« PreviousContinue »
members for Dublin and Cork, and for the thirty-two counties of Ireland, should represent the same cities and shires in that parliament; that the written names of the members for the college of the Holy Trinity, for the cities of Waterford and Limerick, and the other towns before-mentioned, should be put into a glass, and successively drawn out by the clerk of the crown; and that, of the two representatives of each of those places, the individual whose name should be first drawn should serve for the same place in the first united legislature; and that, when a new parliament should be convoked, writs should be sent to the Irish counties, to the university, and to the cities and boroughs above specified, for the election of members in the usual mode, according to the number now adjusted. With reference to the peers, the act provided, that the primate of all Ireland should sit in the first session of the combined parliament, the archbishops of Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, in the second, third, and fourth; that the bishops of Meath, Kildare, and London-Derry, should take the first turn—the prelates of Raphoe, Limerick, and Dromore, should next sit—those of Elphin, Down, and Waterford, should have the next turn—those of Leighlin, Cloyne, and Cork, should follow—then those of Killaloe, Kilmore, and Clogher, and, lastly, those of Ossory, Killalla, and Clonfert; that the same order should then recommence, and continue for ever; and that, for the election of the twentyeight temporal peers, each of the Irish nobility should prepare a list of twenty-eight of his brethren, and those who should have a majority of votes in such lists should
be peers of parliament for life. The resolutions which had been sent back from England were referred by the commons to a private committee: committee: a report was soon presented and examined; and, when sir Laurence Parsons had in vain moved for a consideration of the articles in a general committee, all the alterations were adopted. The peers, without delay, followed the example of the commons. The countervailing duties were then adjusted; the resolutions were formed into a bill; and lord Castlereagh, on the 21st of May, requested permission to produce it. Major Osborne, on this occasion, declared that he would continue to oppose the union as an unnecessary and pernicious measure; Mr. Holmes supported it not only as salutary, but as absolutely necessary for the security of Ireland; Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Ogle again assailed it. A long speech from Mr. Ball, warm, declamatory, and seasoned with personalities, gratified the members of opposition, and displayed talents which both parties admired, though it was pronounced by sir Henry Cavendish to be utterly destitute of argument. Mr. Latouche, Mr. Martin, and Dr. Browne, declared their conviction of the beneficial tendency of the measure, which, on the other hand, was condemned by sir Laurence Parsons and Mr. Goold on what they deemed strong and satisfactory grounds. On a division, the votes for the production of the bill were 160 against Ioo: the bill was immediately presented, read pro formá, and ordered to be printed. On the 26th, it was again read; and a motion for its commitment followed, which produced a warm though not a very interesting debate. Mr. GRATTAN proposed a delay to the 1st of August, that it might be more fully examined, and that more correct documents might be procured as foundations of the financial and commercial articles.
He again discussed the principle of the measure. It was, e. was, he said, a breach of a solemn covenant, on whose basis the “separate, reciprocal, and conjoint power of the countries relied; an innovation promoted by the influence of martial law; an unauthorised assumption of a competency to destroy the independence of the realm; an unjustifiable attempt to injure the prosperity of the country. The bill would be, quoad the constitution, equivalent to a murder, and, quoad the government, to a separation. If it should be carried into effect, he pretended to foretell its want of permanence, and intimated his apprehensions that popular discontent, perhaps dangerous commotions, might result from its enforcement. . Lord CAstleREAGH defended the bill, and cemsured the inflammatory language of the orator who had condemned it. He called in question the patriotism of those who took every opportunity of inflaming the public mind against a settlement which was on the eve of conclusion; but, whatever might be their views, and however strong might be their allusions to rebellion, or their alarms of prophetic treason, he had no doubt of the energy and ability of the government to defend the constitution against every attack. Sir John Parnell denied that a traitorous spirit could be justly imputed to the anti-unionists, and pronounced the remark to be applicable to those who wished to subvert the constitution on pretence of an union. Strong speeches followed on the same side from Mr. O'Donel, Mr. Plunket, and Mr. Burrowes; while Mr. May defended with warmth the proceedings of the court. Mr. Grattan replied with asperity to the insinuations of lord Castlereagh, who rejoined in a tone of moderation. When the house had divided on the motion for delay, 2 K with with a majority of 37 for the ministry, there was a renewal of debate, which terminated in the appointment of an early day for the commitment of the bill. The time was afterwards extended; and, in the interval, both houses agreed to the report of the countervailing duties, as sanctioned by the British parliament. On the 5th of June, the bill of union passed through the committee with few remarks, and with little alteration. At the next meeting, lord Corry moved a long address to his majesty against the completion of the bill. Mr. Saurin seconded the motion, and repeated his objections to the union, because he thought they had not been answered or refuted. The attorney-general labored to expose the fallacy of the barrister's arguments; and when Mr. Egan, Mr. J. C. Beresford, and Mr. Goold, had supported the address without the least novelty of reasoning, it was exploded. by a majority of 58. By a plurality of 65 votes, the report was ordered to be read. An amendment proposed by Mr. O'Donel, of which we have not learned the exact import, excited a flame in the house, and was therefore withdrawn. When the same member, on the 7th, moved for a postponement of the third reading of the bill, a warm debate arose, in which the most striking (we will not add, the most judicious) speech was that of Mr. Dobbs. This gentleman, affecting to expound some of the scriptural prophecies, represented the divided and convulsed state of Europe as the accomplishment of one of Daniel’s predictions, spoke of the condition of the Jews as another instance of the completion of prophecy, declared his confident expectation of the speedy arrival of the Messiah on earth, and, in a strain of visionary extravagance, argued that Ireland was the country in which our Saviour would would make his first appearance as a temporal prince, the sovereign of all the kings of the world. Entertaining these ideas, he was not alarmed at the progress of a bill which he detested, as he was convinced that it would never be operative. Many of the anti-unionists retired from the house, that they might not witness the unpleasing ceremony of passing the bill. On the 9th, the proposal of an address of both houses to the king, in confirmation of the countervailing duties, furnished Mr. Dawson, lord. Maxwell, and other gentlemen, with an opportunity of declaring, that, as soon as the bill should become a law, they would give it that support to which it would be entitled by such enactment, but which it did not deserve by its intrinsic merits. The bill was immediately delivered to the house of peers by lord Castlereagh, but the consideration of it was postponed. On its second reading, the earls of Farnham and Bellamont strongly objected to it; and the former offered a clause, tending to annul the proportion assigned for the financial contributions of Ireland, and to leave the taxation of that country to the discretion of the imperial parliament. This clause was not adopted; and a majority of 59 appeared for the commitment of the bill. Having passed through that stage without amendment, it was reported in due form ; and, after an uninteresting debate, it was sanctioned on the 13th by a majority of 52. A protest against it, not marked by strength or ability, was signed by the duke of Leinster and other peers, condemning the rashness of that minister, who, in critical times, ‘hazarded the experiment of annihilating a constitution which had for so many ages maintained the connexion between Great-Britain and Ireland;’ and 2 K 2 affirming,