their promptitude to betray the dearest rights and privileges of their country. No! they were blackened and blackened for ever in the eyes of the people of Ireland! Yet the independent gentlemen of Ireland, in despite of all the direct and indirect means, which had been employed to pervert them on this occasion, have proved to the nation, that their present independent parliamentary constitution was dearer to them, than their lives, and that it is but with their lives that they would ever surrender it there was not in the world a more open, warm-hearted, grateful, and unsuspecting people, than the people of Ireland. This unfortunate and ill-advised attempt, however, must destroy in them all future confidence towards the government, as long as it was constituted of those men, who on that occasion had been so forward to sacrifice the rights of their country, even though that day should put a complete termination to the fatal project; for they might rest assured, it was necessary that they should put it down decisively, otherwise that country would continue in a state of ferment and agitation, every day more and more prejudicial to the connection between the two kingdoms. The noble lord had admitted, that Ireland must lose somewhat by the increase of absentees, but said, that loss would be countervailed by the number of English merchants and manufacturers that would come and settle there. He represented them immediately covering the face of the whole island, and producing every where a new and valuable middle order of men. The same had been said in the American war, when they obtained a free trade, but no Englishman came to settle there in consequence. He then replied to some other arguments raised in favour of the Union, particularly to that of the attorney general, who had said, that the parliament during the first three reigns after the establishment of the English there, sat in England, and that there was then a kind of union. If it were so, that would be of little import at the present day; the consideration being not what the constitution was then, but what it now is. He held however in his hand a decisive document against that assertion of the attorney general. It was the answer of the Irish parliament to Edward when summoned by him to England. He shewed what the constitution was, and also what the spirit was, which animated the Irish parliament at that day.

"The nobles and commons unanimously and with one voice "declared, that according to the rights, privileges, liberties, "laws, and customs of the land of Ireland enjoyed from the time "of the conquest of said land, they are not bound to send any "persons from the land of Ireland to the parliament or council "of our lord the king in England as the writ requires. Notwithstanding on account of their reverence, and the necessity and

present distress of the said land, they have elected representa"tives to repair to the king, and to treat and consult with him "and his council; reserving to themselves the power of yielding "or agreeing to any subsidies. At the same time protesting, "that their compliance is not hereafter to be taken in prejudice "to the rights, privileges, laws, and customs, which the lords "and commons from the time of the conquest of the land of Ire"land have enjoyed."

Thus at a time of great exigency, they consented for once to go; but knowing, that mingled with the parliament of England, they must be out-numbered; and so that great subsidies might be imposed on their own country against their consent, they previously declared, that they reserved to themselves alone the power of raising any contributions on the people; and they concluded, that their compliance on that occasion should never be brought as a precedent for any future day.

Were the Union ever so good a measure, why bring it for ward at that time? Was it not evidently to take advantage of England's strength there, and their own internal weakness? It was always in times of division and disaster, that a nation availed itself of the infirmities of its neighbour, to obtain an unjust dominion. That Great Britain should desire to do so, he did not much wonder; for what nation did not desire to rule another? Nor was he surprised, that there should be some among them base enough to conspire with her in doing so; for no country could expect to be so fortunate as not to have betrayers and patricides among its citizens. But if that assembly, the chosen protectors of the people's rights, should agree thus to betray them, that indeed would be matter of such surprise and indignation, that he wanted mind to conceive, or language to ex press it. So natural was it for a nation to incroach upon the rights of another, at the time that it was weakened and distressed, and so clearly was the design of England manifested by their history, English usurpations continually treading upon the heels of Irish infirmity. In the American war, however, Ireland burst the chain of those usurpations....how? by her parliament. It was her own parliament then, aided and urged by a high-spi rited people, whose hearts throbbed with liberty, and whose hands were strong with voluntary arms. It was there, within those walls, that this assembly, the organ of the popular bill, put forth its voice, and demanded the freedom of their constitution, and the uncontrolled, legislative, and supreme authority of the land. It was here before the breath of the parliament of Ireland, that the usurping domination of England bowed its head and dropped the sceptre of its power, and therefore it was, that her parliament was to be utterly destroyed, root and branch, not a fibre of it left in the land, lest it should grow again and shoot,

spread and flourish, and lest Ireland at some hallowed moment should once more through the medium of that assembly recover its freedom. Annihilate the parliament of Ireland; that is the cry that came across the water. Now is the time....Ireland is weak....Ireland is divided....Ireland is appalled by civil war.... Ireland is covered with troops, martial law brandishes its sword throughout the land....now is the time to put down Ireland for ever....now strike the blow....who?....is it you? Will you obey that voice? Will you betray your country ?

Lord Castlereagh disclaimed any desire to re-argue the question so extensively debated on Tuesday; the object of the ho nourable baronet was to expunge this paragraph from the address, and to that only he would speak. What did the paragraph imply to any man, who took the pains of reading it? Nothing more than the readiness of the house to enter into the consideration of such measures as should be most likely to consolidate the strength of the empire. Could any man deny, that that was a desirable object? or could any man expect, that such a metaphorical expression would be laid hold of to imply, that by it that house was specifically pledged to the measure of an Union? It was urged, that the person representing government in that house had not declared positively to the house, that he would not again bring forward the question that session. Could that be a motive for refusing assent to the paragraph? What was the decla. ration made by that person? that he would look to the sense of parliament and of the nation; and give it its fair weight, in the prudential consideration of re-agitating the question. But convinced, as he was, that the measure was one of great and important advantage, he would never lose sight of it; and if he felt, that conviction, he should desert, basely desert his duty, were he influenced by clamour to abandon it. He had not pledged himself to renounce it for the session; but he was pledged by a stronger tie; his attention to the opinion of parliament and the country; had it been necessary to bind him by such a promise, had he been such a person as nothing but an extorted consent could bind, how easy would it be for the minister to elude such a promise? how easily, if the sense of the country should change, would he be able, by a prorogation, to put an end to that session, and propose the measure in a new one? Was the parliament so distrustful of itself as to find such a promise necessary? Was it so afraid of the change of sentiment in the country, as to wish to tie up its own hands against the measure? If it were so, might not such a parliament be sent back to its constituents, if it were frantic enough to bind itself by a resolution, which might render it necessarily regardless of the voice and interest of the country? Parliament had at all times the power of dismissing from immediate discussion any measure proposed, but it could not exclude

future discussion; it was the duty of the minister to offer whatever he thought for the national advantage; by the constitution, he could not be precluded from proposing such measures; it was his imperative duty, which he must discharge. Had such been the opinion, or such the rule of parliament, they would not have the British constitution. Were party cabal or party trick to influence his exercise of duty, they would not enjoy that constitution for by the British constitution the origination of great national measures was placed in the crown. Had it been heretofore in the power of party cabal to resist even the investigation of such measures, would that constitution have been what it is? Were a British minister to be influenced by Round Robins and cabals, by combinations, to withhold from men, on account of their political conduct, the bread due to their professional labours, the British empire would not be in the glorious situation, in which it then stood. If this country, said his lordship, be to be governed by combination, it was brought to absolute ruin. Government had been charged with dismissing its servants for political opinions. It was the right and privilege of government to do so. If the minister must retain those persons, who are hostile to his measures, because such is the will of a faction, the constitutional power of the crown, and with it the constitution itself were at an end. What kind of an opposition had been arranged against the measure? Some of the very men, who, by attempting to degrade and vilify parliament, had given a pretext to traitors and rebels.. What were the last words of the person now most forward, upon his seceding from the house? That "the parliament was so lost to every constitutional principle, "that he was ashamed to continue to sit in it, and therefore aban"doned his duty:" this was his last expression. What was the last effort of his public life? To assimilate the parliament of Ireland to the government of France, to carve out the country into French departments, and by a system of representation which had destroyed France, to introduce anarchy and massacre into that country. After failing in this project from the spirit and good sense of parliament, did he not shrink from the contest excited by his own principles and his own example? Had the loyal gentlemen, who now strangely voted with him and his party, so forgotten all these circumstances; had they so lost the recollection of those calamities, that they could look to him and his friends with confidence for the future government of that country? It was impossible. The phrenzy of a moment might have seduced them into such strange company; their returning good sense would permit them to look upon it as it deserved. Another description of the opponents of that measure was of a very opposite kind indeed to that person and his friends. They

VOL. V.

were the men, who, in the time of danger, stood forward like men to rescue their country from the consequences produced by those who were their allies. But those men never could so far forget the common object....the connection with Great Britain (for which both sides were labouring, though with different opinions as to means), so far to disgrace themselves by acting with those, who wished to debase parliament and destroy their constitution. Let those loyal gentlemen assure themselves that they could never raise those persons to their own proud rank, though they might unhappily degrade themselves to their level. Let them not be so hurried away by their feelings, as to entertain for a moment an idea, that because they happened to agree in that one point, a common co-operation with their enemies was necessary. Let them not be imposed upon by the artifice of these insinations, that the measure was to be carried by a military force; it was a fraud practised upon their honesty; it would be a wretched government indeed, which would destroy the attached adherents of monarchy by employing force or corruption to carry any measure, however advantageous in prospect. Resolved as he was, never to be deterred by cabal, from offering any measure to the discussion of parliament, he never could embark in so absurd a scheme as to conceive it possible to intimidate or corrupt the country into any measure whatever. There had been in the course of debate insinuations of a general nature; that ministry had employed illicit means to secure support; he passed them by as they deserved with contempt; but he had also heard particular circumstances mentioned, as facts, of so base and false a tenor, that he would trace them to the individual, be he who he might, from whom they originated, and force him to make a public disavowal. He deprecated that species of equivocal lan guage which was neither personal, nor altogether parliamentary. If gentlemen conceived that any man on that side of the house had done them personal injury, let them come forward and seek redress like men. If they wished to enter into personal contest, let them avow their wish and come forward like men; but let them not resort to that kind of language, which was just so far short of personal offence, as to shelter them from personal chastisement; let them not disgrace parliament by introducing that which had proved so fatal to the country....angry invective and illiberal personality.

Mr. G. Ponsonby in a spirited reply defended the Antiunionists against the violent attack of the minister, and asserted the uprightness of their conduct. Did he imagine the country gentlemen of Ireland tame enough to bear the imputation of being fools....instruments that were used by a few factious men for the worst of purposes? Would they submit to such a declaration from a young man, who had nothing to shield him from