man, or an unfair man, who will not connect the principle afferted in 1782, (viz. that we fhould not be governed by any Parliament but our own,) with the abufe to which the affertion of that principle referred: who will not fee that it was intended merely to protest against Ireland's being bound, where fhe was not reprefented.

But give to this affertion the wideft poffible extent of meaning. Uncandidly and delufively puff out the principle, beyond the meaning and intention of those by whom it was promulged, and ftill I do not fear to meet you upon grounds, to which I might very reasonably object.

The Treaty of Union is the mutual work of the two countries: but the act of Union alone binding upon us, will be a ftatute paffed by the independent Irish Parliament, confifting merely of the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland: compofed merely of thofe, who, under the principle on which you rely, are exclufively competent to legislate for this country: and thus our remoteft defcendants will be governed in ftrict conformity to that very maxim, which you would fet up as an obstacle to Union; inasmuch as the force and efficacy, with respect to Ireland, of all future acts of the imperial legiflature, will be derived from the ftatute of incorporation, paffed exclufively by the King, Lords, and Commons of this country. So far as they affect us, the ftatutes of the imperial legislature will be as completely deducible from an act of our own Parliament, as the title of his Majesty

arifes from the acts of fettlement and recognition;* or as, with refpect to part of the British realm, it may be traced to an article of the Scottish Union.

Thus, (to fum up what I have faid,) when you pronounce that the first article of the compact of 1782 excludes Union, because it covenants that the Irith people fhall be governed by no legiflature but that of the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, your pofition admits of two fatisfactory answers.

First, that the ftatute of Union is an act of legiflation, exercised exclufively by that very Parliament, to which the final adjustment committed the power of legislating for this country, viz. by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland; and that, as all future ftatutes, paffed in the united Parliament, will be enacted by virtue of this fundamental law, their authority will therefore rest, às far as concerns this country, upon the very principle afferted in 1782; fince the efficacy of those laws to bind the Irish people, will flow originally, and merely, although remotely, from an act of the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland.

And fecondly, it may be replied to your objection, that the Imperial Parliament will, with the full confent of Ireland, be the King, Lords, and Commons of this country. It will be fo, compatibly with the principle of 1782; becaufe Ireland will be adequately reprefented in that affembly: and even though the meaning of the principle had

Which latter is a fort of declaratory law.

not

not been fufficiently explained, by that branch in its affertion which protefts against the future interference of British Parliaments, yet no man who recollects the history of that period, and the na ture of the abuse which we then fought to remove, can doubt that the principle established was merely this, that the Irish people fhould not be bound by laws, which the Irish Parliament did not concur in enacting.

I fhall here close my examination of this topick; with an extract from your speech, and a few animadverfions, for which it feems to call.

You tell us that "finality was not only a part "of the fettlement of 1782, but one of its prin

66

66

cipal objects. Finality was the principal object

of Great Britain; as legiflative independency "wasthe object of our country. Ireland wifhed "to feize the moment of her ftrength, for the "establishment of her liberties: the court of Eng"land wifhed to conclude the operations of that Strength, and bound its progress. The one

68

66

country wifhed to establish her liberty: the "other to check the growth of demand. The court "of England therefore came to an agreement with "this country, viz. to establish for ever a free "and independent exiftence of the Irish Parlia

ઃઃ

ment, and to preferve for ever the unity of the

British empire:" the "connexion" between the "countries to be thenceforward" founded on "the eternal principle of unity of empire, and feparation of Parliament."

66

I fhall

I fhall not stop to enquire whether the separa tion of their Parliaments be a wife, (it certainly is not an obvious,) bafis, on which to found the connexion of two countries; but fhall proceed at once to those more weighty confiderations, which are fuggefted by the paffage that I have cited from your speech. your fpeech. This extract I look upon to be pregnant with implications, highly deferving of attention; and to illuftrate ftrongly the profound remark of Lord Minto, that the independ ence, which we gained in 1782, was a tranfitory, not a permanent state of things; which, if it were not followed by Union, would lead to separation.

ઃઃ

Finality you pronounce to have been the grand object of Great Britain. She granted us the independence which we required: but, apprehenfive that our claims might not terminate at this point, she wifhed to check the further growth of demand." Let me afk, what is the plain tendency of this infinuation? Having acquired independence, what demand remained, the expectation of which might excite terror in Great Britain, unless it were the demand of total feparation? But, obvious as the inference from your statement may be, you do not impofe upon us the trouble of collecting it you put the matter more unequivocally, and directly, by saying that after England had granted us independence, fhe still deemed it neceffary" to bound the progrefs, and conclude the "operations of our ftrength." The " phyfical confequence" of Ireland, according to this doctrine, had extorted independence from the fifter

66

country; but in atchieving this, our patriots had by no means gained their end: they had only made fome progrefs to the point propofed: they were still in full, and formidable march,-when England, alarmed at the direction which they were taking, and the ftrong pofition which they had gained, thought it high time to check their career, "and" "conclude the operations of their strength." "The "court of England therefore came to an agree"ment with this country:" they came to a treaty, by which our patriots confented to ftop their progrefs, and difband their forces, on being permitted to garrifon a frontier poft called Independence, which lay directly in their road, and which they looked on as the key to their promised land of feparation.

Sir, this is not my account of the adjustment of 1782; and I afk your pardon if I have mifinterpreted you, in fuppofing it yours the extract on which I have commented is before our readers; who have it in their power, from a more accurate analyfis of its import, or an illustrative reference to your public conduct, to do you juf-, tice, and correct my mifconftruction.

But, if any man took the view of Irish independence, which I may have been very erroneoufly attributing to you, I fhould use his picture, as a strong argument for Union. I fhould fay to every loyal friend to British connexion, here is a person, who was party to the transaction of 1782, who may be prefumed to know the end at which the energetick Irish aimed, and the efficacy of the

nieans