhmen who have loſt their lives in fighting your battles? Above 10,000 of her ſons have periſhed in the Weſt Indies alone, in ſupporting your conteſts, yet you now ſay to her, you have weakened yourſelf, you are at our mercy, and therefore we inſiſt upon your coaleſcing with us. But now the Hon. Gen⯑tleman contends that her weakneſs not only leaves her expoſed to hoſtile invaſion, but he alſo ſeems to feel that the ſame weakneſs leaves her at his mercy, and therefore, he will avail himſelf of it, to com⯑pel her to acquieſce in an Union. While this, however, moſt undoubtedly appears to be his real intention, he talks of leaving her adoption of the meaſure to the unbiaſſed and calm deliberation of her own independent Parliament. Was not this an inſulting mockery? Such, at leaſt, it muſt be deemed by men who regard not the words of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but who look at his actions for their true interpretation and import; and when I reflect upon the whole of his paſt conduct, can I believe that this queſtion is to be left ſolely to the unbiaſſed judgment, to the independant diſcretion of the Iriſh Parliament? Surely not: and there⯑fore I moſt ſeriouſly appeal to the good ſenſe and the high dignity of the Houſe, not to lend the ſanction of its authority to the ſhameful means by which this meaſure is to be forced upon the reluctant feelings of the ſiſter kingdom. And what, in the name of God, are thoſe means? Do we not ſee in the fore⯑moſt rank of them a barefaced and ſtaring corrup⯑tion, that ſtalks along the land with a purſe in one [9] and a ſcourge in the other? Do we not ſee intimi⯑dation exerting its diſcouraging power in the ſudden and ſcandalous diſmiſſals of the oldeſt and beſt tried ſervants of the Crown, in the removal of a Parnell and of a Fitzgerald? And after this ſhall we ſtill be told that the adoption of the propoſed meaſure is wholly left to the calm judgment and independant diſcretion of the People of Ireland? Or rather, muſt it not be allowed that the whole of this imperious and threatening conduct on the part of Miniſters is a leſſon and a warning held out to the Iriſh Parliament to enforce their aſſent, or perhaps to hang over them the terrors of a Diſſolution, or ſhew what thoſe who ſtill remain in place may ex⯑pect from the examples of the puniſhment that has already been inflicted on ſome of the faireſt and moſt diſtinguiſhed characters in Ireland, unleſs they ſacrifice the dictates of their duty and their con⯑ſcience to the intemperate imperiouſneſs of an head⯑ſtrong Miniſter? The ſame ſtretch of inſulting power might perhaps alſo be reſorted to here, if any Gentleman now in office ſhould venture to con⯑ſult his Conſcience and the Conſtitution, and eſpouſe the opinion I propoſe; the fate of ſuch a perſon moſt undoubtedly would be, to be turned out to⯑morrow; for we have been frequently told how important and neceſſary it is to repreſs and puniſh firſt ſymptom of inſubordination and inſurrecttion.

But conceiving, as I do, that the Houſe is not free from the influence ever attained over eaſy tempers by bold and ingenious ſophiſtry, appre⯑henſive that we are in the ſituation of men who juſt begin to free themſelves, by a collected vigorous effort, from the chains impoſed by beauty, or the ſeductive allurements of an amorous ſportive ima⯑gination, I muſt adjure the Houſe not to diſpoſe of a queſtion that is perhaps to decide for ever whether a great and generous nation is to retain its inde⯑pendance, [10] and by implication, to determine whether a ſet of Repreſentatives choſen by a free People, muſt vote themſelves out of exiſtence, and give up the liberties, the property, the acknowledged con⯑ſtitutional rights of their Conſtituents, to the do⯑mination of a power, that, under the maſk of friendſhip, has introduced among them a force, originally ſaid to be intended ſolely for their de⯑fence againſt a daring inſidious enemy, whom all deprecate, but who is not more to be deteſted than the pretended friend who aſſiſts only that he may acquire confidence enough to delude, and ſtrength enough to deſtroy.

I muſt think the Houſe has been hurried along by the Right Hon. Gentleman from one degree of tranſport to another, until, in the groves of his Elyſium, they have been elated with ſcenes of grandeur, and fatigued with that variety, or en⯑feebled with that richneſs of proſpect, which is to render enquiry loathſome, and which will inevita⯑bly prepare the human mind for the reception of any doctrines, however wild—and any aſſurance of future advantage, however illuſory. I took an opportunity laſt week of oppoſing the meaſure of Legiſlative Union with Ireland, in the firſt ſtage of the diſcuſſion, which, as matter of courſe, was to lead to that queſtion. I did ſo then, as well from a conviction that meaſures of ſuch magnitude, and of ſuch novelty, ſhould always be oppoſed in the infancy of their progreſs, as in the contempla⯑tion of what I naturally anticipated would be the effect of the eloquence of the Right Hon. Gentle⯑man. I then ſaid, what I am at this moment pre⯑pared to repeat, after much conſidering the ſubject, that under the preſent circumſtances of Ireland, in this criſis of her convulſed and neceſſarily diſor⯑dered ſyſtem of polity and general government, it is not only impolitic but unſafe to urge, nay even to [11] agitate the diſcuſſion of topics, in the iſſues of which are to be ſeen developing themſelves, the poiſon and the horrors, which are to lay the moſt hardy and ſtout of heart proſtrate at the feet of a Britiſh Miniſter—that are to intimidate and appal the moſt heroic ſpirits. Ireland, in her preſent temper, muſt be beat into this meaſure, and that Miniſter who ſhall make the bold experiment of flogging a whole nation into ſtupid beings, inſenſible alike to the duty ſhe may owe herſelf, inſenſible to the rights of the preſent generation; and the intereſts of the race yet unborn, as much as to the arrogance and cupi⯑dity of thoſe who ſhall inflict the blow, or direct the torture—ſuch a Miniſter have ſecured his minions, but it may not be altogether unbecoming him, if he be deſirous ultimately to prevail, to meaſure his power by the force of his antagoniſts', and in the eſtimation of his means of victory, to ſeek an antidote againſt national pride and local attachments.

Gracious God! Sir, Who would have ſuppoſed that a Britiſh Miniſter, wrapped up in the inſolence of power, and that odious ſelf-ſufficiency, the ge⯑nuine characteriſtic of a narrow and impotent under⯑ſtanding, rather than of a manly and vigorous intel⯑lect, would dare in the face of the Iriſh Nation, to ſpurn the aſſertion of her rights, to fawn and flatter her guiltleſs mind, and by ſeeming to reſpect her declared unequivocal opinion, to full her into in⯑activity, the more ſucceſsfully to enſlave her for ever? But let not the Right Hon. Gentleman deceive himſelf whilſt he is exerting his ingenuity to deceive Ireland. Let him remember, Sir, that ſome plots have been ſo cloſely wrought, ſome meaſures of ſur⯑priſe and deluſion ſo intricately planned, and at⯑tempted to be carried into effect with ſuch novelty of means, that the authors, the actors, even the ſub⯑ordinate characters in the drama, have been them⯑ſelves [12] entangled in the mazes they have contrived for innocence, and overwhelmed under the ruins of that fabric, which they have erected to overawe the independant.

The Hon. Gentleman ſet out with ſaying, he wiſhed the queſtion to be argued coolly and diſ⯑paſſionately, diſtinctly expreſſing himſelf, that he wiſhed to ſubmit it to the unbiaſſed judgment and independant diſcuſſion of the Parliament of Ireland; but, Sir, I pay very little attention to the Hon. Gen⯑tleman's words, I look to his actions; and referring to them, let me aſk, Is the queſtion left to the un⯑biaſſed judgment and independant diſcuſſion of Ire⯑land? Is it not on the contrary apparent, that in order to carry it, corruption is ſtalking through Ireland with a ſcourge in one hand and a purſe in the other? Is that, I aſk, leaving it to the unbiaſſed judgment and independant diſcuſſion of the Coun⯑try? It is the contrary; it is not only a mockery, but an inſult to Parliament. Beſides, how can Parliament tell, how ſoon the Hon. Gentleman may adopt the ſame line of conduct, with regard to the Parliament collectively, as he has done with reſpect to individuals? If he has diſmiſſed individuals for expreſſing ſentiments different to his own, may he not, by the ſame rule, diſmiſs the Parliament too, if it preſumes to oppoſe him. The inference is fair. Was it juſt, in the caſe of a Viceroy conſulting his conſcience, on a queſtion of all others the moſt ne⯑ceſſary, to act according to its dictates, was it, I ſay, neceſſary to tell him, becauſe he did ſo, he was unfit to be any longer in his Majeſty's ſervice? He ſays, that time ſhould be given to the people, as well in as out of Parliament, to conſider the ſubject, and for heats and animoſities to ſubſide. I believe, that with reſpect to the Iriſh Parliament, his intention is, that time ſhould be given to try the effect of further corruption; and what ſenſation will be produced [13] by diſmiſſing the Servants of the Crown; what the influence of the Crown is; and what are the expec⯑tations of thoſe devoted to its ſervices.—Nor was it the Right. Hon. Gentleman alone who attempted to juſtify theſe meaſures. I have heard them alſo juſti⯑fied by an Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) and never did I hear any thing with more poignant regret; for what ſenſation but that of ſorrow and regret could ariſe in my mind, when I heard that Hon. Friend plead the cauſe of bold and barefaced corruption, and thus cloud and contaminate with its [...]oul fog and baneful breath the pure early morning of his political life? Would he now tell us that the Right Hon. Gentle⯑man had given a determined pledge, and could not now recede? Why did he? Who called upon him to ſpeak? Was it to encourage his friends in Ireland by a diſplay of his reſolution?—but that was una⯑vailing, as the diſcuſſion and deciſion took place there before that encouragement could reach them; but as to the charge of urging intimidation, neither the Right Hon. Gentlemen, nor his Hon. Friend who anſwered me on a former occaſion, had thought pro⯑per to ſay a word. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning,) from his Parliamentary ſtanding, could not, indeed, have taken any part in the violation of the compact in 1782, and therefore his Right Hon. Friend ſtep⯑ped generouſly forward and claimed all the ſhame, guilt, and treachery of it to himſelf.—Like another Niſus he threw his broad ſhield over his beloved Euryalus to protect him from the vengeful reſent⯑ment of the Iriſh nation, calling out to them—Me, me, I, I am the man; wreak all your vengeance up⯑on me.

My Hon. Friend's abilities might, however, prove that potuit; and as to his courage, he was ſatisfied the Houſe had no reaſon to call it in queſtion.—The [14] generous ardour of the Right Hon. Gentleman to protect his Hon. Friend, was therefore only the impulſe of affection.‘Tantum in [...]licem ninium delexit amicum.’

Then, with reſpect to the rejection of the queſtion by the Parliament of Ireland, the Hon. Gentleman ſays the meaſure is neceſſary to the people of Ire⯑land; and at the concluſion of his obſervation he adds, that he will wait a more favourabl [...] [...] [...] ⯑nity. What does he mean? That he will [...] till the Parliament of Ireland is convinced by reaſoning? No, he will wait till a day or an hour of additional weakneſs, when the country ſhall be ſtill further incapacitated for reſiſting their enemies, and more intimidated at the conſequence of our withdrawing our aſſiſtance. What does he mean by ſaying he will wait? Does he mean he will wait till a period, as one which may or may not arrive, when he knows he has it in his power to create it whenever he thinks proper? It ſeems the Hon. Gentleman has now been fifteen years with this ſyſtem of an Union rankling in his heart, but has never thought proper to bring it forward till the preſent moment.—What concluſion will the people of Ireland draw from ſuch conduct? Have they not a right to ſuppoſe, if the meaſure was never propoſed in the hour of their ſtrength and proſperity, but is attempted when they are weakened and unable to reſiſt, that it is not in⯑tended as a meaſure of advantage to them? If when a Lord Lieutenant was ſent over to heal the differen⯑ces reſpecting the Catholics; if when the cup was at their lips, it was daſhed away, and that Lord Lieutenant withdrawn; if the hoſtilities of the Ca⯑tholics and the Proteſtants were not neceſſary for him to attend to, what muſt they conſider of his conduct when he attempts to introduce an alteration at a time when their weakneſs prevents them from reſiſt⯑ing it? Does he think that he will by ſuch a meaſure, [15] ſo carried into effect, produce a permanent connexion between the two countries? Does he not con⯑ſider what will be the feelings of men ſo provoked?—But is this the real argument of one who wields the power of national will? When we have already pledged ourſelves to ſupport that independant le⯑giſlation which Ireland claimed as its right, what reaſon have we to ſuppoſe that if we attempt to deſtroy that pledge, we ſhall not drive that country to the expedient of gaining aſſiſtance, and repelling our attacks? The Hon. Gentleman treated the pledge of this Houſe and the Government, at the laſt Ad⯑juſtment in 1782, as a circumſtance of a ſilly and trifling nature. Among other terms of ſcorn and opprobrium he calls it moſt childiſh; at the time he made this aſſertion he was not arrived at his full ex⯑perience; he had been but a year and an half in office; but I ſhould like to know what the conduct of the Hon. Gentleman's preſent collegues had previouſly been? He reviles the Duke of Portland and the other Miniſters who were then in power. There was a Gentleman, now a Noble Lord, I can't remember all the new Noble Lord's names, but he was conſidered the mouth-piece of thoſe who carried that buſineſs into execution. He brought up the reſolutions, and it will be ſound they paſſed nemine contradicente. Surely, the Hon. Gentleman will plead his tender years at the time, for not remem⯑bering this, for it was much about the time when he had the application of Heaven-born Miniſter beſtowed upon him; but he ſays the reſolutions were conſidered as childiſh, becauſe there was one tacked to them which ſtated, that it was neceſſary to do ſomething further. It is quite enough for me to know that there could not be any fraud intended by this laſt reſolution; that it could not be conſidered as a caveat againſt that admiſſion of the independance of Ireland which had been before acknowledged. [16] Ireland ſays, "We will have an independant Parlia⯑ment—Right—but to defeat that, we will put in the journals what ſhall have the effect of defeating the claim. I am perſuaded it is impoſſible ſuch a hard conſtruction can be put upon that reſolution. It is libellous to ſuppoſe that any one could mean it in that light. But I will tell you, Sir, to what the re⯑ſolution alluded:—It was meant that with regard to commerce between the two countries, ſomething further ſhould be done; but as to the Conſtitution of Ireland and its Independance, that was finally ad⯑juſted. It was ſuppoſed, that on the ſubject of com⯑merce ſomething might ariſe which it might be ne⯑ceſſary afterwards to refer to the arbitration of Par⯑liament. But why was not the Hon. Gentleman's opinion followed up? Why did he adhere to this ſilly pledge? I believe in the very next year, 1783, when this ſubject was again brought forward by Mr. Flood, the Hon. Gentleman did not think of ſaying there was ſomething more to be done; though he muſt be now ſuppoſed to have been convinced that ſomething further was neceſſary, yet he did not inti⯑mate that opinion; but now, at the diſtance of fifteen years, he ſtates there is a neceſſity for following it up. Why has he ſo long delayed? Becauſe he never before thought he had a favourable opportunity; becauſe he never before thought Ireland was at his mercy; and now, as the means of carrying his ſyſ⯑tem into effect, he muſt look forward to thoſe feuds and diſcords which may weaken Ireland, and lay her ſtill more at his mercy. With his uſual lofty tone and carriage he again and again repeats, that an Union is the only remedy that can heal the evils that afflict Ireland, or that can ſecure the ſalvation of both countries. He muſt, therefore, perſiſt in it, and call on Parliament to aſſiſt him in the execution of the meaſure; he is willing, however, to wait for a more favourable opportunity, and until the Iriſh [17] Parliament is convinced of its neceſſity, And what is that opportunity he pretends to wait for—is it not the day and hour when Ireland ſhall be in a greater degree of weakneſs? Does he wait until he can again reproach her with her inability to defend herſelf, and threaten her with withdrawing thoſe commercial favours ſhe receives from England, and from which, he contends, are derived all the ſources from which her proſperity ariſes? Alas! it is but too much in his power to create that moment! And here, let me conjure, let me entreat the Houſe to recollect the ſhameful manner in which Lord Fitz⯑william was recalled from Ireland, at a moment when he was ſuppoſed to have been ſent over to grant to the Roman Catholics the rights and privileges which they claimed. The cup of conceſſion was juſt preſented to their lips, but inſtead of permitting them to taſte of it, it was daſhed in their faces. Was this the proof of a ſincere deſire to reconcile the Roman Catholic body? And if he is acquainted, as ſurely he is, with the workings of the human heart, muſt he not be well aware of what men will do when ſo provoked?—We all agree, continued Mr. Sheridan, reſpecting the neceſſity of a connexion be⯑tween the two countries, and that nothing could be more fatal to either than that Ireland ſhould be poſſ⯑eſſed by the French. Should we not then ſeriouſly conſider how far the enforcing of this meaſure may tend to favour what the Right Hon. Gentleman calls the favourite object of the enemy, and which I really believe to be their earneſt wiſh, namely, the Inva⯑ſion of Ireland. Seeing it as I do, in this light, have I not every reaſon and motive for imploring the Houſe not to give it any further countenance? Indeed in every view I can take of it, it appears to me not only to be dangerous, but as Childiſh a ſcheme as that which the Right Hon. Gentleman has choſen to ſtigmatiſe ſo frequently with that epithet.

[18] In the long and laboured calumnies of the Right Hon. Gentleman, my valued, my eſteemed friend, Mr. Fox, has not eſcaped from the indecent accu⯑ſation of a proud, ſullen and domineering arrogance, ſee with what indecency he taunts my honourable friend with not having followed up the reſolution of 1782—when he knows full well that that uni⯑form friend to the peace, property and independence of Ireland, remained but two months after in office, and therefore could give it no effect—but did the Right Hon. Gentleman himſelf, when he came af⯑terwards into power, attempt to bring forward the objections which he had this night ſo triumphantly urged? Had he not now been fifteen years a Mi⯑niſter, without ever endeavouring to do that which from the firſt he deemed to be indiſpenſably neceſ⯑ſary?—He ſays, that in the Houſe of Lords in Ire⯑land there was a decided majority in favour of the Union; that in the Commons it was nearly equal; and that out of doors the largeſt party were in fa⯑vour of it;—but, Sir, look to the qualities of the diviſion; againſt the Union were all the country Gentlemen, while thoſe in favour of it were per⯑ſons in office, and men of no reputation for inde⯑pendency of political character. What is the in⯑ducement to the meaſure held out in Cork? it is ſaid that its marine will be ſtrengthened, and that it will have a dock-yard.—In the north of Ireland, it is ſtated that if the meaſure is not acceded to, they will loſe the advantages of their Linen Trade; thus a bribe is held out to one, and a threat to the other.—The Hon. Gentleman ſays he muſt be aſ⯑ſured of the continuance of the connexion with Ireland, and then he ſays that the Union is the only way to continue it. Is this his propoſition or not? I ſay it is ſo. But I defy him to mention any one advantage which he offers to Ireland for their acceptance of the Union, which he might not give [19] without that condition. For inſtance, the ſubject of Tithes has been mentioned; it is ſaid that ar⯑rangements are to be made reſpecting them; but permit me to aſk him whether, if the propoſed ar⯑rangements are right, they cannot as well be car⯑ried into effect without the Union as with it? He has ſaid that every enlightened politician on the continent is convinced what an acceſſion of ſtrength it would be to this country if Ireland was united to it (by the way, I don't like this quoting the opini⯑ons of continental politicians); but notwithſtand⯑ing their opinions, let me aſk whether, in purſuing his favourite ſubject, he is not more in danger of acting as the Ally of the French, than of aſſiſting Ireland to repel their attempts? If France knows that Ireland is ſo far ſubdued that ſhe is unable to reſiſt an attack on her independence, will not that aſſurance be the means of her taking thoſe meaſures by which ſhe may be enabled to ſtrike that dread⯑ful blow ſhe has ſo long aimed, namely the Separa⯑tion of Ireland from Great-Britain?—The Honour⯑able Gentleman next comes to the queſtion of the advantages to accrue to Ireland by an Union with this country. He ſkips over the advantages ſhe has acquired ſince 1782, and proceeds to give an ac⯑count of Scotland ſince the Union, and an ar⯑gument ſtrongly urged in favour of the Union, is the proſperity which Scotland is ſaid to have enjoy⯑ed ſince it has been united with England:—but might not Scotland have attained this increaſe of wealth and proſperity merely by dint of her own induſtry? Beſides, Scotland cannot well be com⯑pared with Ireland:—in Scotland the Gentlemen of property are fond to reſide, and to encourage trade, agriculture, &c.; in Ireland it is the very reverſe. Whether without the Union, Scotland would not have been in as good a ſituation as ſhe is now, is more than I can determine; but is it not true that Ire⯑land [20] proſpered from the moment when ſhe ſhook off her ignominious dependence, and inſiſted on a free and independent legiſlation? It is argument found⯑ed on mere gueſs and hazard to ſay, that after the Union Ireland will derive an increaſe of progreſ⯑ſive advantages beyond what ſhe has enjoyed ſince 1782.—Then he ſays that the endeavours of our legiſlature may, in the courſe of ſixteen years, be deſeated by the legiſlature of Ireland. He argues not from what has been, but from what may be. I may ſay that the two Parliaments have now, for above 100 years, gone on co-operating with each other without exception. With regard to what is called the Declaratory Law, he knows that the terms of that law never created any apprehenſion, that it was always conſidered as a dead letter. I aſſert that there has been a co-operation of 100 years be⯑tween the two Parliaments, except only in the in⯑ſtance of the Iriſh Propoſitions. It is merely an at⯑tempt to entrap and impoſe upon the Houſe, to ſtate, that a caſe may occur in which the operations of legiſlation may be defeated by the want of co-ope⯑ration in one of the Houſes of Parliament of the two countries. It may as well be ſaid, if we ſend a bill to the Houſe of Lords, and they do not ap⯑prove of it—‘"See the miſchief of having two Houſes of Parliament whoſe functions impede each other:"’ or if we ſend a money-bill, and they think proper to make ſome alteration in it, we may make the ſame objection. If you reaſon of what may be, and not of what is, only ſee the inconveni⯑ence of the argument, particularly in a Conſtitu⯑tion like ours, compoſed of three branches, King, Lords and Commons: it goes to the deſtruction of the Conſtitution altogether; for the Lords may on ſome queſtion be againſt the Commons, the Com⯑mons againſt the Lords, or the King againſt both; and theſe different eſtates acting diametrically op⯑poſite [21] to each other, you would make an argument of their deſtruction. Thus it is evident, when you argue againſt experience and fact, you argue againſt the exiſtence of one of the beſt Governments that ever was formed for the protection of the liberty, and property of the ſubject.

The Hon. Gentleman next came to the ſtate of France, reſorting to his old argument of the de⯑ſtruction of order and regular ſyſtem of Govern⯑ment. French principles and Jacobiniſm were, as uſual, introduced into the debate, and made the ſubject of ſplendid invective.—But what was Jaco⯑biniſm?—Was it not Jacobiniſm that pretended to make other States more free, independent, and proſperous than it found them?—Was it not Jaco⯑biniſm that called on other countries to reſign their freedom, their independence, and their Conſtitutions, with a promiſe to ſubſtitute ſomething better in their place? I agree with him in what he ſtates of the conduct of the people of that country. Indeed it is waſte of time to paint the enormities of the French Government toward the people of France, or their atrocities toward the King of Sardinia.—Thoſe pa⯑thetic deſcriptions which have been ſo often re⯑peated, are of as little effect as the attempts of Ger⯑manicus, who is recorded by Tacitus to have en⯑deavoured to raiſe the fury of the ſoldiers, by paint⯑ing in ſtrong colours the indignities his brother's body had received, when it was well known to the army he had no brother. I agree that the conduct of France, where they have attempted incorpo⯑ration with other countries, is not to be defended; but with reſpect to that ſyſtem of Jacobiniſm ſo much deprecated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, what is it? Jacobiniſm is, when under the hypocritical pretence of making a nation free, you in fact take away all they poſſeſs that is worth poſſeſſing. And in this view the Hon. Gentleman is the Arch-Jaco⯑bin of all Europe. He does not know what good [22] he is doing the French cauſe, when he approaches Ireland with a coarſe French hug of fraternity, and reprobates the Republic while he is endeavouring exactly to imitate it. He ſpeaks of the great favours beſtowed on Ireland, and the acquiſitions ſhe has made during the preſent war. I would, however, have it underſtood, and indeed the Hon. Gentleman has admitted, that we did not go to war to gain ac⯑quiſitions, but to prevent the French from making them, to prevent France from overrunning the countries of Europe, and fraterniſing with the people. Have we done this? Have we prevented France overrunning nearly the whole of Europe? No; quite the reverſe; and as to the acquiſi⯑tions of Ireland, we have ſuffered her to par⯑take in ours. O Magnanimity! O unbounded Liberality! We ſay to Ireland, in all we gain you ſhall go part—in all our bleſſings in this war you ſhall have ſhare. What are they? The only bleſſings we have to offer them are non ſnare of the two hun⯑dred and fifty millions expended in the proſecution of the war. This is all the bleſſing, is all the re⯑compenſe we have to offer to poor proſtrate Ireland.

The next argument of the Hon. Gentleman is, the ignorance and want of civiliſation of the Iriſh. I agree with him in the exiſtence of thoſe evils—but from what do they proceed? I ſay, it is becauſe men of great property do not, as they do in this country, aſſociate in a certain degree with the lower claſſes; they do not form themſelves into a maſs to relieve the poor from poverty and diſtreſs; they have not the ſame motive. That is the ſource of the penury and wretchedneſs of the people of Ire⯑land. What is the remedy? The cauſe of the evil is, the abſence of the perſons who poſſeſs eſtates in that country; and the remedy you propoſe is, an Abſentee Government.—With reſpect to Scot⯑land, the caſe is very different to what it is relative [23] to Ireland. The people of Ireland have not that local attachment to their country, which the people of Scotland poſſeſs. Except a Scotchman leaves his native home for the good of his country, as the Hon. Secretary over the way (Mr. Dundas) has done, he can be content to remain without roam⯑ing, all his life; but not ſo with an Iriſhman:—In Ireland, a faſhion of emigration prevails; and ſhould the meaſure of an Union render it more general among the ſuperior claſſes, the lower will deſert their native ſoil and all its evils; and therefore the remedy propoſed is calculated to increaſe, and give additional poignancy to the weight of that miſery and poverty already experienced.

The next argument is held out as a lure to the Catholics; he attaches all the miſeries of the coun⯑try to its religious feuds, and then throws out a lure, that when the Parliament is away, it will be the means of giving freedom to the Catholics. Does he mean that if he thinks Catholic emancipation neceſſary, there has been a period ſince he has been Miniſter, in which it could not have with propriety been brought forward? In Lord Fitzwilliam's ad⯑miniſtration, will he ſay that if, inſtead of having been obliged to reſcind what that Nobleman held out, he could not have carried the plan into effect with the general approbation of the country? Sir, if the Parliament of Ireland find that the diſunion, weakneſs, and diſcord, by which the country is torn, have created the opportunity for wreſting its independance; if, in conſequence of this impreſ⯑ſion, it has recourſe to union inſtead of diſcord, concord inſtead of diſunion, and ſets about healing thoſe feuds which have deſtroyed its vigour—if the Parliament and the People of Ireland were to unite, perhaps, it may ſtill be able to counteract the de⯑ſigns of the Hon. Gentleman. Should I ſee that confiding principle ſpring up in Ireland, I ſhould ſtill hope to have my wiſhes on this ſubject realiſed.—The [24] Hon. Gentleman has adverted to the argument of the competency of Parliament to diſpoſe of a queſtion of this kind, and to ſurrender the rights of the people, and make over its own inde⯑pendance; alluding to what I had ſaid, he obſerved, I had avoided giving any deciſive opinion; I cer⯑tainly did avoid ſpeaking deciſively; on the con⯑trary, I merely urged the impolicy of advancing any ſpeculation on a ſubject which he admits to be one fraught with danger and peril. I applaud the wiſ⯑dom and temperance of the Iriſh Parliament, for not coming to any deciſive opinion reſpecting the com⯑petency of the Iriſh Parliament. He obſerved, that in the caſe of Scotland, the Parliament of Scotland ſurrendered their rights in the ſame manner as is propoſed with reſpect to Ireland. He argues, that if the Parliament of Scotland was not competent to do ſo, you, Mr. Speaker, have no right to ſit where you do; and that every public legiſlative act performed in this Houſe for Scotland is the reſult of uſurpation. Surely, a more Childiſh argument was never advanced. If there exiſts a ſmall Monarchy, no matter what is its ſize, and it is part of the King's coronation oath that he ſhall not barter the independance of the Government, as has been done in the German Empire by the Margrave of Anſpach to the King of Pruſſia; ſtill if he does make the ſurrender, there can be no queſtion of the right by which the Power to whom he ſurrenders his Kingdom exerciſes the acts of Sovereignty and Legiſlation. Wales, though not for a conſiderable time incor⯑porated in the Britiſh Government, yet when it was annexed, no doubt was made as to the loyalty of our acts of Legiſlature for that part of the king⯑dom. If others violate the truſt repoſed in them, it does not follow the acts of the Government in whoſe favour the truſt is violated are not binding. When Cheſter, the palatinate of Durham, and Berwick⯑upon-Tweed, which were independent of the reſt [25] of the kingdom, were called on to ſend Members to Parliament, no doubt was entertained of their legal capacity to legiſlate thoſe places.—But becauſe we have the power of ſo legiſlating, where a ſur⯑render has been duly made, yet it does not follow that thoſe are guilty of uſurpation who ſurrender the rights of others, by aſſuming a power of diſpoſal inconſiſtent with the nature of their truſt!

It is not my intention, Sir, to oppoſe going into a Committee, but I ſhall certainly object to your leaving the Chair, for the purpoſe of moving two reſolutions, which I ſhall, in caſe the propoſitions ſhould be carried, wiſh to have placed before them, for the purpoſe of taking off, in ſome degree, that jealouſy which the Iriſh Parliament, I am afraid, will be apt to entertain of their paſſing this Houſe, after the meaſure of Union having been ſo decidedly rejected in the Houſe of Commons of Ireland.

And now Mr. Speaker, let me conjure and im⯑plore the Houſe, not to conſider this queſtion, as a queſtion of party. I know that factions and parties exiſt amongſt us; the influence and prerogative of the Crown have found their advocates among the People's Repreſentatives, but on great queſtions the Houſe has often diſtinguiſhed itſelf, by laying aſide all paltry, petty, party conſiderations,—when the good faith, the honour, the ſafety of England and the ſincere good-will of Ireland were the ſubject of conſideration;—I truſt that the integrity of Par⯑liament will riſe above the murderous and de⯑vaſtating ambition of a Britiſh Miniſter;—I hope you will ſit on this meaſure, as if the character of the land was involved;—and that you will not deſiſt until it is completely overthrown:—Remem⯑ber the proud-ſpirited character of the Iriſh Na⯑tion,—remember the ſtate of your domeſtic af⯑fairs,—remember the eventful criſis of the political [26] world;—do not, I conjure you, take a mean ad⯑vantage of the diſtreſſes of that country, or ſub⯑ſcribe to a ſyſtem of evaſion, of ſubtilty, low cun⯑ning, and inſidious artifice—becauſe it is cloathed with a pompous diſplay of words, and a ridiculous parade of empty phraſes, on the extenſion of the moſt wild and viſionary commercial advantages to Ireland, which ever deluded the diſordered ima⯑gination of the moſt hair-brained Politician;—do not, I entreat you, violate your moſt ſolemn guarantee, and break your faith pledged by ſtipu⯑lation;—diſdain to be guided by any baſe, falſe, and oppreſſive conduct to your Siſter Kingdom;—degrade not yourſelves in the eſtimation of Iriſh⯑men, by a low, underhand, crooked policy:—you know that the moſt groveling ideas can be conveyed in the moſt inflated language,—that it is caſy to give a mock conſequence to low cavils, and to utter quibbles in heroics;—abandon the ſordid ideas of the mercantile principle on which this ob⯑noxious meaſure is ſounded, and ſhew that what⯑ever may be the character of the Miniſter, this Houſe has none of the attributes of the Trickſter and the Tyrant; exhibit to your dear, your va⯑lued Siſter Kingdom, all the captivating characte⯑riſtic of expended intellect;—ſtudy to attain great ends by great means;—ſupport truth, protect the weak, relieve the oppreſſed, and right the in⯑jured,—but on no conſideration countenance fraud, rapine, ignominy, injuſtice;—theſe are not the times for ſkulking meanneſs, bombaſtical prevari⯑cation, or perverted wiſdom:—I ſolemnly declare, that in every point of view in which I can conſider the meaſure of an Union, its great and leading features are—obliquity, fraud, falſhood, ſolly, treachery, oppreſſion,—the moſt glaring violation of national faith, and the moſt open breach of ſolemn engagement.