subjects the privileges of the constitution, without distinction of religion." Such a plan we offer you; that is our plan of peace, our idea of strength and union against a foreign enemy. We conceive that all your other plans have failed; you tried them: you tried your revenue, and you failed; you tried your public credit, it has failed; you tried your armed force, it has failed; you have attempted to combat democracy by armies, and you failed; you sent armies against your enemies to combat that principle, and you failed; you sent armies against your people, and you failed. You conquered your laws indeed; you conquered the person of the subject, but you could not subdue his mind; you could not conquer the passion or the principle; on the contrary you inflamed both; what then remains? Try this plan. Reform the Parliament; let the King identify with his people; there is his strength; let him share with them, or rather let them share with him, the blessings of the constitution; as they have given him the powers of government, let him restore to them the rights of self-legislation; without that they have no liberty, and without full and free representation in the Commons they have not that; they have the name indeed, but they have not the substance. There are in our constitution three great presidencies or chairs; the throne, the chair of the nobles, and the chair of the Commons, that is the chair, or what should be the chair of the people. — The King, — he will reign long and securely, because the peers and the people, in securing to him the possession of his seat, secure to themselves the possession of theirs. But if he shall be advised to take possession of the three chairs, and endeavour to set himself in all of them, his situation is precarious and unnatural, and the situation of his people is in the condition of bondsmen. Such a people have no political pride nor political interest to defend, and therefore such a people will not be enthusiasts to defend the throne against its enemies, foreign and domestic. The privileges of the constitution were the protection of the people against the King, they are now the armour of the King against democracy. In this opinion we have submitted our plan, and we have deprecated yours. What is your plan? There are but two measures in the country, - reform or force. We have offered you the former; you seem inclined to the latter. us consider it: "To subdue, to coerce, to establish unqualified submission;" an arduous, a precarious undertaking! Have you well weighed all its consequences? Is there not much of passion in your judgment? Have you not lost your temper a little in the contest? I am sure you have shown this night symptoms of irritation a certain impatience of the com —a -- Let plaints of the people. So it was in the American business. Nothing less in that contest than their unconditional submission. Alas! what was the consequence? As far as you have tried your experiment here, it has failed; the report shows you it has failed. It has increased the evil it would restrain; it has propagated the principle it would punish; but if repeated and invigorated you think it will have more success; I apprehend not. Do not you perceive, that instead of strengthening monarchy by constitutional principles, you are attempting to give it force by despotic ones? That you are giving the new principle the advantage of success abroad and of suffering at home, and that you are losing the people, while you think you are strengthening the throne; that you have made a false alliance with unnatural principles, and instead of identifying with the people, you identify with abuses? Before they are to be reformed, rebellion, you tell us, must be subdued. You tried that experiment in America; America required self-legislation; you attempted to subdue America by force of angry laws, and by force of arms; you exacted of America unconditional submission; the stamp act and the tea tax were only pretexts; so you said. The object, you said, was separation, so here the reform of parliament, you say, and Catholic emancipation are only pretexts; the object, you say, is separation, and here you exact unconditional submission "YOU MUST SUBDUE BEFORE YOU REFORM.' " Indeed! Alas! you think so; but you forget you subdue by reforming; it is the best conquest you can obtain over your own people; but let me suppose you succeed, what is your success? — a military government, a perfect despotism, an hapless victory over the principles of a mild government and a mild constitution! a Union! but what may be the ultimate consequence of such a victory? A separation! Let us suppose that the war continues, and that your conquest over your own people is interrupted by a French invasion; what would be your situation then? I do not wish to think of it, but I wish you to think of it, and to make a better preparation against such an event than such conquests and such victories. When you consider the state of your arms abroad, and the ill-assured state of your government at home, precipitating on such a system, surely you should pause a little: even on the event of a peace, you are ill-secured against a future war, which the state of Ireland, under such a system, would be too apt to invite; but on the event of the continuation of the war, your system is perilous indeed. I speak withoat asperity; I speak without resentment; I speak, perhaps, my delusion; but it is my heart-felt conviction; I speak my apprehension for the immediate state of our liberty, and for the ultimate state of the empire. I see, or imagine I see, in this system, every thing which is dangerous to both; I hope I am mistaken; at least I hope I exaggerate; possibly I may. If so, I shall acknowledge my error with more satisfaction than is usual in the acknowledgment of error. I cannot, however, banish from my memory, the lesson of the American war; and yet at that time English government was at the head of Europe, and was possessed of resources comparatively unbroken; if that lesson has no effect on ministers, surely I can suggest nothing that will. We have offered you our measure, you will reject it; we deprecate yours; you will persevere; having no hopes left to persuade or dissuade, and having discharged our duty, we shall trouble you no more, and AFTER THIS DAY SHALL NOT ATTEND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS! Lord Castlereagh after complimenting Mr. Grattan on the ability and temperance of his speech, declared that he was not averse to a wise and well-digested plan of reform, if brought forward at a proper season, but the period of the session was too late to entertain the measure, and the state of the country too disturbed. The question being put, the House divided. For the adjournment; Ayes 117, Noes 30; Majority against Mr. Ponsonby's motion 87. Tellers for the Ayes, Mr. J. Stewart and Mr. Fox ; for the Noes, Mr. Ponsonby and Mr. Grattan. SECESSION OF THE OPPOSITION. May, 1797. AFTER this debate the leaders of the opposition seceded. The Parliament was prorogued in June and dissolved by proclamation in the August following.. At the ensuing election, Mr. Grattan declined to stand candidate for Dublin, and addressed a letter to his late constituents assigning his reasons. He protested strongly against the violent measures of the government, and withdrew from any further interference in public affairs. His health, in consequence of his close attendance on his parliamentary duties, began now to decline; the calamitous insurrection which broke out, and the horrors which ensued, so disgusted him with politics, that he seemed almost disposed to pass the remainder of his days n retirement; he was, however, quickly roused by the danger which began to threaten the liberties of the country. In the month of January 1799, His Majesty recommended the subject of union to both Houses of Parliament, in Great Britain and in Ireland. Mr. Sheridan strongly opposed the measure in the House of Commons in England, and moved an amendment to that effect; it was, however, negatived, and a message was sent from His Majesty to the British Parliament, on which Mr. Pitt introduced his Union resolutions, which were read and adopted. The project, however, did not succeed so well in the Irish Parliament. The subject of a Union was indirectly alluded to in a paragraph contained in the speech from the throne, on the 22d of January, on which Mr. G. Ponsonby moved an amendment to the address, declaring "Their intention of maintaining the undoubted birthright of the people of Ireland, to have a free and independent legislature resident within the kingdom, such as was asserted by the Parliament of the kingdom in 1782, and acknowledged and ratified by his Majesty and the Parliament of Great Britain, upon the final adjustment of the differences between the two countries." The amendment was seconded by Sir Laurence Parsons. It was opposed by Lord Castlereagh, Mr. R. Martin, Mr. Corry, Mr. H. D. Grady, Mr. William Smith (afterwards judge), Mr. St. George Daly (afterwards judge), Mr. Osborne (afterwards judge), and the Attorneygeneral, Mr. Toler (afterwards judge). It was supported by Mr. Plunket, Mr. Frederick Faulkner, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Denis B. Daly, Colonel O'Donnell, Mr. Ogle, Mr. Barrington, Mr. Richard Dawson, Mr. Sanderson, Mr. Charles Ball, Mr. Egan, and Mr. Arthur Browne (member for the University). On a division, the numbers were; Ayes for the amendment 105, Noes 106; Ma jority 1. -- On the 24th, when the report was brought up, Sir Laurence Parsons moved, that the paragraph which alluded to the masure of Union should be expunged; this brought on another long debate after which a division took place, when there appeared for expunging the paragraph relating to the union; - Ayes 109, Noes 104; Majority against the paragraph 5. Mr. Ponsonby then proposed the following resolution: "That this House will ever maintain the undoubted birthright of Irishmen, by preserving an independent Parliament of Lords and Commons, resident within this kingdom, as settled and approved by His Majesty and the British Parliament in 1782." This, however, on consideration, was withdrawn, and the measure of union was for this session abandoned. The joy at this defeat was excessive, and the failure of the measure at the outset was so highly approved of by the kingdom, that public addresses were voted from all parts, to those who had opposed it in Parliament, particularly to the Earl Charlemont, Sir John Parnell, Mr. Foster (Speaker), Mr. Plunket, Mr. Barrington, and several other members of both Houses. However, in the interval, between that and the opening of the ensuing session, every engine was set to work, to procure addresses in favour of the Union: threats and promises were held out to every description of individuals from the highest to the lowest; the refusal of sheriffs to call public meetings, to petition against the measure; the actual interference of the military; the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act; the exercise of martial law; the act passed in the preceding session (called the rebellion act), which enabled the chief magistrate to issue orders to any officer or individual, for summary arrests, and summary trials; all had necessarily great effect upon the minds of the people, and nearly broke down the spirit of the country, and overawed and intimidated the nation. The opposition, however, that was made to the measure was great, and, under these circumstances, it was indeed the more surprising. Petitions from all quarters were presented to Parliament against it, and on the 15th of January, Mr. Grattan was elected for the borough of Wicklow, for the purpose of opposing the measure. The following is a List of the Members who voted against the Union, on the Motion on the Address, on the 22d and 24th of January, 1799. Acheson, Hon. A. Babbington, David Bagwell, John Bagwell, William Barrington, Jonah Beresford, J. C. Browne, Arthur Corry, Lord Viscount Cole, Hon. Colonel L. Crookshank, George Cooper, Jos. Edward Cane, James Caulfield, Lord Daly, Denis Bowes, Teller Dawson, Arthur Edgeworth, Richard Lovell Evans, George Freke, Sir John, Bart. Fitzgerald, Right Hon. James French, Arthur Gorges, Hamilton Hamilton, Hans Kingsborough, Lord Viscount Knox, Hon. George Knox, Francis King, Right Hon. Henry * King, John Latouche, David, jun. Latouche, John Latouche, John, jun. Leighton, Sir Thomas Metge, John * O'Callaghan, Hon. W. |