Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

he is allowed to have been expressly authorized to give "a handsome support on the part of government." But a change of sentiment soon occurred; and the consequences of that change were deeply to be lamented.

Having censured the impolicy of neglecting that great object, and of recalling a viceroy, who was the avowed advocate of the Catholics, Mr. Sheridan contended that his proposal would remedy much of the evil and misery, which existed in Ireland, by extinguishing religious feuds, and promoting an union of interests; that no danger would attend the adoption of it, as all fears of the prevalence of popery were groundless; and that it would increase the strength of both countries, without injuring the constitution of either. He then moved, that it should be an instruction to the committee to consider how far it would be consistent with justice and policy, and conducive to the general interests, and especially to the consolidation of the strength of the British empire, were all civil incapacities on account of religious distinctions to be done away throughout his majesty's dominions.'

Mr. Pitt objected to what he called a very extraordinary proposition. He was surprised that one, who professed himself a warm friend to the independence of the Irish parliament, should propose what would be an obvious encroachment on that independence, an act of dictation and control. The motion itself, and the declarations of the mover, were, he said, inconsistent with each other. He denied that the rebellious disturbances, in Ireland originated in any degree from the refusal of granting emancipation to the Catholics, or that Earl Fitzwilliam was authorized to hold out any hopes or make any promises which were afterwards withdrawn or retracted.

The motion was now rejected without a division; and a fresh debate arose, when Mr. Pitt moved that the Speaker should leave the chair.

Lieutenant-general Fitzpatrick, who had acted as secretary to the viceroy of Ireland (the Duke of Portland), asserted, from his own knowledge of the views of the cabinet in 1782, the constitutional finality of the compact which was then adjusted, and completed in the following year. An incorporative union, from its tendency to a subversion of that settlement, deserved in his opinion the severest censure. What security would the Irish have for the continuance of any promised advantages? How would a minority be able to enforce the execution of the terms? In every case of rivalry British superiority would overwhelm the interests of Ireland.

The honourable Mr. Dudley Ryder warmly defended the Union. Instead of violating or subverting the independence conceded in 1782, it was in itself a strong recognition of that

claim; and Ireland, after an Union, would be as independent as Great Britain. The apprehensions of a subsequent inattention to the interests of Ireland were also ill founded, as all rivalry would be lost in community of interest and mutuality of benefit.

Mr. Tierney, to prove that the settlement in question was understood to be final, referred to an address (voted on the 28th of May, 1782), in which the Irish House of Commons assured his Majesty, that'no constitutional questions between the two nations would any longer exist, which could interrupt their ' harmony.'

Mr. Dundas allowed that the independence of the Irish par liament had been completely acknowledged in 1782, but denied that this agreement could preclude its free assent to any future measure whatever, and affirmed that it was the intention of government at that time to propose new arrangements.

The Solicitor General (Sir John Mitford*), speaking of the adjustment, observed, that, from the nature of the transaction it could not be complete or final, and that the expectations of ulterior arrangement were general at the time.

The honourable Mr. Percival† concurred with the gentlemen who denied the finality of the adjustment of 1782; he represented the Union as a beneficial scheme; and exhorted the house to adopt the resolutions, that its sentiments might be recorded and fully known.

Mr. Sylvester Douglast observed, that his opinion of the competency of the parliament of Ireland to adopt an Union, was confirmed by the opinions of the chiefs of the four great tribunals in Ireland. Very few of the anti-unionists themselves ventured to dispute the point.

*Now Lord Redesdale, chancellor of Ireland.

Now solicitor-general This gentleman spoke more fully and explicitly than any other gentleman in debate upon the case of Mr. A. O'Connor's trial at Maidstone, and the nature and tendency of the evidence given by several gentlemen of the Opposition (particularly Mr. Sheridan) in his favour. He particularly animadverted upon Mr. Sheridan's assertion, that with what he then knew, he should if he were again called upon to give evidence to the character of the person in whose favour he appeared, hold the same language which he did at Maidstone, and express himself still more strongly in his favour, viz." That Arthur O'Connor was one of the most open of mankind, and "one who was least inelined to have recourse to French assistance!" Such was the character which the honourable gentleman gave of that man upon his oath. If he reflected, he would surely admit that it was an unguarded manner of giving the character of a man guilty of the most atrocious treasons; and the honourable gentleman was reduced to the dilemma of either admitting that he had been grossly mistaken in the character of O'Connor, as the most open mankind, or that he did not state the whole of what he knew upon oath. Now a peer of Ireland by the title of Lord Glenbervie.

of

These were the Earl of Clare, Chancellor; Lord Kilwarden, Chief Justice of the King's Bench; Lord Carlton, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and

[merged small][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Dr. Laurence urged against the proposal for an Union, that the people of Ireland were fond of their parliament; and their parliament was not, as it had been represented, torn by factions; the Opposition of it had done all that could be done for their country; they were, indeed, low in numbers, but not in estimation. When a lord lieutenant had been recalled because he had given his confidence to them, if in consequence of it, and of being perpetually kept out of power, Mr. Grattan took up some question in a light which he did not approve; it was only such conduct as no man not more than mortal could help adopting. Since that time he had been made the subject of much misrepresentation, when his only fault was that of sullen retirement from the senate. He then went at considerable length into most of the points connected with the subject.

On the division of the house for the speaker's leaving the chair 131 voted for it, and 19 against it. The house then resolved itself into a committee pro formi, and then adjourned.

When Mr. Douglas had taken the chair, on the 12th of February, Mr. Hobhouse suggested the propriety of abandoning all further proceedings for the present, as not only the parliament, but the whole people of Ireland appeared to be decidedly against the measure of any Union at all. And Mr. Bankes grounded his objections to an union upon the disordered state of Ireland, which rendered it not only inexpedient but unsafe to coalesce with her. An union, he said, would not remedy her evils; but her own parliament might gradually redress her grievances. That legislature ought to retrace some of its steps, and, drawing a line between the disaffected and the loyal Catholics, re-enact restrictive laws against the former, while the latter should be admitted to all the privileges now enjoyed by the Protestants. Lord Chief Baron Yelverton: who, he asserted, in preparing the bill for Le gislative Independence in 1782, made no scruple to declare, that it was in his views and his wishes, that the transactions of that day should lead to the happy measure of an Union. To those opinions the honourable gentleman contrasted some of the United Irishmen's sentiments upon the same subject (8 Parl. Reg. 37); that fraternity had from its first institution, in 1791, been alarmed at the idea, that an Union between the two kingdoms might defeat their projects. In 1795, at a meeting in Dublin, where those persons, and others of the same sort, had defamed the character of the Irish Catholics by assuming that description, when many of them were, in truth, Atheists, and of no religious persua sion, the apprehension of an Union being then strong in their minds, Mr. Lewins declared his opinion of the incompetency of the parliament to such a measure, in the following terms: "Who shall dare to assert that the Parliament of Ireland "can do this? No man but an enemy to both countries; a traitor to the King "and the People." And Dr. M'Nevin expressed himself thus: "Parliament is incompetent to such an act of national suicide. Can the creature of the "people, with parricidal arm, destroy the author of its existence? The at"tempt would be high treason against the nation, and put it out of the pro"tection of society." These opinions were quoted from "The authentic State"ment of the Proceedings of a Meeting held in Francis-street Chapel, 9th April, 1795."

British intrigue and faction ought also to be studiously checked in Ireland, as they had been productive of much evil. The proposed incorporation, he thought, would not tend to tranquillize that country.

The speaker of the House Mr. (Addington*) viewed the subject very differently from Mr. Bankes. He was convinced, from the situation of Ireland at that moment, not merely of the expediency, but of the urgent necessity of an union. Though the parliament of that kingdom might of itself redress some grievances and remove some causes of irritation, there were radical and inherent evils closely interwoven with the state and condition of Ireland, and with the temper, the feelings, and the .. prejudices of the people, for which nothing but an incorporation of the two legislatures could provide a remedy. The state of Ireland, he said, had at no period of its history been such as to afford satisfaction to any mind that could justly appreciate the blessings of a well-ordered, a flourishing, and a happy condition of civil society. The bounty of Providence had, indeed, been displayed in that country by a fertile soil, and by abundant means of internal improvement and prosperity. Its inhabitants were not less distinguished than those of Great Britain, in corresponding stations of life, for eloquence, for literary and scientific attainments, and for those talents and exertions, which had established the naval and military renown of the British empire. Their form of government was the same as our own; but it wanted its true characteristics; it did not, like ours, bestow and receive general confidence and protection; for it was not connected by ties, which he trusted were here indissoluble, with the obvious interests, the feelings and the sentiments of the great body of the people.

He was not one of those who were unwilling to remove the real grounds of complaint against the Protestant ascendancy; but he was strongly disinclined to a scheme, which might expose that establishment to immediate and perhaps inevitable danger. Indeed, the only measure which promised to secure the Protestants, and at the same time to favour the Catholics in a reasonable degree, was that of a legislative union. His opinion on this subject was 'sanctioned by great and respectable authorities,' ....by Sir Matthew Decker, Sir William Petty, Sir Josiah Child ....by Molyneux, the friend of Locke....and by many distinguished men of the present time. With the sentiments of these friends of an union he would contrast those, which were professed by Dr. Mac Nevin and the united Irishmen, whose decided repugnance to a measure that tended to the frustration of

* Now first commissioner of the Treasury and chancellor of the Exchequer.

their traitorous projects served to demonstrate its necessity. That it was calculated to avert much probable evil from both countries and to produce positive and substantial advantages to both, he could affirm without hesitation.

No consideration so forcibly impelled him to wish for an union, as his conviction of the beneficial consequences, which would result from it to the internal situation of Ireland. He had no doubt of its leading to the removal of a principal ground of animosity, by precluding that species of contest which had hitherto subsisted for political authority and power; and, among the lower orders of society, he was confident that its salutary effects would be found in that change of manners, the result of habitual industry, which would be produced by the transfer of capital from Great Britain to Ireland.

It had been said, that the measure would not produce any immediate advantage to the Catholics of Ireland; but to this assertion he could not accede. The elective franchise, bestowed on them in 1793, could hardly be considered as a boon: for the very right, with the limitation annexed to it, could not in general be exercised without some degree of violence to their opinions and their feelings, and could only be used for the purpose of contributing to form a house of commons, the whole body of which they conceived to be adverse to their interests. But the same franchise, when employed in contributing to form the representation in an united parliament, would be accompanied with the satisfactory reflection, that the individual in whose behalf it was exercised would be mixed with those, a majority of whom were uninfluenced by the prejudices, which had been imputed to the parliament and the great body of the Protestants of Ireland.

He did not deem it necessary to offer an opinion respecting the expediency of extending to the Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, in the event of an union, a more ample participation of the rights and privileges of Protestant subjects; but he quoted 2 passage from one of the speeches of Dr. Duigenan, importing, that an union would render it unnecessary to curb the Catholics by any exclusive law,

He strongly maintained the competency of the Irish parliament to adopt the measure, and reprobated the attempts to preclude the discussion of the subject, by the denomination of a final adjustment, which had been bestowed on the proceedings of the year 1782.

Of danger to the commercial interests of this country he entertained no serious apprehension. It was not true, that Britain would necessarily lose what Ireland would gain. He knew, besides, the liberality and the good sense of the merchants and manufacturers of this country.

« AnteriorContinua »