corporated; but I see no moral possibility of the application of its absolute authority to such purposes.'

He afterwards adduced the authority of Montesquieu, in support of the power of parliament, and in refutation of the idea of the necessity of appealing to the people, who, when they have deputed their representatives, are, he thinks, functi officio, till by a new election they obtain the liberty of discarding unworthy members, and appointing the friends of their country.

In treating of the principle of parliamentary competence, he affirmed, that in all governments an absolute despotic power must be inherent, as, without it, disorder and confusion would prevail. This power, according to the British system, was lodged in the king, the nobles, and the people acting by their representatives in parliament. In its own nature, it would authorise those who lawfully enjoyed it, not merely to frame new laws under the constitution, but to adapt the government to contingent events and occasional circumstances, and attend with suitable provisions the successive changes of powers and interests, manners and opinions. On this ground, the proposed union was within the reasonable compass of parliamentary authority.

If he conceived that the measure would be a surrender of national independence, he would by no means agree to it; but it would merely be an incorporation of national distinctness. Nor would he promote the scheme, if he thought that it would not ensure an identity or community of interests.

To recommend an union by example, he mentioned the leading features of that of Scotland, From his inquiries he inferred, that the prosperity of that coun

try

try had been considerably promoted by the measure; and, though some might not deem an union so requisite in the present case for preventing a separation, aş it was in the instance of Scotland, since Ireland was more dependent on Great-Britain than the northern realm was before the year 1707, he was of opinion that the late extraordinary increase of the power of France, and the propagation of Jacobinical tenets, rendered the danger of a disjunction greater than in the former case.

Adverting to the affairs of the catholics, he ar gued, that an union would improve the views and hopes of those sectaries, as their disqualifications might in that event be removed without danger to the established church; and that, even if their claims should not be allowed, they would not be injured by the measure, but would find their situation less disagreeable than at present, from the more liberal behaviour of the satisfied protestant party, and the increase of wealth and comfort produced by extension of trade.

He concluded with stating his ideas of the state of the question. It was not, he said, whether the Irish should surrender the liberties of their country, but whether an union might not so modify their constitution, as to promote prosperity and peace, while it would leave their liberties unimpaired and even secured. Other points to be determined were, whether it would not fortify that empire (now endangered) of which Ireland had long formed a part; whether it would not silence internal jealousy and dissension, bestow commercial advantages, and so closely entwine the interests of the two kingdoms, that Britain would injure herself by obstructing Irish aggrandisement; and whether a refu

sal

sal of union would not lead to a total separation, which would be followed by the subjection of Ireland to France. It was also to be considered, whether two legislatures in one empire did not tend to disunite; whether that distinct independence which might mar imperial energy could be substantial or valuable; whether the Irish were in such a situation, that some radical and tranquil change did not seem desirable; and whether Britain would not purchase, by ample concessions, the strength which she might derive from an incorporation of the kingdoms.

Mr. EGAN was not inclined to surrender his opinion to the authority of Coke or Blackstone, or any lawwho had argued for the competency of parlia yers. ment. No legislature, he said, had a right to vote its existence or the liberties of the nation, unless away it should be specially empowered by the people to make such sacrifices; or, he might rather say, the people themselves had no right to bind their posterity. He ridiculed the pretended advantages of an union, and disclaimed all desire of such benefits.

.Dr ARTHUR BROWNE affirmed, that even those writers who had forborne to state any limitations of the power of parliament did not mean to infer the absence of all limits. It was sufficient for them to make a general assertion in a point of such delicacy, leaving all exceptions to contingency and to the common sense of the reader. No public body could claim omnipotence, or challenge a right of resisting the demands of justice or violating the maxims of the constitution. On this ground, even if there were no other reasons, the union ought to be opposed.

Mr. CORRY, having complimented Mr. Smith and

censured

censured his two opponents, spoke of the settlement of 1782, and denied that the measure now proposed involved a dereliction of the points gained by Ireland at that time. The basis on which she supported the claim then allowed was the inseparable connexion between representation and legislation; and the same principle was maintained in 1785, when she resisted propositions tending to subject her, in commercial affairs, to the laws of a parliament in which she was not represented. This principle would not be violated by the adoption of the scheme of union; for the object of the measure was not, that Ireland should, unrepresented, be bound by acts of the British legislature, but that the two parliaments should form one body, in which Ireland should have a fair and constitutional representation, and her just proportion of authority.-He then argued that any amendment or vote, by which the house should declare that it would never enter into the consideration of a certain subject, would be an unconstitutional infringement of the rights of the two other branches of the legislature-of the crown, which had a right to suggest, and of the peers, who had a right of discussion.

Mr. ARTHUR MOORE expatiated on the impolicy of an union, and strongly condemned it on various grounds; as did colonel Vereker, sir John Freke, and other speakers.

A division at length took place; and on this occasion the adversaries of the court prevailed; for III members voted for the omission of the contested paragraph, and only 106 gave their suffrages for its continuance. Mr. Ponsonby now proposed an amendment similar to his former motion; but, as it was deemed unnecessary, he consented to withdraw it.

The

The public exultation rose to a great height on this defeat of the ministry. The unionists were insulted by the lower classes of the people; and the periodical prints joined in the clamor, and in expressions of joy at the abortion of the obnoxious scheme. The chief speakers of opposition obtained an extraordinary degree of popularity; their eloquence was extolled with hyperbolic praise, and their patriotic virtues were acknowleged with admiration and gratitude.

CHAP.