THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES REPEAL PRIZE ESSAYS. ESSAYS ON THE REPEAL OF THE UNION, TO WHICH THE ASSOCIATION PRIZES WERE AWARDED : SUPPLEMENTAL ESSAY, RECOMMENDED BY THF JUDGES. PRINTED AND PUBLISHED FOR THK LOYAL NATIONAL REPEAL ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND, BY JAMES DUFFY, -25, ANGLESEA-STREET, DUBLIN. 1845. IN publishing the following Essays, the Association disclaims all responsibility for the opinions or statements contained in any of them. ADVERTISEMENT, AGREED TO AT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION, ON MONDAY, 16TH SEPTEMBER, 1844. LOYAL NATIONAL REPEAL ASSOCIATION OF IRELAND. THE Committee of the Loyal National Eepeal Association propose to award the following sums as prizes for the best Essays written in support of the Repeal of the Act of Union ; For the best Essay, J'lOO the second best, . . . . . . . . "15 the third best . . . . . . . . 50 The Essays are to be sent to the Secretary of the Repeal Asso- ciation on or before the 1st of January, 1845 ; the name of the author not to be attached to his Essay, but to be sent in a sealed envelope, bearing some fictitious signature, corresponding to a sim- ilar signature attached to the Essay. The Committee will not examine the letters of the unsuccessful competitors. The Committee will not hold themselves bound to award the prizes, or any of them, unless the Essays sent in by the competitors, shall be of such a character as to render their publication advisable, with a view to the advancement of the cause of Repeal. The Com- mittee reserve the right of publishing the Prize Essays at the expense of the Association, without the interference of any claims of copyright. It is suggested that the authors should state and refute the argu- ments which may be advanced against the establishment of a Domestic Legislature for Ireland ; that they should state fully the arguments for Repeal ; that they should develope a form of execu- tive and legislative constitution, calculated to secure the happiness of the Irish people, and to promote unity of feeling between the constituent parts of the British empire. That they should illustrate 1318(305 IV REPORT. the international relations which they propose shall hereafter subsist between Great Britain and Ireland, by examples taken from the history and existing institutions of other countries, and, in particular, that they should examine how far the constitution of Norway, and its connexion with Sweden, may serve as a model for the new constitution of Ireland that they should describe the probable consequences which may be expected to result from a Repeal of the Union, pointing out the dangers to be apprehended, and the means by which those dangers may be averted. N.B. These suggestions are not obligatory, and are meant only to intimate the sort of Essay which the Committee consider would be most useful. The Essays are not to exceed in length 200 pages of the ordinary size and print used in the report of the Repeal Association. The Committe, in awarding these Prizes, according to the comparative excellence of the Essays, will not hold themselves responsible for the sentiments they contain. JUDGES APPOINTED: MR. JOHN O'CONNELL, M.P. MR. THOMAS DAVIS. MR. WM. SMITH O'BRIEN, M.P. By Order, T. M. RAY, Secretary. REPORT. READ AT PUBLIC MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION ON MONDAY, 31 ST MARCH, 1845. "REPORT ON REPEAL ESSAYS. " The judges appointed to consider the Essays on the Repeal of the Union, report as follows : " Forty-eight Essays were sent in. Each of the judges read the REPORT. v 48 Essays separately, and they compared their notes and opinions afterwards. They have adjudged the first Prize for the Essay signed ' Ith, 1 and entitled ' Ireland as she was, as she is, and as she shall be, 1 written by Michael Joseph Barry, Esq., barrister-at-law. " They have adjudged the second prize for the Essay signed ' B. S. M.' and entitled ' Reasons for a Repeal of Jthe Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland/ written by Michael Staunton, Esq., alderman. " The third prize they have given for the Essay signed ' An Irish Protestant,' entitled The Rights of the Irish Nation,' but the judges regret that they are not now at liberty to mention the name of the writer of this Essay. " They much regret that it was an omission in the resolutions under which they acted, that no candidate should receive a prize in case he refused to allow his name to be known. " The judges recommend that should the authors of the works so desire, they shall be at liberty to sell the copyright of them, on condition that they be printed in such size and type, and sold at such a price as the Committee of the Association shall approve, and published, if possible, within two months ; but that if any of the authors prefer it, his Essay shall be printed by the Association, in such way as to bind up and be issuable with the other Essays. " The Judges also recommend that the Essay signed ' Anglo Scoto Hibemicus,' be printed as an appendix to the three prize Essays, on the specific ground that it contains a short and able exposition of the principles of Federalism, which it is desirable that the Repealers of Ireland should have an opportunity of con- sidering, in connection with the anti-Federalist views contained in the other Essays. " The judges wish to bear testimony to the great ability and learning displayed in very many of the Essays to which they have not awarded prizes. " Signed, " JOHN O'CONNELL. " W. S. O'ljRIEX. " THOMAS DAVIS.'' CONTENTS. FIRST PRIZE REPEAL ESSAY. IRELAND, AS SHE WAS, AS SHE IS, AND AS SHE SHALL BE. BY MICHAEL JOSEPH BARRY, ESQ. BARRISTER-AT-LAW. SECOND PRIZE REPEAL ESSAY. REASONS FOR A REPEAL OF THE LEGISLATIVE UNION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND. BY ALDERMAN STAUNTON, EDITOR OF THE DUBLIN WEEKLY REGISTER. THIRD PRIZE REPEAL ESSAY, THE RIGHTS OF IRELAND. BY THE REV. J. GODKIN. SUPPLEMENTAL REPEAL ESSAY. PltlNTED BY ORDER OF THE REPEAL ASSOCIATION. A PROPOSAL FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. BY GEORGE RAMSAY, B. M. FORMERLY OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. FIRST PRIZE EEPEAL ESSAY. FIRST PRIZE REPEAL ESSAY. IRELAND, AS SHE WAS, AS SHE IS, AND AS SHE SHALL BE. BY MICHAEL JOSEPH BARRY, ESQ. RARRISTER AT LAW. All my life long I have beheld, with most respect, the man Who knew himself, and knew the ways before him ; And from amongst them chose considerately, With a clear foresight, not a blind-fold courage ; And, having chosen, with a steadfast mind, Pursued his purposes." PHILIP VAN ARTEVELDE. DUBLIN : PUBLISHED BY JAMES DUFFY, 25, ANGLESEA-STREET. 18 IT). DUBLIN: JAMES DUFFY, 26, ANGLF.SEA-STREET. TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND, THIS DEFENCE OF THEIR RIGHTS IS DEDICATED, BY THEIR FELLOW-COUNTRYMAN, THE AUTHOR. IRELAND, AS SHE WAS, AS SHE IS, AND AS SHE SHALL BE. CHAPTER I. THE PRACTICABILITY OF REPEAL. " The foolish word impossible, At once for aye disdain. No power can bar a people's will, A people's RIGHT to gain." SPIRIT OF THE NATION. IN considering the Repeal Question, as it is familiarly termed, three distinct topics present themselves for our examination : first, the practicability of procuring a Repeal of the Act of Union ; secondly, the advantages or losses to Ireland which would follow from its Repeal ; thirdly, the form of Constitution which would ensure to her the greatest portion of those advantages, and protect her from the greatest share of those losses. These three topics, I shall discuss in the order in which I have set them down, and shall at once proceed to t^eir investigation. I begin therefore, by stating, that in my opinion, the Repeal of the Act of Union is a perfectly practicable measure, and its practi- cability fully capable of proof. Those who deny the practicability of Repeal, state as the grounds of their belief, that England will never voluntarily agree to it, and that Ireland cannot compel her to do so. The former of these positions I will at present pass over, and will at once turn to the' consideration of the second and more important assertion, that Ireland cannot compel England to grant a Repeal of the Union. The truth or falsehood of this assertion must be honestly and carefully investigated, for on it, I conceive, the whole question of B , 2 PRACTICABILITY OF Repeal as regards its practicability depends. I am satisfied that Ireland must right herself or remain unrighted. The people, whose liberty depends on their being able to reconcile the attainment of it to the selfish views taken by another people of their own interests, have little chance of growing into a nation. Perhaps they are hardly fitted for the dignity. England opposes the Repeal of the Union, because she believes that it would prove mischievous to her. She believes, however, that Separation would be still more mischievous. Whenever she finds herself under the necessity of choosing between Separation and Repeal, she will assent to the latter. Repeal must not be carried by the exercise of physical force. That could only terminate in Separation or re-conquest. But, though the exercise of physical force cannot achieve Repeal, the possession of it may. Whenever Ireland possesses such an amount of it as, if exercised) would effect, a Separation from England, its presence will secure Repeal. Repeal is not more difficult than Separation. I shall in a subsequent place shew, that it is infinitely less difficult ; that a vast variety of means may exist, sufficient to secure the former object ; yet wholly inadequate to the latter ; but I will for the present grapple with the greatest difficulty which the question pre- sents, and assuming that no means can achieve the one, which would not be sufficient for the achievement of the other, I will proceed to shew that if Ireland considered complete Separation necessary, she could enforce it. It will be said that this is a dangerous topic to discuss. I think it is far more dangerous to shun the discussion of it. War espe- cially civil war, is an evil which it is the duty of every good man to avert. The best mode by which he can do so, is by shewing its necessary consequences to the parties that would engage in it. Eng- land and Ireland are thus circumstanced. Ireland smarting from inisgoverument and insult, and burning for Independence, believes that the result of a conflict between them would be the certain resto- ration of her nationality. England flushed with conquest, arrogant from acknowledged sway, and proud of her wealth and territory, thinks the struggle could have no other issue, than the chastisement of a turbulent and aspiring province. This state of feeling in the two countries is fraught with mischief. From it all real danger springs. Let each retain this confidence in her own power, and the result, ere long, must, of necessity, be open warfare between them. On the other hand, prove to either country that her view is erroneous: convince England, that the struggle must, in all probability, end in the dismemberment of her empire: or Ireland, that it must terminate THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 3 in her subjugation, and you secure their mutual peace.* No coun- try will march to defeat with her eyes open. I need hardly say that I mean to discuss, not rights, but resources. I would spurn the idea of discussing Ireland's right to anything which is essential to her prosperity and freedom. These blessings are the right of every people, a right which is inalienable. Let us proceed, then, to consider what means Ireland possesses of effecting a Separation from England ; in other words, what is the amount of her military strength ? It is no very easy matter to form a correct estimate of this. Many of the elements which constitute the military strength of Ireland, are less perceptible to the soldier's than to the statesman's eye. She, however, possesses a large share of what both must acknowledge to be formidable ; and what neither, if" wise, would be very willing to encounter. The first great element of a nation's strength is, of course, popu- lation. In this Ireland certainly is not deficient. According to the census of 1841 she lias 8,173,966 inhabitants. Of these there are engaged in agriculture 5,406,T43, or something over sixty-six per 2lb. The utmost effort of a "Welshman was 15,1121b. Kane's Industrial Resources of Ireland, p. 382. Professor Quetelet, of Brussels, and Professor Forbes, of Edinburgh, have made observations on the height, strength, &c., of the English, Scotch, Irish, and Belgian Students, establishing the superiority of the Irish in both, to the other races. I do not, however, consider the observations made on the class of persons they tested, sufficient to warrant any very general conclusion. 4 PRACTICABILITY OF Their buoyancy of temperament and indomitable spirits, which no fatigue or difficulty can subdue, adapt them still more than their other qualities for such pursuits. They have besides inherited a large stock of chivalrous ardour, and it is the common observation of military men that the Irish recruit is half a soldier by the time he has got into his uniform jacket. On the whole I think it may be safely stated that Ireland possesses, at the minimum, an effective military population of one million six hundred thousand men. The next thing after population which should be taken into account, in looking at a country's military resources is, her com- missariat. Let us consider that of Ireland. Some countries are so circumstanced that their inhabitants could not exist if their ports were blockaded, and the channels by which they receive supplies of food, &c. from other nations, were shut up. England, at present, is probably in this position. She is obliged to import food to a very large extent. Ireland certainly is not. She is a great exporter of it. The produce of her soil is infinitely beyond the necessities of her inhabitants, and a blockade of her coast (if possible,) though it may seriously incommode, could not subdue her. She could exist, as it has been forcibly observed, " if a wall of brass were built around her." Her export of food, it is true, is much greater than it should be, and results mainly from the fact that her people do not consume so large a portion of the produce of the soil as they ought to do. They are scantily and miserably fed. But it is not the quantity of food that her population ought to consume, but the quantity that they do habitually consume, that it becomes necessary to consider here all beyond that is, in a military point of view, a surplus. If a people habitually consumes cheese and bactm, it will not be satisfied to live for any length of time without them: if, on the other hand, its habitual food be potatoes, then it will not be very discontented during an emergency to continue living on them, notwithstanding it may be very just and proper, that it should be better fed. To ascertain how much of the soil of Ireland is actually burthened with the support of the overwhelming majority of her inhabitants, it is only necessary to look at the potatoe fields. Nearly all the rest is surplus. The observations here made as to food are equally applicable to the other necessaries of life. Fuel, both coal and turf,* exists in abundance, and clothing would be readily manufactured. A nation lighting for her freedom does not look for luxuries. * Kane's Industrial Resources of Ireland, p. 7, ct seif. THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 5 Another important matter for consideration in estimating a nation's strength, is its topography ; the field which it presents for military operations. Ireland would be an embarrassing country for an invading army to occupy. Except in its bog districts, it is, perhaps, not very formidable by nature, for, though many of its mountain passes are of considerable strength ; yet, as its chains of hills sink gradually into the level land at their extremities, and may, therefore, be out- flanked by an attacking force, they are of no great value as a defence. Art, however, has created obstacles which would seriously check the movements of hostile troops through the country, in the vast number of fences which traverse it in every direction. The banks of earth which form the common boundaries to the fields throughout the chief part of Munster, are of a thickness to be proof against musketry, and often against ordinary field artillery, and would set the movements of regular cavalry at defiance. The close hedges of Leinster would prove equally impracticable to the latter force, and a very active light infantry only, could be at all effective in con- testing them. If Ireland were deficient in artillery, the possession of it to an adverse army could be rendered nearly useless, by the breaking up of the roads, as the close and fenced-in nature of the country would render it impossible to transport guns across it, (as might be done over the wide even plains of the Continent,) when the ordinary routes were rendered impassible. This would, no doubt, produce much inconvenience to the inhabitants of the country ; but when a nation thinks a matter worth fighting for, she must think it worth suffering inconveniences for too. But it will be said that Ireland wants all the materiel of war, that she possesses neither arms nor ammunition. This is not altogether true. It is a fact pretty well known, to all who are really acquainted with the country, that arms are very extensively dispersed throughout Ireland ; and, though, in particular localities they may not be much in the hands of the people, they are in quite sufficient abundance to be formidable. One weapon, too, in which the lower classes of the Irish place great confidence, and which they have already made very destructive use of the pike, is so easily procured, that it may be almost said to be within the reach of every man.* But, if the country were never so deficient in the implements of war, the facilities of procuring them in case of a National struggle, are so great, as to make the want of them a matter of very small importance. No man in his senses can imagine, that a country with * See for further information on the suhjeet of the military resources of I reland, and for confirmation of the opinions put forward on the matter, in the text, the Appendix to the Essay, in which, for convenience, the authorities have been cited. 6 PRACTICABILITY OF the extent of sea coast, which Ireland possesses ; a coast, moreover, the access to which is through no narrow channel, like the entrance to the Baltic, or the Mediterranean ; but open to the great highway of nations, the Atlantic, with safe and navigable creeks and harbours in almost every mile of its extent, could be prevented from receiving supplies of arms or ammunition by any other vigilance, but that of her own inhabitants. The statesman who would rest his expectations of retaining Ireland an unwilling province of the British Empire, upon such a hope, would not be long without cause to lament his folly. But, allowing that Ireland may possess, or be supplied with the materiel of war, what can it avail her without a disciplined force ? Possibly she may not be wholly deficient in such a force. Without now referring to any elements of a disciplined body existing within herself, and which, in the case of a general national quarrel, might prove the most dangerous to England of any which could be found is it so certain that from abroad she could expect nothing ? Is it not within the range of probabilities, that in spite of any watchfulness, on the part of England, she might obtain the assistance most desirable for a people seeking Independence ; that is assistance enough to aid and to organize, but not enough to assume the tyrant after it had enacted the friend. This deserves to be well pondered on. Her own population too, as I have before stated, are the most apt of military scholars. I may remark, in passing, that their expert- ness at spade labour, would render them invaluable for the throwing up of field works a fact of no slight consequence. Again, the advantages to regular troops, in fighting on a great scale, with irregular bodies properly led, are very questionable, where the great preponderance in numbers is on the side of the latter. This guerilla warfare is terribly harrassing work, to a disciplined army. The constant watchfulness, fatigue, and uncer- tainty, wear them out with fearful quickness. There are few things which an experienced officer would relish less. There is nothing which it requires an officer of so much skill and experience to meet. A young, impetuous, inexperienced man would make very sad work of it. Bivouacking in an Irish bog, with a hostile population on every side, a rainy climate, sick horses, and fagged men, would prove one of the most unattractive forms of a military life. All these matters may give food for thought. From their nature I have touched but lightly on them ; my object being only to shew that this " reconquest of Ireland," so flippantly talked about by some par- ties at the other side of the channel, is not altogether so simple a task as might, at a hasty view of it, appear. A war against a nation, THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 7 in its literal sense, is always formidable work. A war by the soldiery of one country against the soldiery of another, in which the people of the latter are indifferent enough (it being commonly no affair of theirs,) is a matter of quite another kind. Young military men, it is true, talk very siieeringly of popular resistance. Considered on a small scale, they are right enough ; but they hardly estimate the difficulties of a campaign against the liberties of a whole country, where every man they meet is an enemy, and every inch of ground they hold must be held by the sword. Experienced soldiers think otherwise, and the opinions of such men may perhaps be the best commentary on this part of my subject.* I have now concluded my investigation of the mere physical advantages possesed by Ireland for military purposes. I have, however, said already that many of the elements of her strength are more perceptible by the stateman's than by the soldier's eye ; one of these I will now advert to. Mr. Grey Porter, in the Preface to his Pamphlet already referred to, says,t " I think we (in Ireland), approach a time when peace will be worse to us than war ; that the more quiet grows the country, the stronger the government, the more easily will the landlords draw away their rents to live elsewhere." Here, indeed, is matter for deep consideration. If peace be worse to Ireland than war, then, indeed, she possesses an element of strength for an armed struggle, such as nations seldom have. Let it be remembered, too, that the opinion cited is not that of a mob-courting demagogue ; but the quietly propounded belief of a wealthy Conservative Irish Landlord. It is worth a British stateman's notice. Such are the arguments, as I conceive, in favor of Ireland's capa- bility to attain her independence by force, if circumstances led her people to suppose that it was their duty to have recourse to it. I do not believe them to be without weight. Men may attach various degrees of importance to them ; but those who slight them altogether, I am certain act a rash part. England, it is true, is a great nation ; has vast resources in money and immense territorial possessions. These latter, however, are in fact, her weakness, not her strength. She has not one colony from which she could draw men to recruit her armies, most of them she holds only by military occupation. In nearly all of them nay in her own bosom there exists what, in the event of a war with Ireland would, in all likelihood, prove a fatal cancer to her a numerous population ; Irish by birth or by descent ; Irish in feelings and sympathies ; and having carried with * See Appendix. t Ireland, p. vi. PRACTICABILITY OF them, in most instances, the traditions, the animosities, and not least formidable the poverty of the land from which they have sprung. What is the condition of her own people ? The mass of them are poor, ignorant and discontented without comfort without hope without religion without moral restraint, crushed to the earth hy an aristocracy of enormous wealth, standing out in gorgeous and dazzling relief from a background of misery and despair. These, are not the men to preserve her empire in time of danger. If Eng- land, to-morrow, were plunged into a war with Ireland how long would she exist without the aid of foreign bayonets the subsidized mercenaries of continental Europe? How many branches of the human family believe to-day that their freedom must be erected on the ruins of her gigantic empire ? Wise men will not dismiss these questions without reflection. Hitherto I have discussed Separation rather than Repeal, I have assumed, for the sake of argument, that the same difficulties stood in the way of one as of the other, and have sought to shew that even were that the case, Repeal would still be attainable. The assumption that the difficulties in the way of each are equal, would however be very erroneous. Ireland may be unable to cope in arms, even on her own soil, with England, and may yet have power enough to achieve her legislative independence. She could stop every wheel by which the machinery of government is worked, and without one act of violence, so paralyze Great Britain as to make her gladly come to any terms. Suppose, for instance, that the Irish people unanimously resolved to pay no taxes, imposed by the Imperial Parliament, until enforced by legal process, and carried that resolution into effect with the same determination that they evinced during the tithe war of 1832. Where would the Irish revenue be in six months ? Suppose them along with this, to protest against the consumption of all articles of English manufacture, and of all goods imported in English vessels. How long would England be without feeling the results in her manufacturing and shipping interests ? Let a like determination on the part of the people, against enlisting in the British army be taken into consideration, and its consequences be weighed. None of these are novelties, thrown out as hints for disaffected persons, to take up and act upon, but on the contrary have been working long and deeply in the popular mind of Ireland.* A word might bring them into action. To carry * Many projects, indeed, have been suggested of a much more extreme kind, so mischievous, and tending so strongly to break up all bonds of society, that 1 would not even refer to them here. One thing 1 may, however, hint at, namely, that the absentee drain from the land of Ireland, she could at any moment stop. THE REPEAL OF THE UNION. 9 them out to such an extent, and in such a manner as to affect seri- ously the revenue and power of England, would of course entail great and manifold inconveniences on the people ; but that they possess the steadiness and resolution to endure those inconveniences to the fullest extent, it is only necessary to refer to their astonishing perseverance in the temperance system, one so strongly repugnant to all their previous habits and opinions. Upon this question of the practicability of Repeal, I shall dilate no further, I think I have said enough to convince those who reflect calmly on the subject, that Irishmen have it in their own power, to secure the independence of Ireland : that they need be under no obligations for it to the English people. The good will of the latter, I should be sorry to throw away, but I would be more sorry to place my country unnecessarily under obligations to them, or to any other people upon earth. Our struggle is for Independence, and it should be conducted in an Independent spirit. We seek Ireland for the Irish I think it would be well to add through the exer- tions of Irishmen. This might not hasten the time of our deliver- ance : but it would make it a deliverance indeed. For myself, I would readily see the great consummation of our hopes postponed for twenty years, to see it gained by the Union of all Irishmen. To share like brothers the blessings which it would bring, we should have joined like brothers to obtain them. 10 CONSEQUENCES OF A CHAPTER II. CONSEQUENCES OF REPEAL. " One argument from experience, in political reasoning, is worth a thousand arguments in theory." COOKE. Argument for the Union, I NOW come to consider the second portion of the subject ; namely, the advantages or losses to Ireland, which would result from the Repeal of the Act of Union. I shall first state the advantages. This I must do in a general way. To set them forth in detail, would, I conceive, be to enume- rate everything that aids in constituting the strength, the prosperity, the civilization, and the freedom of a nation. It will develope her internal resources, revive her manufactures, extend her commerce, foster her agriculture, diminish her taxation, dissipate her poverty ; above all, it will give self-reliance, and union to her people. Is it fancy that foretells these bright results, or is it reason? I think I can shew that it is the latter. I can shew it by the only arguments which can ever be applied to the prospective condition of nations or individuals ; arguments drawn from analogy analogy to the affairs of private men to the history of other nations ; but especially, and above all, to the history of Ireland herself. The analogy between the affairs of a nation and those of an in- dividual is, of course, of limited extent notwithstanding, it is still considerable. Nations being nothing else than aggregations of in- dividuals, it follows, that generally that which contributes most to the prosperity of the individual, contributes most to the prosperity of the nation likewise. If it be true, as it undoubtedly is, that a man will manage his own business, if labouring under no personal incapacity, better and cheaper, than another man will do it for him, there is no reason whatever why the same principle should not hold good iu respect to a nation. Men, whether individually or collectively, have little desire to take upon themselves gratuitous labour. If any person offered, out of pure regard, to take the whole management of your affairs, and to save you all annoyance in respect to them, would you not at once conclude that he intended to plunder you ? Why not act on the same principle when nations are concerned ? There never was a truer saying than that of Porter, that " No nation ever yet governed another for nothing." REPEAL OF THE UNION. 11 Whether the government of Ireland by England be good or bad, it is certainly dearer than self-government would be. But may it not be better than self-government ? Most certainly not, (unless Irish- men be an inferior race,) for assuming it to be the interest of England to govern Ireland in the best possible manner, it surely is the in- terest of Irishmen to do the same. If, therefore, they are satisfied to leave the control of their affairs in the hands of England, they must be [satisfied to pay more for a government, which may be worse, and cannot be better than self-government. But not only may English government be worse for Ireland than self-government, but it must be so. England, in the first place, will never be con- vinced, that it is her interest to govern Ireland in the best manner, until the discovery will be too late, for she gains great temporary be- nefit by the misgovernment of her ;* and in the second place, English- men can never understand the affairs of Ireland, equally well with Irishmen, and therefore never can legislate equally well upon them. A still stronger proof of the advantages to be derived by Ireland from home legislation, is to be drawn from the history of other countries. A very slight examination of this will shew us, that the prosperity of every nation is in almost exact ratio to the amount of control it possesses over its own affairs. Nor can it be contended, that the coincidence of prosperity and self-government is accidental. Countries which have languished and decayed under the manage- ment of foreign states, we shall find to have grown rich and healthful when legislating for themselves. Nations, powerful and prosperous, beneath domestic institutions, have sunk by the same gradations into provincialism and insignificance. The prosperity of the seven united provinces after their revolt from Spain, of Portugal since she threw off the yoke of the same country, of the Swiss Cantons freed from the tyrrany of Austria, of the American States emancipated from British domination, of Norway since her noble assertion of independence, on the transfer of her sovereignty from the Danish to the Swedish crown, shews under almost every mode of government, and every variety of time and circumstances * There is no better established truth in political economy, than that it is the interest of all nations to carry on their intercouse with each other, in the manner most beneficial to each. It is clearly and beautifully shewn by Adam Smith, and is the grand principle on which free trade rests. One nation may gain great tem- porary advantage in trading with another, so as to realise vast profit, but in the end it destroys its customer. Its conduct resembles that of the Norwegians, who rob che nests of the Eider goose for its beautiful and valuable down, with which it lines them. When one nest is robbed, it builds a second and lays again, and if this be stolen, a third ; but it generally dies from the exhaustion of laying, no young birds being hatched; the cupidity of its plunderers thus yearly diminishing their own gains. CONSEQUENCES OF A the blessings of self-control ; while the history of the same states in their, provincial capacity, of ,Corsica, of Sicily, and of Loinbardy, gives ample proof of the evils resulting from foreign rule, in every possible form.* But it is in the history of Ireland herself, that we find the un- answerable arguments in favor of her legislative independence. It is that which call for our strictest investigation. However close may be the analogy between her and other countries, that analogy can never be complete: differences of geographical situation, of national character, of soil, of climate, must exist to render the comparison unfair; an hundred other discrepancies, as forms of government, religion, industrial pursuits may be superadded, so as to destroy all resemblance. In spite of all these dissimilarities, the political philosopher may, indeed, learn much from inquiring into their relative progress ; but the task is difficult, and the deduction arrived at, at best, uncertain. Fortunately, we are not under the necessity of undergoing so tiresome an examination, and we have data which must bring us to a far more certain result. We have, within the space of half a century a space far too short to affect the conclusions to be drawn from it the experience of Ireland provincialised Ireland emancipated, and Ireland provincialised again : let us make this our study, and abide by what it teaches. The half-century of Irish history, which contains within it all that is necessary for our investigation, lies between the year 1TT8 and the year 1818 ; upon it Ireland may rest her claim for self-govern- ment; but Great Britain shall have the benefit of all that has occurred from the latter period to our own time ; and for the better understanding of the subject, I shall commence the review of the state of Ireland, and the connexion of the two countries, at the beginning of the eighteenth century. The political position of Ireland at this period, was that of com- plete dependence on Great Britain. Her parliament was little else than a nullity, or, at best, a convenient instrument for effecting the designs of the English ministers. When a doubt existed, that it would be found manageable sometimes even without this apology, but merely through indifference it was superseded altogether. " In so much diffidence and contempt," says Plowden,f " did the * The reader must consult the history of these different countries, and judge for himself of the truth of what is here asserted, with regard to them. Details of their advancement or retrogression would, in a work like this, of course, be impossible. Belgium and Scotland are not mentioned in the above list. Many circumstances make it desirable to go into a careful examination of the history and position of both these countries and this will be found fully in another place. t Vol. i. p. 229, Quarto Edition. 1803. Plowden having written expressly, and at Pitt's desire, to sustain the Union, is an unexceptionable authority. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 13 British Parliament hold that of Ireland during this Queen's reign, (Anne's,) that in every matter which was considered to he of im- portance to the British empire, they expressly legislated for Ireland, as if Ireland had no parliament of her own. Thus did the British legislature direct the sale of the estates of Irish rebels, and dis- qualify Catholics from purchasing them ; thus did it avoid leases made to Papists ; thus augment small vicarages, and confirm grants made to the Archhishop of Dublin ; it permitted Ireland to export linen to the Plantations ;* prohibited the importation of that com- modity from Sotland, and appointed the town of New Ross, in the county of Wexford, as the port for exporting wool from Ireland to England. In the Schism Act which Sir William Wyndham brought into the House of Commons in England, in the year IT 14, the interference of the British legislature with Ireland was the most remarkable. This bill, which was [aimed by the Tory party at the total suppression of the Dissenters, was warmly opposed by the Whigs in both houses. Into that bill the following clause was introduced : that * where law is the same, the remedy and means ' for enforcing the execution of the law should be the same : be it ' therefore enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and every ' the remedies, provisions, and clauses, in and by this act given, ' made, and enacted, shall extend and be deemed, construed, and ' adjuged to extend to Ireland, in as full and effectual manner as ' if Ireland had been expressly named and mentioned in all and ' every the clauses of this act. 1 " The opponents of the bill fought hard against the clause relating to Ireland, contending that it would ruin the general Protestant in- terest there, by converting the Dissenters into bitter enemies, but it passed notwithstanding. " It must," continues Mr. Plowden,f " be presumed, that the ministers of that day were as anxious that the bill against the Dissenters should be extended to Ireland, as they were certain that a similar bill would not have passed the Irish Parliament.'^ The extracts here given, demonstrate, not only the complete and servile dependence of the Irish Parliament upon that of Great Britain ; but likewise, the vile uses to which the British Minister converted that dependence. The star of religious intolerance was, at this period, at its zenith * The conduct of England with reference to the linen and woollen manufactures of Ireland, has been well shewn by Mr. John O'Counell, in his ' Argument for Ireland.' t Vol. 1. p. 230. I It would seem, that the House of Lords were ready enough to persecute the Dissenters ; but that the Commons were not so complying. 14 CONSEQUENCES OF A in Ireland. The act to prevent the further growth of Popery, " through which," says Dr. Curry,* " there runs such a vein of ingenious cruelty, that it seems to be dictated rather by some Preetor of Dioclesian than by a British or Irish nobleman," was passed early in the reign of Anne ; and throughout the whole of that reign the Penal Laws were executed with unabating severity. Nor were the Roman Catholics the only objects of persecution. By a clause in the act, just alluded to, the sacramental test as it has been termed or the receiving the Lord's Supper, according to the rites of the Church of Ireland, was made a condition of executing any public trust for her Majesty or the country. Under this clause the Pres- byterian burgesses of Belfast were declared by the House of Commons incapacitated from voting in elections for members of parlia- ment, unless they should fulfil its provisions :f nor could all their exertions obtain a repeal of the obnoxious condition. Nay. more, the increasing influence of the Presybterians was viewed " with such dread and jealousy, that on the 7th November, 1T11, the lords spiri- tual and temporal presented an address to her Majesty, in which they complained of the Earl of Wharton (the Lord Lieutenant), having abused her Majesty's name in ordering nolle prosequis to stop proceedings against one Fleming and othersybr disturbing the peace of the town of Drogheda, by setting up a Meeting-house where there had been none for the last twenty-eight years ;"J set forth various acts of the Dissenters hostile to the Established Church ; amongst others " sending Missionaries into several parts of the kingdom, where they had no call, nor any congregations to support them ;" and besought her Majesty to take away from them the sum of <' 1,200 per annum given them by her for charitable purposes. These facts, respecting which no controversy can exist, convey a melancholy idea of the state of civil and religious liberty in Ireland under her dependent Parliament. Let us consider her now in her other relations. In the reign of George I. (anno 1719), the House of Lords, in Ireland, reversed a decision of the Irish Court of Exchequer upon appeal. The defeated party appealed from the Irish to the English House of Lords, which confirmed the decision of the Exchequer ; and an injunction was issued out of that Court, pursuant to the order of the English Peers. The Sheriff of Kildare, to whom the writ issued refused to obey it, arid was fined twelve hundred pounds by the Exchequer. Thereupon he petitioned the House of Lords in Ireland, who resolved " that Vol. 2, p. 234. t Common's Journ., vol. 2, p. 569. I Plowden 1, p. 222. Sherlock v. Anuesley. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 15 Alexander Burrows, Esq., in not obeying the injunction issued from his Majesty's Court of Exchequer, in the cause between Annesley and Sherlock, had behaved himself with integrity and courage, and with due respect to the orders and resolutions of the house ; that the fines imposed upon him be taken off: that the barons of the Exche- quer, viz. Jeffrey Gilbert, Esq. ; John Pocklington, Esq. ; and Sir John St. Leger, had acted in violation of the orders of the house, in ' diminution of the King's 1 Prerogative, as also of the rights and privileges of the kingdom of Ireland and the Parliament thereof." They further ordered that the barons of the Exchequer should be taken into custody by the Usher of the black rod, which orders were accordingly executed. The Lords having asserted their privilege in this manner, next forwarded to the King a long and elaborate representation of the rights which they claimed as a final court of appeal in Irish causes, setting forth in full the arguments on which they rested their claim, and concluding with the expression of a hope that his Majesty would justify the steps they had taken, for supporting his prerogative and the just rights and liberties of them- selves and their fellow-subjects. The representation and proceedings of the Irish House of Lords having been laid before the English house, the latter, instead of abandoning the appellate jurisdiction which they had assumed, passed resolutions approving of the conduct of the Irish Court of Exchequer in carrying their judgment into effect ; and agreed on presenting an humble address to his Majesty to confer on the barons of that court some mark of his royal favor, as a recompense for the injuries they had received by being unjustly censured and illegally imprisoned for doing their duty.* The celebrated act, (6 Geo. I., cap. 5,) for better securing the dependency of the kingdom of Ireland upon the Croivn of Great Britain, was then brought in at the desire of the British Peers and passed both houses by large majorities. It declared that the kingdom of Ireland was wholly subordinate to and dependent on the Crown of Great Britain ; that the British Parliament had full power to enact laws to bind it ; that all claim of appellate jurisdiction by the Irish House of Lords, was unfounded, and all proceedings thereon null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever. The miserable dependence to which the Irish Legislature (if indeed the name can be applied to it) was reduced by this act, having been submitted to for a period of sixty years, let us now turn to * The address was probably successful in its object. Baron Gilbert was trans- ferred to the English Exchequer iu 1722, and appointed Lord Chief Baron of that Court, in 1726. 16 CONSEQUENCES OF A the consideration of the social and financial condition of the country during that space of time. The first authority I shall cite is Dean Swift, who published his 'Short View of the State of Ireland/ in the year 1727-28. Having enumerated the advantages possessed hy Ireland in fruitfulness of soil, excellence of harbours, population, &c., he proceeds* "the con- veniency of ports and havens, which nature bestowed us so liberally, is of no more use to us, than a beautiful prospect to a man shut up in a dungeon. " As to shipping of its own, this kingdom is so utterly unprovided, that of all the excellent timber cut down within these fifty or sixty years, it can hardly be said that the nation hath received the benefit of one ship to trade with. " Ireland is the only kingdom I ever heard or read of in ancient or modern story, which was denied the liberty of exporting their native commodities wherever they pleased, except to countries at war with their own prince or state. Yet this, by the superiority of meer power, is refused to us in the most momentous parts of commerce ; besides an act of navigation, to which we never consented, pinned down upon us, and rigorously executed, and a thousand other unexampled circumstances as grievous as they are invidious to mention. " No strangers from other countries make this a part of their travels, n-here they can expect to see nothing but scenes of misery and desolation. " Those who have the misfortune to be born here, have the least title to any considerable employment) to which they are seldom preferred, but upon a political consideration. " The third part of the rents of Ireland is spent in England, which, with the profit of employments, pensions, appeals, journies of pleasure or health, education at the Inns of Court and both Uni- versities, remittances at pleasure, the pay of all superior officers in the army and other incidents, will amount to a full half of the income of the whole kingdom, all clear profit to England. " We are denied the liberty of coining gold, silver, or even copper. In the Isle of Man, they coin their own silver ; every petty prince, vassal to the Emperor can coin what money he pleaseth, and in this, as in most of the articles already mentioned, we are an exception to all other states or monarchies that were evor known in the world." ' Short View,&c.. 1st eil., p. 8. REPEAL OF THE UNION. IT Well, indeed, might he add, that to flourish in such a state of tilings would be " against every law of nature and reason, like the thorn of Glassenbury, which blossoms in the middle of winter." After the extracts just given, we cannot doubt the fidelity of the picture which follows : " A stranger would be apt to think himself travelling in Lapland or Iceland, rather than in a country so favored by nature as ours, both in fruitfulness of soil and temperature of climate. The mise- rable dress, and diet, and dwelling of the people : the general desolation in most parts of the kingdom : the old seats of the nobility and gentry all in ruins, and no new ones in their stead : the families of farmers, who pay great rents, living in filth and nastiness upon buttermilk and potatoes, without a shoe or stocking to their feet, or a house so convenient as an English hog-stye to receive them : these indeed may be comfortable sights to an English spectator, who comes for a short time only to learn the language, and returns back to his own country, whither he finds all our wealth transmitted ' nostra miseriil magnus es.' " The rise of our rents is squeezed out of the very blood, and vitals, and cloaths, and dwellings of the tenants who live worse than English beggars. The lowness of interest, in all other countries a sign of wealth, is in ours a proof of misery, there being no trade to employ any borrower. Hence alone comes the dearness of land, since the savers have no other way to lay out their money. Hence the dearness of the necessaries of life, because the tenants cannot afford to pay such extravagant rates for land (ivhich they must take or go a-begging), without raising the price of cattle, and of corn, although they should live upon chaff?* The evidence of such a man as Swift can hardly require corrobo- ration ; but as he was an Irishman writing on behalf of his country, and at least obnoxious to the charge of patriotism, I will cite additional testimony to the wretchedness which he has painted. On the 7 tli March, 1727, Primate Boulter, an Englishman, wrote thus to the Duke of Newcastle : " Since I came here in the year 1725, there was almost a famine amongst the poor ; last year the dearness of corn was such, that thousands of families quitted their habitations to seek bread else- where, and many hundreds perished. This year the poor had consumed their potatoes, which are their winter subsistence, near two months sooner than ordinary, and are already, through the dearness D 18 CONSEQUENCES OF A of corn, in that want, that in some places they begin to quit their habitations. 11 * " The misery thus described, went on increasing from year to year, till," says Plowden,t " in the years 1728, and 1729, it nearly amounted to a famine." In the six months ending the 29th of September in the latter year, it appears from the report of the House of Commons, that the import of corn amounted to ^247,000, a sum truly exorbitant, when compared with the finances of the country, at the time, the state of which I shall presently examine. Nor is it merely in his representations of the state of the poor, that Primate Boulter corroborates the testimony of Swift. In another letter to the Duke of Newcastle, he says, " I must re- quest of your Grace, as I have of his Lordship, (Carteret, Lord Lieutenant,) that you would both use your interest to hare none but Englishmen put into the great places here for the future. "% The advice thus given was faithfully followed up, and everything else long sacrificed to the preservation of an .English interest in Ireland. It may, however, be supposed that this English interest and Pro- testant interest were, at the time, synonimous terms, and that the Roman Catholics were the only real sufferers from the conduct of the English authorities in Ireland. This idea was indeed, upon all public occasions, sought to be impressed upon the Protestants, by the party who derived all the benefit of the existing state of things ; but what was the fact? I quote Primate Boulter again as my authority. In another letter to the Duke of Newcastle, dated 23rd November, 1728, in which he sets forth the distressed condition of the country, and the emigration which it had given rise to, (3,100 persons having, in the preceding summer, been shipped to the West Indies,) he continues " the whole north is in a ferment at present, and people every day engaging one another to go next year to the West Indies. The humour has spread like a contagious distemper, and the people will hardly hear anybody, that tries to cure them of their madness. The worst is, that it affects only Protestants, and reigns chiefly in the North, which is the seat of bur linen manufac- ture." Can it be necessary to adduce further authorities for the universal distress of the country ? If it be, let us turn from the statements of individuals to the financial accounts of the period. " Nothing," says Plowden, "can convey a more adequate idea of the financial state of the nation, than to consider the progress of the national debt, and trace the effects which it gradually produced on * Cor. Pri. Boulter, vol. 1. p. 22G. t Vol. 1. p. 2G7- J Cor. Pri. Boulter, vol. 1. p. 23. Vol. 1. p. 27. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 19 the nation. The poverty of Ireland appeared in the year 1716, by the unanimous address of the House of Commons to George I. This address was to congratulate his Majesty on his success in ex- tinguishing the rebellion ; an occasion most joyful to them, and in which no disagreeable circumstance would have been stated, had not truth and the necessities of their country extorted it from them. A small debt of <^?16,106, 11s. 0>^d. due at Michaelmas 1715, was, by their exertions to strengthen the hands of government, in that year, increased at Midsummer, 1717, to a sum of ^91,537 17s. 1/^d. which was considered such an augmentation of the national debt, that the Lord Lieutenant, the Duke of Bolton, thought it necessary to take notice in his speech from the throne, that the debt was con- siderably augmented, and to declare at the same time that his Majesty had ordered reductions in the military, and had thought proper to lessen the civil list. " There cannot be a stronger proof," 1 continues Mr. Plcwden, " of the want of resources in any country, than that a debt of so small amount should alarm the persons en- trusted ie it/i the government of it" an observation in the truth of which every man must agree. In 1733, the debt had further increased to c371,31id. 471. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 21 champ, who confirmed nearly all his statements on the subject. On the 19th of January, 1779, he renewed the discussion of the state of Ireland, (with the design of having some of the restrictions on her trade removed,,) and stated, amongst other matters, that " good estates in that country were offered to sale at sixteen and fourteen years' purchase, yet no buyers appeared at that low price ; v and referred to ," a letter he had received from Dr. Woodward, Dean of Clogher, mentioning that all had been done, that could be effected by contribution, to relieve the starving poor, but in vain."* Finally, as substantiating all the representations which had been made by individuals, on the 18th May, 1779, Lord North com- municated the following message from the King to the British House of Commons : " (George R.) His Majesty having received information from the Earl of Buckinghamshire, his Lieutenant- General and General Governor of his Kingdom of Ireland, that the revenues of that kingdom have of late proved greatly deficient, and inadequate to the purposes for which they were granted ; and his Majesty, moved with concern and compassion for the distresses of his loyal and faithful subjects of that kingdom, and being anxious that some immediate and effectual relief should be afforded to them, thinks it necessary to recommend to the consideration of this House, whether it may not be proper, in the present circumstances of Ire- land, that the whole charge of the regiments on the Irish establish- ment, now serving out of that kingdom, should be paid by Great Britain. G. R."f Having now, as I conceive, adduced authorities sufficient in number and value, to satisfy the most incredulous, that the state of Ireland, down to the year 1780, under the rule of her dependent parliament, was disastrous in the last degree, 1 shall ask the reader to retrace his steps, for a more pleasing purpose than that of contemplating scenes of bigotry and want. The sturdy and patriotic spirit which was so soon about to change the whole aspect of the country, had begun its attacks on the system of English misrule about forty years before the time at which we have arrived. Indeed, so early as 1727, " there were some, who," says Plowden, " assuming the title of patriots, solemnly protested against any foreign ascendancy over the native rights and interests of their country/' The first symptoms of the independent feeling thus manifested, were, as usual, accompanied by a forgetfulness of religious animosities, and " the Irish Catholics, though deprived of most of the civil rights, which their Protestant brethren enjoyed, sympathised witli them in 1 PlowJcn, p. 47-'. t Ibid. 475. 22 CONSEQUENCES OF A their efforts to preserve the rights of Ireland, and in defiance of religious differences, began to make civil liberty a common cause with them."* The guardians of the English interest were however on the alert ; their power had been only threatened, not yet shaken, and they struck a sudden, and, for the time, a decisive blow. " This novel coalition^ between Protestants and Catholics" con- tinues Plowden, " in support and defence of the interests of Ire- land, became formidably alarming to that party, whose sole mission mas to keep up an English interest in that kingdom. Government foresaw the necessary progress of this native coalition against the English interest, and at one blow put an end to the political ex- istence of, at least, four-fifths of the nation, by depriving them of the noblest birthright, and invaluable privilege of the subject." By a single clause introduced into a bill, threatening no additional restrictions on the Roman Catholics, they were suddenly robbed of the elective franchise, and the patriotic party deprived at once of their most valuable support. Notwithstanding this success on the part of government, the patriots steadily persevered in their exertions. During the administration of Lord Carteret, in 1T29, " the Court party had moved in the Commons, that the fund which had been provided for the payment of the principal and interest of the National Debt, should be granted to his Majesty, his heirs, and successors for ever, redeemable by parliament. The patriots insisted successfully, that it was unconstitutional, and inconsistent with the public safety, to grant it for a longer term than from session to session. An attempt was afterwards made to vest it in the Crown, by continuing the supplies for twenty-one years. A division took place on this question, and the patriots succeeded by a majority of one." In 1751, they were again triumphant, in asserting the principle that the House of Commons had a right to pass an act disposing of the surplus of the hereditary revenue without the pre- vious consent of the Crown. In 1756, they were, it is true, in a minority of 50 to 85, on a bill brought in for better securing the freedom of parliament, by vacating the seats of such members of the House of Commons, as should accept of any pension or civil office of profit ; but even this, when we consider the extent of the system of corruption then resorted to for the purpose of securing ministerial majorities, is strongly indicative of the progress of public honesty. In 1767, a far higher degree of success attended the efforts of the patriots ; they obtained the passing of the Octennial Bill, reducing the privilege of members of the House of Commons Vol. 1, p. 265. t H'iJ. 2G8. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 23 to sit in parliament, to eight years, it having previously been for life. The bill had originally been septennial, but it had been altered in the British Cabinet, " it having been expected," says Mr. Plowden, " that the violent tenaciousness of the Irish Com- mons for the privilege of not having their heads of bills altered on this (i. e. the English) side of the water, would have induced them to reject any bill, into which such an alteration had been intro- duced."* The trick was, however, seen through by the parliament, and they passed the bill with the alteration, so anxious were they, constitutionally, to limit the duration of their powers. In order, however, to shew their resolve to maintain their privileges, they at the same time rejected a bill for securing the independence of the judges, on the express ground of an alteration having been similarly made in it. The new house having met in 1769, at once took issue on the right of originating measures in the privy council. A money bill having been brought into the House of Commons, it was moved, that it be rejected, because it had not its rise in that house, and the motion was carried, and the bill thrown out by a majority of 94 against 71. An article having appeared in the London Public Advertiser of the 9th December, 1769, abusing, in very insolent terms, the Irish House of Commons for this assertion of its privileges, and calling on the British Parliament to vote the Irish supplies, " as they had an undoubted right," it was moved on the 18th of that month, in the Irish Commons, that it should be read, which having been done, it was declared to be a false and infamous libel on the proceedings of that house, and ordered to be burned by the common hangman, which was accordingly done on the following Wednesday in the presence of the sheriff's of Dublin. In 1775, the House of Commons once more shewed its in- dependence by negativing a proposal of government to introduce foreign troops into the kingdom, by a majority of 106 against 68 ; and also rejected a bill, imposing additional duties on ale, beer, &c., as well as a stamp act, the ground for the rejection of these latter bills being, that they were altered in England. The advances made by the patriots, were thus steadily increasing ; but the Roman Catholics had, since the passing of the disfranchising act, been politically powerless. The first step taken towards their relief, was in the month of May 1778, when a motion was made in the Irish House of Commons for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose, which motion was carried in the affirmative. The bill in question, permitted any Roman Catholic taking the Oath of Alle- giance prescribed by the 13 & 11 Geo. III., to take and dispose of a * Vol. 1, p. 3-iS. 24 CONSEQUENCES OF A lease for 999 years, certain or determinable on the dropping of five lives; and declared, that the lands held by Roman Catholics, should be descendible, devisable, and alienable, in the same manner as if held by any other person. It passed both houses, and received the royal assent, the first act of justice to the vast majority of the Irish people, which, for nearly a century, had been wrung from their oppressors. In 17T9, Ireland, from the accumulated distresses of her inhabi- tants, the extent of which has been already shewn, and the exertions of the patriotic party, began to assume an attitude still more menacing to British domination. The country had been, two years before this period, drained of its troops, which were required for the foreign service of the empire, and being entirely defenceless, volunteer bodies of armed men had associated themselves together to supply the place of the soldiery which had been withdrawn. These volunteers were men, for the most part sensible of the evils which English ascendancy had inflicted on their country, and largely inspired with the free sentiments of the patriots. The example of America, which had so recently revolted from British rule, animated them, while it, to an equal extent, depressed their rulers ; and when the demands and necessities of the country were brought before the British Parliament in this year, several of its members spoke plainly of the dangers to be apprehended from the continuance of that policy which had been theretofore habitually adopted in her behalf. Ministers, however, did nothing, and the affairs of Ireland were left unattended to during the session ; which closed without any measure having been passed for her benefit. When the Irish people found that their wants were thus neglected, they resolved to try what they could, by their own efforts, effect. They formed associations which pledged themselves against the importation of British commodities, and resolved to encourage and consume native manufactures only. These resolutions were first entered into in Dublin, and were rapidly followed up in other parts of the kingdom. The spirit of the people had been caught up by their representatives. When the House of Commons met in November, they had resolved to grant the supplies for only a limited period, and accordingly passed a six-months money-bill, which they transmitted to England where, to his great mortification, the minister was obliged to assent to it. They had, moreover, unanimously passed resolutions in favor of free-trade ; and on the 24th of November, the question being put " that it be resolved, that at this time, it would be inexpedient to grant new taxes ;" i( v. r as carried in the affirmative by a majority of 170 to 4T. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 25 The determination of Ireland had, in all respects, begun to operate favourably for her. " The firm measure of a six months 1 money-bill, the non-importation agreement, and the armed associations, had produced a wonderful change in the public mind throughout Great Britain, with reference to her affairs ;"* and accordingly Lord North having, in a committee of the British House of Commons, on the 13th of November, brought forward three propositions, relative to allowing her a free export of her wool, woollens, and wool-flocks of glass, and all kinds of glass manufactures, and a freedom of trade with the British plantations on certain conditions, the basis of which was to be an equality of taxes and customs upon an equal and unrestrained trade : bills founded on the two first propositions were brought in, passed both houses with the utmost facility and received the royal assent before the recess. The third being more complex in its nature, and requiring more time for consideration, was allowed to lie over as an open proposition during the ensuing holidays.f Meanwhile, the Volunteer associations were daily becoming more formidable. At the close of 1TT9, they had been computed to number 30,000 men, self-equipped and strictly disciplined. " In the beginning of 1780, they entered upon the plan of general orga- nization : they appointed reviews for the ensuing summer ; and chose their exercising officers and reviewing generals : and thus" says Plowden, " the foundation of Irish Union was laid." 1 The resolutions of many of the corps, declaring that Ireland was an independent kingdom, entitled to all the uncontrolled rights and immunities attaching thereto, filled the newspapers. The sentiment was responded to by the whole Irish people, and on the 19th of April, in that year, Mr. Grattan, after a most animated speech, moved in the House of Commons, that they should resolve, and enter on their journals " that no power on earth, save the King Lords and Commons of Ireland, had a right to make laws for Ireland."' A debate arose on the motion which lasted until six in the morning, in which every man, but one, " acknowledged its truth, either expressly or by not opposing it ;" but at the instance of Mr. Flood, who feared that the ministerial hacks were numerous enough to defeat it, if a division took place, it was withdrawn by its mover. Ministers themselves, indeed, seem to have, at this time, been fully confident of the subserviency of their minions and so far as it could avail them in their attacks on Irish liberty, they did not miscalculate. A mutiny bill sent over, as usual, was returned by the English Privy Council, altered by being made perpetual ; and * Plowden, vol. 1., p. 512. t Ibid. E 26 CONSEQUENCES OF A the Irish House of Commons, in the month of August passed it in its altered and unconstitutional form. A bill relating to sugar was altered in England in a like manner. The people out of doors became clamorous, the Volunteers menacing : but the session closed, on the 2nd of September, without any further step having been taken towards the atttainment of Irish independence. The Volunteers the safeguard of Ireland with arms in their hands, were, however, alike unassailable, by ministerial menace or corruption ; and they now had no other object than the attainment of a free and independent constitution. " Their reviews in 1 780," says Mr. Plowden, "had pointed out the utility of forming regiments : it was clearly perceived that companies acting separately could never attain military perfection. In the spring of 1781, reviews were again "fixed on ; and in summer when they assembled, the improved state of the Volunteers was obvious to every eye. The reviews were everywhere more numerous, more military and more splendid. That of Belfast, which in 1780 was the largest, had, in 1781, nearly doubled their number ; 5,383 men then appeared in review, with a train of thirteen field pieces ; other reviews had proportionably increased and improved ; the Volunteers engaged the affection and commanded the admiration of all their country- men."* On the 9th of October, 1781, parliament assembled. On the 10th Mr. Bradstreet, recorder of Dublin and a staunch patriot, moved for and obtained leave to prepare and bring in a Habeas Corpus bill, no act of the kind having previously existed in Ireland ! Sir Lucius O'Brien, spoke of the neglect which had been exhibited by England towards Ireland in reference to the trade of the latter country with Portugal, and was followed by Mr. Yelverton, who commented on the omission of all allusion in the speech from the throne to this important subject : while in its stead were recommen- dations respecting Protestant charter-schools, making of roads and other matters, more fit for the consideration of a county grand jury than for the great inquest of a nation. He further alluded to the miserable state of Ireland, and said it must continue " so long as a monster unknown to the constitution, a British Attorney- General through the influence of a law of Poyning's, had power to alter their bills." On the 29th of October, on the re-assembling of parlia- ment after the recess, the Portugal trade question was a second time brought before the house, in discussing a petition presented by Mr. Recorder Bradstreet, from the merchants' guild of Dublin, Vol. l.p.52!t. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 2T and Sir Lucius O'Brien again spoke upon it. " He was sorry," he said, " to see the business conducted in a timid manner, and in the hands of persons not interested in their welfare, but with a secon- dary view, who, at most, would only promote it when it did not clash with the convenience of a neighbouring nation. He thought that granting the supplies for six months only, would be the most likely method of bringing the business to a happy issue." From these remarks some idea may be formed of the tone of the inde- pendent party in Parliament, which was in complete unison with that of the whole population outside. The independent party in the House of Commons, however, did not at this time form a very numerous body. " The activity of the Castle," says Mr. Plowdeu,* "to ensure a majority in parliament, kept pace with the increase of patriotism out of it. But this system in the new ferment of the public mind, became daily less efficient, and was ill suited to the existing disposition of the country. The people had arms, had power and a determination to be free ; they knew the use of their arms, and had imbibed a uniform and steady resolve not to quit them till they had attained the object of their wishes, a free and independent constitution. It was obvious, that a parliament marshalled as that was to resist the demands of the people, might irritate, but could not control the wishes of their constituents. Administration confiding in their number, set all the patriotic attempts at defiance, and frustrated or negatived all their demands and claims. They thus pitted this factitious majority against the mass of their armed countrymen who now beheld them with indignation, and considei-ed them, in fact, the only enemy they had to encounter in Ireland." On (he llth December, 1781, Mr. Flood in a most able speech brought the subject of Poyniug's law, before parliament, and having gone into an elaborate history of its origin, and of the amount of usurpation of power, which it had given rise to, on the part of Great Britain, in reference to Ireland, moved, " that a commitee be appointed to examine the precedents and records that day- produced, and such others as might be necessary to explain the law of Poyning's." This motion, was, however negatived by the house, the majority for ministers being 139 against 67. On the 31st. of January, 1782, Mr. Luke Gardiner, afterwards Lord Mountjoy, gave notice of his intention to bring in a bill for the further relief of the Roman Catholics, and many of the best and ablest members of the house, spoke in the highest terms of Il.icl. p. 53.-.. 28 CONSEQUENCES OF A their conduct, referring especially to their zealous co-operation with their protestant fellow-countrymen in the attempt to secure Irish liberty, notwithstanding the wretched position in which they themselves were, placed. In the debate on the bill, on the 5th February, like sentiments were expressed by nearly all the speakers. The Attorney-general, Mr. Scott, who supported it, men- tioned facts which it is gratifying to record, as shewing the kindly feeling that had grown up amongst all classes of religionists. " He was particularly happy," he said "in hearing the sentiments of toleration, which had been expressed by gentlemen, who repre- sented the northern countries ; on that subject their opinions should have the greatest weight, and as there were no men who valued liberty higher, there were none who would be more forward to bestow it on their countrymen. He had himself been a witness of their wisdom, and the spirit of toleration that reigned amongst them. He had seen in Monaghan, at the same moment, three prodigious large congregations flowing out, from a meeting house, a church, and a mass house, and as the individuals that composed them, had joined in the street, they had blended, and united in one body, with every mark of affection and good will ; that was true religious toleration, and the most striking examples of it were to be found in the north." With such a spirit of freedom, as we have seen was abroad, and so happy an absence of sectarian bigotry, as is evidenced by the matters here alluded to, it was impossible, that Ireland could, much longer, be held in the trammels of provin- cialism. Her era of independence was now rapidly approaching. On the 28th of December, 1781, a meeting of the Southern batta- lion of the first Ulster Regiment of Volunteers, (commanded by the Earl of Charlemont,) was held at Armagh, who, having passed resolutions, expressive of their concern, at the desertion of the con- stitutional rights of the kingdom, by the Irish parliament, convened a general meeting of delegates from all the Volunteer Corps of Ulster, to take place at Dungannon, on the 15th of February following, " then and there to deliberate on the alarming state of public affairs, and to determine on, and publish to their country, what may be the result of said meeting. 1 " That bold steps were contemplated by the requisitionists, was pretty evident, from their concluding resolution, which was in these words : " Resolved, that, as it is highly probable the idea of forming brigades, will be agi- tated and considered, the several corps of Volunteers who send delegates to said meeting, are' requested to vest in them a power to associate with some one of such brigades as may be there formed. The resolutions wore published in all tin 1 newspapers of the REPEAL OF THE UNION. 29 province, and in the Volunteer Journal of the City of Dublin. The people looked forward to the result with anxiety and hope. The government dared not to interpose. At length the eventful and memorable 15th of February, 1T82, arrived. The representatives of one hundred and forty-three corps of volunteers, met in the church of Dunganuon, in the sacred names of liberty and father- land. The destiny of their country was in their keeping, and they acted in a spirit worthy of its guardians. Twenty-one re- solutions were agreed to at their meeting, some of which, being of a formal nature, or merely expressive of thanks to individuals, I omit. The following are those which are of a public character, of which there is not one that does not deserve to be lastingly engraven on the hearts of their countrymen : ULSTER VOLUNTEERS. " At a meeting of the Representatives of one hundred and forty- " three corps of volunteers of the province of Ulster, held at Dun- " gannon, on Friday, the 15th day of February, 1782, Colonel Wm. " Irvine, in the Chair. " Whereas, it has been asserted, that volunteers, as such, cannot, " with propriety, debate or publish their opinions on political sub- jects, or on the conduct of parliament, or public men. " 1. Resolved, unanimously, that a citizen, by learning the use " of arms, does not abandon any of his civil rights. " 2. Resolved, unanimously, that a claim of any body of men, " other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make " laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a " grievance. " 3. Resolved fwith one dissenting voice only,) that the powers " exercised by the privy council of both kingdoms, under colour " or pretence of the law of Poynings, are unconstitutional and a " grievance. 4. Resolved, unanimously, that the ports of this country are, " by right, open to all foreign countries, not at war with the King ; " and that any burthen thereupon, or obstruction thereto, save " only by the parliament of Ireland, is unconstitutional, illegal, " and a grievance. " 5. Resolved (with one dissenting voice only,) that a mutiny " bill, not limited in point of duration, from session to session, is " unconstitutional, and a grievance. 30 CONSEQUENCES OF A " 6. Resolved, unanimously, that the independence of judges " is equally essential to the impartial administration of justice in " Ireland, as in England ; and that the refusal or delay of this " right to Ireland makes a distinction, where there should be no " distinction, may excite jealousy, where perfect union should " prevail ; and is, in itself, unconstitutional, and a grievance. " 7. Resolved, (with eleven dissenting voices only,) that it is " our decided and unalterable determination, to seek a redress " of these grievances ; and we pledge ourselves to each other, and " to our country, as freeholders, fellow-citizens, and men of honor, " that we will, at every ensuing election, support those only, who " have supported, and will support us therein ; and that we will " use all constitutional means to make such our pursuit of redress " speedy and effectual. " 8. Resolved, (with one dissenting voice onjy,) that the Right " Honorable and Honorable the Minority in Parliament, who have " supported these our constitutional rights, are entitled to our most " grateful thanks ; and that the annexed address be signed by the " Chairman, and published with these resolutions. " 9. Resolved, unanimously, that four members from each " county of the province of Ulster, (eleven to be a quorum,) be, " and are hereby appointed a committee till next general meeting, " to act for the volunteer corps here represented, and, as occasion " shall require, to call general meetings of the province ; viz. " Lord Viscount Enniskillen, " Capt. John Harvey, " Colonel Mervyn Archdall, " Capt. Robert Campbell, " Colonel William Irvine, " Captain Joseph Pollock, " Colonel Robert M'Clintock, " Capt.Waddell Cunningham, " Colonel John Ferguson, " Capt. Francis Evans, " Colonel John Montgomery, " Captain John Cope, " Colonel Charles Leslie, " Captain James Dawson, " Colonel Francis Lucas, " Captain James Atcheson, " Col. Thomas Morris Jones, " Captain Daniel Eccles, " Colonel James Hamilton, " Capt. Thomas Dixon, " Colonel Andrew Thompson, " Captain David Bell, " Lieut.-Col. Alexander Stewart, " Captain John Coulston, " Major James Patterson " Captain Robert Black, " Major Francis Dobbs, ". Rev. Wm. Crawford, " Major James M'Clintock, " Mr Robert Thompson, " Major Charles Duffin. " 13. Resolved, (with two dissenting voices only, to this and REPEAL OF THE UNION. 31 " the following resolution,) that we hold the right of private judg- " ment in matters of religion, to be equally sacred in others as " in ourselves. " 14. Resolved, therefore, that as men, and as Irishmen, as " Christians, and as Protestants, we rejoice in the relaxation of the " penal laws against our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects ; and " that we conceive the measure to be fraught with the happiest " consequences to the union and prosperity of the inhabitants of " Ireland. " ADDRESS, " To the Right Honorable and Honorable the Minority in both " Houses of Parliament. " MY LORDS AND GENTLEMEN, " WE thank you for your noble and spirited, though " hitherto ineffectual efforts, in defence of the great and commercial " rights of your country. Go on ! the almost unanimous voice of " the people is with you ; and, in a free country, the voice of the " people must prevail. We know our duty to our sovereign, and " are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved " to be free. We seek for our rights, and no more than our rights ; " and in so just a pursuit, we should doubt the being of a Pro- " videuce, if we doubted of success. " Signed by order, " WILLIAM IRVINE, Chairman." Such were the glorious proceedings of Dungaunon. They are above comment ; but not beyond imitation. On the 22nd of February, one week after this took place, Mr. Grattan moved, in the House of Commons, an address to his Majesty, embodying the substance of the resolutions, above set forth, declaratory of the Legislative Independence of Ireland, and repudiating the right of Great Britain to bind her by any law whatsoever. The motion was opposed by government, and some specious arguments, addressed to the fears of the members, put forward against it. The Attorney- General, especially, in a very artful speech, reminded the house of the manner in which the declaration, that England had, at no time, a right to make laws for Ireland, might operate on their tenures of property. " He had looked," he said, " over the papers of the for- feited estates, and found that there was scarcely a man in the house who did not enjoy some portion of them, nor a county in Ireland, 32 CONSEQUENCES OF A of which they did not make a considerable part. A worthy repre- sentative of the county of Cavan, held a large property, formerly forfeited, and afterwards granted by an English law. Would he throw a doubt on the validity of his title ? Many gentlemen who heard him were in the same situation. Some days ago, the obser- vation of a learned friend of his (Mr. Fitzgibbon) electrified the house, when he told them, that they were about to disturb all property derived under the laws of forfeiture.* What then must be their feelings, when desired to loose all the bands which unite Society, and leave almost the whole property of the kingdom to be grappled for, by the descendants of the ancient proprietors?'" Such arguments, if, of no other value, probably soothed the consciences of the government supporters, and a division having taken place, on an amendment put by the Attorney-General, to adjourn the considera- tion of the question to the first of August following : the numbers were, for the amendment, 13T ; for the original motion, 68 majority for government, 69. It is to be observed that, although the address was opposed by the ministerial party, they at the same time denied, that by that opposition they meant to convey the idea of any present right in Great Britain to bind Ireland by acts of the British parliament. Their object, they said, was merely to avoid anything which might bring into question the validity of past transactions. The inde- pendent party, therefore, resolved to try another mode of getting a declaration of the rights of their country ; and, accordingly, on the 26th of February, Mr. Flood moved two resolutions. 1st " That the members of this house are the only representatives of the people of Ireland. 2nd " That the consent of the commons is indispensably neces- sary to render any statute binding." These resolutions the government party also opposed, as being unnecessary, and the Solicitor-General moved, as an amendment, that the words " that it is not now necessary to declare," should be inserted before the words in the original resolutions. The Attorney- General supported the amendment on the above ground, stating at the same time, " that, as an Irishman, and a friend of Great Britain, he would say, that if Great Britain should attempt to make any new laws, they would not be obeyed." Several of those who spoke in favor of the independence of Ireland, took the same view of the question, so, that when it came to a division, the numbers were, for the original motion, 76 for the amendment, 13T ; the number * By the terms of the Roman Catholic Relief Act. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 33 who voted on the government side being exactly the same as in the former division. Meanwhile the bills for the relief of the Roman Catholics, had been progressing through parliament. Two of them passed both houses, and subsequently became law; one, the 21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 24, intituled " An Act for the further Relief of His Majesty's Subjects of this kingdom professing the Roman Catholic Religion" by which Catholics, having taken the oath of allegiance under 13th & 1 1th Geo. III. c. 32, were entitled to take, hold and dis- pose of lands and hereditaments in the same manner as Protestants, (except advowsons and manors, or boroughs returning members of parliament). Several penalties were also removed by it from such of the clergy as took the oath and were registered, (its operation as regarded the regular clergy being, however, confined to those then in the kingdom). It also repealed the most obnoxious parts of the penal acts of Anne, George the First and George the Se- cond ; but clergymen officiating in any church or chapel with a steeple or bell were deprived of the benefit of the act. The second act was intituled " An Act to allow persons professing the Popish religion to teach school in this kingdom, and for the regulating the education of Papists, and also to repeal parts of certain laws relating to the guardianship of their children." 1 This act repealed so much of the acts of William and Anne as imposed on Catholics teaching school, or privately instructing youth in learning, the same pains, penalties and forfeitures, as any Popish regular con- vict was subject to : but excepting out of its benefit any person who should not have taken the late oath of allegiance, who should receive a Protestant scholar, or who should become an usher, to a Protestant schoolmaster. It also enabled Catholics, (not being ecclesiastics) to be guardians to their own, or any Popish child. The third bill, for authorising intermarriages between Protestants and Roman Catholics, did not become law. The house divided on it, and it was negatived by a majority of eight. I mention the progress of legislation, in favour of the Roman Catholics, to shew that the principles of liberality in religion ad- vanced steadily in the wake of political independence, as those of bigotry and oppression had followed in the track of slavery. It is right to state also, that to England is due none of the credit of increased toleration. Of the plan for the relief of the Catholics, Mr. Plowden says,* " certain it is that government gave no direct countenance or support to it, though several supporters of goveru- * Vol. 1. p. 581. 34 CONSEQUENCES OF A ment cordially favoured the measure." The merit of it fairly belongs to the Protestants of Ireland, and it should not be forgotten that many of the latter, in the House of Commons, even at this early period, openly and unequivocally declared, " that national justice and national policy demanded the complete emancipation of the Catholics, and a perfect civil amalgamation of the whole Irish people."* Lord North's administration was now tottering to its fall. On the 14th of March, 1T82, the Irish Parliament was adjourned to the 16th of April, before which time a general change took place in the British Ministry, and Mr. Eden (Irish secretary) went over with Lord Carlisle's resignation of the lord lieutenancy. This gen- tleman, almost immediately on his arrival in England, viz. on the 8th of April, moved in the House of Commons there, a repeal of the declaratory Act 6th Geo. I. so far as it asserted a right in the King and Parliament of Great Britain to bind Ireland. "With regard to the precipitancy, with which he urged this step to be taken by the house, he assured them, that it was the absolute and pressing necessity of the case, that must be his excuse. Delay besides was useless, for " in the present state and disposition of Ireland, he would assure the house, that they might as well strive to make the Thames flow up Highgate Hill, as attempt to legislate for Ireland, which would no longer submit to any legislature but its own." The suddenness with which Mr. Eden's motion was made, and his refusal of all official information to government, respecting the state of Ireland, raised a violent clamour in the house. He, however, pressed his motion said he was about to return next day to that country, and feared (notwithstanding the statement of Mr. Secretary Fox, that he hoped within the next four and twenty hours to lay a preparatory measure before the housej that " if the motion was not then carried into execution, it would be too late." The resistance he met with, however, com- pelled him to abandon it. On the next day Mr. Fox communicated to the house, the following message from the crown : " George R., His Majesty, being concerned to find that discon- " tent and jealousies are prevailing among his loyal subjects in " Ireland, upon matters of great weight and importance, earnestly " recommends to this house, to take the same into their most serious " consideration, in order to such a final adjustment, as may give " mutual satisfaction to both kingdoms. G. R." Ibid, 582. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 35 The Duke of Portland arrived in Dublin, as new lord lieutenant, on the 14th of April, and was received with demonstrations of enraptured joy. When parliament met on the 16th, "the galleries and bar of the House of Commons were crowded to excess, and expectation was raised to enthusiasm." As soon as the speaker had taken the chair, a message similar to that above given was com- municated from the lord lieutenant, by Mr. John Hely Hutchinson, his Majesty's principal secretary of state. He stated his own uniform support of the right of Ireland to self-legislation, and declared that in whatever form it should be proposed, in terms the most unequivocal and explicit, whether by vote, address OP bill, it should receive his most cordial support. Mr. George Ponsoiiby moved, that a dutiful and loyal address should be presented to his Majesty, thanking him for his most gracious message, and assuring him, that his faithful Commons would immediately proceed upon the just objects he had recom- mended to their consideration. Mr. Grattan then rose, to mention to the house his reasons for disagreeing in some respect on the form of the motion. " He hoped to induce the house, rather to declare that they had considered the causes of jealousy, and that they were contained in his original motion for a declaration of rights which he would then move as an amendment to the address." He said, " he had nothing to add, but to admire by what steady virtue the people had asserted their rights. He was not very old, and yet he remembered Ireland a child. He had watched her growth : from infancy she grew to arms : from arms to liberty. She was not now afraid of the French ; she was not now afraid of the English ; she was not now afraid of herself. Her sous were no longer an arbitrary gentry ; a ruined commonalty ; Protestants oppressing Catholics, Catholics groaning under oppression, but she was now an united land." He then proceeded to review the progress of Ireland to liberty, and concluded a noble speech by moving the following address, which was carried, nem. com, " To return his Majesty the thanks of this house, for his most gracious message to this house, signified by his Grace, the Lord Lieutenant. " To assure his Majesty, of our unshaken attachment to his Majesty's person and government, and of our lively sense of his paternal care, in thus taking the lead to administer content to his Majesty's subjects in Ireland. " That thus encouraged by his royal interposition, we shall beg leave, with all duty and affection, to lay before his Majesty the cause of our discontents and jealousies ; to assure his Majesty that 36 CONSEQUENCES OF A his subjects of Ireland, are a free people, that the Crown of Ireland is an imperial one, inseparably annexed to the Crown of Great Britain, on which connexion, the interests and happiness of both nations essentially depend ; but that the kingdom of Ireland is a distinct kingdom with a parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof, that there is no body of men, competent to make laws to bind this nation, except the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, nor any other parliament which hath any authority, or power, of any sort whatever, in this country, save only the parliament of Ireland. To assure his Majesty that we humbly conceive, that in this right, the very essence of our liberties consists, aright, which we on the part of all the people of Ireland, do claim as their birth- right, and which we cannot yield, BUT WITH OUR LIVES. " To assure his Majesty, that we have seen with concern, certain claims advanced by the Parliament of Great Britain, in an act, entitled ' An Act for the better securing the dependency of Ireland ;' an act containing matters entirely irreconcilable to the fundamental rights of this nation ; that we conceive this act, and the claims it advances, to be the great and principal cause of the discontents and jealousies of this kingdom. " To assure his Majesty, that his Majesty's Commons of Ireland, do most sincerely wish, that all bills which become law in Ireland should receive the approbation of his Majesty, under the great seal of Britain, but that yet, we do consider the practice of suppressing our bills, in the councils, or altering the same anywhere, to be another just cause of discontent and jealousy. " To assure his Majesty, that an act, entitled, ' An Act, for the better accommodation of his Majesty's forces, 1 being unlimited in its duration, and defective in other instances, but passed in that shape from the particular circumstances of the times, is another just cause of discontent and jealousy, in this kingdom. " That we have submitted these principal causes of discontent and jealousy in Ireland, and remain in humble expectation of redress. " That we have the greatest reliance on his Majesty's wisdom, the most sanguine expectations from his virtuous choice of a chief governor, and great confidence in the wise, auspicious, and constitu- tional councils which we see with satisfaction, his Majesty has adopted. " That we have moreover, a high sense and veneration for the British character, and do therefore conceive that the proceedings in this country, founded as they are in right, and tempered by duty, REPEAL OF THE UNION. 37 must have excited the approbation and esteem, instead of wounding the pride, of the British nation. " And we beg leave to assure his Majesty, that we are the more confirmed in this hope, inasmuch as the people of this kingdom, have never expressed a desire, to share the freedom of England, without declaring a determination to share her fate likewise, standing and falling with the British nation." On the 14th of May, the house adjourned for three weeks, in order to give time to the British Parliament, to take into conside- ration the claim made by Ireland for self-legislation, and on the 17th of that month, the Earl of Shelburne, (afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne), in the Peers, and Mr. Fox in the Commons, brought forward the subject of the Irish addresses. Mr. Fox went fully into the nature of the claims in question. As to the 6 Geo. I. he said, " that it could not be supported with any show of justice. He had always been of opinion out of office, that it was downright tyranny to make laws for the internal government of a people, who were not represented among those by whom such laws were made. As to the power of external legislation, Ireland had reason to spurn at it, for it had been employed against Ireland as an in- strument of oppression, to establish an impolitic monopoly in trade ; to enrich one country at the expense of the other." In another part of his speech he said, and the sentiment is worth recording, that " for his part he would rather see Ireland totally separated from the crown of England than kept in obedience only by force. Unwilling subjects were little better than enemies ; it would be better have no subjects at all than to have such as would be continually on the watch to seize the opportunity of making themselves free. If this country (England), should attempt to coerce Ireland, and succeed in the attempt, the consequence would be that, at the breaking out of every war with any foreign power, the first step must be to send troops over to secure Ireland, instead of calling upon her to give a willing support to the common cause." He then proceeded to consider the demand for an alteration of the law of Poynings, relative to the right claimed by the Privy Council of England to alter Irish bills. " To this too," he said, " he was ready to assent. If a proper use had been made of the power it, perhaps, might have been retained, but to his knowledge it had been grossly abused. In one instance in particular, a bill had been sent over to England two years ago, granting, and very wisely, and very justly granting, indulgences to the Roman Catholics ; in the same bill there iras a clause in favor of Dissenters, for repealing the sacramental test ; this clause iras struck out, contrary, 38 CONSEQUENCES OF A in his opinion, to sound policy, as the alteration tended to make an improper discrimination between two descriptions, of men which did not tend to the union of the people." This shews how little the tenderness of English Cabinets towards the Protestant Dissenters in Ireland had increased since the reign of Queen Anne ; and how much better they, as well as all other classes of Irishmen, were treated by a native parliament. Mr. Fox concluded his speech by moving " that it is the opinion of this committee (a committee of the whole house) that the act of the 6 George, I., entitled, 'An Act for better securing the dependence of Ireland on the crown of Great Britain," 1 ought to be repealed." On the 27th May, the Duke of Portland communicated the resolution to the Irish Parliament in a speech from the throne ; and an address moved iu the Commons by Mr. Grattan, expressive of entire satisfaction, was carried by a majority of 209 ; the Recorder Bradstreet, and Mr. "Walsh, being the only dissentients from it; both of whom thought it injudicious to insert in the address, the words " that there will no longer exist any constitutional question between the two nations that can disturb their mutual tranquility^ which words formed part of it. Still, however, there were some who thought that the rights of Ireland were not fully declared or secured by what had been done. When the Commons were in committee on the bill for the modifi- cation of Poynings' law on the 6th of June, Mr. Flood proposed, as an amendment to the bill, then before the house, that " whereas, doubts have arisen on the construction of the law, commonly called Poynings 1 law, and of the 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, explanatory thereof. Be it enacted by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons in the present parliament assembled ; and by the authority of the same, that the said law of Poynings, and the said 3 & 4 Philip and Mary, be and stand repealed, save only as follows : that is to say, be it enacted. " That no parliament shall be holden in this kingdom until a license for that purpose be had and obtained from his Majesty, his heirs and successors, under the great seal of Great Britain." " And that all bills, considerations, causes, ordinances, tenors, and provisions of either or both houses of parliament, shall be of right certified to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, unaltered under the great seal of Ireland, by the Lord Lieutenant, or the chief governor or governors, and council of this kingdom for the time being ; and that such bills, and no others, being returned unaltered, under the seal of Great Britain shall be capable of REPEAL OF THE UNION. 39 receiving the royal assent, or dissent in parliament, according to his Majesty's disposition, either for giving his assent or dissent, to the same respectively." Mr. Yelverton moved, instead of the amendment proposed by Mr. Flood, another in these words (the object being to prevent delay in summoning parliaments, one of the evils which Mr. Flood complained of as likely to arise under the bill) ; " be it further enacted, that no bill shall be certified into Great Britain as a cause or consideration for holding a parliament in this kingdom (Ireland), but that parliaments may be holden in this kingdom, although no such bill shall have been certified previous to the meeting thereof." Mr. Yelverton's amendment was carried without a division. On the llth June, 1782, on the further debate on the bill for repealing the 6 George I., Mr. Flood endeavoured to get the house to insist on a positive renunciation by Great Britain, of all right to bind Ireland by British acts of parliament and not to rest satisfied with the repeal of the declaratory law, which, as he very justly contended, did not, in any way, alter the right. He was, however, opposed by Mr. Grattan, on the ground that it suggested an ungenerous doubt of English justice, and Mr. Flood was defeated. However, on the 20th December following, Mr. Secretary Townshend, alarmed by a communication from the Lord Lieutenant, gave notice that he would bring in a bill for the object sought for, which he did on the 22nd January, 1783. The principal clause of this bill as passed into law, (23 Geo. III. c. 28.) is as follows : " Be it enacted, that the right claimed by the people of Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by his Majesty, and the parlia- ment of that kingdom, in all cases whatever ; and to have all actions, and suits at law, or in equity, which may be instituted in that kingdom, decided in his Majesty's courts therein, finally and without appeal from thence, shall be, and is hereby, declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafter, be questioned or questionable." From the period of the passing of this act, to the Union, Ireland was independent of all legislative and judicial control, on the part of Great Britain. Certain, and as I conceive, very mischievous forms still existed, with reference to the mode in which Irish bills were submitted for the approval of the Crown ; but the consideration of these, belongs more properly, to another part of my argument. Here it is sufficient to have traced the progress of Irish indepen- dence, during its long struggle with British usurpation, to the position which it ultimately attained ; and this, I have now done. 40 CONSEQUENCES OF A Our next business, is to ascertain, what the state of the country was, during the continuance of her independent parliament, down to the year 1801. The details of her commercial affairs, during this period, I shall not go into, in this place, but will content myself with general evidence, of a character not to be doubted, of her amazing advance in every thing which could prove the existence of national pros- perity. The sole reason for my not stating in this place, the precise amount of her trade and commerce, is, that we have no means of comparing it, item by item, with that which existed before the declaration of independence. We have the means of making this comparison, for a very great-portion of the time which has elapsed, since the Union ; and by placing the details of the period, from 1782, to the Union, side by side, with those of the period since, we can more accurately judge of the comparative prosperity of the two latter periods. The contrast between the eighteen years of inde- pendence, and the previous part of the century, can only be founded on general evidence, and to that I proceed. The wretch- edness of Ireland, during the time last mentioned, must be fresh on the reader's mind. The evidences of Ireland's prosperity, from 1T82 to the Union, are both negative and positive. The former is to be found, in the absence of those perpetual complaints of poverty, on the part of the people, whether in petitions to the legislature, writings of individuals, or representations in parliament ; which, year after year, are to be met with in the history of the country, under her dependent parlia- ment. That some murmurs of distress were occasionally heard, there can be no doubt. Eighteen years of the best government, in a country too, which had previously been brought to the lowest state of misery ; and which, in its peculiar social elements, contained so much to perpetuate that misery, could not change that country into an Utopia. Yet, the improvement must have been great, indeed, and the distress strangely lessened, when a historian,* whose pages, containing the history of the former period, are crowded with details of poverty and want ; and who has, moreover, written expressly to show, that Ireland was at all times so ill governed, that her only hope lay in the Union with England, gives but ouef instance of a public declaration of like distress, in that part of his work, which treats of her history under her independent legislature. Had we nothing beyond this, to make us conclude that her condition was bettered by self-rule, it ought to go far towards convincing us. Plowden. t After 1783. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 41 Let us, however, look to positive testimony. Of tin's we have abun- dance, both from the friends of the Union, and its enemies. From the opinions of the former, I shall extract but one. I prefer resting my case, where possible, on the admissions of my opponents. In a speech delivered by him in the House of Commons, in 1798, Lord (then Mr.) Plunket said, speaking of Ireland, under her independent legisla- ture, " Laws well arranged and administered, a constitution fully recognised and established, her revenue, her trade, her manu- facture, thriving beyond hope or example, of any other country of her extent : within these few years, advancing with a rapidity, astonishing even to herself ; not complaining of deficiency, in any of those respects, but enjoying and acknowledging her prosperity, she is called on to surrender them all, to the control of whom ? to an island which has grown great, and prosperous, and happy, by the very same advantages which Ireland enjoys, a free and inde- pendent constitution, and the protection of a domestic superintendent parliament." 1 This is surely high authority, but, perhaps, Lord Plunket enhanced the prosperity of his country, in the hope of preserving her freedom. Let us pass then to the evidence of others. Lord Clare, the man to whom the task of carrying- the Act of Union, through the House of Lords, was confided, in a pamphlet published by him, in the same year, (1T98) thus writes : " There is not a nation on the habitable globe which has advanced in culti- vation and commerce, in agriculture and manufactures, with the. same rapidity, in the same period," viz., from 1782. One authority more I will quote, and when it is considered who that authority is, I am sure it will not be thought necessary to cite another. He was the man, to whom was specially entrusted the defence of the Union measure, Mr. Secretary Cooke. In the very pamphlet, written by him, for the express purpose of proving to the people of Ireland, the advantages of, and necessity for, that measure, he says ;* in combating a supposed objection to the Union, on the ground, that it would be ruinous to Ireland, and that " all that was required for her, was a firm and steady administration :''- " here, we must ask, what is meant by a firm and steady admini- stration ? Does it mean such an administration as tends to the increase of the nation, in population, its advancement in agriculture, in manufactures, in wealth, and prosperity ? If that is intended, n-e have the experience of it thenc twenty years ; FO,R IT is UNI- VERSALLY ADMITTED, THAT NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD EVER MADE SUCH RAPID ADVANCES, AS IRELAND HAS DONE IN THESE * 'Arguments for, and against the Union, consulm-il," \>..'y2. Dulilin, 171'!'. rj 42 CONSEQUENCES OF A RESPECTS." To go beyond this admission for proof of what an Irish independent parliament had done for Irish prosperity, would surely be wasting, needlessly, the readers time. It is further to be remarked, that the improvement in trade, manufacture, and tillage, which is thus admitted to have taken place in Ireland, during the period of her legislative independence, did not arise from any external circumstances. During great part of it, Great Britain was engaged in foreign wars, to which Ireland contributed large sums of money. We have seen, that in 1779, she was so beggared, as to be unable to pay the troops charged on her own establishment ; and this, at a time, when she had to pay interest on a debt, not amounting to two millons. In 1800, so largely had she contributed to the war expenditure of the empire, that her debt then amounted to nearly twenty-two millions : yet, to such an extent had her commerce been increased, and her internal sources of wealth opened to her people, that neither was the pressure of taxation to meet her liabilities complained of, as insup- portable, nor were any fears entertained of her ability to pay oft" the whole debt then due of her, in a few years of peace. Such, indeed, was the improvement in her finances, that her customs and excise revenue, in 1800, amounted to ^2,100,000 : *a sum greater than the entire of her debt in 1779, under the pressure of which, she had actually become bankrupt ; and that revenue would, of course, have gone on increasing, with the increase of her population. That her debt in 1800 could be rapidly cleared off in time of peace, we can readily conceive, when we find, that nearly \ 4,000,000 of it were incurred during the six years of war, from 1793. Her expenses for 1799 having been J?4,347,000. Her charges during the last year of the preceeding peace, had amounted to ^1,012,000 only, and taking her revenue, at the sum above stated, viz., J!2,100,000 ; there would remain jl, 100,000 to meet the charge of the debt. The latter, however, amounted only to ^1,000,000, so, that with the imposition of no new tax, and without supposing any increase of the then revenue of Ireland, there would annually remain in the treasury a sum of ^100,000 to go towards reducing the debt. Having said so much, as to the prosperity of the country under self-government, let us now consider her progress in other respects. In the very first session of the independent parliament, Ireland obtained the Hainan Corpus Act, the great safeguard of the subject's liberties. In tho same session, the Perpetual Mutiny Bill was repealed ; the srirrameutal ( which excluded Dissenters from * According to the r<'p"r! rif i.oH Monu-rigle's committee, of 1^2 of the Irish Poor. App. f. _'. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 43 offices of trust, under the crown, was abolished ; and the indepen- dence of the judges was secured, by the enactment, that their commissions should last during good behaviour, and not as pre- viously, during the pleasure of the crown: mighty boons to a nation. We have, already, seen the extent of relief granted to the Roman Catholics, in the first year of independence, by the passing of Mr. Gardiner's "bills. It is worth our while to consider the progress of legislation in their behalf, shewing, as it does, the liberality which the bulk of the Protestants of Ireland, when free- men themselves, exhibited towards them; notwithstanding, that, at this period, to use the words of Mr. Plowdeu,* " the castle gates were trebly barred against concession and indulgence." 1 " The most friendly and liberal declarations in their favor," says this same author, " had been made by the different bodies of volunteers." The patriots, however, who almost to a man, were favorable to the claims of the Catholics, declined bringing them before parliament ; because, the circumstance of their being moved from the opposition bench, would be a sure ground of rejection. The Catholics could not but observe the indisposition of government to concession, daily increase ; and the day of remonstrance and redress vanish behind the cloud of rigor and coercion, now " assumed necessary, to be exercised upon the Irish peole." " Tke Irish nation," however, continues Mr. Plow- den, "had been, for some time, in the habit of reading and canvassing all political topics ; and, there is no doubt, but that the public mind was much opened, and the people out of parliament, generally disposed to support the Catholic claims"^ Of this feeling, too many instances cannot be adduced, and others will be found, as I proceed with the subject. On the 25th January, 1792, Sir Hercules Langrishe, a supporter of government, brought in a very modified bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, removing some of the obstacles still interposed to education amongst them, permitting intermarriages between them and Protestants, and throwing open to them. the profession of the law. The Roman Catholics themselves were discontented at the extent of benefit proposed to be conferred on them ; and there is good reason for believing, that the minister's object was, by offering an amount of privilege to them, which some of the more slavish of (heir body would thankfully receive, to get an opportunity of with- holding the more extensive franchises, which would otherwise be wrung from him by the liberality of the nation. A large portion of the Protestant aristocracy it is true, was opposed s. ; 1800, 79,060ft>s. ; 1830, 3,190fts. ; of wrought iron in 1790, 2,971 tons ; in 1800, 10,241 tons ; in 1830, 871 tons. Formerly we spun all our own woollen and worsted yarn. We imported in 1790, only 2,294fts. ; in 1800, l,180fts. ; in 1826, 662,7501bs. an enormous increase. There were, I un- derstand, upwards of thirty persons engaged in the woollen trade in Dublin, who have become bankrupts since 1821." Here is a list of articles, which being raw materials of manufac- ture, are, to a great extent, tests of a country's prosperity ; shewing a decline nay, a total decay of the various manufactures, in which they are employed.* We shall, further on, find returns confirming the notion given by it, of manufacturing ruin. Having considered the exports of manufactured goods, and the imports of raw materials, I come to another class of imports, strongly marking the condition of a people, viz. of those articles which shew a general diffusion of comfort, and which can be had only from abroad. These are chiefly tea, sugar, tobacco, coflee, and wine. In the report on the state of the Irish poor in 1830, by a com- mittee, of which Lord Monteagle (then Mr. Spring Rice,) was chairman (Appendices, G. I., G. II. pp. 112 to 125. No. 667 of reports, 1830,) there are tables which it would occupy too much space to insert here, but from which the following facts have been deduced, relative to the consumption of the articles just enumerated : * Dr. Boyton mentions the cotton manufacture as one, in which a large increase hud taken place to 1826. Assuming, that his statement was correct, we shall find by the evidence of manufacturers and commissioners, that it now shares the general nun. For regularity I pass it over here. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 53 " Period from 1785, to the Union. TEA Increase of consumption in Ireland . . 84 per cent. Do. Do. in England . . 45 .... From 1786, to tJte Union. TOBACCO Increase in Ireland 100 per cent. Do. in England 64 .... From 1787, to the Union. WINE Increase in Ireland 74 per cent. Do. in England 22 From 1785, to the Union. SUGAR Increase in Ireland 57 per cent. Do. in England 53 .... From 1784, to the Union. COFFEE Increase in Ireland 600 per cent. Do. in England 75 .... Period from the Union, to the year 1827. TEA Increase in England 25 per cent. Do. in Ireland 24 .... COFFEE Increase in England 1800 per cent. Do. in Ireland 40 SUGAR Increase in England 26 per cent. Do. in Ireland 16 .... TOBACCO Increase in England 27 per cent. Decrease in Ireland 37 .... WINE Increase in England 24 per cent. Decrease in Ireland 45 .... Tims, tlie average increase of consumption in Ireland, in the period before tlie Union, of all these articles, was 183 per cent, in England only 52 per cent., shewing the increase in comfort in Ireland, during that time, to be three and one-half times as great as it was in England. Since the Union, the average increase on all has been, in Eng- land 380 per cent. ; in Ireland, only 72 per cent. : in other words, CONSEQUENCES OF A the increase of comfort in the former country has, during that interval, been more than five times as great, as in the latter. Mr. Staunton has, in his reply to Mr. Martin, already referred to, given another table (p. 7,) framed, as to Ireland, from Spring Rice's Reports, compared with the increase of population ; and as to England, adopting Mr. Martin's own figures, which, for the further clearing up of the subject, I annex. AVERAGE CONSUMPTION PEE HEAD OF SEVERAL ARTICLES IN GREAT BRITAIN. Year. Sugar. Wine. Tobacco. Tea. Ibs. oz. pts. oz. oz. drs. oz. 1801 28 4 4 6 16 12 24 1831 2J 2 3 4 14 8 26 Year. Sugar Wine. Tobacco. Tea. 1800 Ibs. oz. 9 pts. OZ. 1 3 oz. drs. 18 OZ. 10 1827 4 8 1 2 7 7 This table shews more plainly than the general calculation before given, the effects of the Union, in diminishing the comforts of the lower and middling classes. "We find the greatest falling off is in the article of tobacco, which is, perhaps, the chief luxury of the poor. Sugar and tea have declined next in proportion ; while wine, the consumption of which is almost confined to the upper ranks of society, has diminished very slightly less, in fact, than in England. It may seem strange to the reader, that there should be a decrease in the consumption per head of the commodities here con- sidered, while there is an increase of importation. This, however, results from the fact, that the increase of population has gone on in a greater ratio than the increase of importation, which, of course, leaves the quantity imported less per head on the population, than before, though absolutely greater in amount. The test of comfort, however, is, of course, not the absolute quantity, but the quantity consumed by each individual ; and judging by this test, all the tables shew an increase of comfort under the independent parlia- ment in Ireland, fur beyond that of England, in the same time, REPEAL OF THE UNION. 55 and a decrease of comfort in Ireland since the Union, as compared with England, proportionably greater.* The export of cattle, sheep, and pigs, has, it is true, greatly increased since the Union ; but this, so far from shewing the prosperity of the country, goes to prove exactly the reverse. In- deed, I am disposed to think, paradoxical as the position will appear to some, that an export of food to any great extent, from a long-peopled country, which is not a large exporter of manufactures, is, in itself, primd facie evidence of the poverty of that country ; that is, of the bulk of its inhabitants. In a newly colonized country, in which the inhabitants are few, and land to be had for nothing, an export of provisions may be a very profitable trade, as cattle and other live produce, cost the exporters nearly nothing in the rearing, being turned out into natural pastures to fatten ; and corn, or other provisions of similar kind, are produced at a cost equivalent only to the labour bestowed on their cultivation, rent having no existence in such states of society. Provisions are, therefore, raised in such countries, at the lowest possible cost to the growers, and when sold in those in which rent and high-priced labour give them artificial value, bring a very large profit to the sellers, while they, on the other hand, are able to procure, in the old countries to which they trade, all the manufactures which they want at a far cheaper rate, than they could themselves make them. In an old country, however, which is fully brought into cultivation, rent and the other charges, added to the cost of the labour employed in raising provisions, make it necessary for the persons engaged in raising them, to be content with excessively small profits ; and if those profits be further diminished, by the freight and charges, of export, the intermediate profits of the export merchant, &c., the sum received by the farmer, is as little over the expense of production, as can be conceived. But, it will be said, by the political economist, that this -notion of infinitesimally small profits to the farmers, is a fallacy ; that * This explanation is the more necessary, as I find, in looking into the report of Alderman Butt's speech, in the Corporation debate, the learned Alderman made use of the very fallacy I here seek to guard against. The report goes thus : <( The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. O'Connell) had referred to returns, shewing the increase in the consumption of articles of luxury and comfort in England and Ireland, from the Union to 1827. That return was not so unfavorable as he, Mr. Butt, had feared. It shewed a considerable increase in Ireland, although not so great as in England but still an increase, (hear, hear.)" Whatever the learned Alderman meant to convey by this, I suspect much from the "hear, hear," that his friends understood his words to prove, that the increased import, shewed an in- crease of comfort too. It does so in just the same way as if a man, with a wife and one child, had 100 a year for their support ; and that when his family increased to ten or a dozen children, he had an addition of 5 a year to his income, he would be thereby proved to be better off. 56 CONSEQUENCES OF A upon the principles of the science, his profits will be fully on a par with those of the persons engaged in all other employments, artizans, traders, &c. ; for that, all profits must tend to a common level. Now, this, as a general proposition, is undoubtedly true : but, suppose, that there are no artizans in the country, and the population, from want of other employment, is forced to have recourse to agriculture, at any profit, however trifling, which they can gain by it : of what value is the proposition then ? In such a case it is clear, the people must be content with anything they can get, or starve. "What I want to shew, and what I believe to be true, is, that this is, in fact, the condition of nearly all largely peopled countries exporting provision. Before giving my reason for this opinion, I must first observe that, the cost of all manufactured articles, consists almost wholly of the price of labour ; the cost of produce raised from the soil consists partly of labour, and partly of rent.* Now labour is especially the poor man's property ; and, in fact, the only property he has. His gains must, therefore, be in proportion to the amount of labour required, for the production of the commodities which his country furnishes ; and must, consequently, be greater in a manu- facturing, than in an agricultural, country. When agriculture and manufactures co-exist to any extent in a country, they, of course, so act on their mutual profits, as to reduce them, as already stated, to a common level, by those in the one occupation abandoning it for the other, till the competition in the labour market, by reducing the profits of the artizan to those of the farmer, gives no further temptation to the latter, to desert his pursuit for the other. Now, this equalizing point, if I may so term it, can only be reached, either when there is no export of manufactures, or of agricultural produce, or when there is an equal export of both. If we consider the operation of the one pursuit on the other, we shall see this. Let us suppose the capitalist investing money in manufactures, to be unable to produce them so cheaply, as to com- mand foreign markets, (the freight and charges on exportation absorbing too much of his profit, to leave him any remunerative balance) and to be forced to confine himself to the home market for his goods. Now, the limitation of his market, in two ways, affects the manufacturer injuriously ; it lessens his spirit of enterprize, and by checking his manufacturing operations, prevents minute * I do not, of course, mean to say, that there are no other items, such as taxes, &c., that enter into the cost of both classes of products ; but they are very small, comparatively speaking. Rent, too, (in its common, not technical, sense) goes into the cost of manufactures, as well as of crops ; but, in the former, it is a mere fractional element of the cost : in the latter, sometimes nearly half of it. REPEAL OF THE UNION. 5T subdivision of labour, and its conseqent facility of production, thereby tending to increase the cost of that production to him. The demand for manufacturing labour, too, of course, diminishes with the demand for manufactures ; and those who would have found employment in it, are thrown on the chance of occupation, which agricultural pursuits may open to them. Now, the agriculturist, (whom I have supposed all through, to have been able to raise produce cheaply enough for profitable export) is by the increased competition for employment in his branch of industry, able to procure labour at lower rates, whereby his profits are, of course, larger; the manu- facturing capitalist finding that land gives better returns than manufactures, turns his attention to the former ; the ships employed in the raw produce export, will gladly bring, in return, cargoes at low freights, as, otherwise, they must arrive in ballast ; this encourages the import of foreign manufactures, till, finally, the whole manufacturing interest is ruined, and the people left no other employment, but that afforded by agriculture. Rents are conse- quently raised, as land must be taken at almost any terms ; the price of labour sinks, from the vast competition for work, to the lowest scale, that will support life, and the food of the country goes to sustain the people of more prosperous states. Now, if the opposite state of things happened to exist, then, of course, the reverse of the operation just described, must have been the result. Agriculture would have declined, and the chief industry of the country would have been absorbed in manufactures. In neither of these instances, therefore, would that equalizing point have been reached, which has been referred to. If, however, both manufacturers and agriculturists were able to export their respective produce, at fairly remunerative rates, or if both classes were shut out from foreign markets, (in consequence of their inability to compete in them with other producers) and were both thereby confined to the home market, their mutual influence on each other would keep the price of labour, in each occupation, at a common level. For all these reasons, I think the reader will agree with me in concluding, that (where it possesses no peculiar monopoly of supply) a country exporting agricultural produce largely, without any corresponding export of manufactured articles, must, if it be fully peopled, be a poor country ; because this exclusive export of food, shews that manufactures have no existence in it or that if they have existence, they must, as has been already proved, be rapidly tending to extinction. The country must therefore be in, or be quickly advancing towards, a purely agricultural condition. 58 CONSEQUENCES OF A But it has been already shewn that labour, (by which alone the poor man gains anything,) is not the sole constituent of value in anything produced from the soil in old countries, rent making up perhaps one third of its cost, whereas, it is nearly the sole element of value in manufactures : the tendency to agriculture, is conse- quently a tendency towards that pursuit which gives least benefit to the poor, and is nearly always indicative of a nation's poverty.* Of the correctness of this general abstract principle, the reader can judge for himself; perhaps I should not have given so much space to it, as I have done, as without it, it is abundantly easy to shew, that the Irish provision export, is profitless in the extreme to the people. It consists mainly of live stock raised with the least possible expenditure of labour. The system of green crops has, as yet, made very little way in Ireland, and the cattle, &c. ex- ported, are chiefly fed on natural pastures, so that the wages of the herdsman who looks after them, and the price of whatever labour is expended in mowing and stacking the hay, which forms a portion of their food, are all the profit which the poor derive from the rearing of them. The rest, directly or indirectly, finds its way into the pockets of a landlord who lives abroad, and expends it on the manufactures of other countries. It is a mockery of common sense, to talk of such an export, as a sign of prosperity. I have, in the tables given a few pages back, exhibited the decline in the import of those articles which may be taken as proofs of a country's prosperity ; but what an increase there is in that of articles, which shew the opposite condition ! I have before me, an official account of the trade between Great Britain and Ireland, for the year ending the 21st. of February 1799 in which I find that the manufactured articles imported into the latter country, amounted altogether to Official value ......... ^1,095,615. Real value ........... What their present amount is, cannot be ascertained with accuracy, as no accounts of an official nature are kept of them. The Railway * I say nearly always, because when natural or political circumstances give one country the monopoly of supply, at its own terms, of some other country, such a trade may be profitable. t In this account tf manufactures imported, is one singular item, viz. : " Cattle Horses, 12,365" Cotton Yarn forms anotheritem of 36, 000 but this was an article in its first stage of manufacture, and was, of course, ro give further employment to home labour. J may add, that the Irish exports to England, the same year, are stated at 6,612,689, (though Mr. Butt spoke of them as three millions and a'-half, perhaps looking only at the official value, which was then low,) of this great export, the sum-total for live Stock, viz. : "Cows, Oxen, Horses and Swine," is only 168,242! REPEAL OF THE UNION. 59 Report, however, estimates the consumption of woollen goods in Ireland to amount alone, to <^1,400,000, of which not more than about 100,000, worth are manufactured at home, the rest being brought in from England ; this one item of import, it seems, has thus risen to within ^300,000, of the total value of the manu factures imported in 1T99. In addition to it, however, hats, earthen-ware, refined sugars, hardware, plated goods, and an hundred other articles, have ceased altogether to be manufactured in Ireland and are imported to a vast extent ; affording additional proof of the decay which, since the Union, has fallen on every branch of our national industry. I think I have now fairly dealt with the import and export question, so far as it is any test of prosperity. Let us see how far its results are corroborated by evidence, drawn from other sources. There is first, the report of the " Hand-loom Weavers 1 Enquiry Commissioners." Of the great staple manufacture of Ireland, her linen, this report gives anything but a gratifying picture ; Mr. Commissioner Muggeridge after investigating it as carefully as he could, found such contradictory statements made by different parties respecting it, (though the general tenor of their evidence, as cited by him, is certainly indicative of decay ,) that he declared his inability, " in common with all those who have attempted the enquiry before him," to say whether it is flourishing or not. "With reference to this Mr. John O'Connell fairly says, in his Argument for Ireland, " the very controversy which exists, as to the state of that trade, is an unfavourable sign. When a branch of industry is really nourishing in any country, do we usually find, even among those at a distance from the scene of action, doubts and disputes existing on the subject ? Yet they are to be found rife among persons intimately conversant with the linen trade in the north, as will be seen by the following extracts." He then gives the opinions of a number of persons, taken from the report, of which, as I have already said, the greater number are to the effect, that it is not prosperous. Of the cotton trade, I said, in quoting from Dr. Boyton's speech, that I would mention facts, showing that the symptoms of pros- perity in it, spoken of by him, have, since the date of his speech, wholly subsided. It is thus alluded to in the Railway Report : " the only town in Ireland in which the cotton manufacture is established, to any extent, is Belfast, and it is declining even there." This statement is confirmed by Mr. Muggeridge, of the Hand- loom Enquiry, one of whose principal witnesses, Mr. Moncreef, of Belfast, stated, that " if all the capital of all the manufacturers in 60 CONSEQUENCES OF A Belfast, was combined, it would not equal that employed by one large establishment in England." The decline of this branch of trade, will be found to be corroborated likewise, by the subjoined list of the number of persons employed in various branches of man- ufactures in Ireland, in the year 1800, and at subsequent dates. Before giving it, however, I may as well state the conclusive evi- dence of the ruin of the silk trade, given by Mr. Otway, in the Hand-loom Enquiry Keport. This gentleman says, " the silk trade is now confined to one fabric the tabinets. There can be no doubt, the trade in weaving whole silk, is extinct, and that the manufactures of velvets, handkerchiefs, and ribbons, are confined to a few looms." More I need not add, on the subject of manufac- turing decay, except to insert the table just alluded to. It appears in a statement, made in the year 1841, by the tradesmen of Dublin. " WOOLLEN TRADE IN DUBLIN. Master Manufacturers in 1800, . . . . . . . . 91 Do. in 1840, 12 Number of hands employed in 1800, . . . . . . . . 4938 Do. in 1840, 682 WOOL COMBING. Master wool combers in 1800, . . . . . . . . 30 Do. in 1834, 5 Number of hands employed in 1800, . . . . . . . . 230 Do. in 1834, 66 CARPET MANUFACTURE IN DUBLIN. Master Manufacturers in 1800 . . . . . . . . 13 Do. in 1841, 1 Number of hands employed in 1800, . . . . . . 120 Do. in 1841, only those employed by Mr. Sheridan. BLANKETS. Blanket Manufacturers in Kilkenny, in the year 1800, . . 56 Do. in 1822, 12 Operatives employed iii 1800, . . . . . . . . 3000 Do. in 1841, 925 REPEAL OF THE UNION. 61 RATTEENS AND FRIEZES. Number of persons supported by the Woollen Manufac- ture at Roscrea, in the year 1800, . . . . . . 900 In the year 1841, not one comber permanently employed. Persons deriving employment and maintenance from the cotton manufactures at Belfast, and within ten miles round it, in the year 1800, 27,000 Do. in 1839, from 12,000 to 15,000 whose wages were miserably reduced, almost to the standard of a day labourer. Number of calico looms at full work at Balbriggan in 1799, 2000 Do. in 1841, 226 SILK MANUFACTURE IN DUBLIN. Number of broad looms in 1800, . . . . . . . . 2500 Do. in 1840 . . . . 250 HOSIERY. In Dublin the number of hosiery frames was, in 1800, . . 329 Do. in 1840, 80 In Cork the number of hosiery frames was, in 1800, . . 200 Do. in 1840, say 12 The hosiery trade has become almost extinct at Belfast, Lisburn, Clonmel, Limerick, Waterford, Carrick, Kil- kenny, Carlow, Portarlington, Maryborough, Newry, Dundalk, Armagh, and Drogheda. STUFF SERGE IN DUBLIN. Master Manufacturers in 1800, . . . . . . . . 25 Do. in 1841, 1 Number of hands employed in 1800, . . . . . . 1491 Do. in 1834, 131 FLANNEL MANUFACTURE. Looms at work in the County Wicklow in the year 1800,. . 1000 Do. in 1841, ! N. B. The County Wicklow was the principal seat of this trade/" 62 CONSEQUENCES OF A The number of bushels of malt, which have annually paid duty at various periods, is another test of the comforts of the people. What the amount was, previously to the year 1810, I am not aware, but since that period there has been a large decline in Ireland. The number of bushels I take from a parliamentary paper (Sess. No. 439,) given in full by Mr. Staunton, in his reply to Mr. Montgomery Martin's pamphlet, I find them to be 1810, .. .. 3,033,302 bushels. 1840, .. .. 1,604,307 do. As however the decline in the latter year, may be attributable to the temperance system, which about that time had become exten- sively spread through the country ; I will take the return for 1839 instead of it, and I find that to be 2,101,744 bushels shewing a decrease of 900,000 bushels after a space of thirty years, during which, be it remembered, the population of the country nearly doubled. But if this fact, of itself speaks strongly, how much more important does it seem, when we look at the English and Scotch consumption for the same years, likewise contained in the return. These are as follows : England, 1810, .. .. 23,541,291 Ditto, 1839, .. .. 33,687,302 Scotland, 1810, .. .. 784,527 Ditto, 1839, .. .. 4,567,083 Unfortunately, however, I have not yet gone through all the evi- dences of Irish misery ; the most appaling part of the picture is yet to be exhibited. The Railway Commissioners in whose report an attempt has been made to shew, as far as possible, the existence of a post-union prosperity in Ireland, founded on the usual fallacious general returns of imports, exports, &c., (but without official documents to guide them, the consequence of which, was an amount of error which Mr. Staunton has very clearly exposed) speak thus, in a note, of what came under their own observation, and can, therefore, be relied on: " we regret that the state of the labouring population does not warrant us in assuming that any considerable portion of this increased consumption is shared by them. The demand seems to proceed, almost exclusively from the superior class of landholders, and the inhabitants of towns." As to the general condition of the peasantry they state " among the effects of the rapid increase of population, without a corres- REPEAL OF THE UNION. 63 ponding increase of remunerative employment, the most alarming, though the most obviously to be expected result, is a deterioration of the food of the peasantry. Milk is become almost a luxury to many of them, and the quality of their potato-diet is generally much in- ferior to what it was at the commencement of the present century. A species of potatoes, called the lumper, has been brought into general cultivation, on account of its great productiveness and the facility with which it can be raised from an inferior soil, and with a compara- tively small portion of manure. This root, at its first introduction, was scarcely considered food good enough for swine ; it neither possesses the farinaceous qualities of the better varieties of the plant, nor is it as palatable as any other, being wet and tasteless, and in point of substantial nutriment little better, as an article of human food, than a sweedish turnip. IN MANY COUNTIES OF LEINSTER AND THROUGHOUT THE PROVINCES OF MUNSTER AND CONNAUGHT THE LUMPER NOW CONSTITUTES THE PRINCIPAL FOOD OF THE LABOURING PEASANTRY ; a fact which is the more striking when we consider the great increase of produce, together with its manifest improvement in quality which is annually raised in Ireland for expor- tation and for consumption by the superior classes." Yet, even this is not the worst : of this horrible diet this "food not good enough for swine," the miserable peasantry have no constant or sure supply. THE POOR-LAW COMMISSIONERS IN THEIR REPORT STATE THE FEARFUL AND ASTOUNDING FACT, THAT THERE ARE, IN IRE- LAND, 2,385,000 PEOPLE ABSOLUTELY DESTITUTE ! This, at least, is damning proof of what Ireland has become since the Union. It leaves but one question to be asked, can any thing make her condition n'orse ? There is one important matter which, though it refers to the era of Ireland's independence, I have designedly postponed mentioning until now, in order to contrast it with the state of things just described. I stated that once after 1783 the distress of the people was brought under the notice of parliament. This was in the month of January, 1788 (only six years after the declaration of independence, and of course, before the beneficial effects of that independence on the comforts of the people could be much felt). In that month, Mr. Connolly moved for a repeal of the hearth-money tax on all houses under the rent of thirty shillings a year as a relief to the poorer classes. He stated that with their then earnings, they could not afford to pay it, as an account of their necessary expenses would prove. He then submitted to the house the following statement of one man's necessary expenses for a year : * * Plowden, vol. 2. p. 105. CONSEQUENCES OF A Per day. In the Year. Price. Sum. Tib. Potatoes. T brls., 12 stone. 5s. per brl. ^l 18 1 oz. butter. 221bs. 13 oz. Bdperlb. 14 4^ 1-12 st. oatmeal. 3 cwt. 3 st. I Pottle, lls. per cwt. 2 1 83 3 Pints buttermilk. 136 gals. 9 pints, Id. for 3 qrts., 15 4J Salt, . . . . . . . . . . 10 1 Kish of turf per week for 40 weeks, omitting > son summer, at 18d. per kish, . . . . 5 House rent, . . . . . . ..129 Clothing, . . . . . . . . . . 16 6 2i This, we may fairly suppose, was considered the lowest scale of living of a poor man when put forward on an appeal to the com- passion of parliament. If so, how many millions of Irishmen in 1844, would pray to be restored to the poverty of 1T88 ? The evils, of which I have already spoken, affect nearly the whole body of Irishmen. The ruin of trade and manufactures is fatal to the artizans and middle classes ; the rural population cannot be more wretched than they are ; there remains one fact to show that a total discouragement of Irish talent is met with by Irishmen, even on their own soil. I give it on the authority of an opponent, the Dublin Evening Mail which inserted the statement in reply to an article that appeared in the Times Newspaper. " The Archbishop of Dublin is an Englishman the Chief Admi- nistrator of the Irish Poor-law is an Englishman the Paymaster of Irish Civil Service is a Scotchman the Chief Commissioner of Irish Public Works is an Englishman the Teller of the Exchequer is an Englishman -the Chief Officer of the Irish Constabulary is a Scotchman the Chief Officer of the Irish Post Office is an Eng- lishman ; the Collector of Excise is a Scotchman ; the Head of the Revenue Police is an Englishman ; the second in Command is a Scotchman ; the persons employed in the collection of the Customs, &c., are English and Scotch in the proportion of thirty-five to one. But the Times may, perhaps, observe f true ; but all this is in elucidation of our plan for unbarring the gates of preferment, unsparingly, impartially and honestly. Scotchmen and Englishmen are placed in office in Ireland, and Irishmen in return, in Scotland and England, in order to draw closer the bonds of union between the three united nations. 1 Again let us see how facts actually stand : there are Cabinet Ministers, Englishmen, 10; Scotchmen, 3 ; Irish- men, ; Lords of the Treasury, Englishmen, 4 ; Scotchman, 1 ; Irishman, 1 ; Clerks of the Treasury, English or Scotchmen, 112. REPEAL OF THE UNION. G5 Mr. Fitzgerald (query an Irishman) 1 ; Members of the Lord Steward's and Lord Chamberlain's departments of the Royal House- hold, Englishmen and Scotchmen, 225 ; Irishmen, 4 ; British Ministers to foreign courts, Englishmen and Scotchmen, 131 ; Irishmen, 4 ; Poor-law Commissioners, Englishmen, 3 ; Irishmen, 0. " We presume," adds the Editor, " that these facts shew that the natives of the three kingdoms are all placed upon an equal footing : the chances of access to preferments to an Englishman or Scotch- man in Ireland being, in the few instances which have occurred to us, while writing, as 6 to 1 ; while the probability of an Irishman obtaining place in England, appears from an analogous calculation, to be in the proportion of 491 to 10, or as 1 to 50." " We could easily swell," he adds, " this list were it necessary. Ireland has always been used, by English ministers, as a means of providing for poor relations, dependents and partizans : our highest as well as our lowest offices, have been prostituted for this purpose. What would be thought of an Irish Lawyer, being called over as Lord Chancellor of England ? Yet, we are forced to take English Lawyers as our Lord Chancellors ; so through all the departments of government, INJUSTICE TO IRELAND EVERY WHERE MEETS US ; AND SO WILL THINGS CONTINUE UNTIL WE LEARN TO THINK LESS ABOUT PARTY AND MORE ABOUT OUR COUNTRY." To the list here given of Englishmen, holding Irish offices, are to be added, the Lord Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary and the Lord Chancellor : truly, the complaint of Swift, that " those who have the misfortune to be born here have the least title to any considerable (ive might add or inconsiderable) employment," has passed in our days into a government maxim. The legislation of the United Parliament for Ireland remains to be considered. With respect to the Roman Catholics, it is quite enough to state the simple fact, that they did not obtain their emancipation 'till 1829, leaving it to all who have impartially con- sidered the history of the legislation in their favor before the union ; and the general feeling amongst all sects of Irishmen of the justice of their claims, as already detailed, whether, if that event had not taken place they would not have attained their entire liberties, at least twenty years earlier. But this is not the only ground of complaint with Irishmen. During the forty-four years which have elapsed since the act of union, the whole Irish people, Protestant as well as Catholic, have been deprived of the constitutional rights of British subjects, either wholly or in part, nearly the entii-e time. For that long period have the Protestants of Ireland, with all their boasted love of Freedom with all their religious attachment to the British constitution K 66 CONSEQUENCES OF A been living, not under that constitution, but in common with their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, left fettered, hand and foot, to the mercy of an absolute despotism. The Habeas Corpus Act, the glorious gain of '82, has been three times suspended during that interval, insurrection acts have been in force at four different times, and for long periods ; the atrocious Coercion Act in 1834 ; and to crown all, they have received the Arms' Act of 1843. On all this I shall not make one indignant comment ; I wish to appeal, not to men's passions, but to their reason ; I will even go so far as to assume, that all these acts were necessary were called for by the circumstances of the times. But what conclusion can we draw from such a fact surely this, that the Union has not, in any way, improved the peace or the security of the country. Yet, this was one of the chief blessings which it was promised would result from it. Its advocates admitted that it was not necessary for Ire- land's prosperity, though they asserted it would enhance that prosperity ; their great argument was that the peace of Ireland absolutely required it and that it would secure that peace for ever. I ask any thinking man to answer has it done so. In looking too, at the disturbances in Ireland, before and since the Union, we must not forget that the former took place at a time when the giant throes of the French Revolution shook to its centre every state in Europe ; that they were heightened by the obstinate resistance of the English minister to every beneficial change in the political institutions of the country ; and at last fomented, with diabolical ingenuity, in order to terrify the friends of peace into the sacrifice of freedom. The disorders since the Union have sprung from no such causes. They have been the unhappy fruits of misgovernment, and the consequent decay and ruin of the nation's prosperity. To any man who has considered the progress of that decay, the universality of that ruin, it can only appear strange, that a people sinking under them, should have hesitated to seek relief from their sufferings, at the sacrifice of every social institution. Their endurance has, indeed, been as unparalleled, as their calamities. But it is more than strange : there is something terrible in the endurance of a suf- fering people. Soon or late the wrongs inilicted on them must be paid for, and if the time of payment be deferred, till they shall think fit to become their own paymasters, they will take fearful interest on their debt. Heaven will, I trust, avert such an event from the Irish people, but none can say when it may be brought about by the infatuity of man. There is still a voice that whispers hope into their ears ; when it is silenced, none other may be found REPEAL OF THE UNION. 6T to speak a like lesson ; and the strong hearts it calms, the strong arms it restrains, may turn for retribution and redress, from the laws of the senate, to the equity of the constitution. Of the commercial legislation since the Union, I shall say little. That it has been mischievous to Ireland, may be sufficiently gathered from the destruction which has come upon her commerce and manufactures. That it has been of the worst kind, is ably shewn by Mr. John O'Connell, in his "Argument for Ireland." He has given to the details of it, along and carefully executed appendix, which the reader may consult with profit. I pass the matter over, for two reasons ; first that I could not, without transgressing the space to which I am limited, discuss it fairly ; secondly because it is not necessary for my argument. If the legislation of the im- perial parliament for Ireland have been good, if the spirit of the articles of Union have been honestly adhered to, it only strengthens the case against that measure. Ireland has prospered under a domestic parliament, has decayed under an imperial parliament. If the latter have made bad laws, there may be some chance of improvement, by a change in its mode of legislation ; if it have made good laws, there can be none. There are many things in independence, besides laws, that raise a people many things in dependence, that lower them. Self- control begets self-reliance, national pride begets personal dignity. The rivalry of the state, with other states, in industry, frugality, and euterprize, creates a like rivalry amongst the citizens. Liberty is not only, herself a blessing ; but, like Charity, she has a breast to nurse a thousand virtues. I care not, therefore, what has been the legislation for Ireland, as a province : it is enough, that, as a province, she is ruined that, .as a nation, she has been great and happy. It must not, however, be forgotten, that one of the most impoverishing circumstances under which Ireland labours, since the Union absenteeism has been greatly increased by that event ; (the money drained by this channel from Ireland before 1800, not having amounted to ^2,000,000 a-year, while it is now much above ^'4,000,000) and this evil is remediless by an imperial parliament. That such a parliament would impose a tax upon the property of Irish absentees, is impossible. Such a tax is contrary to t\\c prin- ciple of an Union ; what is, perhaps, of more consequence, it is contrary to the interest and policy of England. It is contrary to the principle of an Union, which is incorporation, to compel any citizen of the united territory, to reside or expend his money in any particular part of it. What would be thought, for instance, of a law imposing a tax on every Yorkshiremun, who should spend his 68 CONSEQUENCES OF A fortune in Lancashire or Middlesex, instead of his own county ? Yet, the principle of an Union such as ours, is to place any Irish county in the same relation to any English county, that the English counties bear to each other. But let us look to the more material questions of English interest and policy. Is it not absurd to suppose that a country gaining all we lose by the absentee system, should take any step to check it, especially when that system cannot be charged to any specific wrongful act of the country in question, but arises from the political relations between her and our country? Nay, more, while such relations continue, an absentee tax would be a positive wrong to the absentees themselves, whose absence from the capital of the country, (for London is our capital, not Dublin, while the Union lasts,} must, of necessity, deprive them of all chance of posts of honor or profit, must prevent them from aiding the representatives of Ireland, by their advice and information in matters relating to her affairs, and must exclude them from what every inhabitant of a country ought to have, the right of free and unre- strained access to the seat of legislation and government. It is, therefore, not only England's interest to permit the continuance of absenteeism, but she is able to justify her permission of it, by the most unanswerable reasoning. There are, however, far deeper motives of policy, which will prevent any English statesman from attempting to overturn the absentee system. Doing so would, of itself, Repeal the Union. Can any man suppose, that if the Irish proprietors became resident in Ireland, were daily and hourly witnesses of the poverty and the endurance of the people, saw with their own eyes the resources of their country, and the wealth they would gain by a development of those resources, and felt them- selves living in a ruined province, without honor, without dignity, without power, they would not demand the restitution of their country" 1 }! nationality ? Half of them continue willing slaves to-day, because away from their own country, often ignorant of its miseries, and living amidst the pleasures of a great metropolis, they have forgotten the position which might be theirs, as the first citizens of a free state. Bring them back to their country by any means, and they will not rest contented long without bringing back her liberties. English statesmen Inust feel this, and will give them no temptation to return here. I have now fairly, I hope honestly I am certain given the details of three distinct eras of Ireland's history. I am one of those who believe in the maxim, put forth by the great defender of the Union, Mr. Secretary Cooke, that " an argument from experience in political reasoning, is superior to asty argument in theory; " and to 11EPEAL OF THE UNION. 69 all men who hold the same doctrine, I would readily leave the verdict on the Union measure, upon the evidence I have adduced. An unhappy cant has, however, been got hold of by some people the glib and easy phrase of post hoc propter hoc, with the aid of which, and a shrug of superior intellect, they at once get rid of such arguments. A concluding*nvord to these men, may, perhaps, be useful, though in general they are of a class impenetrable to reasoning. Perhaps, they attach some weight to fulfilled predic- tion prediction, too, which has nothing in it of chance conjecture ; but is of that character, which gives the highest proof of human intellect prediction, which truly describes the future, from just reasoning on the past. Ireland had many able men, for she had many men who did this. They prophesied the evils which have fallen upon their country, with the truth almost with the elo- quence of inspiration. Listen to the words of some amongst them. From a reply to Mr. Secretary Cooke's " Arguments for and against the Union," by Mr. Charles Ball, I take the following extracts : " As England will always be able to hold out to them such substantial temptations to act as if they were Englishmen, I confess, even with equal numbers in the cabinet and the parlia- ment, I should utterly despair of my country. But when we know, that the arrangement of the cabinet, cannot be subject to regula- tion by act of parliament, without overturning the constitution, that if there could be a law for such a purpose, no Irishman would ever be introduced there, who had not first done away the original sin of Irish birth, by a full and practical recantation of every principle of attachment to Ireland, when we are told, that we shall have a proportion of only one to five in the parliament of the united kingdom ; when all these matters are considered, I will ask you in your own words, whether it can be less than the height of folly to part with the management of our own concerns for ever ? To your position, that freedom in one part of the empire, will secure the freedom of the rest, I offer as an answer and con- tradiction, the situation of England and her dependencies, until America separated, and Ireland threw off the yoke. During that time England was as free as she is now, and yet Ireland and America were in a state of slavery. You will say, neither Ireland nor America had representatives in the British parliament; to which I reply, that the small proportion of one representative to five, cannot secure either the actual or theoretical liberty of Ireland ; lor that our representatives will, at best, be no more than so many agents uud advocates for our country, and not a true representation 70 CONSEQUENCES OF A of the people, possessing an insurmountable veto, in all questions affecting the interests of Ireland: but on the contrary, a measure of the united parliament, directly acting upon Ireland, might be carried by a majority of Jive to one with every Irish member's voice against it. The liberties of Ireland after a Union may be endangered nay, completely overthrown, whenever the represen- tatives of the people of Great Britain shall think such a measure would conduce to the general interests of the empire ; a sentiment not new in England." " Instead of living together in terms of amity and kindness, these two countries will be ever on the watch, each to avail itself of the distress of the other; England with a view to power Ireland, in pursuit of freedom ; and, of course, they will contract a mutual desire to involve one another in eternal mis- fortunes." I could give other emphatic and able remarks from this very singular pamphlet, but I have too many other prophets to refer to. The two next I shall cite were members of the bar, and the extracts are from the reported debate of that body upon the Union measure. Mr. Peter Burrowes said, " that every possible modification of an Union, necessarily involved evils not to be compensated for : the merging of our representatives in an assembly where they will be more than quadrupled, and where, if unanimous, they can have little influence ; the perpetual existence of the united legislature in another country, to the influence of whose wishes and opinions they will be subject the enormous increase of absenteeism of taxes of our national debt." Mr. Goold (now Master in Chancery,) whose speech was one of rare eloquence and vigour, said, " the British minister must for ever be subservient to the will and interest of the British merchant the British merchant must for ever be subservient to his own interest. I argue," he continues, "from the necessary operations of the human passions on the human conduct, when I say, that the British merchant will force the British minister to be British, even on the subject of Irish affairs ; and, when self-interest once speaks, it speaks in a voice of thunder ; the consideration of equity and justice are too feeble to be heard. In such a situation, as well might you expect from the oyster the sagacity of human intellect as well might you expect from the famished tiger, the sympathy of human feeling, as from the British minister and British merchant, a due and impartial consideration, or a feeling and honest conduct touching the affairs of this our country." " I will embark my last shilling in the cause of England I would stand or fall with REPEAL OP THE UNION. 71 her, but I will not be cajoled by her ; she shall not reduce me to bankruptcy, and say she did so for my advantage, she shall not reduce me to beggary, under the pretext of an advantageous bargain. If I am to be a bankrupt and a beggar, I shall be eo with the solitary and inestimable consolation, that with my eyes open I have been bankrupt, and beggared myself for a friend in distress. I will not submit to the degrading state of becoming bankrupt and beggar, under the pretext and cover of a commercial speculation." A pamphlet by Mr. Spencer (likewise a barrister,) has the following, among many just anticipations : " as to the effect of a Union in bringing English capital into this country, I observe, that Irish industry and enterprize, encouraged, have produced, and will still continue to produce and augment capital ; and that English capital, which is by no means indispensable, will be attracted only by the assured tranquility of the country, to which an Union doth in no wise conduce, but whose immediate consequence would be, to increase the number of absentees, already the bane of their country, and, in great part, the cause of its occasionally disturbed repose." " For that an union would produce a great addition to the number of our absentees, cannot be doubted, by the most sceptical, and it is most remarkable that the argument is used by the celebrated Dean Tucker, to induce England to an union, for, in his proposal to incorporate the British isles into one kingdom, printed in 1750, he observes that ' the inducement of being near the parliament, the court, the public funds, would bring many more Irish families to reside, and spend their fortunes here, (. e. in England,) than do now. In short, whatever wealth Ireland would draw from other countries by its produce, manufactures and happy situation, all that, would continually centre in England." So that it seems there were true prophets besides the Irish. Mr. Spencer further adds, " by a perusal of the writers in the sister country, on the subject, from Sir Mathew Decker to De Lolme, the curious reader will easily satisfy himself, that all the arguments in favor of the mea- sure, centre in the convenience and alleviation of public burthens to England." Mr. Pemberton Rudd, another barrister, who also wrote a pamphlet in reply to Mr. Cooke, addressed him thus, " you lament that the Irish parliament is now supposed under British influence, and you allow, that (even now,) near one million of the routs of the kingdom, are exported to absentees. Permit me to ask, would your proposed Union lessen or ameliorate these causes of com- plaint. If three hundred of the iirst men in this kingdom, sitting 72 CONSEQUENCES OF A in College-green in Dublin, must be supposed under British in- fluence, what must we conclude would be the case, with sixty of these very persons transplanted to St. Stephen's chapel, London." And again, referring to Mr. Cooke's views of the insecure position of the Irish Protestants, only one-fourth of the population of Ireland, and holding nearly the whole land of the country, he says : " the industry, the abilities, the good fortune, and good sense of numbers of the Roman Catholics, have enabled them to make large fortunes. They have seen their interests, used their abilities, and purchased land ; but taking the case on your own shewing, and supposing the Protestant occupiers to hold nine-tenths of all the land in the kingdom, would it mend the matter to send many, or any of these landlords off of their own estates, to serve in a British or united parliament, and to expend the rents and produce of those very estates, in the necessaries, the manufactures, the arts, and the luxuries, not of their own tenantry, or of their own country, but of another people, in another kingdom. Would it serve to tranquillize the mind ; would it conciliate the attachment of the Catholic tenant, who now has his landlord on the spot, willing to relieve him ; would it serve him, think you, to send a griping steward to his farm, and have his last guinea eviscerated from him, to be changed perhaps that hour into an English bill ; not here, to be bestowed in the relief of want, encouragement of arts, or even the consumption of luxuries, but there to be eaten at a feast, drunk with a mistress, or lost on a die." " This believe me, is no highly coloured picture of the effect to be expected from an Union, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE." The extracts which I have given are from Protestant writers. One of the most able, though singular essays which appeared on the subject of the Union, was, however, from the pen of a Roman Catholic priest, a friar, I believe, of the Franciscan Order, the Rev. Dennis Taaffe. He was a bitter opponent of the measure, and attributing it too truly in a great degree, to the discord created by the Protestant ascendancy faction, (not the whole Protestant popu- lation,) he has been most savage in his attack on that faction. In the concluding part of his pamphlet, he represents one of the leaders of this party remonstrating with the British minister, on the Union measure, and from this part of his work, I cannot forbear quoting at some length. Having first given the remonstrance, he comes to the minister's reply, thus ending : "As for the consequences likely to result to Ireland from the measure, that you must acknowledge, is a matter of very secondary consideration, since that conquered country ought in all reason, exist solely for our benefit. Let her REPEAL OF THE UNION. 73 enjoy her religious quarrels, the sanguinary rage of her factions. What more would she have ; does she not possess Orangemen and Defenders, Rebels and Loyalists, Protestants, Papists, Presbyterians, Swaddlers ; are not all these indulged in the comfortable satisfaction of cutting their own throats, for the love of God and the Virgin Mary, or for church and king, as they like best. How un- reasonable to grumble after such concessions." After some further observations in this strain, he makes the ascendancy chief reply. " And is it thus you reward your faithful servants the loyal ascen- dancy men ? Is it for this we have risked our lives and fortunes, and in fact, shed our blood, and squandered our properties ? Oh, ungrateful John Bull ! have we not always acted as your faithful garrison, retaining Ireland in your chains, for your profit, enabling you to deprive it of trade, manufactures, and national government, to turn it into a draw-farm for the supply of your navy and your markets, to drain it of men and money at your good pleasure. Oh, were that despised people, enlightened and united, not you, nor any power on earth, could tread them down on their native soil, with impunity. Without us and our forefathers, of glorious memory, their commerce would vie with your own. I appeal to your own writers on commerce, for the truth of this assertion. Her fleets and armies would make her formidable ; witness her natural ad- vantages of every kind. She would now, as formerly, be foremost in science. Is Ireland now a prey to bigot fury, sanguinary politics and religious faction ? It is ascendancy challenges the merit of lighting up the torch of discord. Eeligious bigotry, the sure and ready instrument of civil disunion, would, ere now, have been ex- tinguished, but for the fostering care of intolerance, which plied it constantly with its proper food ignorance, and hatred. Tims placed in the hostile relation of tyrant and slave, of persecutor and persecuted, one side claiming a monopoly of the good things of this world, in favor of their state religion, the other arrogating to them- selves the exclusive enjoyment of the kingdom to come, as the reward of their present misery, a coalition between them, thus in- flamed against one another, by the conflict of intolerance, and the conflict of interests, is not to be apprehended. For these, and nameless other services, you now propose to requite us, by robbing us of our expected rewards, just as we were proceeding to entail on ourselves and posterity, the offices, honors, and emoluments of church and state, (to the exclusion of such oven of tbe favored sect, as had opposed our measures at any time,) through the monopoly of parliamentary representation. What becomes of your honor and plighted faith, never to forsake us while 74 CONSEQUENCES OF A we supported you?" But, mark the significant and admirably verified reply which he puts in the mouth of the minister. " You, and your friends, and whoever else cannot be safely treated with neglect, shall be provided for ; as for the rabble of your party we may safely leave, them to the management of their clergy who will work them up to our purposes by plying their anti-popish zeal with caustic doses of controversial invective. The bargain was struck, the cabinet broke up, and poor Ireland is lost for ever." " It is then," he continues, " the duped ascendancy bigots will have cause to lament their fatal mistake, when they suffered themselves to be hallooed like blood- hounds to worry their fellow-citizens, and crush their patriot spirit for the gratification and benefit of their designing leaders, who now dispose of them like so many head of cattle. In the articles of com- pensation for bartering away irrecoverably the rights and prosperity of the country, they are forgotten and left to share its ruin and poverty, since they would not its greatness and independence."- Let us now look at what follows ; who can think that it was written inlT98: " Orangemen take a prospective view of the blessings you have prepared for yourselves and your children. The proprietary of the kingdom gone to reside in England to attend the business in parlia- ment, the court, &c., with all who aspire to the career of ambition and honor, or the pleasures of elegant and rational society, or the amusements of a great court and capital. Emigration will become the tone ; and, it will be quite unfashionable, odious to reside in Ireland, enough to give a fine bred lady the vapours. The vulgar provincialism of Irish airs, accent, &c., &c., will be avoided, like the plague ; to escape the slightest taint, or even the suspicion of it, become an important concern. A permanent residence in London or Bath, will be the indispensable with every squire and squiress who can afford it." "On the other hand, a beggared, deserted province, can have no inducements to retain the opulent ; and such as cannot afford the expense of that fashionable country, will send their children thither for education, or rather, send their wives thither to be delivered that their offspring may avoid the disgrace of being born here, and be educated quite free from any Irish impressions. Untainted with the candour, affability and hospitality, that distin- guished that degenerate people ; but trained up in the geuteelest prejudice against every tiling Irish, he will be early taught to treat the counti-y of his fathers with injustice and contempt. Thus, almost the whole rental of the kingdom will be spent in foreign parts to enrich pampered England : trade and Hie arts, deprived of their customers must follow : the capital will fall into ruin : REPEAL OF THE UNION. 75 agriculture will dwindle : population must resign the soil to bullocks and sheep. The vast sums laid out in improving the capital and its vicinity in the construction of canals, quays, bridges, roads ; the melioration of harbours, rivers ; in the encouragement of agriculture, arts, fisheries ; in the endowments of colleges, schools, hospitals, &c., all is lost, expended in vain, all will become next to useless." "An expectation," he continues, "will ba raised that English capital and manufactures will find their way hither, enticed by the cheapness of provision and labour. Very improbable indeed. There are far more powerful inducements to retain them at the other side: the vicinity of the great emporium of the world, the fountain of credit, trade, &c., &c. ; the mutual dependence and subserviency of all the arts, and manufactures, each ministering to, and borrowing from each, either necessary instruments, or useful hints, or ready circulation." " The manufacturer derives immense advantages from the co- operation of all the parts that form the complex and stupendous fabric of English trade. Capital and credit, which a man of known probity and ability may command to almost any amount ; abundance of expert hands and ingenious heads, the utensils, machinery, processes, &c., employed in high perfection, expeditious, cheap, and every day receiving new improvements ; the general spirit of euterprize and commercial speculation that turns every thing to account ; these advantages more than counterbalance the diiference in the price of labour and provisions, and enable the London or Birmingham manufacturer to undersell the German or Russian. Any branch exiled into Ireland would suffer more by its separation from the living body, and vital circulation, and harmonious co- operation of all the co-members ; the co-efficient parts that con stitute the integral frame of a flourishing British commerce, than the trifling difference in the price of provision could possibly compensate." " Great, indeed, must be the local temptations that could prevail on that calculating description of persons to renounce the vantage ground of their position. What would provincialed Ireland have to offer ? >an impoverished, ragged population, with manners and habits not over propitious to the commercial pursuits ; obnoxious to the worst prejudices of Englishmen ; a country, however fertile, drained by the tributary rents of a host of absentees ; and crushed by a full participation of English debts and taxes, increased n-itk her increasing inability to pay them ; no home market, none of the co-operating trades, &c. In the teeth of such discouragements will 76 CONSEQUENCES OF A REPEAL OF THE UNION. English manufacturers come to reside among a people, whom they have been taught to hate and despise from their infancy, and whom, when they are very liberal they call semibarbarous, destitute of industry, punctuality, and even honesty * Credat qui vetit, non ego? You will, Irislimen, gain an inundation of taxes and tax- gatherers No more !" The predictions of this man have proved so strangely and sadly true, that one shudders, lest the apathy of Irishmen may yet cause the realization of that parallel, which he has foretold between the future fate of Dublin and the ruin of Babylon, as foreshadowed in the sublime language of Isaiah : " and Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldee excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah, it shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation ; but wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures, and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there, and the wild beasts of the island shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces.' 1 May God avert such a catastrophe by the union of Irishmen. FOJRM OF CONSTITUTION. 77 CHAPTER III. FOHM OF CONSTITUTION. " Resolved that a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is un- constitutional, illegal, and a grievance." Dungannon Resolution, \5th Feb. 1782. " WHERE rs THE NATIONAL FLAG OF IRELAND ? If the flag of England be, as it is, dearer to every braye Englishman than his life, is the wish for a similar badge of honor to Ireland, to be scouted as a chimera ? Can the same sentiment be great and glorious on one side the channel, and wild and absurd on the other?" Theobald Wolfe Tone. I HAVE now arrived at tlie last and most difficult part of my subject ; namely, the consideration of the form, of constitution, which would he best for Ireland, in case of a Repeal of the existing Union between her and Great Britain. It is in the details, how- ever, that I conceive the difficulty here to lie. The principles upon which a constitution should be framed, I hold to be quite simple, and reducible to these two propositions : First that it should give her complete control over her own affairs. Second that it should give perfect security for the continuance of that control. I know of no constitution that can fulfil these two objects, save one which shall render her independent, in every respect, of every other nation in the world. I believe anything short of this ought not to satisfy, and I trust will not satisfy, the Irish people. There is nothing contrary to the just rights of England in such a constitution, as I now suggest. England neither has, nor ought to have, any authority over this country, save what, through the instrumentality of the imperial parliament, she enjoys under the act of Union. From the year 1783, to the passing of that act, the right of Ireland to be governed only by the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, was solemnly recognized by the British legislature. It is quite true, that she was, and continues to be, bound to obey the British '/noHrt/Y-A,- that the king of England de facto, is de jure king of Ireland ; but this is a mere limitation of succession. The T8 FORM OF CONSTITUTION. law defined who should be king of Ireland, but the obedience of the Irish people was due to him, as king of Ireland, not as king of England. In the latter capacity he was, by the renunciation act of 1T83, left without authority or control of any sort, within the kingdom of Ireland. Had this principle, established in theory, been carried out in practice subsequently to 1T83, there would have been no Union ; Ireland would have flourished England would have gained by her prosperity ; the two countries would have remained in amity with each other, and the empire would be strong and harmonious, instead of being, as it now is, discordant and weak. If this principle be once more established, and practically enforced, the two nations will yet grow into a compact and prosperous empire ; if not, many years will not elapse without a total separation. Politicians may theorize as they please, ministers may get legislation to suit their fancy, but Ireland will not remain a province. This principle, of course, requires that the sovereign of Ireland, should be advised upon Irish affairs, by a minister responsible to the Irish parliament only. In the constitution of 1782, no such provision was made. The royal assent to Irish Bills was given under the great seal of England, not of Ireland, thereby leaving no efficient control to the Irish parliament. I say no efficient control, because it had a sort of control in the power of refusing supplies; but this was of little importance, when a declaration of war on the part of the British crown, involved Ireland in such war to the fullest extent, gave rights of attack and reprisal on her shipping to the hostile country, virtually closed her ports against its commerce, and rendering her liable to invasion, placed her in a position which made it necessary for her to vote supplies in self-defence. The right of declaring war or peace is, of course, vested solely in the crown ; but, it is, in fact, exercised by the minister, without whose advice the sovereign never acts. The minister is, however, responsible to the parliament, and takes no step in which he is not sure of its sanction ; and while this is the ca.se, the parliament must be considered as the real possessor of the prerogative, and the crown as the mere depository of it, for purposes of convenience and expedition: as it may frequently be necessary to exercise it with a promptness, which would be inconsistent with the delay, attendant on obtaining a previous consent of the legislature. Now, an Irish minister responsible to the parliament of Ireland only, would not advise the sovereign to declare war on the part of Ireland, except when sure of the approbation of the Irish parliament ; and, on the other hand, would advise such a step, when he was certain FORM OF CONSTITUTION. 79 of its approval, notwithstanding, the British minister might oppose such a declaration, on the part of England. But it will be said, that, practically, such a course could not be carried out, for that if the English monarch declared war against any foreign state, he would be held to bind Ireland, as well as England, by that declaration. Now, in the first place, the " great argument in political rea- soning," that from experience is against this, for, as has been repeatedly stated, the king of England has been at war, as such, with foreign nations, and, yet, has been at peace with the same nations, as Elector of Hanover. The king of England, and the king of Ireland, though one individual, would, in fact, be two, as distinct political persons as are the emperor of Russia, and the president of the United States to-day. Now, the law of nations has concern with political persons, and political rights only, and takes no notice whatever of individuals in their private capacity, so that it would be as contrary to that law, to acthostilely against Ireland, (in the case I have put) because the king of England had, in that character, declared war, as it would be to act hostilely against any other neutral state. The hostile act, if committed, would be not a warlike aggression, but a simple piracy ; and the parties guilty of it, if seized, would be treated, not as prisoners of war, but as pirates, and summarily hanged. Such a fate in perspective, might cause some unwillingness on the part of those concerned, to confound the relative acts of the two countries. To shew the reader, how very simple is the principle of the dis- tinction above taken, between the British aii'l Irish monarch, it is only necessary to give an exactly analogous case, which every one will comprehend. A king, or whatever other officer of state, is the chief governor of a country, is a mere trustee of its rights for that country. He is circumstanced just as the trustee of any ordinary property. The latter may act as trustee for fifty properties, as well as for one: he may have legal rights against another party, in respect of all these properties ; and yet, he may seek to enforce them only in respect of one, or five, or ten, and in any proceedings he may take, he does not involve, in the least degree, any one of the properties, in the costs or consequences attending his suit, in respect of any other. The principle of the municipal and international law, is precisely the same in this respect; and, if in the case of the latter, the principle bo transgressed, there remains for the wrongrd country, the very effective remedy against further transgression above mentioned. 80 FORM OF CONSTITUTION. A consequence of the severance of the two kingdoms to the extent described, would of course be that each should maintain her own army and navy, distinct from the other. This would not, it is true, be required in ordinary circumstances, nor at all in tune of peace, but as it would become necessary in the contingency alluded to, of one country declaring war against a people, with whom the other desired to remain at peace, it would, perhaps, be more convenient to make it a permanent regulation, than to provide only for its contingent adoption. That it would be necessary, in the contingency referred to, is plain, because neither country could remain at peace with a foreign state, and yet permit its troops to be employed by the other, in hostility to that state. This system of each country having its own distinct army and navy would, in fact, be attended with no practical inconvenience, as will be easily shewn. Its actual operation will be nearly the same, as if they had but one common force for both. If the latter were the case, each country would, of course, contribute rateably to the support of that force. Now, common justice would require, that the expenditure of the force in each country, should be propor- tioned to the contribution of each towards its maintenance. The only way, however, in which this could be done, would be, by stationing in each country that proportion of the force military or naval, charged on that country's establishment, which would, in effect, be the same as permitting each to have a distinct force of its own. The only difficulty to which this could give rise, would be with reference to foreign stations. Let us consider this. In doing so, we must take each branch of the service separately, as in this particular they hold very different positions. The ocean is the common territory of every state. Any power possessed of shipping has, therefore, a general right) (with certain restrictions, as to number, for the prevention of intimidation, and others created by treaty, with particular states, &c.) to station that shipping as it pleases on the ocean. Now, those of them, which it keeps at a distance from its own shores, (I speak, of course, of time of peace) it so stations, either for the general protection of its commerce, or for the special protection of its colonies. That portion occupied with the latter duty, comes under the same head with the land forces, and will be treated of with them. The other portion could be a cause of no embarrassment, in the relations between England and Ireland. The latter country would, of course, find it her interest to join in protecting their joint commerce, and would send abroad her fair proportion of shipping for that purpose, always, of courso, FORBjf OF CONSTITUTION. 81 taking care that those branches of commerce which were peculiarly hers, should get equal protection with those which peculiarly belonged to England. The land forces, (and the second branch of the navy,) could not, perhaps, be so easily arranged. Their duties abroad, are confined almost entirely to colonial protection. The extent to which Ireland should furnish troops or ships for this purpose must, of course, be regulated by her interest in the colonies. Great Britain may, as she did before, assert that the colonies are hers exclusively, and refuse Ireland the right to trade with them. In that case, of course, she could not expect Ireland to contribute to their protection. This would certainly be the better arrangement for the latter country. Sugar, coffee, and rum, she could get far cheaper from other countries, and scarcely, if it all, inferior in quality. Baltic timber, the best in the world, she could procure at infinitely less cost, than that of Canada and New Brunswick the worst which it is possible to find. In return, she could secure a market for her goods in the countries from which she procured these commodities : thus gaining a profitable trade, obtaining cheap 'necessaries of life for her inhabi- tants, and paying none of the charges for maintaining the colonies possessions which cost Great Britain an immense outlay, and contribute nothing to her strength or security. If any other arrangement respecting the colonies were thought better, it could, no doubt, be conveniently negotiated between the two countries, who, though their forces were quite distinct from each other, could make any proper regulations respecting them, for mutual benefit, during time of peace, or of a war in which they jointly engaged ; the only thing which it would be essential to guard against, being the employment of the troops of either by the other, in a war to which the former desired not to be a party. England would, indeed, by this system, lose her power of dragging Ireland into wars without her consent ; but is their any Irishman who can think this an evil ? For my part, I would look on any constitution, not securing her from being coerced by England, in this, and every other respect, as a mere mockery of independence. Any difficulties too, which may result from the plan proposed, would be advantages to humanity. In a just war, Ireland would readily join England ; in an unjust war, she ought not. I have looked to the consequences as to declarations of war, &c., which would result from a completely independent system of govern- ment, as those which might give rise to most cavil. I now come to consider it in cases of ordinary administration. Without a minister responsible to the Irish parliament, it is clear, M 82 FORM OF .CONSTITUTION. that where the interests of the two countries, clashed in any respect, an act protective of those of Ireland could scarcely, hy possibility, be passed. The English minister would not, it may easily be supposed, advise his Sovereign to assent to it, contrary to the wishes of that body to which alone he was responsible ; and, without that advice the Sovereign would, of course, not assent to it. Now, this brings me to the consideration of the strange anomaly which existed, as I have already said, in the mode of getting the royal assent to bills, after the constitution of 1782 was obtained by Ireland. During the whole existence of that constitution, the practice which prevailed in this particular was in direct contra- diction to the terms of the constitution itself. The constitution, as confirmed by the repeal of the 6 George I., and the subsequent act of renunciation, vested the right to make laws for Ireland in the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland ; while in practice they were made by the Lords and Commons of Ireland, and the King of England. The proceeding was this : the bills having passed the two branches of the Irish legislature, were transmitted to England, where they received the royal assent under the great seal of England, which was in the custody of the English Lord Chancellor ; now, the great seal of England could evidence nothing but the assent of the king of England, and was no valid evidence of an act of the king of Ireland, whose assent was that alone (if the spirit of the constitution were adhered to), which should make the law binding on the Irish nation. If this reasoning be sound, it shews that every act of parliament passed, during the period referred to, was a direct and flagrant violation of the constitution of Ireland. This system of getting the royal assent was, it is true, (as the reader will remember) that expressly demanded by the Irish patriots themselves. There can be no doubt, however, of its incon- sistency theoretically and practically with the constitution they fancied they had obtained ; a constitution recognizing only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland as the legislature of Ireland. The next result of the divided sovereignty would be with respect to diplomatic relations. To have a perfectly distinct diplomatic body for each kingdom would, doubtless, be a considerable expense ; yet, I confess, I would desire it. It would give great additional dignity to Ireland ; and phe would be much more secure in having the management of her foreign interests confided to the care of Irishmen interested in her honour, than if it were chiefly, as with a joint staff it must be, left to natives of England. There is, however, no reason why the same representative may FORM OF CONSTITUTION. S3 not manage the affairs of each country, even when one was at war with that at whose court he resided, as he might formally withdraw as representative of the country at war, and continue to act for the other. A better arrangement would, perhaps, be in the case of the recall of the ambassador of either country, in consequence of a declaration of war on its part, to despatch, at the time of his recall, a native of the other country, to take charge of its diplomatic affairs, upon his retirement. I own I would, myself, prefer having a different representative for each, at all foreign courts. As I would permit no control in Irish affairs to the British minister, I necessarily contemplate the formation of an Irish cabinet. No special provisions occur to me, which it would be requisite to enforce with regard to the cabinet, except one. I think it would be highly desirable, if not indeed necessary, that no person except a prince of the blood, should hold the office of Lord Lieutenant, or any place in the cabinet, or act as a member of the Irish Privy Council, who was not a native of Ireland, or if not a native of Ireland, who had not resided in Ireland, for at least five years previously to his so acting, and was not at the time of his appointment possessed of, or heir to, a property in Ireland of such annual value, as may be thought fit in each case, say ^5,000 a year for Lord Lieutenant, jl,000 a year for a member of the cabinet, and ^500 a year for a Privy Councillor. I do not consider it necessary or advisable, to suggest any alte- ration in the general powers of the House of Lords or Commons, from what they respectively possessed under the constitution of 1 T82. It would no doubt be desirable in obtaining a new consti- tution for Ireland, to render all the branches of the legislature as perfect as practicable, and to leave as little as possible which might demand subsequent reform ; but on the other hand, it would embarrass too much the great general question of Irish independence, to introduce into an essay upon it, any matter of detail which an individual might think useful, and upon which vast differences of opinion may arise, among the warmest ad- vocates of the general principle. I contemplate therefore the re-establishment of the House of Lords, with the same legislative and judicial authority, as it before had. I also contemplate the re-establishment of the House of Com- mons, with the same powers as it before possessed. The places returning members to the latter, should not, of course, be the same as had that power before the Union. The whole system of rotten boroughs, &c. should be overturned. i