at the tariff, or see what has been the result; greatly in favour of England. Under the head of home manufacture and colonial produce, in favour of England; under the head of raw material the produce of their respective countries, above two millions in favour of England. Under the head of foreign articles, a great balance in favour of England. Add to this an absentee rental of considerably above a million, and you will find there is a balance of a sum of above four millions annually, in which Ireland administers to Great Britain, and pours herself, as it were, abundantly, and without reserve into the British dominion. This is the trade the minister threatens to alter, and thinks he threatens not Great Britain but Ireland. Here he will have some difficulty; and, first, the covenant of 1779; he denies that covenant; he says, that all the great commercial advantages of Ireland are to be ascribed to the liberality of the British Parliament, and not to the Irish Parliament, Wherever he meets an Irish covenant he gives it no quarter. I will state the fact, and let the public judge. In October 1779, an address passed the Irish Commons, containing a requisition for a free trade; it was followed by a motion declaring that the Irish Commons would not, for the present, grant new taxes; it was followed by a limitation of the act of supply to the duration of six months only. It was considered in England, and attended with resolutions moved by the then minister, purporting to repeal certain restrictive acts on the free trade of Ireland, and to grant a direct intercourse between Ireland and His Majesty's plantations, subject to equality of duty. These resolutions were considered in the Parliament of Ireland*; they were voted satisfactory. A long money bill was then passed, and new taxes were then granted in consideration thereof, and this he calls no covenant. He has denied, it seems, the linen covenant; he has denied this commercial covenant of 1779; and he has denied the constitutional covenant of 1782; and having disclaimed the obligation of three treaties, he now proposes a fourth, in which he desires you to give up your Parliament to secure his faith in time to come. I argue in a different manner; I argue from his disposition to dispute the validity of covenant to the necessity of the existence of Parliament — an Irish Parliament the guarantee of those covenants, who has power to preserve the obligation, or resources to retaliate. Does the minister, when he talks of an eleemosynary trade, * See the resolutions and the law expressing the condition and cove nant. recollect how the Irish Parliament could affect the East India Company, by discontinuing the act of 1793, granted but for a limited time? Does he recollect how she could affect the British West India monopoly, by withdrawing her exclusive consumption from the British plantations? Does he recollect how we could affect the navy of England, by regulations regarding our Irish provisions? Does he recollect how we could affect her empire, by forming commercial intercourse with the rest of the world? But let not this depend upon idle threats, threats which never should have been advanced on one side, if they had not been first most imprudently introduced on his. I say, let not the argument rest on threats, but let it rest on the past experiment; the experiment has been made; we got our trade by our resources and our Parliament; we will keep our trade by affection and by covenant. But should a British minister choose to despise those tenures, we have another; we can keep our trade by the means by which we have obtained it, our Parliament, our resources. He speaks of the linen trade. On this subject, indeed, he has been answered, as he has upon the others, by the argument and by the experiment; the argument which proves that the bounty on linen was not granted for the sake of Ireland, and that Irish linen sells itself. But suppose his reasoning in this case to be as true as it is fallacious, what does it amount to? That his country robbed Ireland of her free trade in the last century, and gave her, in the place of it, the export of one solitary manufacture, depending on the charity of England; and now he proposes to rob Ireland of that manufacture, unless Ireland consents to be robbed of her Parliament ! He has no other ground of triumph but the disgrace and dishonour of his country; however, her case is better than he has stated it; and that is proved by the experiment; for in 1779, we were encountered by the same threats on the same subject: we despised those threats; we put the question to a trial; we entered into a non-consumption agreement; we demanded a free trade; the free trade we obtained; the linen trade we preserved. What he cannot reconcile to your interest, he affects to reconcile to your honour. He, the minister, "his budget with corruption crammed," proposes to you to give up the ancient inheritance of your country; to proclaim an utter and blank incapacity, and to register this proclamation of incapacity in an act which inflicts on this ancient nation an eternal disability; and he accompanies these monstrous proposals by undisguised terror, and unqualified bribery, and this he calls no attack on the honour and dignity of the kingdom. The thing he proposes to buy, is what cannot be sold LIBERTY! For it, he has nothing to give: every thing of value.which you possess, you obtained under a free constitution; part with it, and you must be not only a slave but an idiot. - His propositions not only go to your dishonour, but they are built upon nothing else: he tells you, it is his main argument, that you are unfit to exercise a free constitution; and he affects to prove it by the experiment. Jacobinism grows, says he, out of the very state and condition of Ireland. I have heard of Parliament impeaching ministers; but here is a minister impeaching Parliament; he does more he impeaches the parliamentary constitution itself: the abuses in that constitution he has protected; it is only its being that he destroys; on what ground? Your exports since your emancipation, and under that parliamentary constitution, and in a great measure by that parliamentary constitution, have nearly doubled; commercially it has worked well. Your concord with England since the emancipation, as far as it relates to Parliament on the subject of war, has been not only approved, but has been productive; imperially, therefore, it has worked well. What then does the minister in fact, object to? That you have supported him; that you have concurred in his system; therefore he proposes to the people to abolish the Parliament, and to continue the minister. He does morehe proposes to you to substitute the British Parliament in your place, to destroy the body that restored your liberties, and restore that body which destroyed them. Against such a proposition, were I expiring on the floor, I should beg to utter my last breath, and record my dying testimony. Mr. Corry replied to Mr. Grattan, and opposed the amendment. At ten o'clock in the morning, the House divided. Ayes for the amendment 96. Tellers for the Ayes, Sir Laurence Parsons and Mr. F. Savage. Noes 138. Tellers for the Noes, Viscount Loftus and Mr. Denis Browne. Majority against Sir Laurence Parson's amendment 42. The following is a List of the Minority against the Union. Burton, William Dawson, Richard Dawson, Arthur |