same spirit, to conciliate the support of the people, who viewed the union as the extinction of their national independence, and the introduction of a foreign yoke. From the whole history of those periods, it is evident that the effect of the union had been unfavourable to the repose and tranquillity of the state. It was an additional subject of discontent to a people already labouring under many disadvantages of internal government and regulation; and till the real cause of the evil was removed, till the grievances were remedied, no progress was made towards the establishment of tranquillity, and to the advancement of commerce and manufactures. Such will be the fate of Ireland if the union be adopted without applying a cure to the internal defects which detain that country in a state of distraction. Till the grievances of Ireland are done away, till the disabilities under which the Catholics labour are taken off, no progress will be made securing the public tranquillity, or in promoting the extension of commerce and of wealth. If it be really in contemplation to confer any further privileges on the Catholics, as has been insinuated, why may they not as well be granted by the Irish parliament? The legislature of Ireland is undoubtedly competent to such a measure, and indeed to carry into effect every other, which would tend to allay animosities, and promote the general happiness.

promised that the union should be dissolved. This assertion was made so confidently, that I was staggered by it, notwithstanding its being so inconsistent with the general accounts of the state of the public mind in Scotland at that time. After a good deal of inquiry, however, I have been able to discover the authority on which the assertion was made. I find too, that this authority is single, and unsupported by any concurring testimony. This authority, then, is a note in Somerville's History of Queen Anne, founded, too, upon a manuscript of Sir John Clerk. This history was published in the year €1798. The note had no reference to the immediate text; and, after all, the authority of sir John Clerk, though a very respectable man, is somewhat doubtful in such a point. He was connected by marriage with the duke of Queensberry, who managed the business of the union in Scotland. Indeed, it was no more surprising to find such a man endeavouring to represent the union as popular, than it would be to find lord Castlereagh, or some of his relations, writing from Ireland that the project of union was supported by the general voice of the country. That the union was not popular in Scotland, we find from a series of the most unquestion able documents. In 1713, a motion was made by the earl of Finlater to dissolve the union; and that motion was supported by the Whig party, by lord Sunderland, and several others who had been commissioners in adjusting the transaction. Upon that occasion there was an equality of votes, there being 54 on each side; and it was decided in favour of an union, only by a majority of four upon the proxies.* There were several proofs extant from letters written by friends to the measure, and decided foes to Jacobinism, that the union was very unpopular in Scotland. In 1715, when the earl of Mar took the field in the cause of the house of Stuart, he announced the design to restore the old constitution of Scotland, and a declaration was a few days after issued by a number of the principal persons on the same side, in which the union was particularly reprobated as a grievance. Thus it is clear, that the friends of the Pretender considered union unpopular, and thought that it would be favourable to their cause to encourage the hope of its repeal. The Pretender himself, on his landing, issued a proclamation in the

*See Vol. 6, p. 1219.

I cannot refrain from expressing my dissent from several of the positions which the right hon. gentleman has laid down. Respecting the article in which the mode of representation is fixed, I differ entirely from him. The right hon. gentleman will never convince any impartial man that the introduction of 100 new members into this House, will not be a serious innovation. The right hon. gentleman considered the precise number of little importance. Undoubtedly, any number that gives Ireland her proper share and influence in the legislature of the united kingdoms, is that which ought to be adopted: that precise number, indeed, it is difficult to fix. Besides this, however, it is a point of the highest importance to consider how this additional number of members will affect the composition of the House itself. I am the less embarrassed in delivering my sentiments upon this subject, as, in the plan of parliamentary reform which I submitted to the House, it never was proposed to increase the number of members. Even the plan of reform proposed by the right hon. gen

tleman himself, went upon the principle of preserving the number the same, by extinguishing a number of boroughs to balance the number of members that were to be introduced by a more popular election. The right hon. gentleman says too, that the new members will not increase the influence of the Crown. They will consist chiefly of the county representatives, and those for the more populous towns. Though three-fourths of the county members are now against the union, I confess I should distrust them when they come over here as members of the united parliament. I suspect that they will rarely be adverse to the measures of any administration. We have an example of the uniform support which the members for Scotland have given to every set of ministers. We have reason to apprehend, that the Irish members will become a no less regular band of ministerial adherents. The expenses of contested elections will become so great, that it will be impossible for any man to sustain them who is not supported by the Treasury. All the hopes, all the views, of the members will centre in the minister; and they will naturally be led to add themselves to the ranks of his constant and unalterable supporters.

With respect to the peerage, I see less objection to the proportion of representatives that has been fixed. I can see no reason, however, why the peerage should be kept up in the manner proposed. It would be better, in my opinion, to allow it gradually to become identified with the British peerage, without reserving any particular representation. This, indeed, is a matter of detail upon which I shall not at present insist, as I may afterwards make it the subject of a separate motion. -The regulations respecting commerce and revenue appear to be liable to little objection. They are likewise matters of detail, which may be better considered when the articles are discussed separately. But whatever may be the merits of any of the proposed conditions, the great preliminary point is, to ascertain the sense of the people of Ireland. I shall not enter into any abstract inquiry into the competence of the legislature to adopt the measure of an incorporating union. When a measure of such infinite importance is to be adopted, it is not too much to say, that it ought not to be concluded without the fair consent of the people of Ireland, nor against their decided voice.

Why do we inveigh against the violence of the French for compelling into their connexion countries to whom they leave no room for free deliberation? Why do we stigmatize such violation of the freedom and independence of states, if we could be guilty ourselves of the fault which we reprobate? I trust, that the detestation we express of French proceedings is sincere: I trust, that it is founded upon the solid principles of justice, upon a genuine love of liberty, and that it will not be belied by our conduct. I hope, that whilst we hold up as sacred the independence of nations, we do not merely honour the principle with our lips, but that we cherish it in our hearts. If we assist in depriving others of the bulwarks of their liberties, we overthrow the securities of our own. The excellent maxim of our religion, "Do to others as you would that they should do to you," is no less a binding rule in the relation of societies to each other than in the intercourse of individuals. Our duties, indeed, are fortified by our interests. We are deterred from the commission of injustice by the danger of subjecting ourselves to be in turn its victims. We cannot bestow upon the government that power which is necessary to subdue the freedom of others, without arming them with weapons that may be fatal to our own liberty. "I rejoice," said lord Chatham, "that America has resisted; for three millions of slaves in America would have been fit tools to overthrow the liberties of England." For the same reason I rejoice that the Irish have shown a determined resolution to preserve their constitutional rights and liberties. I trust that ministers will not be able, by undue means, to triumph over their opposition. If a union were effected by such means, it would, more than any thing, endanger the separation of the two countries. I shall therefore conclude with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, praying that he will be graciously pleased to direct his ministers to suspend all proceedings on the Irish Union, till the sentiments of the people of Ireland respecting that measure can be ascertained."

Mr. George Johnstone, in a maiden speech, addressed the House as follows:Sir; it is not to weigh the claims of contending manufacturers; it is not to discuss a little party question; it is not to balance the merits of rivals eager in the

If we consider the internal state of Ireland, we shall find motives no less imperious for the measure now under consideration. Such are the existing divisions, such the religious feuds and prejudices, and such the proportion that the part of the nation in which resides all political authority, bears to the remainder, that the existing government of Ireland, is a government ungrateful to the feelings of a large majority of the people of Ireland; and could not subsist otherwise than by the aid and support of England. Of all useless opinions the most useless are opinions formed from an abstract consideration of the nature of any particular government, for government is a thing for practical use, and is to be judged of from its effects, and not from its means. Yet I may be permitted to state, that a government how ever constituted, which is incapable of acquiring the confidence and the affection of a large majority of the governed, can never fully answer the purposes for which it is constituted; can never give peace, security and happiness to the people. A government subsisting through the aid of a foreign force, and in defiance of the prejudices of a nation, is a government of tyranny, morally and radically bad. But while I urge this point with all the confidence which dispassionate conviction inspires, let me not be supposed to cast any reflection on the parliament of the sister kingdom. For weak and prejudiced must be that Englishman, ungenerous and ungrateful must be that Irishman, who denies to the parliament of Ireland during the last thirty years, a just and honourable title to the gratitude of their country. Have they not successively procured a mutiny bill, a bill for octennial parliaments, a place and pension bill? Have they not relaxed many of the severe and penal laws which oppressed the Catholic majority in the severest manner? Have they not, in fine, rescued their country from bondage, procured her a free trade, and a constitution free to such as are admitted within its limits? If we except only those parliaments by whose sober wisdom, by whose temperate zeal, by whose undaunted firmness our own liberties were acquired, confirmed and defined, did ever any parliament possess stronger or better claims to the gratitude of their country. But, perhaps, it may be urged, that since I myself admit, that every form of government is to be judged of by its effects, why destroy a system under which

so much advantage has already been obtained? Sir, I answer, that in these very acts I find the strongest evidence of the necessity of an union. If a parliament which has secured to the Irish nation benefits so incalculable is yet regarded with distrust and hatred by a large majority of the people, does it not afford irrefragable evidence, that the government of Ireland, by selecting its members from a small portion of the community, is incompetent to diffuse confidence and happiness to the nation, If, as has been asserted, the administration of Ireland had practised wanton and novel oppressions; if its members were abject and corrupt beyond example; if in the pursuit of personal interests they were totally regardless of the honour and glory of their country; it might still be possible to restore peace and happiness to the nation by a more just administration, by a change of men, by the enactment of wholesome restraints, and above all by the influence of honour and principle daily increasing among those exercising public trusts. But when I find that in spite of all the clamour that has been raised, the administrators of Ireland have done all that in human reason was to have been expected from human instruments; and when I perceive that in proportion as agriculture has advanced, as commerce has flourished as population has increased, so likewise have multiplied the discontent and dissatisfactions of the nation, I am irresistibly led to conclude that the evil is not in the administrators of power is not in the parliament of Ireland, but is inherent in that system which confines all political power to a single sect. I will not press the argument farther. I will put it broadly to the feelings, to the reason, to the conviction of every gentleman, whether Ireland can be happy or contented so long as the present religious and political divisions exist: and whether it is safe or prudent for the parliament of Ireland to attempt the only competent relief. And if these questions be answered, as I am sure they must be by every dispassionate reasoner, where can a remedy be found, but in the identification of the two legislatures?

Not less cogent are the reasons for the present measure which present themselves from a consideration of the state of Europe. We are now in the eighth year of a war commenced not to gratify the selfish purposes of ambition, not to

increase our power and dominion, not to subjugate the weak, not to oppress the defenceless, but to preserve from profanation the sacred fabric of religion, to guard from contamination the beauteous structure of our laws and constitution, to rescue the civilized world from plunder and oppression, from anarchy and bloodshed. In this arduous contest, the most just and most holy ever waged by man, our efforts and our exertions have ever been proportioned to the magnitude of the danger; and when all the nations of Europe stood appalled, deprecating the awful power of the common enemy by abject submission, in this island every individual grasping his sword, and preparing to sacrifice whatever was most dear, resolved to conquer or to perish. By such means we have not only preserved our empire inviolate in all its parts, but have extended its influence and its dominion. What, then, remains but to concentrate our resources, by a bland assimilation which shall for ever obliterate the divisions of sectary and conformist, of Papist and Protestant, of English and Irish. But notwithstanding so many motives concur to render it expedient to confirm and strengthen the engagements subsisting between the two kingdoms, prudence might still hesitate in adopting measures of such infinite importance, as are now proposed, were we not enabled to judge of their effect from experience. A century has nearly elapsed since a similar measure was proposed and on that occasion there were likewise foundmen of honourable minds, and pure intentions who foreboded the loss of liberty in one country and the degradation of the other. Yet, in spite of these forebodings, the stock of public liberty has been preserved and increased, and we have seen Scotland rapidly advance in wealth and prosperity. Can we, then, hesitate concerning the benefits, which will be reaped by Ireland, protected from all burthensome impositions, enjoying a genial soil, a salubrious climate, and generously called to participate in the commerce of the world. Sir, there was a time when the commercial jealousy of the British nation would have been alarmed at concessions so unbounded, at grants so unlimited; but, to the honour of the present generation we are now actuated by more liberal sentiments, by more generous feelings. We feel that the rivalry of Ireland cannot be injurious to Britain. "But," says the hon. gentleman, "what security

:

will Ireland possess for all the fair promises held out to her? Previous to 1782, when governed by English laws, the people of Ireland were the most oppressed set of men on the face of the earth." Sir, I admit that Ireland was cruelly oppressed by English law, but it was because she was regarded as a distinct and separate kingdom, or as a conquered country. Whatever be the blessings which a free government conveys to all within its pale, the history of mankind uniformly shows that the government of freemen is of all others the most oppressive to its foreign dependencies; for, not content with holding them in subjection to the state, attempts are always made to convert the industry and produce of these countries to private advantage, by restrictions on commerce or extraordinary impositions. Enlarged as now are our opinions on political economy, the same would be the consequence of England legislating for Ireland; and were such the measure proposed, I would most earnestly oppose it. But the present measure is, to destroy all difference of irterest, all separate existence and when henceforth the distinctions of English and Irish are abolished, will any man be found so narrow in his views, as to propose to advance the interest of one portion of the nation by the depression of the other?-But it has been said in Ireland, would you barter your liberty for commerce? No! in such a traffic, who so daring and profligate as to purchase? who so mean and abject as to sell? It is not the liberties of Irishmen that are infringed; it is not the independence of Ireland which is invaded; but, respecting those liberties, and acknowledging that independence, we solicit you to unite with us in a compact of which all the benefits are your own. It remains for me to consider briefly, what will be the effect on the constitution from the proposed increase of the two branches of the legislature. The hon. gentleman has illustrated this subject with great force of argument; yet will he not deny, that in the election of peers for life, and in choosing so large a portion of the Commons by counties and considerable towns, every thing possible has been done to secure their independence. I rather incline to think that in this House, as well as in another assembly, the increase of numbers will be found to increase the influence of the crown; and delicate as is the fabric of our constitution, whatever tends in the remotest degree to alteration must be re