empire; but, at the expiration of that time, her proportion might be indefinitely increased, as she would then be taxed at the discretion of the united parliament. If she should obtain considerable relief, however, in point of finance, would she put such benefits in opposition to her liberties, or barter her independence for pecuniary gratifications?

On the subject of commerce, he contended, that the boasted encouragement given by England to the linen trade of Ireland could not be deemed an act of great liberality, as the Irish derived it from the surrender of their woollen manufacture, and from the consideration of mutual benefit; that the promised advantages did not require the accompaniment of an union; and that the menace of commercial hostility, consequent on the rejection of the offer, would be more injurious to England than to Ireland.

On the ecclesiastical establishment, the reasoning of the noble lord was somewhat extraordinary,' as he had spoken of the pleasure and advantage which the Irish would derive from finding their church the same with that of England. Is not that the case at present? Mr. Ponsonby asked- I can see no difference between the churches, except in the test law. But it seems that sameness is nothing without identity-an identity which will leave us no Irish church, and will transform our Irish into English bishops. Will the catholics be gratified by this identity, or will it make the various descriptions of protestant dissenters more satisfied ?'

The idea of sending four prelates by rotation to the imperial legislature appeared to him to be ridiculous; and the other parts of the new scheme of parliamentary representation seemed more absurd than judicious, more

disgraceful

disgraceful than honorable. The promise of making compensation to individuals for the close boroughs which would cease to send members to parliament, he stigmatised as an avowal of the existence of a profligate system, invasive of the constitutional rights of the people. Such a declaration tended to invalidate the competency of parliament, by proving the extent of that influence which prevented the house of commons from speaking the sense of the people. • What a comprehensive system of corruption!' he exclaimedthe peers are to be purchased with a life privilege-the bishops are to be rotated, that the minister may have all the influence of the church-and two-thirds of the commons are declared to be a mere purchaseable commodity!'

He then summed up the effects of the union in these terms. Your peerage is to be disgraced-your commons. purchased-no additional advantage in commerce---for twenty years a little saving in contribution-but, if the cabinet of England think that we contribute more than we should, why not correct that extravagance now? If any thing should be conceded in the way of trade, why is it not conceded now? Are any of those benefits incompatible with our present state? No-but the minister wants to carry his union; and no favor, however trifling, can be yielded to us, unless we are willing to purchase it with the existence of parliament and the liberties of the country.'

A short speech of censure from sir John Parnell was succeeded by a long one from Mr. DOBBS, who, after a detail of the proceedings of 1782, in which he labored to establish the finality of the settlement, deprecated an union as not merely disadvantageous but ruinous to Ireland. If the treaty should stipulate every advantage to

Ireland

Ireland that she could desire, he declared that he would reject it, because there would be no security for its observance. From the instant of its enactment, the Irish would be under the absolute power of a British minister and a British parliament. Their representatives would become the devoted followers of the minister, and in return would be rewarded with the patronage of their country. They would be at once the bane of Ireland, and the ready instruments in the hands of the premier to destroy the little which he had left of the English constitution. The emigration of the nobles and gentry would entail poverty on the country; industry would be checked, and the moral improvement of the people prevented or retarded; the attachment of the tenants to their landlords would decline; and such discontent would arise, as might induce the government to establish martial law for the restraint of sedition. Dreading these effects, he earnestly exhorted the minister to banish the odious scheme from his mind, and solemnly besought the Almighty to enlighten the understandings and touch the hearts of those who were prejudiced in its favor. He at length consoled himself with reflecting, that it could never pass into an operative law. The fate of nations,' he said, is not in the hands of man. It is not the will of a British minister that can rob Ireland of her newly-acquired rights. I proclaim it to the two nations, that the independence of Ireland is written in the immutable records of heaven.'

Colonel Vereker termed the union a most detestable and ruinous measure; Mr. Lee and Mr. Ogle condemned it with less acrimony; sir John Blaquiere renewed his efforts in its defence; Mr. Martin and Mr. Ormsby were also its strenuous advocates.

Mr. JOHN CLAUDIUS BERESFORD denied that the

greater

greater part of the property in the kingdom favored the union. Such a conclusion could not be drawn from the addresses which had been presented, while so many petitions proved the contrary. On the subject of the letters missive, he said, that he saw nothing very strange in such endeavours to procure the real sense of the country, when so many extraordinary means had been used to procure an apparent one.' With regard to the inconveniences which were apprehended from political differences between the parliaments, he observed, that some might be felt by England, but none by Ireland. The people did not wish to part with the legitimate guardians of their dearest rights and interests, for the sake of remedying a few inconveniences which England might suffer from the independence of the Irish parliament. Ireland had been described as a colony; but it was better that it should have the appearance of a colony, and enjoy its present freedom, than that, under the form of an united kingdom, it should suffer all the inconveniences of a colony. It was said, that all jealousies would be extinguished by the union; but this he did not believe; for England had sometimes treated the Scots, since the coalition of the British kingdoms, with commercial illiberality.-After some inconclusive objections to the financial statements of the secretary, he spoke of the affairs of the church. He admitted, that the establishment would be endangered by the emancipation of the catholics while Ireland should continue to have a separate parliament; but, in the event of an union, he said, he would promote the grant of the concessions which they desired.

Mr. BURROWES declared, that his opposition to the progress of the measure did not arise from the peculiar

demerit

6

demerit of the plan now developed, but from his un-. willingness to surrender the constitution of the realm upon any terms whatever, or to transfer the supreme power of the state to a country divided from Ireland by boundaries which could not be removed, and by feelings which could not be extinguished. If an union should pass,' he said, as an Irishman I shall be indifferent how many or how few deputies shall be sent from this emasculated country. As long as the parliament legislating for Ireland shall exist in the bosom of a distinct country, as long as a rival feeling shall actuate the heart of that country-that is, as long as the heart of man shall beat-this nation, deprived of its domestic parliament, will be the prostrate victim of British prejudice and oppression. This is sound theory; this is true history.' He was fully sensible, he added, of the value of British connexion; but he was convinced that it was compatible with Irish independence; and, as long as he should exist, he would defend those inestimable co-operating blessings with equal energy: no projecting jacobin, or projecting minister, should ever compel him to make a rash choice between them.

To the allegation, that the settlement of 1782 was not intended to preclude a reform or improvement of the Hibernian constitution, but was merely final in the abolition of British supremacy, he replied, that the present measure would be contrary to the idea of reform, as it would thwart the only view of those senators by whom a reform had ever been proposed, by rendering that house much less accessible to popular influence and sympathy; nd that it would establish British supremacy in a more proud and uncontrolled state. Even the constitution which the Irish enjoyed