Members, who may be well paid by good offices in Ireland, and are in the habit of speculating for them, to do something to protect the independence of Parliament.

It might have been necessary to amplify on some of the above suggestions, if you had not been so well acquainted with the subject. They will suffice to explain to you my opinion, which, in great part, seems to correspond with yours.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF A UNION.

In all our reasonings on the relative conduct of States, we should never forget this maxim, that they are always guided by self-interest between different governments there is no such thing as platonic affection. Let us now, with this principle always in view, consider the past as our surest guide for the future through the labyrinth of the policy of England, as far as it has related to Ireland.

First, With respect to Religion.

At the first conquest of this country, by the unwise policy of the conquerors, the English settlers were not sent over in such numbers as to be sufficient to effect a change in the manners of the natives. The few that came over were, in a great degree, assimilated in progress of time to their barbarous associates, and degenerated at the same time in their manners and loyalty. After this period, the English settlers were kept distinct, within their own pale, and the original natives were excluded from a participation of the English law.' (Hume, ii., 158.) In such a situation, left to all their ancient ignorance and bigotry, it was impossible that the Protestant Religion could make its way among them. It appears, therefore, that England, from the time of Henry II. to the Reformation, was far from entertaining any idea of a Political Union, by one common Parliament with Ireland; that there was a line of distinction drawn even between the English settlers and the natives. James I.

It is necessary to prove this.-Note on Original Paper.

did indeed introduce many settlers into the northern parts of Ireland, the good effects of which measure have ever since been felt; still the original natives in the other parts of Ireland much outnumbered the settlers, and all their prejudices and bigotry were preserved unabated as in the former reigns.

Need we dwell on the evils that have orginated from this fatal distinction? Look to the Rebellion of 1641. (Hume, vi., 477.) "The Irish," says Mr. Hume, "everywhere intermingled with the English, needed but a hint from their leaders and priests to begin hostilities against a people whom they hated for their religion." (Hume, vi., 481.) Amidst all the enormities and horrid butcheries committed in this Rebellion, "the sacred name of Religion resounded on every side, not to stop the hands of the murderers, but to enforce their blows, and to steel their hearts against every movement of human or social sympathy." (Hume, vi., 484.)

These religious distinctions have not been discouraged by England, nor have the Clergy been stimulated to bring about the work of Reformation. Their indolence in this respect has been connived at by Government, because the division of the whole mass of the Irish people into two different sets, differing in their politics, because differing in their religion, kept them in a state of such weakness as not to alarm the British Cabinet. "Too weak," says Sir John Davis, (pp. 5, 6, 7) "to introduce order and obedience, the English authority was yet sufficient to check the growth of any enterprising genius amongst the natives; and, though it could bestow no true form of civil government, it was able to prevent the rise of any such form."

Now, consider what would be the consequence, if all cause for England's jealousy were removed, and if, instead of the Union of the Irish being a cause of terror, it should become a desirable object, as contributing more to the strength of England.

I do not pretend to say that such a Union as is now proposed was practicable in the time of Henry VIII., Elizabeth,

or even James; but, had it been then accomplished, and Ireland had become one with England, I am persuaded that we should never have known the many evils which have since befallen this unhappy country.

Secondly, Let us consider our past situation with respect to Trade.

England's jealousy of Ireland began at least so early as the reign of Elizabeth. "Should we exert ourselves," said her councillors, "in reducing this country to order and civility, it must soon acquire power, consequence, and rule. The inhabitants will be thus alienated from England; they will cast themselves into the arms of some foreign power, or perhaps erect themselves into an independent State." Such were the counsels that then made their way into the British Cabinet; and we can entertain little doubt of their having operated to the present time. King William, we know, declared, in answer to the request of the people of England, that he would take care to discourage the woollen manufacture in this country. Can we be surprised at this, when we know that it interfered with the interests of the British manufacturers?

This opposition and discouragement could not have happened, had we been one people, united in one common interest: it arose from our being considered a distinct and subordinate kingdom, having our own peculiar views and interests distinct from those of England. Make us, then, one people, having one common Parliament, and therefore having but one mind; and our trade will become as extensive and as well secured as that of any other district of England.

It is true, that all countries are not fitted for such a Union as is now proposed. They may be so remote as not to admit of speedy intercommunication; or their soil and produce may be so different as to require laws and regulations of a nature entirely different. Thus America does not seem to be fitted for Political Union with England. But none of these circumstances apply to Ireland and England. But it may be

said, that we have already obtained a Free Trade. I ask, how? It was either extorted by intimidation, or bestowed with good will. If with good will, it was pure generosity on the part of England; and therefore we need not fear a more intimate connection with a people so disinterested.

But the truth is, and we boasted of it, that we procured our Free Trade by intimidation. Now, if we so obtained it, what will secure our possession? Is the system of intimidation to be continued? Are we always to keep alive the embers of Civil War with England? And, if we do, can we be certain that the time will not occur, when they may burst out into a flame that will consume ourselves?

Thirdly, Let us consider our Navy, without which Islanders can neither secure their trade nor their liberty.

Why have we no fleet, no naval arsenals in this kingdom? Are Cork, Galway, Bantry, Sligo, or Derry, ports unfit for such purposes? Are they unfit stations for our fleets to secure us from the inroads of French invaders? No Irishman will say so. Above a hundred years ago, Ireland made a perpetual grant for the support of an Irish Marine. This England never permitted to be applied, because she wished to have a monopoly of navy to herself. (Barnes, p. 38.) Do we not here see distinctly the jealousy of the British Government? Then remove the jealousy, and its effects will be at the same time removed.

Fourthly, Let us consider our political power.

In the reign of Henry VII., Sir Edward Poyning's law established the authority of the English Parliament over Ireland; and it was not till after a long struggle that this authority was relinquished; yet, since it has been relinquished, it is manifest that the business of the Empire, as far as it depends on the Irish Parliament, cannot be conducted without English influence. At least, this we must admit, that, in the reign of Henry VII., the more prevalent English influence, the better it was for Ireland. And the reason is plain; because it was

so far a Government on general principles, and on the advantages of the Empire, not a Government of faction. Let us inquire into the source of that memorable law of Poyning's, and we shall find that it was really granted at the desire of the Irish Commons, who proposed by that means to secure themselves from the tyranny of their Lords of Irish birth. (See Sir John Davis, p. 235.) In the time of Henry VII., therefore, Irish affairs were managed more to the advantage of this country by an English Parliament than by our own. Since that time it has been otherwise. What is the cause of the difference manifestly existing in the state of this country? In the time of Henry VII., it was too weak to excite any jealousy in England; but, about the reign of Elizabeth, it began to acquire some strength and consequence. If then, by a Union, all jealousy be removed, we shall return to the situation in which we were in the time of Henry VII., as far as relates to national suspicion; and therefore we may presume that the administration of our affairs by one Imperial Parliament will probably be accompanied by much greater advantages to this country, than we could expect from a Parliament of our own, left to its own free action, because such a Parliament would be subjected to the influence of faction, not guided by general views. I make this assertion on the ground of analogy.

Fifthly, Let us consider the influences of the intrigues of one country on the politics of the other.

In the reign of Charles I., the leaders of the revolution made the insurrection of Ireland the cloak of their designs. against the constitution of England. (Hume, vi., 493.) Whilst they pretended the utmost zeal against the Irish Insurrection, they took no step towards its suppression, but such as would likewise give them the superiority in those commotions, which they foresaw must soon be excited in England. (Clarendon, ii., 435.) Whatever land they deemed necessary for aggrandizing themselves was voted under colour of enabling them to recover Ireland; and they made their