position to the public will, constitutionally expressed, they would not be obligatory, and the right of resistance would revert to the people. The solicitor general could not hear such doctrine without horror; and he accused the father of the bar of unfurling the bloody flag of rebellion; but Mr. Egan hinted, that the ministry had unfurled the flag of prostitution and corruption. Mr. Saurin's opinions were strongly combated by dr. Duigenan, as unconstitutional and mischievous. Mr. serjeant Stanley, lord Castlereagh, Mr. May, and sir John Blaquiere declaimed against the proposal of appealing to the public, and urged the house to stiginatize with decisive effect the alarming invitation to popular resistance. Mr. Grattan, on the other hand, vindicated the sentiments of the barrister, and recommended the appeal, not as a reference to the mere multitude, but to the constituent body. On a division for the address, there appeared 150 votes against the motion, and only 104 for it. The house adjourned at four o'clock in the morning. On the following day, the prime serjeant stated the expediency of an identification of the churches as well as of the parliaments of the two countries; and observed, that whatever indulgence after that might be extended to the Catholics, there would then be no danger of the subversion of the Protestant church of Ireland. This article was quickly voted, and that which respected the existing laws and courts of both countries passed without opposition. The sixth article, which had been postponed on account of the complexity of the subject, was brought forward on the 19th of March by the right honourable Mr. Beresford, who entered very ably into all the calculations, estimates, and revolutions upon this commercial article, which without any opposition received the assent of the committee. When it was proposed that the house should be resumed for the reception of the report, Mr. O'Hara stated some objections to the assigned rate of contribution for Ireland, which he deemed too high; and Mr. Grattan again expatiated on the impolicy and injustice of the Union. Mr. Foster and lord Castlereagh both spoke with great animosity. Mr. G. Ponsonby, Mr. Saurin, and some others warmly opposed the report of the resolutions, but it was carried by a similar majority as the former questions. When the report was presented to the house on the 21st, sir Laurence Parsons then expressed his hope, that when the scheme should appear in the form of a bill, those gentlemen who had so nobly stood forward in defence of the country would again assail it with the most determined energy. Sir John Freke represented the terms as so dis advantageous, that they had not made a convert of a single member, who had censured the principle of the measure. After some desultory conversation, the resolutions received the sanction of the house. A message was then sent to the House of Lords, importing that the commons had agreed to the articles* of the Union; and on the 27th, the peers intimated to the other house, that they had adopted them with some alterations and additions. These amendments were readily approved by the commons; and lord Castlereagh immediately proposed an address to his majesty, in which both houses concurred. In this address they declared, that they cordially embraced the principle of incorporating Great Britain and Ireland into one kingdom, by a complete and entire Union of their legislatures; that they considered the resolutions of the British parliament as wisely calculated to form the basis of such a settlement; that by those propositions they had been guided in their proceedings; and that the resolutions now offered were those articles which, if approved by the lords and commons of Great Britain, they were ready to confirm and ratify, in order that the same might be established for ever by the mutual consent of both parliaments. On the day (the 22d of March) on which the articles were carried up to the lords, lord Farnham opposed the fourth article, alleging, that the representation of the Irish peerage was a mere mockery to cover the folly and injustice of the Union. Lord chief baron Yelverton in favour of the Union entered very fully into the subject. The great value, he said, of the arrangement of 1782, which he had assisted in forming, was, that it placed the Irish on a proud footing of legislative independence, and enabled them to say upon what terms they were willing to unite; whereas, if that adjustment had not occurred, they would perhaps before this time have yielded to an union of subjection, not an union of equality. Their independence had never since been violated, and they were not now desired to give up their legislative rights, but to perpetuate them by Union: their liberties would not be annihilated, but would be rendered immortal, by being placed on the same broad base with those of Great Britain. The Hibernian parliament would so far be annihilated, as to be no longer a distinct legislature, and so would that of Great Britain be extinguished; but out of the two a third would arise, neither British nor Irish, but a compound body, more competent than either to promote and secure the freedom, the prosperity, and the happiness of the whole. These articles are to be seen in the Appendix, No. CXIX. If an idle fondness for independence had prevailed from the beginning, no political association could ever have been framed, and mankind must have remained in a state of nature. But prudence and policy taught two or more families to form a society, societies to form a nation, and small nations to form a great one, by sacrificing distinct independence to common security. His lordship combated the conclusion drawn against the Union from the interposition of the sea as a physical barrier between Ireland and Britain, by alleging, that the commercial utility of the sea was rather an argument for an Union. He then asserted the competence of the two parliaments to enact the proposed measure, saying, that union was only a law common to two states, and that to doubt the competency of two legislatures to frame such a law was to doubt their competency to answer the ends of their institution. Then the question, whether twenty-eight temporal and four spiritual peers should represent Ireland in the imperial parliament, was carried by a majority of thirty-four. Two amendments were proposed by the earl of Clare, and adopted importing, that on the extinction of three Irish peerages one might be created, till the number should be reduced to 100, and afterwards one for every failure; and that the qualifications of the Irish for the imperial parliament should be the same in point of property with those of the British members. All the articles having been consented to in the committee, the report was offered on the 26th of March, and confirmed by the house. A message to the commons was then proposed, when the earl of Bellamont renewed his opposition to the general measure. The earl of Desart thought the propositions too advantageous. to Ireland to justify refusal. Viscount Powerscourt considered them in an opposite light: and the duke of Leinster apprehended, that disunion and perpetual separation would be the ultimate result of the projected scheme. A motion for delay was put by the Anti-unionists, and negatived by 47 against 18 votes. The original motion was carried by 72 against 22. The plan of the Union was then left to the final consideration of the British legis lature. The articles of Union thus passed through the Irish parliament as they had been originally framed by the British ministry, having received no other alterations in their progress than such as were dictated by the court. They were now brought forward as terms proposed by the lords and commons of Ireland in the form of resolutions. And on the 2d day of April, 1800, the duke of Portland communicated to the House of Lords a message from the king, and at the same time presented to them as documents a copy of the Irish address with the resolutions.* Lord Grenville then moved an address to his majesty, that the documents should be printed and their lordships summoned for As these resolutions contain merely the substance of the articles, they are not given. The following was the address of the Irish peers and commons and the king's message to the British peers. GEORGE R. IT is with the most sincere satisfaction that his majesty finds himself enabled to communicate to this house the joint address of his lords and commons of "Ireland, laying before his majesty certain resolutions, which contain the terms proposed by them for an entire Union between the two kingdoms. His majesty is persuaded that this house will participate in the pleasure, with which his majesty observes the conformity of sentimet manifested in the proceedings of his two parliaments, after long and careful deliberation on this most important subject; and he earnestly recommends to this house, to take all such further steps as may best tend to the speedy and complete execution of a work so happily begun, and so interesting to the security and happiness of his majesty's subjects, and to the general strength and prosperity of the British empire. His grace then presented, by command of his majesty, the documents referred to in his majesty's message; which were as follows, viz. "To the King's Most Excellent Majesty. "The humble address of the lords spiritual and temporal, and knights, citizens, and burgesses, in parliament assembled. "MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN, "WE your majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in parliament assembled, beg leave to acquaint your majesty that we have taken into our most serious and deliberate consideration the great and important subject of a legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, which was laid before us in his excellency the lord lieutenant's message to both houses of parliament on the 5th of February last, accompanied by the resolutions of the two houses of the parliament of Great Britain, proposing that great measure, and the earnest and solemn recommendation of your majesty. "Deeply impressed with the necessity of rendering the connexion of Great Britain and this kingdom indissoluble, and truly sensible of the repeated efforts, which have been made by foreign and domestic enemies, to shake that connexion, and to effect their entire separation, we fully approve and cordially embrace the principle of incorporating Great Britain and Ireland into one kingdom under your majesty's auspicious government, by a complete and entire Union of their legislatures. "We do consider the resolutions of the two houses of the British parliament as wisely calculated to form the basis of such a settlement, we have adopted them as our guide, in the measures we have pursued, and we now feel it our duty to lay before your majesty the resolutions to which we have agreed; which resolutions we humbly submit to your majesty may form the articles of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and which, if they shall be approved by the two houses of the parliament of Great Britain, we are ready to confirm and ratify, in order that the same may be established for ever by the mutual consent of both parliaments "We doubt not that your majesty, and your parliament of Great Britain, will consider these resolutions as the most unequivocal testimony of our zealous loyalty to your majesty's sacred person, family and government, and as an unalterable pledge of our attachment to the British empire: we offer them in the full the 21st: on which day earl Fitzwilliam recommended to the peers a longer delay, that the commons might previously reinvestigate the subject; but, finding that lord Grenville only intended to move at that time for the adoption of the three first resolutions, he was satisfied with the postponement of the rest. Lord Holland affirmed, that, since the question had been last discussed, nothing had occurred to induce him to approve the measure. Some of the arguments used by its advocates appeared to him to be drawn from the principles of Messieurs Robespierre and Barrère, who had contended for an empire one and indivisible, in preference to the union of its parts by fœderalism. It would not operate as a remedy for the discontent of the various descriptions of the Hibernian community. It would not ensure a redress of grievances, but would increase that influence, which was already the object of general complaint. It was evidently offensive to the great body of the Irish; and, if it should be carried into effect against the sense of the people, it would endanger the connexion between the countries, and might produce irreparable mischief. He should oppose the motion for a committee. Lord Grenville thought it unnecessary to debate the principles. of an Union, as no question, in the course of his parliamentary experience, had ever been more amply or ably discussed. In reply to some of the arguments of the noble lord, he said, he was convinced, that the measure would extinguish rather than produce evil. He did not think that British influence would improperly or injuriously predominate. The Irish would enjoy a fair proportion of legislative power; and their interests would be as much regarded as those of their British neighbours. That the English constitution would be endangered by the introduction of Irish members, there was.no reason to apprehend; for the mode of electing the representatives of the commons would not lead them into subserviency to the crown; and the peers, retaining their seats for life, would be as independent as any of the English nobility. On a division, only three peers (the earl of Derby and the lords Holland and King) voted against, and 82 supported the motion for going into a committee. The three first articles were then proposed to the committee, and received the assent of the peers. conviction, that, by incorporating the legislatures, and by consolidating the resources of the two kingdoms,e shall increase the power and stability of that empire, and that, by uniting ourselves with your majesty's subjects of Great Britain under one parliament, and under one government, we shall most effec tually provide for the improvement of our commerce, the security of our religion, and the preservation of our liberties. JOHN GYER, D. C. P. |