end he was passed by and neglected by them. On the whole, his case affords a striking instance how hazardous and unwise it is for any Irishman, Whig or Tory, Protestant or Catholic, to embark his fame and fortunes with any other party except that of his country. Had this

man lived and died the Saurin of 1800, the entire nation would have joined to inscribe on his tomb an epitaph that would have rendered his name immortal!

On the 27th of February, the subject of the Union was again debated in Committee, when Mr. Foster made another admirable speech; he entered at considerable length into the entire question, the disgrace the Peerage were to undergo; the small number of representatives from Ireland in comparison with the number from England and Scotland; he entered on the religious part of the question, and did justice to the Catholics. It was unfortunate that his mind had not expanded itself at an earlier period.

Is the Irish Parliament to be so degraded, that it cannot discuss every question of Irish concern, and that a distant Parliament sitting in a distant land, is more adequate to it, or will give more content by its decision?No, sir, we are not so lost to all duty, to all love of our country, to all integrity, that we are not to be trusted with the concerns of Ireland.

I will tell the Right Hon. Gentleman, why I do not join that question with the Union. The Union seeks to take away our Parliament, our freedom, and our prosperity; the Catholic is equally a native of Ireland, equally bound by duty, by inclination to his country; he sees with us the danger of the attack, and joins with the Protestant to prevent its approach, and save the constitution; he is wise in doing so-all differences are lost, they are asleep in this common cause, he joins heart to heart with his fellow-subjects, to oppose the common enemy, this damnable, destructive, and I had almost said, deceitful measure; if I were to ransack every dictionary in the

English language, I could not find words strong enough to express my abhorrence of the plan, or my dread of its fatal consequences.

You talk of its restoring tranquillity-it is but talkwill taking men of property out of the country do it? will a plan full of the seeds of jealousy and discontent effect it? Will depriving a nation of the liberty which it has acquired, and to which it is devoted, ensure content?-If religious jealousies disturb its quiet, are they to be allayed by a British Parliament?—No, sir, leave our own concerns to our own Parliament, we are equal to their management-and we will not yield in wisdom, liberality, patriotism, or firmness, to any Parliament that can sit in Britain, formed on new speculations, unknown to the Constitution.

But I ask, if those jealousies have disturbed our quiet, who roused them? I answer, that bench!-not the noble lord, but those who then sat on that bench-British, not Irish councils, roused them! and British, not Irish councils, now propose this Union.

Let us look back to 1782-Irish spirit and British liberality removed all jealousies at that period: not one has occurred since between the kingdoms, and British councils now come forward to undo the measures of 1782 -to rouse, by this ill-timed project, public apprehension, and to put us into the situation we were in before that period, when continued jealousies retarded our prosperity, and distracted our tranquillity.

Review the whole measure; it leaves to us every appendage of a kingdom, except what constitutes the essence of independence, a resident Parliament-separate state, separate establishment, separate exchequer, separate debt, separate courts, separate laws, the lord lieutenant, and the castle, all remain; we shall become a colony on the worst of terms, paying a settled system of contribution, to be levied by laws not of our own making-and what are the benefits in return? None pretended, except in trade and revenue, which I have shown you to be the reverse of benefits but if they were ever so great, I would spurn the offer, to be purchased by our liberty; neither revenue or trade will remain where the spirit of liberty ceases to be their foundation, and nothing can prosper in a state which gives up its freedom.-I declare most solemnly, that if England could give us all her

revenue and all her trade, I would not barter for them the free constitution of my country. Our wealth, our properties, our personal exertions are all devoted to her support-our freedom is our inheritance, and with it we cannot barter.

Mr. Foster was the son of the Chief Baron of. the Exchequer-he was educated in Ireland, and called to the Bar in 1766, but soon left it for politics. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1785, and on the resignation of Mr. Pery in 1786, was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons. Notwithstanding some blemishes in his public character, he was endowed with many excellent qualities-his measures in support of the Corn Trade of Ireland* were good, he followed in this respect the track of Lord Pery, and was of great utility to his country; his care and personal attention to the Linen and Cotton manufactures were highly serviceable to the people, and redounded greatly to his credit. He had surprising knowledge of the resources of Ireland, her trade, her com

merce, and her capabilities. His design in proposing the original commercial propositions in 1785 was excellent; he forbore to urge those that were so faithlessly sent from England, and acted a wise and judicious part. He was an Irishman, though too much of a courtier, and too little inclined to the people; his commencement in Ireland was bad, but his conclusion was good. At his outset he supported a perpetual Mutiny Bill-opposed Free Trade in 1779, and opposed Independence in 1781, these however were times when England was all dominant, and few men dared to speak or even think for their country; but his fatal error was hostility to

* In 1770, Ireland could not supply her people with bread, but these measures of Mr. Pery and Mr. Foster enabled her not only to feed them, but to export in large quantities.

the Catholics-on this question he discovered his mistake too late, and in 1800 he found at last how vain it was to contend for the freedom of a country without the aid of all her people. When Speaker of the Lower House he abridged the privileges of the Commons, limiting the space usually allotted to them in the gallery of the House, and appropriating it to the attendants of the Court, and here he acted in a partial and arbitrary as well as an unconstitutional manner. In 1795, at the time of Lord Fitzwilliam's short administration, he was sent for by the advisers of the Whig party, and was consulted by them in preference to Mr. Beresford; the reason was that Foster was an Irishman attached to Ireland, though usually supporting Government, but Mr. Beresford was an English slave, though in private he was an honourable man. Foster was at no period ever popular, and his conduct in '98 was abominably bad, but at the Union he redeemed himself; his arguments on that subject were excellent and unanswerable, and it was a fortunate circumstance for Ireland that he was friendly to her at that crisis, as a speech from him against her would have been highly prejudicial to her interests. He did not possess any eloquence, but had a calm delivery-his manner was neither impassioned nor vehement, but he was accurate and firm; his argument was generally able, his positions well arranged, close, and regular; his knowledge of the financial affairs of Ireland was extensive, and his speeches on her trade and commerce at the time of the Union were unrivalled and never answered.

He received little attention from Mr. Pitt after the Union, and was not regarded by him; the latter remembered that Mr. Foster called his speech on that subject a paltry production, and

his knowledge of finance was designedly disparaged in England; he was, however, created Chancellor of the Exchequer for Ireland, on the retirement of Mr. Corry, and supported the Corn Bill in 1815, with a view to promote the agriculture of Ireland. On the whole he was a remarkable Irishman, and so long as Ireland need refer to the History of the Union for proof that it was neither a gain nor a compact her advocates will consult Mr. Foster's speeches.

Notwithstanding the majorities that had been procured, Government appear to have entertained some apprehensions as to their final success; the letter of the Lord Lieutenant to his friend and successor in India, reveals his opinion as to the "cold and languid" character of his party contrasted with the zeal and activity of the otherswhen the letter has been read it shall be characterized as it deserves.

*

*

THE MARQUIS OF CORNWALLIS TO LORD MORNINGTON. Dublin Castle, 2nd March, 1800. Your Correspondents in England will probably tell you that every thing is going on well in Ireland, and that the Union will be carried with ease, but believe me the task will turn out more difficult than they imagine, and although I trust that we shall ultimately succeed; it will be after a long and violent contest, the leaders of the Opposition are able, and their followers are animated with that zeal which vanity, prejudice, and self-interest naturally inspire. Mr. Grattan has come forward; their cause is espoused in distant parts of the kingdom by the lower class, who looked on with indifference as long as faction was untainted by disloyalty. We have a majority of between forty and fifty, scarcely any of whom will I believe desert from us-but they are in general cold and languid friends—and it is very difficult to procure such an attendance as the importance of the case and the activity and unfair dealing of the enemy render necessary for our daily security. CORNWALLIS.