measure as strongly and unanimously as the rest of the people? But this is not all; let us reflect upon the arts which have been used since the last session of the Irish parliament to pack a majority in the House of Commons. All persons holding offices under government, even the most intimate friends of the minister, if they hesitated to vote as directed, were stripped of all their employments. Even this step was found ineffectual, and other arts were had recourse to, which, though I cannot name in this place, all will easily conjecture. A bill framed for preserving the purity of parliament was likewise abused, and no less than 63 seats were vacated by their holders having received nominal offices.

I defy any man to lay his hand upon his heart and say, that he believes the parliament of Ireland was sincerely in favour of the measure. We are to receive 100 Irish members into the House of Commons; and these the right hon. gentleman says will be sufficient to express the will and support the interests of the Irish nation. By the vote of these the union would have been rejected, as almost all the members for the counties and towns by which they are to be chosen keenly oppose it. Thus, on the right hon. gentleman's own ground, his assertion is refuted. I therefore call upon you to pause. We have no right to discuss this question, unless it be proved to us that the passing of these resolutions will be agreeable to the great body of the Irish nation. Perhaps I may never have another opportunity of delivering my sentiments upon this subject; I therefore beg the attention of the committee, while I advert to some of the favourite arguments of the unionists. Their grand source of arguments is the experience of the benefits derived from the union with Scotland. I can see no analogy between the circumstances of the Scotch union, and those which call for a union with Ireland. I admit that the opposition the Scots made, in the reign of queen Anne, was not inferior to the indignation of the Irish at the present day; but this is the only point of similarity between them. To an union between Scotland and England there was no physical impediment; the relative situation of the two countries is such, that the king himself can administer the executive government in both, and there is no occasion for a separate establishment being kept up in each. A

The

complete identification was practicable between the two countries, and the same taxes, duties, &c. were imposed without difficulty over the whole island. same regulations cannot possibly take place with regard to Ireland. In Ireland, there is a separate national debt; that of England is now become enormous; and it will be necessary that there be always a separate council of state resident on the spot. Ireland can have no security that she shall not be oppressed, unless she pays the very same taxes with Britain. I am far from supposing that the British members will wantonly abuse their powers; but the property of a nation should not be left at the discretion of any man, or any set of men who are strangers, however just or generous he or they may be; and it is impossible for Ireland to enjoy that security which her constitution at present affords her, if she is united to England in the manner proposed. It is impossible that men should so coolly and dispassionately consider a tax which does not affect themselves, as if they were immediately to pay it; not more than onesixth of the united parliament will be Irishmen. We naturally take a pleasure, when in calamitous circumstances, in bringing others into a situation equally deplorable; it is therefore to be apprehended that we would not unwillingly be instrumental in making the burthens of Ireland as heavy as our own. Ireland must likewise have a separate government. I affirm that this is an insuperable bar to a beneficial union; and for the truth of what I say, I refer to lord Somers, who was minister when the Scottish union was brought about. He affirms, that it was necessary that the privy council should be abolished in Scotland; and to prove this, he shows that innumerable calamities have been brought upon England by the independent councils which in former times subsisted in different parts of it, the western and northen councils, and particularly the councils of the marches of Wales. He goes so far as to say, that if it were necessary to preserve a separate executive government at Edinburgh after an union, he would abandon the measure. From the opinion of that illustrious statesman, and from many arguments which might be adduced to support it, I maintain that where moral or physical obstacles interfere to prevent the complete and perfect union of two countries, it is better for both to be governed

by the same king, and each to retain its own legislature. The dissimilarity between the circumstances of the Scotch and Irish unions will appear more striking when we compare the causes that rendered the former necessary, with those which are said to produce an equal necessity for the latter. The general arguments for both are obvious and similar, I allow; but the right hon. gentleman very properly disclaimed all intention of supporting his cause by theoretical reasonings. The basis of the argument is the danger arising from the continuance of the present system. That in this point of view there is any similitude I boldly deny, and that there is none I will demonstrate. The difference between Scotland and England was not between people and people, but between parliament and parliament. The Scotch had prohibited the importation of English goods into Scotland; they had established a trading company, which interfered with the colonial arrangements of England and nearly embroiled her with Spain; they had refused to limit the succession to the crown, and had even enacted, that it should not descend to the same persons with the crown of England. An act was about to have been brought into the English parliament to render all Scotsmen aliens, and another to fit out a fleet to attack all Scotch vessels they should fall in with. Here there was no alternative but union or war. Two proposals were made to the Scotch: that they should limit the succession to the crown in the same manner as in England, and that they should agree to a legislative union. Had they agreed to the first proposal, it is the opinion of many that the scheme of a union would have been given up; but they refused to consider it; and in these circumstances it was necessary either to press them to agree to unite their parliament with that of England, or to treat them as enemies. Even in these circumstances I cannot justify the means which were used to accomplish the plan: but how must every honest man feel indignant, when he considers that, in very different circumstances, more unjustifiable arts have been used to bring about a measure altogether unnecessary? Has Ireland prohibited the importation of your goods? has she disturbed your possessions in the Indies? has she refused to limit the succession to the crown, in the same manner as is done by the parliament of Britain? On the contrary, is there

not between the two countries an agree ment which nothing but the folly of mi. nisters can derange, and an affection which nothing but their violence can destroy?

It is said, that the union is intended to counteract the designs of the enemy, to quell sedition, and to consolidate the connexion between the two islands. The difference of opinion with regard to this measure rests entirely upon its consequences. If the right hon. gentleman should prove that it would unite the hearts and interests of Irishmen and Englishmen, not one word more should he hear from me in opposition to it. But I am convinced that these dangers arise, not from the present constitution of Ireland, but from the manner in which it is administered. The manner in which that country has been governed for some years has been impolitic and cruel in the extreme, and as its natural consequences. Let the system be changed, and the dangers will disappear. It was stated last year that the circumstances of Ireland so exactly resembled those of Scotland, that the kingdoms must either be immediately united in their legislatures, or separated for ever. I heard this sentiment expressed with great concern; for, if the union should not be carried (and I am far from thinking that it is yet carried in Ireland), what encouragement would be held out to our enemies! But it is false that there is any such necessity; and, if you adopt liberal measures with regard to the sister kingdom, you will do more in dissipating the dangers which threaten her, than by any attempt to incorporate her legislature with ours. There are men who try to prove (as Montesquieu did with regard to the Japanese) that the Irish are such a barbarous, unprincipled, turbulent race of men, that they are incapable of freedom, and must necessarily be ruled with a rod of iron. This strain of invective has been particularly indulged in by a noble lord, in speeches and publications. I shall not attempt to follow him through all the mazes of his argument, but shall shortly inquire whether, since 1782, the Irish really deserve the character which has been ascribed to them. It has been urged that the concessions made to them. at that time were extorted by an armed convention. convention. This, perhaps, is not the least praise of that period; some of the best of our rights have been so obtained. But when the concessions were made,

particular evils by which Ireland has been distracted. The example of Scotland, which some consider so conclusive in favour of a union with Ireland, will not, upon a strict examination, be found so very encouraging an instance. In truth, much more good is ascribed to this single measure of union than history will warrant. It was not the union; it was the adoption of a liberal policy, the application of a proper remedy to the particular evils under which the country laboured, that removed the causes which had impeded the prosperity of Scotland.-But it is said, that the Catholics of Ireland may, on some future occasion, obtain indulgences from the liberality of the united parliament. It were much to be wished that the Catholics should now be distinctly informed of what advantages they may expect. If the privileges held out to them are sufficient to conciliate their support to the measure, so far as they are concerned, my argument would be at an end. I do not see the wisdom of insinuating to them vague hopes of future benefits. They may be induced to conceive expectations which, if disappointed, may produce much serious discontent. Encouraged to entertain sanguine hopes, they may afterwards complain that they have been deceived. The consequences of such misunderstanding, and such disappointments, may be dangerous to the peace of the country. Indeed, of the indulgences which they may receive from a united parliament, considerable doubts may be entertained. We know that the keeper of the king's conscience in the sister kingdom gave it as his opinion, that the claims of the Catholics in Ireland could not be granted by his majesty without a violation of his coronation oath. Such an objection certainly would operate as strongly against them at any future period, as it could do in any measure that could be projected for their relief in the separate legislature of Ireland.-But to revert to the case of Scotland, on which so much argument has been founded: if we look back to the history of the present century, we shall be at some loss to discover, at least for a very considerable period, the proofs of that tranquillity, that happiness and prosperity with which the union was attended. If we survey the state of Scotland posterior to that event, we shall find much discontent, much dissatisfaction, turbulence, and rebellion. The progress which that country has

since made in commerce, manufactures and wealth, is to be attributed to many circumstances besides the union. We should expect, at least, that a cause which is represented to have been so powerful in its operation, would have had some connexion of time with its effect. This connexion between the union and the prosperity of Scotland it is not very easy to discover. It is a fact, that the trade of Scotland in many places actually decayed after the union, and the linen trade in particular. Neither is it fair, in estimating the benefit of the union, to compare the state of Scotland now, with what it was at the beginning of the century, and to impute the difference solely to the union. Scotland, doubtless, would have partaken of the general improvement which almost every nation in Europe has, since that period, undergone. What would any man say, if the progress of America in wealth and riches since the establishment of its independence were to be ascribed to the intimacy it formed with France, and to the renunciation of English connexion? Such an assertion would be stigmatized both as a false and a dangerous possession. In truth, for a period of more than forty years after the union, Scotland exhibited no proofs of increased industry and of rising wealth. Till after 1748 there was no sensible advance of her commerce; several of her manufactures were not established till sixty years after the union, and her principal branch of manufacture was not set up, I believe, till 1781. The abolition of the heritable jurisdictions was the first great measure that gave an impulse to the spirit of improvement in Scotland. From that period the rise of commerce and manufactures is to be dated. Since that time, the prosperity of Scotland has been considerable, but certainly not so great as that of Ireland has been within the same period. By comparing the progress of each, we shall find that some general causes contributed to their advancement, and we must be convinced that to the union have been ascribed effects which were owing to very different causes.

It was said last year, in the debate upon this subject, by a right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Dundas), that the union was so popular in Scotland a few years after its conclusion, that the Pretender, on his arrival in that country in 1715, had found it necessary to expunge from his proclamation that passage in which he