duct of the duke of Portland since had shown, that he had considered it in this light.

Mr. Sheridan said, that the right hon. gentleman was offended with the comparison to the conduct of France with regard to Switzerland; but in the odium of that comparison, he begged leave to share with his hon. friend, for, in principle, the conduct of the right hon. gentleman was the same as the most Jacobinical proceeding of the Directory. He was not awed by the sounding eloquence of the right hon.

he acted as secretary to the duke of Portland, it could not be supposed that, after a period of sixteen years, he could be able to speak with accuracy to their contents; but this he could assert, that the objects which the duke at that period had in view (as far as he was acquainted with them) did not relate to any imperial constitutional points. The appointment of commissioners was in agitation, but the arrangements to be considered were not such as the right hon. gentleman had suggested. This much he could state with certainty, that, in the Irish House of Com-gentleman, as he had so often found, that mons, he had said, in answer to Mr. Flood, that it was not in the contemplation of the government to bring forward any thing to affect the final settlement which had been made, or to touch on any constitutional points; and this declaration was made on the arrival of the news of the resolution of this House, which had been insisted upon. It was to be recollected too, that the duke of Portland had been but two months in Ireland in an official situation, his longer stay having been occasioned by a fall from his horse, after he had ceased to have any share in government. It was true that the mode of appointing commissioners for treating of the points in view, was once thought of by the duke, but it was afterwards abandoned, as it was conceived that the business might be done without commissioners.

Mr. Tierney said, he had met with an authentic document of the understanding on the business in Ireland in 1782. It was the address of the House of Commons on the resolutions in question. That address was moved by Mr. Grattan, and one clause of it stated, that in consequence of what had been done, no constitutional question could now arise to interrupt the harmony between the two countries. The debate arose on this clause; it was suggested by the recorder of Dublin, that actual recognition, instead of mere repeal of the 6th George 1st, was necessary. He found, in the same authentic record, the speech of his right hon. friend, general Fitzpatrick, on this occasion. That speech stated his right hon. friend to have said, that if the final adjustment was not considered as having settled the whole question, he had no hopes that it ever would be settled. The House divided for the clause, and there was for it 210, and against it only the two tellers. It was to be presumed, then, that the business was considered as settled, and the con

in proportion as his argument was weak, he endeavoured to cover its defects by lofty words. What was the case? Were a French declaimer, with a hundredth part of the right hon. gentleman's powers, to review the history of Ireland, might he not plausibly represent, that after two hundred years of oppression, the independence of Ireland was at last recognized in 1782; that under the advice of British ministers, its affairs had been so conducted, that in sixteen years it was left in such a condition as to be unable to protect itself either against foreign force or domestic disaffection; the minister then sends 40,000 troops to her aid, which she receives with gratitude, till at last Ireland is told that she must incorporate with Great Britain? Would not this be represented as a fraud, to abuse the weakness of Ireland for the destruction of her independence? It was said, indeed, that no force was to be used, that her free consent would be required. This country, however, was to claim the privilege of judging when Ireland was free to judge for herself; she was to be considered as mad and intoxicated till she acceded to the proposition which we resolve is necessary for her interests. In principle, this was the same as the conduct of France, so much reprobated. It was nothing to say that it was for the good of Ireland, if that good was thrust upon her by compulsion. Intimidation of every kind was used to effect the object. Every placeman who dared to vote according to his own judgment, was deprived of his place. When such motives were addressed to men's minds, to induce them to submit to the views of the minister, it was a mockery to say that no corruption and intimidation were used. An hon. gentleman took offence at the supposition of a mercenary support; but without ascribing motives to the conduct of members of parliament, it

from which this country could be attacked.-To return to the subject then: To the fatal policy which dictated the recall of earl Fitzwilliam, was to be attri

been distracted. Those who advised that fatal step were responsible for its consequences. The retraction of that concession which earl Fitzwilliam was authorized to support, had prepared the Catholics for the share they had taken in the late disturbances. Ministers had been challenged by the noble earl to deny that he went over with conciliation to the Catholics as a leading object of his policy. It was said, that the emancipation of the Catholics was not the object of the conspiration; but could it be denied that the discontent of the Catholics was the instrument by which the conspirators promoted their own purposes?

so happened, that many of those who joined the minister for the support of the war, had got their job, their place, or pension. In reply to what was said of the mischievous consequences of retract-buted the calamities by which Ireland had ing the pledge given to the Catholics in Ireland, allusion had been made to the confessions of the conspirators in that country, and of a person in particular, described as his friend, and a reference to the testimonies at Maidstone. He had seen many attempts made out of doors, to implicate those who gave evidence at Maidstone in the guilt of Mr. O'Connor. Had those, who are supposed to influence the ministerial press, been distinguished by the least candour, they would have drawn a quite different inference from that occurrence from that which they had laboured to enforce. It was evident from the very paper, a connexion with which was the guilt imputed to Mr. O'Connor at The Solicitor General said, that the Maidstone, that the persons who gave hon. gentleman seemed to labour under a evidence to his character, were those least mistake as to the nature of the case at likely to favour the designs of France, and Maidstone. Certainly, if the jury had who had the least to expect, had their known that Mr. O'Connor was the traitor projects succeeded. It proved, that there he confessed himself to be, they would was one spirit and one feeling in the have found him guilty. There was no country to resist the attempts of the such distinction as the hon. gentlemen enemy. Such was the comment which had reasoned upon. Every Irishman was that event naturally suggested; but a in the eye of law an Englishman, and quite different construction had been stu- vice versa; nor would the nature of the diously given to it. He should confine crime of treason be in any degree affected himself to the evidence he himself had to which ever of the two countries a pergiven on O'Connor's trial. He did not son under trial belonged. With respect retract that evidence, and he called upon to the argument respecting the final ada learned gentleman who had been pre-justment of 1782, he thought it to sent at the trial, to point out any inconsistency in his conduct. He knew that Mr. O'Connor always spoke in strong terms of any interference of foreign force in the affairs of England, and his mind seemed so much impressed with the superior grievances of Ireland, that he would not admit that, on the comparison, Eng-mercial propositions. land had any cause whatever to complain. He might have differed from Mr. O'Connor respecting the remedy that was to be applied to the situation of Ireland; but upon that point he was not called upon to say any thing. Mr. O'Connor never had made him his confidant. He knew too well his opinion respecting foreign interference, to give any reason to suppose, that it was a thing which O'Connor could encourage. With respect to the provocation of Ireland to pursue any particular mode of resistance, he should say nothing; it was enough to say, that he never could permit Ireland to be seized on as a post

be chiefly a dispute about words. From the nature of the transaction it could not be complete and final; and at the time, there was a general belief that it would be followed up by something farther. This was particularly stated in the Manchester petition at the time of the com

Mr. Perceval said:-The hon. gentleman professes not to understand what we on this side of the House can gain by talking of the final adjustment. He will, however, recollect, that it did not come from us. The hon. gentleman himself brought it forward: he quoted the Journals in opposition to the measure, and accused us of acting contrary to our engagements with the Irish parliament. If the hon. gentleman thinks that nothing is gained by refuting an argument of his own, I am indeed willing to admit that nothing was gained by this discussion on the final adjustment; but he should also

curity and benefit which they derive from Great Britain, you leave them no liberty of choice nor option. The result of this argument is, that if you can multiply the advantages which Ireland enjoys from her

recollect, that this was his chief argument. | a foreign enemy, and from the general seAnother point, I think, is to be gained by it, which is, that those who were favourable to that measure are pledged to this, or something of the same kind, as it was admitted at the time that something in addition to that measure was then neces-relation to England, you destroy their sary to be done. In applying this to the present case, we contend that the necessity of adopting this farther remedy is more urgent at present.-An hon. gentleman has brought forward an address voted by the Irish House of Commons, which he conceived to be unanswerable. I do not, however, agree in this. His majesty requires by a message to know what are the grievances of which Ireland complains. They state that they require an independent legislature. Upon this being granted to them, they say that their constitutional grievances are at an end; but they do not mean that there may be no imperial grievances. If there was so great a majority in the Irish House of Commons on the address in which the passage which he has quoted occurs, it is rather extraordinary that in the following year there should be so great a majority requiring a renunciation on the part of Great Britain of her power. It is absurd to say, that the one was final and conclusive, while immediately afterwards they require something more final and more conclusive. Perhaps we may be inclined to infer from this proceeding that the first impression which the parliament of Ireland entertain upon a subject is not always the most lasting, but that they sometimes change their opinions--The hon. gentleman adverts to the time when this measure is brought forward, and says, "the period when you have chosen to propose this union, is, when you can most insult the parliament of Ireland by it; you bring it forward when they cannot reject it. Yet one of the arguments of the hon. gentleman is, that they will reject it. Such, he says, is the force in Ireland, that the parliament of that country cannot enter on the discussion of the subject with any degree of freedom. "You have," he says, " 40,000 men in arms in that country;" but it is not to any effect of this body of men in overawing the parliament of Ireland that he objects, but he says, by withdrawing this force you would expose them to the danger of ruin. Thus, by withdrawing the advantages which they enjoy from the connexion with Great Britain, from the danger to which Ireland is exposed from

free judgment; and the inference is therefore, that you should wait for a time when Ireland shall reap less advantages, and when she can examine the merits and demerits of the measure in a more unbiassed manner. The hon. gentleman deprecates the discussion of the measure as a means of irritating the minds of the Irish people. I am sorry that throughout the whole of the debate, he has not attended to this circumstance. If he had, he would not have employed the similies which he has done, nor would he have asserted, that the conduct of this country towards Ireland was like that of France towards Switzerland. It has been asked, what can be gained by the discussion of the measure in this House after it has been rejected in Ireland? It is impossible, however, with justice to those in Ireland who have come forward in favour of it, to abandon it here. One of the arguments against the union was, that it would be a violation of the pledge of independence which had been formerly given. Why then, if the House does not give government an opportunity of recording its sentiments, this imputation may continue for ever: in fact, no such idea exists; there is no intention of compelling or coercing the parliament of Ireland, but of submitting to their free opinion what is for the advantage of their country. Another benefit is to be derived from the discussion of the measure in this House, which is, that the objections against the competence of parliament to the discussion may be examined. However these arguments may have been urged on the other side of the water, there is not a man in this House who has distinctly asserted that parliament is incompetent to the discussion. The hon. gentleman who deprecated the discussion, but who entered on it, and who left it to be refuted by the other side, was most desirous that it should be understood that he did not support the proposition. It would be in vain to go into an argument on a subject on which no advocate has been found to assert it as his own opinion. It is possible that a very considerable effect may be produced in Ireland by the

discussion of this subject, when it is seen | be construed into an adoption or sanction that this objection which is considered as most strong in Ireland, has not found above three or four advocates here; that the parliament of England, as jealous of the rights of the people as that of Ireland, has suffered the discussion to go on without objections-a discussion which is absolutely indispensable, and which if it were not now to take place, it would be impossible ever again to bring for ward.

Mr. Sheridan did not deny the competence of the English parliament to accept the surrender, but of the Irish parliament to make it.

of that doctrine. But he had met with two positive and explicit declarations against the competency of the Irish parliament, personally made by two men also of great celebrity in that country, and indeed, he believed over all Europe; the one, Mr. Lewins, now the accredited ambassador from the fraternity of united Irishmen to the French republic; the other Dr. M'Nevin, late one of the Irish directory. That fraternity had, from its first institution in 1791, been alarmed at the idea that a union between the kingdoms might defeat their projects. In 1795, at a meeting held 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, the apprehension of a 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." Dr. M'Nevin, the ex-director, in the same assembly had in a loftier style, expressed himself thus:

Mr. Sylvester Douglas said, he should not have risen at present, had it not been for what had just fallen from Mr. Sheridan, and which was a repetition of a doctrine the same gentleman had advanced in a former debate when he had contended, that the English parliament, in 1706, might have a right to accept the surrender of the legislative dominion of Scotland, and yet the Scotch parliament have been incompetent to surrender its authority to that of the greater country; and from thence he had argued, that the reasoning by which on one side of the House it had been maintained, that if the competency of the Irish parliament was denied, it" Parliament is incompetent to such an would follow, that the union with Scotland was illegal, the present and all other British parliaments usurpers, and every act of parliament since that time a nullity, was fallacious and ill-founded: but that the point now was, not whether the British parliament could receive, but whether the Irish parliament had any right to make the sort of surrender proposed, to Great Britain. In this view of the subject, it was important that the House should be apprized of the opinions in Ireland on this point. He would state to the House some particulars on the subject. He had undoubtedly read various addresses and resolutions of certain public meetings in Ireland, in which this doctrine of the incompetency of that parlia-rity of that estate of the Irish parliament, ment was asserted; the names of those who had come to those resolutions did not appear, but several of them had been communicated to two distinguished persons in that country, Mr. Foster, and sir John Parnell: but having read, with great attention, the several answers of those gentlemen, he had been happy to observe, that they had avoided any thing which could in the most distant manner I

act of national suicide. Can the creature of the people, with parricidal arm, destroy the author of its existence? The attempt would be high treason against the nation, and put it out of the protection of society." He quoted these words from what had been printed as "The authentic Statement of the Proceedings of a Meeting held in Francis-street Chapel, 9th April, 1795." He would now state, who were such enemies to both countries, traitors to the king and the people, parricides who were not entitled to the protection of society. The persons, among others, on whom those loyal subjects, the ambassador Lewins, and the director M Nevin, had passed this judgment, were a great majo

whose exclusive privilege and function it is, in the last resort, to expound and declare the law of the land; and, in that majority were to be found the four heads of the jurisprudence and supreme tribunals of the kingdom,-lord Clare; the high chancellor of Ireland, whose great talents were acknowledged by all men: lord Yelverton, the lord chief baron, eminent for his learning and patriotism,