UNION.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (MR. CORRY), MOVES THE

FIRST RESOLUTION.

February 14. 1800.

SEVERAL members were sworn in and took their seats. Petitions against the Union were, on this and the preceding days, presented from the counties of Carlow, the King's County, the counties of Leitrim, Kildare, Down, Westmeath, Roscommon, Armagh, Clare, Louth, Cork, Monaghan, Donegall; the towns of Carrickfergus, Drogheda, Newry, Maryborough, Downpatrick, and Portarlington. They expressed the great concern of the petitioners at finding the measure again introduced into Parliament after its rejection the year preceding; and they prayed that the constitution established by the final settlement of 1782, might be maintained inviolate. The House went into a committee; Mr. Annesley in the chair. Mr. Corry (Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated that the measure of Union necessarily took its rise from the imperfections of the constitution of 1782, as well as from the religious dissensions and political convulsions that had agitated the country for a considerable time past. He entered into an historical account of the state of the two parties, Protestant and Catholic; and represented the Union as the measure most likely to put an end to their dissensions; that neither the free trade nor free constitution had procured tranquillity for the country. The questions of the commercial propositions, of the regency, and of the French Revolution, exposed the country to considerable danger: he alluded to the French decree of November 1792; and compared the speeches and publications that of late had appeared in Ireland as similar to it in tendency, and as encouraging treason and rebellion. He read part of Mr. Grattan's address to the citizens of Dublin in 1797, and argued that it preached the doctrine of insurrection under the name of liberty, and led to the rebellion that followed. He attacked the constitution as settled in 1782, and pronounced it entirely incompetent to promote the advantage of the kingdom, or support the connection between the two countries. the Union was become necessary to prevent degeneration; and that it would prove advantageous to Ireland, whether we considered the expences or the commerce of the country. He concluded by moving the first resolution.

That

Mr. GRATTAN said: That with respect to the subject before the House, it had been already discussed; and, indeed, the honourable gentleman had tripped over the ground with so light a foot, as to have made but little impression. He thought, from the manner of the honourable gentleman's

speech, that the subject had been deserted; he did not mean intentionally deserted, but, there was in the whole of the honourable gentleman's speech something so frivolous, so inane, that he seemed rather to be a courtier adjusting his argument before a looking-glass, than a senator speaking on the affairs of a great country. The honourable gentleman seemed to supply his deficiency of ability and of reasoning by personality, and he did not think the honourable gentleman deficient in personal satire, though he thought him very deficient in point of argument; instead of argument he had substituted slander. The honourable gentleman seemed to set the propriety and the necessity of the Union upon the ground of Catholic emancipation, parliamentary reform, particular speeches made in that House, and publications on political subjects out of the House. Respecting reform, it had been once attempted to stifle that measure in a perpetual mutiny bill. The honourable gentleman supported that bill when it was brought in; and, he remembered that the very same gentleman afterwards voted that bill to be a grievance. It was attempted to stifle parliamentary reform by selling to the British minister the Irish Parliament. By a Union of the two legislatures, the honourable gentleman hoped to quiet the minds of the people, and for ever put to rest the idea of parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation, by purchasing the Parliament of Ireland with the money of the people. It reminded him of the poet's description,

Wisely hoping party rage would cease,

He buys both sides to give the country peace.

Was there to be no such thing as publications on political subjects in the country? Did the honourable gentleman believe that the Parliament of the country would be removed without the people hearing of it? Was there to be no freedom of the press, was that to be removed also with the Parliament? Let not the honourable gentleman speak or hope so wildly as to say, that because the Parliament is to be removed, there shall be no publications. The suppression of public opinion, through the medium of the press, might be more dangerous than the freedom of discussion. Was the only way to stop the licentiousness of the press, to stop the grievance, to take away the materials. What, says he, is the grievance? the Parliament. The honourable gentleman had read a letter of his; give me leave to say the honourable gentleman has misrepresented every period of it. There was not a passage related by the honourable gentleman that was fairly stated to the House, and though he misrepresented

-

them to answer his own purpose, yet he was unable to argue upon them; and, therefore, it would have been wiser for the honourable gentleman not to have used them. The honourable gentleman had stated a sentence out of that publication, which he endeavoured to establish as intended against the present Parliament, which he must have well known did not apply to this Parliament, but to the borough Parliament of James I.; it alluded to the packed Parliament of that reign. Will the honourable gentleman deny that Parliament was packed? Will he deny that the retainers of the Castle had endeavoured to destroy the liberties of the country? Will he defend that Parliament? Will he deny that fact? Will he say the attempt to pack a Parliament was never made by any minister? Will he say it was not attempted in the time of Lord Buckingham? The honourable gentleman had misrepresented him in other instances, and endeavoured to apply the paragraphs to the existing Parliament, and in a language that any man of sense would have been ashamed of. He must have well known that some of the observations in that publication applied to the Parliament of 1769, which Lord Townshend boasted of; and a Parliament similar to which the ministry had since boasted they had procured at the expence of half a million. I have heard, and always thought, that the influence of the Crown might overturn the constitution. Have not attempts been made on the integrity of the Parliament to induce it to give itself up? Can any man believe that any minister could be so daring, so bold, as to think, by a public robbery, to steal the Parliament out of the country; that any minister can have the impudence to ask a free and independent Parliament to sell itself to Great Britain? Will the honourable gentleman look the House of Commons of Ireland in the face, and boldly and honestly tell the House, that no minister at any time has attempted to bribe Parliament to vote away its own existence? If the honourable gentleman will get up and deny this, I will be glad to hear him. Will the honourable gentleman say, that no minister in any country ever attempted to do such an act?..

The honourable gentleman has told the House, that the inflammatory speeches that had been made in the House, and the inflammatory publications that had been given to the public out of the House, had excited the public mind, and irritated the public feeling. But the honourable gentleman must well know he is wrong in his statement; for he must have no doubt seen the declaration of O'Connor, and two other persons; and what was their declaration? That they

had formed their connection with France, before ever those speeches were made; and they had declared, if, at that time, parliamentary reform had been acceded to, they would have broken off that connection. The honourable gentleman must know, that those persons declared they had no intercourse with the opposition, but on the subject of reform. But when the honourable gentleman comes into the House of Commons of Ireland, with a treasonable motion in his hand, with a conspiracy against the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland; it is natural for him to charge an honest and an independent man, with the crime of which he is himself is guilty; and to charge the true and sincere friends and supporters of the constitution, with unqualified, abominable, and contemptible calumny.

If I was to say what was the cause of the rebellion that aggrieved this country; if I was to say what was the cause of those convulsions that agitated the kingdom, I would say it was not the parliamentary declaimer that was the cause; it was not the publications out of the House that was the cause; but it was the parliamentary pedlar, first speculating for bread, and then for station; this caused the discontents of the country. I lament the blots of the body, and I pity the individual; I look with respect towards the body itself, because I know it possesses a salient principle, which is the pledge of future virtue. There were defects in the constitution; this side of the House wanted to remove them; they tried to cure the disorder, but the other side decried the medicine; they refused to give relief; they thought, and they said, "the patient is so ill, do not try to cure him; he is past cure; kill him at once." What is the complaint? The patient has a pain in his head; give him what will relieve him; no; that will not do, say the other side; the disorder is incurable; cut off his head! They first oppose the cure of the constitution, and then they propose the death of it.

With respect to that part of the honourable gentleman's speech which went to a want of responsibility in the minister, I will examine it. What is the argument? That the constitution of Ireland is not sufficient to secure the responsibility of the Irish minister. The English minister certainly is not responsible to this country, but the Irish minister is, if he does not run away from the country; but if he runs from the country and from punishment, he then is not responsible, and public justice would probably be eluded. What was the case of the Marquis of Buckingham? He was obliged to pacify the House, or he could not have staid in the country. The constitution is not so bad as the honourable gentleman wished to insinuate.