Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805, Part II, Volume 6: 1798–1805 9781848933019

Table of contents :
Contents
Joshua Spencer, Toughts on an Union (1798)
[Edward Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered, 8th edn (1798)
A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar … on the Subject of an Union of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland (1799)
[Charles Kendal Bushe], The Union. Cease Your Funning (1798)
Theobald McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1799)
An Old Friend, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland (1799)
John Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland, on the Projected Union (1799)
John Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. (1799)
[Roger O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland; Shewing them Why they Ought to Submit to an Union (1799)
Dr Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union of the Kingdom of Ireland with that of Great Britain (1799)
‘Hibernicus’ [pseud.], English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin! or An Address to the Irish Nation (1799)
The Speech of Henry Grattan, Esq. on the Subject of a Legislative Union with Great Britain (1800)
An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, in The Statutes at Large [England] (1800)
‘The Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection (1803)’, in The Life, Trial and Conversations of Robert Emmet, Leader of the Irish Insurrection of 1803 (1836)
[Theobald McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question (1805)
Editorial Notes
Index

Citation preview

IRELAND IN THE AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1760–1805

CONTENTS OF THE EDITION

Part I: Ireland and the American Revolution volume 1 General Introduction Introduction to Part I 1760–1779 volume 2 1779–1782 volume 3 1783–1789

Part II: Ireland and the French Revolution volume 4 Introduction to Part II 1791–1797 volume 5 1797–1800 volume 6 1798–1805 Index

IRELAND IN THE AGE OF REVOLUTION, 1760–1805

Volume 6 1798–1805 Edited by Harry T. Dickinson

First published 2013 by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited Published 2016 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © Taylor & Francis 2013 Copyright © Editorial material Harry T. Dickinson 2013 To the best of the Publisher’s knowledge every efort has been made to contact relevant copyright holders and to clear any relevant copyright issues. Any omissions that come to their attention will be remedied in future editions. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. british library cataloguing in publication data Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805. Part II. 1. Ireland – History – 1760–1820 – Sources. 2. Ireland – Politics and government – 1760–1820 – Sources. 3. United States – History – Revolution, 1775–1783 – Infuence – Sources. 4. France – History – Revolution, 1789–1799 – Infuence – Sources. I. Dickinson, H. T. 941.5’07-dc23 ISBN-13: 978-1-84893-301-9 (set) Typeset by Pickering & Chatto (Publishers) Limited

CONTENTS

Joshua Spencer, Toughts on an Union (1798) [Edward Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered, 8th edn (1798) A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar … on the Subject of an Union of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland (1799) [Charles Kendal Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning (1798) Teobald McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union of Great Britain and Ireland (1799) An Old Friend, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland (1799) John Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland, on the Projected Union (1799) John Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. (1799) [Roger O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland; Shewing them Why they Ought to Submit to an Union (1799) Dr Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union of the Kingdom of Ireland with that of Great Britain (1799) ‘Hibernicus’ [pseud.], English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin! or An Address to the Irish Nation (1799) Te Speech of Henry Grattan, Esq. on the Subject of a Legislative Union with Great Britain (1800) An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, in Te Statutes at Large [England] (1800) ‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection (1803)’, in Te Life, Trial and Conversations of Robert Emmet, Leader of the Irish Insurrection of 1803 (1836) [Teobald McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question (1805) Editorial Notes Index

1 13 41 89 111 131 137 149 179 189 205 221 255

275 295 311 361

SPENCER, THOUGHTS ON AN UNION

Joshua Spencer, Esq., Barrister at Law, Toughts on an Union (Dublin: Printed for William Jones, 1798).

Joshua Spencer (c. 1758–1829) was a lawyer who had studied at Trinity College Dublin and at Lincoln’s Inn in London. He had earlier written essays against the proposed Union between Great Britain and Ireland in the Dublin-based Hibernian Journal and he was prominent in proposing successful resolutions against the Union in meetings of the Irish Bar. Tis short pamphlet went through four editions in Dublin and was also printed in London and Cork. Despite his clear hostility to the Union, this did not dissuade Spencer from representing County Sligo in the United Parliament from 1813 to 1815. Despite his legal expertise, here Spencer does not raise specifc issues against the proposed Union that might badly afect the legal profession. Instead he concentrates on stressing how much Ireland had prospered since gaining legislative independence in 1782 and hence argues that there are no real grounds for voting its separate parliament out of existence. He emphasizes that the members of the Irish Parliament have no constitutional right to vote it out of existence. He admits that Scotland had fourished since its Union with England in 1707, but he denies that this was because of the Union or that there is any real similarity in the situations of Scotland and Ireland. Nor does he believe that the recent Irish rebellion or the French threat justify a Union that, according to him, would only prove disadvantageous to Ireland. He urges the election of a new parliament or a referendum of the Irish freeholders to determine whether there is popular support for Union.

–1–

Joshua Spencer, Esq., Barrister at Law, Thoughts on an Union (Dublin: Printed for William Jones, 1798).

THOUGHTS, &c. Having a few Weeks ago, through the medium of the Hibernian Journal,1 suggested such general observations as had occurred to me, tending to shew the Impolicy of an Union between this Country and England, and it having been since pretty generally understood, either that the measure had never been entertained, or was abandoned on the other side of the Water; I had nearly dismissed the subject from my consideration; but the / Report of an Union again assailing our ears, with increased Force and Authority, I cannot restrain from obtruding myself a-new upon the Public, not from a vain imagination that I can produce any thing worthy of their attention, upon the subject, but from a desire to provoke in others of greater Capacity, the Consideration and Discussion of a question the most interesting and important that ever, ofered itself to the deliberation of any Kingdom, and which involves nothing less than the present welfare and future destinies of our native Country. And in the frst place, the following questions naturally occur; what may be the cause why this Country, which while inconsiderable in point of Population, Agriculture, and Commerce, hath had a distinct and separate Legislature, should now / with a Population of fve millions of Inhabitants, with a most fourishing agriculture, and a greatly extended, and still extending Commerce, resign its legislation into the hands of another Country? Why that measure, which whilst Ireland groaned under the restrictions on her Commerce, would have been rejected by her best and wisest Statesmen, should be resorted to at this time, when there is no permanent impediment to the career of her Prosperity? If it be answered that the present disturbed situation of this Country2 renders a measure, heretofore ineligible, expedient and desirable at present, besides observing that the temporary and accidental situation of the Country, can be no ground for adopting a measure of such magnitude, and novelty, and irrevocable in its nature. I further answer that I can see no connection / between the evils which we deplore, and the remedy proposed: neither can I perceive how the condition of this Country in point of internal tranquillity,

–3–

4

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

would be infuenced by an Union of the two Legislatures. Ireland having obtained that Commercial Liberty3 for which an Union was formerly considered to be the Price, and possessing an independent Legislature4 hath nothing to hope from an Union with England, which could not heal our religious Diferences, nor extinguish the causes, if any such exist, of well founded discontent in any Particular, it would indeed absorb the question of Parliamentary Reform, and together with it, the independence, the importance, and the dignity of the Country for ever. Indeed it is truly and candidly admitted by De Lolme,5 himself an Advocate for the / Union, in his Strictures on the State of Ireland, “that the removal of those impolitic commercial restrictions, and disabilities which were formerly laid upon Ireland, and its consequent extension of Trade, has entirely changed the state of the question, with regard to the expedience of an Union between Great Britain and Ireland; consequently the greatest part of the arguments used in support of it, previous to that æra, as they tended to prove the advantageous efects to Ireland of such an enlargement of Trade assumed as a circumstance necessarily connected with, and resulting from the Union, are now inapplicable; as on the other hand, the objections of those who feared the pernicious consequences to Great Britain, of allowing such unlimited Commercial Privileges to the Irish / as this Union would create, are equally done away. Te emancipation of the Commerce of Ireland, has proved experimentally to the Advocates for the question that many of those advantages which they described, can exist independent of an Union; and to its opposers that the disadvantages apprehended from it to the Trade of England, have been in a great measure imaginary.” (a)6* As to the efect of an 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 tranquillity / of the Country, to which an Union doth in no wise conduce, but whose immediate consequence would be to increase the number of Absentees,7 already the bane of this 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 Absentees, cannot be doubted by the most sceptical, and it is remarkable that the argument is used by the celebrated Dean Tucker,8 to induce England to an Union, for in his Proposal for incorporating the British Isles into one Kingdom, printed in 1750, he observes that, “the inducements of being near the Parliament, the Court, the public Funds, would bring many more Irish families to reside and spend their fortunes here, than now do. In short, whatever wealth Ireland would / draw from other Countries by its produce, manufactures, and happy situation, all that would continually centre in England.”9 He further adds, [“]Tat the increase of (a) Strictures on Ireland. Page 86.

Spencer, Toughts on an Union

5

wealth to Ireland in consequence of an Union would enable her to ease England of the burthen of the worst and heaviest of her Taxes.”*10 Tough I have no inclination to make the experiment, yet I cannot blame the Dean of Gloucester for his advice, he was a man of most respectable character, and eminent for his political sagacity and commercial knowledge; but he was an English Patriot, whose duty it was to prefer and promote the interest of his own Country, and perhaps, like another great man, / Mr. Gibbon, he considered Ireland as a remote and petty Province.11 By a perusal of the writers in the sister country upon the subject from Sir Matthew Decker12 to De Lolme, the curious reader will easily satisfy himself that all the arguments in favour of the measure, centre in the convenience and alleviation of publick burthen to England. Te situation of Scotland, which is said to have fourished since her Union with England,13 is fondly quoted by the Advocates for that measure; but in order to draw any solid argument from the case of Scotland, it must be shewn that our situation is the same with that of Scotland at the time of her Union, and it must be still further shewn, not only that Scotland hath fourished since her Union with England, but that it was in consequence of that Union that she hath so fourished. / Te fact is, that the greater part of the Nations of Europe have fourished since the period of the Scottish Union; from that time unto the present, there hath been a gradual improvement of all those arts and sciences which conduce to the prosperity of States. Tat England should have ardently desired the Union with Scotland, almost upon any terms, is not to be wondered at, since Scotland not having been prevailed upon to acknowledge the succession in the House of Hanover,14 upon the demise of Queen Anne, who lef no issue, there would be a dissolution of the only point of connection between the two kingdoms, namely, the Union of the two Crowns upon the same head, in which case the security of England must be essentially endangered, inasmuch as she would thereby cease to have the advantage and protection of an insular / situation, and Scotland would be the landing place and rallying point of the Pretender and the French forces, and so sensible was England of her danger in this respect, and so anxious to prevail upon Scotland to declare for the succession in the House of Hanover, that in the session of Parliament which opened in November, 1705,† a Bill was brought into the English House of Lords, impowering the Queen to name commissioners to treat of a full Union of both kingdoms as soon as the Parliament of Scotland should pass an act to the same purpose;15 but if no such Union should be agreed on, or if the same succession to the Crown with that of England should not be enacted by a day prefxed, then it was enacted that afer that day no Scotchman who was not resident in England or Ireland, or employed in the * †

Strictures on Ireland, Page 93. – Te Reader will bear in mind that Dean Tucker wrote this long before we had obtained a free Trade. Burnet’s History of his Own Times.

6

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Queen’s service by sea or land, should be esteemed a / natural born subject of England: they added to this a prohibition of an importation of Scotch Cattle and of the manufacture of Scotland: this bill was rejected by the House of Commons on account of the money penalties which were contained in several clauses, but a new bill16 was brought into the House of Commons to the same efect which passed: and when the Duke of Argyle17 was sent down Commissioner to the Parliament of Scotland, which had met in the summer of the same year, his instructions were in the disjunctive, that he should endeavour to procure either an act for setting the succession, as it was in England, or that he should set on foot a treaty for the Union of the two kingdoms: from which it is manifest that the great object of England was that, there should be some solid ground of permanent connection between the two countries, which the Ministry of England conceived might be alike efected, / either by an act of the Scotch Parliament setting the succession, or by an incorporating Union. At length in the year 1707afer a period of nine months which had elapsed from the commencement of the negotiation, this infnitely important measure of an Union to England, was fnally completed. It had met with great opposition in the Parliament of Scotland, where every step that was made, and every vote that was carried was with the same strength, and met with the same opposition; both parties giving strict attendance during the whole session, which lasted for three months; Bishop Burnet the cotemporary Historian, and who took a great interest in this memorable transaction, afer mentioning the attempt which had been made at Edinburgh to murder the Lord Provost18 who had been one of the Commissioners, and had concurred heartily in the design, makes use of these remarkable expressions. No other violent attempt was made afer this, but the body of the / people shewed so much sullenness, that probably, had any person of authority once kindled the fre, they seemed to be of such combustible matter, that the Union might have cast the Nation into great Convulsions.19 Te necessary precautions however had been taken; for orders were given both to England and Ireland to have troops ready upon call; and if it were necessary more troops should be ordered from Flanders. Te same historian observes that it was the unfortunate commercial speculation on Darien in South America, the great charge it had put the nation to, and the total miscarriage of that project, which made the trading part of that kingdom see the impossibility of carrying on any great design in trade, and made them the more readily concur in carrying on the Union.20 Te wiser part of the nation hoped that an union would prove the means of correcting among other grievances, the abuses in the administration of / justice in their country, where judges who were named by the ministry, were in such a dependence, that since there are no juries allowed in Scotland in civil cases, the whole property of the kingdom was in their hands, and by their means in the hands of the Ministers: that the prospect of a free trade not only with England but with her plantations, and the

Spencer, Toughts on an Union

7

protection of the feet of England reconciled them to the measure: but six years had not elapsed from the conclusion of the treaty of Union, when at a meeting of the Scotch Members of both houses of the United Parliament, in consequence of a bill passed through the House of Commons, directly violating that article of the Union, by which it was stipulated that, no duty should be laid on the malt in Scotland during the war,21 it was agreed to move for an act dissolving the Union; and accordingly the motion was made in the upper House of Parliament, / and most of the Lords of that nation spoke to it. Tey set forth all the hardships under which they laboured since the Union, that they had no more a Council in Scotland, that their laws were altered in matters of the highest importance, and that now an imposition was about to be laid upon their malt, which must prove an intolerable burthen to the poor of that country, and deprive them of the use of any other liquor than water: upon all these reasons they moved for liberty to bring in a bill to dissolve the Union, in which they would give full security for maintaining the Queen’s prerogative, and for securing the protestant succession: this motion was of course warmly opposed by the Ministry, and rejected; and when the malt tax was brought to the lords, great opposition was made to it on account of its being so manifestly / inequitable, but it passed in the United Lords.22 Now not one of the already enumerated causes and motives which induced the Scottish Union, can be applied to the present situation and circumstances of this country. For in the frst place the succession to the crown of Ireland is settled, and the permanent connection between the two kingdoms is secured by the statute of Henry the Eighth in this kingdom, which declares the Union of the crowns to be indissoluble,23 and if the case of a regency has been over-looked by the statute, there can be no objection to the bringing a bill into our Parliament, for the purpose of declaring the regent of England for the time being, to be ipso facto24 regent of Ireland. As to another cause which engaged the Scotch to be reconciled to the measure of / an Union; viz. the partial and oppressive conduct of judges intirely dependent on the crown; it is to be observed that the independence of our judges is now secured by Act of Parliament:25 and here it is that with pride and triumph we may congratulate our country, upon the state of the higher tribunals in this kingdom: I will venture to assert without hazard of contradiction from any one conversant with the subject, that in no age of any country did the stream of justice ever fow from more abundant, or purer sources: Te appointment of such persons as fll the Benches of our Superior Courts, of characters eminent for their integrity and legal knowledge, is in itself a great Reform, and will conduce in no small degree to the edifcation of the people at large. As to the other causes which prevailed upon the Scotch to surrender their independence, / namely, the low and depressed state of their commerce, and the impoverished condition of their country, &c. It is only necessary to travel through this country in day light

8

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

to perceive by what rapid strides she has advanced, in her commercial career, more especially since the year 1782, that is, since the epoch of her commercial and constitutional emancipation. We may every where read in large characters the ameliorated state of the public fortune, in the improved condition of our lands, in the increased number of buildings, both public and private throughout our towns, in the multiplication of elegant equipages, furniture, or in the general appearance of superior ease and comfort difused throughout the lower orders of the community, and such is the stamina of the public prosperity, that, like that of England, it has increased / during the war,26 so that upon a subject so obvious, I shall content myself with mentioning a single instance: about twenty years ago and before that time, we imported corn for our own consumption, to the amount of three hundred thousand pounds sterling, annually, and we have latterly exported to the amount of one million annually sterling. Ireland is now in possession of that free trade27 for which Union was formerly to be the compensation to England, and of that trade to her plantations which Scotland sought through the medium of an Union, she already enjoys the protection of those feets which are in great part manned by Irish sailors, and she contributes, though indirectly, to the support of those wars in which she engaged through her connection with England, and chearfully engaged, from her / sense of the inestimable advantages attendant on that connection: But in truth there is no room for a parallel in point of situation between this kingdom, and a country rich indeed in the industry and in genuity of her inhabitants, but of ungrateful soil for the most part, and not separated from England by a greater feature than that which separates parts of the same kingdom. It is true that an open arrayed Rebellion has raged in, and desolated parts of this kingdom, and disgraced the whole, but that Rebellion has been subdued, and a fne occasion is now presented to a skilful Legislature to repose the tranquility and harmony of the country upon solid and lasting foundations. Our Parliament may have committed errors, but there is a fund of good sense and good temper in the country to correct them. Our Executive / Government may have at times been ill advised, but there is a rational and unbounded confdence in the integrity and purity of motive of our illustrious Chief Governor.28 To the Yeomanry of the City of Dublin is the salvation of Dublin, and all its living consequences to be ascribed; and indeed to the Yeomanry of the country at large,29 and to that high spirit and sustained energy which a sense of national dignity and importance is so calculated to inspire, is the country principally indebted for its safety. Far be it from me however, to depreciate the signal and decisive services of his Majesty’s regular forces; to the zeal and intelligence of the ofcers, to the alacrity, the courage, and persevering patience of the men, every praise is due, nor can the nation sufciently express its gratitude to the gallant English militia, who in the generosity of their devotion to / the general cause of the Empire, forget the cold statute which limits

Spencer, Toughts on an Union

9

their services to their own island, and resolved that the enlarged sphere of public duty was their native country. But supposing for a moment, that an Union were as advantageous to this country, as it appears to me to be pernicious, and even dangerous to the connection between the two countries, and admitting and respecting as I do the transcendancy, but not the omnipotence of the powers of Parliament, I cannot help more than doubting their competency to such a measure, without the directly expressed approbation of the people. If able and well informed men have balanced with respect to the Octennial Bill in England, if they have hesitated as to the power of Parliament to extend its duration even for a few years,30 what must be thought of a / Parliamentary measure abolishing the Parliament itself, and transferring to another kingdom the right of legislating for this country. – It is surely the duty of a Member of Parliament to watch over and maintain the interests of his Constituents, and those of the country at large, and how can he insure the fulfllment of this duty if he substitute another Parliament in the room of that chosen by the People? or what right can he have to delegate a power which was only delegated to himself, or to transfer a confdence which is personal between him and his Constituents. If even concerning the ordinary business of the country, it hath been the opinion of the most respectable Members of Parliament in both countries, that the instructions of their Constituents, if not mandatory upon their conduct, were yet entitled to the greatest respect;31 what / must be the case with respect to the paramount measure of a fundamental change in the Constitution of the country. It may be remembered that during a debate which occurred some years ago in our Parliament, on a bill for preventing Revenue Ofcers from voting at Elections for Members of Parliament, it was contended on the part of Administration, and successfully contended, that Parliament had no right to disfranchise men not convicted of any crime.32 If it was then conceived that Parliament, even for the sake of maintaining its own purity and independence, could not despoil of their franchise a comparatively small number of men, notwithstanding the precedent of an English Act of Parliament,33 it surely will not be contended that Parliament can be empowered to do an act, which will render the franchises of the entire kingdom a mere nullity. Te great security for the faithful / discharge of Parliamentary duty has been considered to be the limited duration of Parliament, whereby afer the expiration of a defnite period, the Representative returns into the mass of the community, and a new choice is given to the Constituent; but this wise precaution of our Constitution would be vain and inefectual in the event of an Union, when the handful of Irith Senators would be emerged in the multitude of English Legislators. Te efect of public opinion and censure, those powerful regulators and controuls of human conduct, must be null in the case of an United Parliament, which would be placed beyond the sphere of the operation of the sentiments of this Country.

10

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

If, therefore, it be determined by the English Cabinet, to bring forward the / measure of an Union, let the Irish Parliament be dissolved, and a new Parliament be returned, bringing with it the sentiments of the country upon the subject; or let the Freeholders be convened in their respective counties and let the sense of the nation be declared upon a National Question of such magnitude and importance: To this proposal it may be answered, that the situation of this country at present will not admit of that agitation which must necessarily attend a general election and numerous assemblies of the people; and can it then be afrmed that that state and temper of mind of the country, which cannot bear the exercise of the established and acknowledged franchise and privileges of the people, is precisely adapted to the Parliamentary discussion of a / question which would at any time be attended with extraordinary agitation and ferment. Te cessation of courts martial34 should be the signal for every well informed mind to rouse from its lethargy, and to unfold those powers of the understanding which had collapsed during the continuance of the Rebellion, and upon no subject more interesting to his county can the enlightened Irishman employ his attention than upon that of an Union, which if it be a good measure for Ireland, it is only by examination and discussion that its advantages can be developed and illustrated; and if it be a bad measure it is only by the same touchstones / that its injurious consequences will be detected and exposed. It was to protect and maintain the present Constitution of Ireland that the astonishing spectacle of the Irish Yeomanry was displayed, it was to support the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, that men whose pursuits and habits were the most abhorrent from the profession of arms, became almost on a sudden expert in military evolution and manœuvre, that persons bred in all the ease and sofness of afuent fortune, voluntarily adopted the labours, the fatigues, and the privations of the military life during a state of War that, confrmed habits of long protracted conviviality, were in a moment dissolved and sacrifced to the imperious circumstances of the country: nor / can it with any appearance of truth be afrmed that it was the consoling prospect of an Union which sustained and refreshed the occasionally drooping spirits of the Irish Yeomen.35 Te more important and complicated the concerns of a country, (and they become so in proportion as it advances in prosperity) the greater the necessity for a Legislature intirely and exclusively occupied with the afairs of that country; and, I doubt whether a consolidated Legislature sitting in another country, could have possessed the means of a timely discovery of the late Rebellion, which was alone the cause of its not overturning the Government of this kingdom. If, as hath been asserted, the manners of the lower orders in the greater part of this kingdom / are semi-barbarous – is the Legislature of another Country (for such it would virtually be, notwithstanding the infusion of a few members from this country) unacquainted with the manners and habits of this, and with the changes which

Spencer, Toughts on an Union

11

may occasionally take place in both, or the Irish Parliament sitting in the capital of the country, the best qualifed to adopt measures to reclaim them. It hath been observed by Mr. Gibbon when contrasting the political condition of the ancient Roman Empire with that of Modern Europe, that “the Chances of Royal and Ministerial talents are now multipled with the number of its rulers;” in like manner it may be said that, the chances of political wisdom are now multiplied with the plurality of / legislatures, and indeed our system of Corn Laws, our Registry Act,36 and other acts which might be cited, refect honour on the Irish Legislation. If there were any thing in the physical situation, or in the permanent and immutable moral relations and circumstances of the two countries, (for none other can be a ground for an irrevocable measure) which required an incorporating Union; it should have been achieved at an earlier period of our history, for the habits of nations like these individuals become confrmed and inveterate by length of time, and it is not at this period of her political existence, nor in this stage of her agricultural and commercial prosperity, that Ireland should be required to fall back and sink into the situation of province. If / it be a maxim that political innovations are dangerous, is the force of that maxim lesser on account of the magnitude and importance of the measure, or because that when once carried into execution it will not be in our power to retract it. Would it be wise in the present situation and circumstances of this country to superadd another cause of agitation to those already in existence? or will the propagation of French Principles amongst the lower orders, be more efectually prevented by a measure whose necessary consequence must be political apathy amongst the high classes of society? whilst France with fervid hand is planting democracies all around her, shall we lend our assistance by removing from this country the visible signs of the English Constitution? But I will yet hope, that no such measure is really / in contemplation; I will hope that the Minister of England37 is persuaded, as every man of common sense in this country must be, that let the merits of the question of an Union abstractedly considered be what they may, the present situation of this country is most improper and unft for their parliamentary discussion. And at a time when nothing less than an extraordinary Coalition of all the Powers of Europe is thought necessary to oppose the Colossal Power and gigantic Progress of the French; when we have been just told by a Minister*38 in the English House of Lords, that notwithstanding the Prodigies of her Naval Atchievements, England herself cannot be safe, unless France shall be efectually resisted by land; can this, / I say, be the season for making experiments upon the honourable Pride, the temper and the feeling of an Independent Nation? If, however, in defance of the obvious dictates of prudence and sound policy, the question of an Union *

Lord Grenville.

12

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

shall be ofcially brought forward, I trust with confdence that both Nations will concur in the rejection of a Measure, the consequence of which to Ireland would be the loss of national honour, dignity and importance, and the increase of publick burthens and Absentees; and to England the further deterioration of her own Parliament by the incorporation of ours.

FINIS.

[COOKE], ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST AN UNION

[Edward Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered, 8th edn (Dublin: Printed for J. Milliken, 1798).

Produced in December 1798, a month before the frst bill in support of a Union between Great Britain and Ireland, this infuential pamphlet was part of the Irish government’s ofcial sofening up process designed to convince a majority in both houses of the Irish Parliament to support the government’s proposals. Aware that the proposed legislation, abolishing Ireland’s separate and independent parliament will arouse intense passions and partisan feelings, the author seeks to reduce these by claiming to examine calmly the general arguments in favour of Union. He maintains that the existence of a separate Irish Parliament has proved inconvenient for both countries and that the Union between England and Scotland has proved benefcial. He lists the ways in which Great Britain is superior to Ireland and claims that Ireland will gain much by being linked more closely with such a powerful and prosperous country. According to the author, Ireland will reap considerable commercial benefts in particular. With revolutionary France proving a threat to all the British Isles, Union will make defence easier to achieve. He argues that the present war with France is the best rather than the worst time to consider Union. A particularly important claim that he makes is that it will be easier to grant Catholic emancipation, allowing Roman Catholics to sit in the united legislature and even holding ofce in the Imperial Government because once Great Britain and Ireland become a single state the Protestants will be a clear majority of the population whereas in Ireland alone they are in a clear minority and fear for their political, economic and religious privileges. While he admits that Irish representatives will be in a minority in both houses of a united legislature, he insists Irish interests will still be protected. He also tries to calm the fears of Irish lawyers and the inhabitants of Dublin by maintaining that their interests will not sufer by abolishing the separate Irish legislature. Tis pamphlet went through at least nine editions in Dublin and several in London and Cork. It produced many published responses.

– 13 –

14

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

It was soon widely recognized that this pamphlet was the work of Edward Cooke (1755–1820), an under-secretary in the Irish administration and a close colleague of Viscount Castlereagh, the Chief Secretary. Cooke was an Englishman, educated at Eton and Cambridge University, but he had served successive administrations in Ireland since 1778 and he was highly regarded as an efcient civil servant. He sat in the Irish House of Commons for Liford from 1789 to 1790 and for Old Leighlin from 1790 to 1800. When George III refused to support Roman Catholic emancipation, seriously weakening Catholic support for the Union, Cooke joined Prime Minister Pitt and Lord Castlereagh in resigning from ofce in 1801. He did later hold a number of junior ministerial posts in the Westminster government, several of them under Castlereagh. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB and the HoIP, 1692–1800.

[Edward Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered, 8th edn (Dublin: Printed for J. Milliken, 1798).

It appears from a variety of circumstances, that the subject of incorporating the Irish with the British Legislature, and forming a complete Union of Great Britain and Ireland, is undergoing a discussion by the leading characters of both kingdoms; and it is rumoured, that some measure may be proposed upon it to the two Parliaments. Te question is of such extent and importance, and applies so warmly to all the feelings, prejudices and passions of the human mind, that it cannot fail to be universally debated: the only fear is, that it will not be properly debated. If it is to be decided by passion, or by force, there is no mischief which the agitation of the / question may not produce; if it is to be determined on its merits, it cannot fail to be useful. In one case the rejection or adoption of it would terminate in discontent or convulsion; in the other, the result of conviction would produce satisfaction. Te object of the considerations which follow, is not to give an opinion upon any Plan of Union, which may be in contemplation, but to state the general arguments which respect the subject, and to prove that it ought to be discussed with temper, and that it deserves such a discussion. Let us frst view the question in the abstract. – Two independent states, fnding their separate existence mutually inconvenient, propose to form themselves into one state for their mutual beneft. Such is the Question of Union, than which no question can be devised more ft for sober and philosophical argument. Again :– Every independent society or state has a right, consistent with its existing duties and obligations, to propose the means which appear most probable, for the attainment of the happiness of its people. If it appears probable that such happiness can best be attained by remaining in its present state, separate and independent of any other country, / separation and independency ought to be maintained at all hazards. If it appears probable,

– 15 –

16

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

that such happiness can best be attained by a federal or an Incorporate Union with another country, such an Union ought to be the national object. When the Seven United Provinces,1 being cruelly oppressed by the Spanish Government, separated from that Government, in order to escape from tyranny, and to secure liberty and happiness, they acted according to right, in declaring and establishing their independence. When the Sabines2 found they could not maintain themselves any longer against the Romans and saw, that by uniting with them, they had an opportunity of increasing their liberty, their happiness, and their power, they acted according to the principles of reason and right, in relinquishing their separate independency as a state, and by their Union laid the foundation of Roman greatness. Tis reasoning and these instances, form a complete answer to all declamation upon the common topics of national dignity and national pride. Were any person to exclaim, “who shall dare to propose, that the independence of Ireland shall be annihilated?” I would answer him by another question – if the liberty, the convenience, the happiness, the security of the people of Ireland, / will be improved by an incorporation of the Irish with the British legislature, shall we not for such advantages endeavour to procure that incorporation? England was formerly divided into seven kingdoms,3 which were continually engaged in predatory wars with each other, and the island was a general scene of confusion and barbarism. A wise and sagacious prince united these separate kingdoms into one Empire.4 Did the people of the Heptarchy lose their independence by this Union? Was a Mercian degraded by becoming an Englishman? Were the people of the seven nations made dependent; or were they debased and enslaved by abolishing the local regulations which divided them into separate and hostile socities, destructive of themselves and each other, and by associating and uniting under one regimen, one code of government, and one sovereignty? We might extend this reasoning, were it not too obvious, both to Wales and Scotland: How is a Welchman degraded by being represented in the British Parliament? How is a Scot enslaved by becoming a Briton? Te question of forming an Union between two countries, must never be confused with the subjection of one country to another. – Te latter is supposed to be the result of force, the former / of consent; the latter is calculated to extinguish the power and independence of one of the parties; the former, by the communication of privilege and the Union of strength, to increase the power and independence of both. Te one is therefore, never to be submitted to, but from necessity, the other may be the object of choice. An Union may be compared to a partnership in trade. If a merchant fnds, that from circumstances of situation, want of credit or capital, he cannot carry on his business alone, with advantage, will he not be wise to unite himself, if possible, to an extensive and wealthy ferme [sic], and to become a sharer in pro-

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

17

portion to his contribution of industry and capital, in the secure profts of an established house? If, therefore, the measure of forming an Union between two kingdoms, whose separate existence is inconvenient, is abstractedly agreeable to reason and philosophy; and if, in many instances, it has been attended with advantage to the contracting parties, it is plainly a subject for temperate discussion. If an Union may be advantageous, in what cases is it likely to be most so? / An union presupposes that, when it is completed, the contracting states shall be bound together by the same Constitution, Laws, and Government; and by an identity of interests, and equality of privileges. When, therefore, one of the States, desirous to form an Union, is inferior in point of civilization, agriculture, commerce, manufactures, morals, manners, establishments, constitution; and the other State is eminent and superior to all the world in these advantages; it is evident, that an Union, in such a case, must be most benefcial to the former; for there is every probability, that the Union will communicate, by degrees, all its advantages and excellencies; and the inferior Society will be thus placed in a state of continual emulation, and improvement. Let us compare then the situations of Great Britain and Ireland. Te former enjoys the best practical Constitution and Government which any nation has ever experienced; the people are in general the most civilized, the most obedient to Law, the most honest in dealing, the most decent in morals, the most regular in Religion of any people in Europe. Tey have the best agriculture, the most extensive commerce, and have carried / manufactures, arts, and sciences beyond any other nation. Teir soldiery is brave and orderly; their naval greatness is unrivalled. Now in many of these particulars, we acknowledge and lament the inferiority of Ireland – our civil and religious discontents, jealousies and disturbance; the conspiracies, the insurrections, the rebellions which have disgraced us, proclaim our defects in civilization and policy – that the former is not sufciently difused to prevent irregularity and licentiousness; nor the latter strong enough to repress them. Our agriculture is by no means perfect; there is only one manufacture of great importance;5 and commerce, though it has been of late years encreased beyond our hopes, is not carried to that extent which the powers and resources of the nation are able to reach. Let these countries be united, and identifed in government, in policy, in interest, what must be the unavoidable consequence? – Ireland will be gradually rising to the level of England; or England gradually sinking to the level of Ireland; and it is obvious which is most probable. If any person has a son uneducated, unimproved, and injured by bad habits, and bad company; in order to remedy these imperfections, / would it not be his frst endeavour to establish him in the best societies, and introduce him into the most virtuous, the most polished, and the most learned company; and if he

18

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

could once reconcile him to such companies, and teach him to relish their conversation, would he not be certain of his son’s improvement, and of his fnally turning out to his credit and satisfaction? What can any sanguine Irish Patriot wish for his country, but that its inhabitants should attain the same habits, manners, and improvement which make England the envy of Europe? and by what means can he hope to attain that end so efectually, as by uniting with her Government, and binding be all her interests and concerns in the same bottom? Supposing there were no other reasons which rendered the Union of the Sister Kingdoms desireable, the state of Europe, and especially of France, seems to dictate its peculiar policy at the present day. France has not only united to herself, and incorporated a great addition of territory, but has rendered absolutely dependent on her will, almost all the smaller states which surround her. Geneva is incorporated, Savoy is incorporated, all the Austrian provinces in Flanders, all the German states, on this side of the Rhine, are incorporated. / Spain is subject to her infuence; Holland, Switzerland, Sardinia, and the new Republic of Italy, are occupied by her armies; to every country she extends her principles, and her intrigues, and on this kingdom her designs have been nearly successful. No continental power could resist her arms, Great Britain alone maintained the contest: but, in proportion as the power of France is increased, so ought the strength of the British Empire to be augmented. If, from the disunited state of the British Empire, any particular part of it has become open to the attacks of France, or of its republican faction in England,6 that avenue of disunion should be closed. How could it have been possible for England to have formed the barrier, which she has opposed to the French power, if Scotland as well as Ireland, at this day, had continued a separate kingdom, equally open to French intrigue? She would probably have fallen a sacrifce to France, and the liberties of Europe would have fallen with her. France well knows the principle and the force of incorporations. Every state which she unites to herself, she makes part of her empire, one and indivisible,7 and will not sufer any mention to be made in negociation of restitution. Whilst in her afected plans of policy for the liberties of the British Empire, she maintains the principal of separation, as essential to freedom, she considers the / Union of England and Scotland as an usurpation of the former; and leaving England to her fate, would make Scotland and Ireland separate Republics. France well knows the adage, dum singuli pugnant universi vincuntur;8 and she has played that game successfully; but as we wish to check the ambition of that desperate, and unprincipled power, and if that end can only be efected by maintaining and augmenting the power of the British Empire, we should be favourable to the principle of Union, which must increase and consolidate its resources. If an Union may be desirable between two independent kingdoms, it must be most desirable when such two kingdoms are united under one Sovereign,

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

19

and have separate legislatures; for they have all the disadvantages without the advantages of an Union. Te Sovereign must reside in one of the kingdom: there would of course be the metropolis of the empire; there would be the real seat of the government; thence would fow all the counsels; and thither would resort those, who wished for favour and emolument. Te kingdom, where the monarch did not reside, not having the origination of all counsels and measures, and having much of its rents carried away by absentees, would be in a perpetual state of jealousy and discontent; and being separate in all respects, but in the individual person of the monarch, / would be a prey to foreign faction; and an empire, thus composed, could never be in a state of full security, for there never could be a certainty that all parts of it would pursue the same system. Te objections to this predicament were so strong in Scotland before that Union, that the Scots brought in a Bill of Settlement,9 to provide that their Monarch should never be the same person as the King of England; upon this the alternative of Union or Separation became inevitable, and at length they wisely preferred the former – What has been the consequence? Te Scots, becoming entitled to all the privileges of British subjects, have greatly added to their own civilization and wealth; have enjoyed internal tranquillity and security; and enabled Great Britain, by the consolidation of the whole island under one Government, to reach that height of prosperity and glory which makes her the envy and the protectress of Europe. In the situation which Scotland held previous to the Union does Ireland stand at present; except that the Crown of Ireland is by express statutes of declaration and recognition perpetually annexed to and dependent upon the Crown of England;10 so that whoever is King of England, is in right of that title, ipso facto,11 King of Ireland. Te King of Ireland, as the King of Scotland before the Union, resides in another kingdom. Te counsels for / the Government of Ireland are framed in the British Cabinet; the Government of Ireland is actually administered by a British Lord Lieutenant, who distributes the patronage of the Crown; the Irish Parliament is supposed to be in a great degree subject to British infuence, and near one million of the rents of the kingdom are annually exported to Absentees.12 Te jealousies upon these points are great and unavoidable, and form the perpetual topic for infaming the minds of the people in newspapers, and the unvarying theme of complaint and invective by Parliamentary Opposition. Nor can this inconvenience cease whilst afairs remain as at present; for so long as we form part of the British Empire, we must acknowledge one Executive Power, one presiding Cabinet; and it is of indispensable necessity for that Cabinet to induce every part of the empire to pursue the same principles of action, and to adopt the same system of measures, as far as possible: and as the interests of England must ever preponderate, a preference will be always given to her, or supposed to be given, which has the same efect. Te Irish Parliament

20

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

is certainly in its institution independent;13 it may when it pleases act contrary to the policy of the empire; it may exhort the King to make war when the views of England are pacifc; it may declare against a war when England is driven into one by necessity; and it has actually asserted a Right to chuse a Regent of its own appointment, / distinct from the Regent of Great Britain;14 it may also declare against treaties, and refuse to ratify commercial articles. Now if Ireland, having these powers, should at any time exert them in opposition to the conduct of England, the empire would be endangered or dissolved; and so long as the Parliament of Ireland, from motives of discretion and prudence, does not exert them, it will be subject to the imputation of being meanly and corruptly subservient to the British Cabinet; and the imputation being constantly repeated and always liable to be renewed, will have in future, as it has had already, a prejudicial infuence on the public mind, leading the people to distrust and to disparage their legislature. Add to this the melancholy refection, that the Irish Parliament has been long made the Teatre for British Faction. When at a loss for subjects of grievance in Great Britain, they ever turn their eyes to this kingdom, in the kind hope that any seed of discontent may be nourished, by their fostering attention, into strength and maturity. – Incapable of beating the Minister15 on his own ground, they change the place of attack, and wound him from the side of Ireland. Need I allude to the Question of the Commercial Propositions,16 the Question of the Regency, and the Question of the Catholics; when we have seen the Leaders of the British Opposition come forward / to support the Character of Irish Rebels, to palliate and to justify Irish Treason, and almost to vindicate Irish Rebellion?17 If then, difering from Great Britain, in Imperial Questions, would dissolve the Empire, and if uniformly concurring with her must subject the Parliament to perpetual imputation of criminal subserviency to a foreign Cabinet; and if so long as an Irish free and independent Parliament remains, it must be subject to the Cabals of British Party; might it not be a measure of wisdom to incorporate the Parliaments together, and that Ireland should accept the same Guarantee for its Liberty and Prosperity, as satisfes the people of England? It is notorious that, before the Union, Scotland had always a connexion and alliance with France;18 which, since the Union, has totally vanished. Her feelings, conduct and policy have, since that period, been entirely British. It is equally notorious that a correspondence was kept up with France, by a party19 in this kingdom, especially so long as the Pretender20 lived, who had the appointment to all the Irish Roman Catholic Bishoprics, and who disposed of them in concert with the Court of France. It is also manifest that a connexion with France has been lately renewed upon new principles; and it is obvious that the French will never cease to intrigue in this kingdom, whilst we remain in our present state, which / presents so favourable an opening to intrigue of every kind.

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

21

Now let us suppose that an Union of the British and Irish Legislatures were completed upon fair and equitable principles, what would be our new situation? Te Monarch would remain in England as at present; the Absentee proprietors of land might in some degree increase; and London, as at present, would be the general resort for business, for advancement, for pleasure. But the British Cabinet would receive a mixture of Irishmen, and the counsels of the British Parliament would be much infuenced by the weight and ability of the Irish Members; all our party contests would be transferred to Great Britain; British faction would cease to operate here; there would be no jealousy of British Infuence on the Cabinet or Parliament; there would be no clashing of distinct interests, no fear of Ireland becoming too powerful to govern. France could no longer speculate on the nature of our distinct Government and Parliament; and hope to separate the kingdom, in fact, from Great Britain, as it is already separated in theory. Te cultivation, the improvement of Ireland, like that of Scotland, would be peculiarly attended to, as the increase of our wealth, consequence, ability, and power, must tend to increase the security of the Empire, not to endanger it; and in proportion that we felt the beneft of an Union, our attachment to it would be strengthened. / All writers have agreed in condemning what is called imperium in imperio.21 It is this vice of constitution which has annihilated Poland, where every senator was a sovereign; and has enslaved the Seven Union Provinces, where each province was a Sovereign.22 Franklin23 and Washington,24 the founders of the American Empire, had not courage in their frst project of a constitution for the American states, to exclude this radical evil, but lef each state independent. So soon as the pressure of necessity, which had confederated the states, ceased in consequence of peace, the fault of such a constitution became evident;25 it was clear to men of common capacity, that an empire, consisting of Tirteen independent societies, without one common Imperial controul, would soon divide into Tirteen independent empires. To obviate this necessary, though possibly distant consequence, the wisdom of the Americans projected a new constitution, in which this original vice was remedied; the separate independency of each state was wisely relinquished; a general legislative, and a general executive were formed for the government of the Union in every imperial concern; and each respective state was confned to local and municipal objects. At the same time, a just deference was paid to all the Test Laws and religious establishments throughout the Union; and each state being allowed to maintain its ecclesiastical arrangements, all religious struggle and animosity was prevented.26 / To the wisdom of this plan of Union the strength and happiness of the United States may be attributed – if each had retained to itself its separate independent Legislature, is it probable that the American Empire could have lasted to the present day? If French intrigue had at one time such infuence in America as nearly to have overturned the existing Union, how could its eforts have been

22

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

resisted, when the gaining of one state alone might have dissolved the Union? To injure America in its present form, a majority of the representatives of the whole Union must be seduced; to have destroyed her power under her frst Constitution, the corruption of one state alone would have been sufcient. What are the sentiments of Mr. Adams,27 the President of the United States, with respect to their frst federal, and the present incorporate Union – “Te former,” says he, “was formed upon the model and example of all the confederacies, ancient and modern, in which the federal council was only a diplomatic body; even the Lycian,28 which is thought to have been the best, was no more. Te magnitude of territory, the population, the wealth and commerce, and especially the rapid growth of the United States, have shewn such a government to be inadequate for their wants; and the new system, which seems admirably calculated to / unite their interests and afections, and bring them to an uniformity of principles and sentiments, is equally well combined to unite their wills and forces as a single nation. A result of accommodation cannot be supposed to reach the perfection of any one; but the conception of such an idea, and the deliberate Union of so great and various a people, in such a plan, is without all partiality or prejudice, if not the greatest exertion of human understanding, the greatest single eforts of rational deliberation which the world has ever seen.”29 If such are the sentiments of the present, let us advert to the opinions of their late President, General Washington. In the letter addressing the present constitution of America, for acceptation, he has these words – “In all our deliberations upon this subject, we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union, in which is involved our property, safety, perhaps our national existence. Tis important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed upon our minds, led each state in the convention to be less rigid in points of inferior magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected; and thus the constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual / deference and concession, which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable.”30 When, therefore, an Union is proposed to our consideration, it may not be prudent for us to spurn at a principle, which the sagacity of Adams, and the virtue of Washington, considered as indispensable to the prosperity, safety, and perhaps the existence of America; a principle, which has disappointed the prophecy of politicians, that the American Union would split into separate and contemptible states; which has preserved her from the intrigue and corruptions and insolence of France; and which enables her to defy the menaces of that unprincipled power with conscious superiority. Having considered a few general topics, which the question of Union naturally suggests, let us examine the arguments which result from the particular situation of Ireland, as to its property, its establishments, and religious divisions.

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

23

Nine-tenths of the property of Ireland are in possession of British Descendants. Teir lands were taken from the original inhabitants, and confrmed to the present possessors, chiefy by the Act of Settlement;31 but a large part of them was held under British Acts of Parliament for a century. Te possessors of these lands are of the Protestant / religion, and acknowledge the King as the head of their church; whereas, the original inhabitants are Catholics, and acknowledge the spiritual jurisdiction of a foreign power. Tese Protestants, thus possessing nine tenths of the property, are only one-fourth of the inhabitants in number, and they have been obliged to rely upon British assistance, for the preservation of their property and existence at diferent periods. Te established Religion is the Protestant, and the Church is, in Constitution, similar to that of England,32 and endowed with the Tythes of the whole kingdom, and with great property in land. Te pastors of the dissenting Protestants are in a degree supported by grants of the Legislature. Te Catholics having shewn great power in the contest at the Revolution,33 were long subjected to a severe code of laws, which kept them in subordination; that code has, within these few years, been almost entirely repealed; but, though they enjoy a complete toleration, they are by no means contented, but demand political equality with the Protestants, and such an alteration in the Parliamentary Constitution, as will give their numbers proportionate power. Te Protestants, recollecting the struggles which were made by the Catholics in the reign of / Elizabeth,34 in the reign of Charles the First35, and in the reign of James the Second,36 and possibly fancying that they discover similar views in the present unhappy contest, act with distrust and caution. Tey plausibly argue, that those who have the superiority of number, when once they can obtain the power, will not long want the property of the state. Tey guard therefore with vigilance their Ecclesiastical and Parliamentary Establishments, and look to Great Britain as the guarantee of their safety and importance. Te Protestants state, that when the Catholics were restrained by severe laws, the kingdom continued in tranquillity for a century; but so soon as national confdence, the result of that tranquillity, induced them to repeal the restrictions by which the Catholics were bound, the ancient spirit of rivalry revived, and the Catholics demanded such a change of the Constitution, as would gradually transfer to them all the power of the state. Te Protestants feel likewise other causes of distrust, suggested by recent circumstances,37 on which it is desirable to cast a veil, when accusation on the side, and justifcation on the other, tend more to exasperate than to conciliate, and to prolong our distractions than to heal them. Would to God it were possible to bury all that has passed in benevolent oblivion; but such a consummation, / though devoutly wished,38 cannot be suddenly expected. Whilst the opinions of Europe are afoat; when all the foun-

24

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

dations of society are, as it were, broken up and torn asunder; when all the old principles and notions, which bound us together in subordination and peace, are loosened or dissolved; when it appears dubious and uncertain what turn the public mind will assume, and in what system it will ultimately repose; the expectation of any quick return to former dispositions of confdence, and habits of amity, are possibly chimerical. In the mean while, under the present temper and feelings, it is not to be hoped that Protestants will consent to surrender their political powers, much less can they be persuaded, that they could do it with safety. At the same time, whilst Ireland continues a separate kingdom, the Catholics will not drop their claims, nor the argument of numbers in their favour. So far from dropping their claims, they have already renewed them; and the Catholics of Waterford, in an address to the Lord Lieutenant, have repeated their demand for political equality, and advanced it on a plea of merit. Tey have still, and will ever have electioneering partisans in Parliament, and speculative / advocates in England to feed their hopes; and they will be supported by every open opposers, or secret ill-wisher to the government. If then the separate Constitution and Establishments, and Test Laws of Ireland,39 are to continue as at present, the kingdom must remain in a continual state of irritation. Te numbers a Catholics compared to Protestants are as three to one. Modern political writers upon Religious Establishments lay it down as a principle, that every state ought to establish that religious sect which is most numerous; but as it happens that, in Ireland, the most numerous religious sect does not acknowledge the supremacy of the state, but professes itself to be subject to a foreign jurisdiction; their religion could not be established, without destroying the Constitution, which is founded on the principles of Civil and Ecclesiastical Liberty, and the exclusion of foreign interference and jurisdiction. But suppose, at length, that the Protestants worn out by importunity, concede to the demand of political Equality made by the Catholics – what are the consequences? In the frst place, the present Parliamentary Test Oaths must be repealed, and a new Oath framed to meet Catholic feelings, and admit the jurisdiction of the Pope. / In the second place, the Act of Supremacy40 and of Uniformity41 must be repealed. For nothing could be so absurd, as to make men who deny the supremacy of the King and the competency of Parliament in Ecclesiastical Concerns, members of the supreme power, viz. the Legislature; and at the same time, to subject these very men to the penalties of Premunire42 and Treason for denying that supremacy and competency. In the third place, you establish the principle, that the state is indiferent in religious concerns, and that it is of no consequence to the state, what is the

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

25

religion of its subjects; from which it follows, either that there ought to be no established religion at all, but that religion should be lef to chance – or secondly, that all religions should be equally established – or thirdly, that if one is to be established for the sake of religious instruction, it ought to be the religion of the majority, which is the Catholic. In the fourth place, you establish, or acquiesce in the right of the Pope to a real, and essential jurisdiction within this realm, in all matters relating to the Church and its Government; and the right which has been asserted of the College of Cardinals, which is the Pope’s Cabinet, to manage the ecclesiastical afairs of Ireland. / Tus so soon as the Catholics of Ireland are admitted into the Legislature, and the Test Oaths and Act of Supremacy repealed, the Protestant Church Establishment becomes a public wrong. Tat Establishment is defensible at present, because, on principles of reason, and from the nature of a free constitution, no religious sect can claim a right to be established and supported by the state which denies the competency of the state to regulate their conduct; but when that principle is abandoned, the defence of the Protestant Church Establishment is abandoned also. It further follows, from the admission of the Catholics to political equality, that the frame of the House of Commons should be reformed. It is a known historical fact, that the Irish House of Commons was framed with the sole view of excluding Roman Catholics; when therefore the principle of excluding Roman Catholics is given up, the alteration of the House of Commons in favour of the Catholics follows of course. Admitting the Catholics to seats in the Legislature, and retaining the present Parliamentary Constitution, would be like inviting a man to dinner, and on his acceptance of the invitation, shutting the door in his face. If then Reform must follow what is called Emancipation, and one be the unavoidable consequence / of the other, would not a revolution of power soon take place? would it not pass from Protestant into Catholic hands? and what hope could the Protestants retain of preserving their situation when they had lost their power in the Legislature, and their right to the Church Establishment? Let us consider then what would be the natural efects of a favourable Legislative Union. First. – Te empire would have but one Legislature, one organ of the public will, and the dangers which arise from an imperium in imperio, from two supreme powers, would be avoided. Secondly. – Ireland would be in a natural situation; for all the Protestants of the empire being united, she would have the proportion of fourteen to three in favour of her establishment; whereas at present there is a proportion of three to one against it.

26

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Tirdly. – Te Catholic would lose the advantage of the argument of number, which they at present enjoy, and the Constitution of the Empire would agree with the theory. Fourthly. – Whilst Ireland remains a separate Country from Great Britain, Great Britain is not pledged upon any specifc principle to support one / sect in Ireland more than another; if she cannot preserve the connexion of the two kingdoms by upholding the Protestants in their establishment, their power, and their property, I know not by what tie she is debarred from assisting the Catholics; for whilst the kingdoms are separate and independent, Ireland, except where the Crown is concerned, is merely bound by the ties of interest to England, and in a similar manner England is only bound by the Rights of the Crown and ties of interest to Ireland. She is pledged to preserve Ireland to the British Crown, but not to any particular means or any particular principles for maintaining that connexion. But if Ireland was once united to Great Britain by a Legislative Union, and the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment were made a fundamental article of that Union, then the whole Power of the Empire would be pledged to the Church Establishment of Ireland, and the property of the whole empire would be pledged in support of the property of every part. An objection to this reasoning has been made by stating that an Union would encrease Absentee Proprietors; that the proprietors of estates are generally Protestants; that of course Protestant infuence would decrease, and consequently the security for Protestant property. / Te answer to this objection is, that it does not appear that the Absentees from Scotland increased afer the Union, and that an argument from experience in political reasoning is superior to any argument in theory. Another mode of reply is, that suppose Absentees were to be increased, this evil would be compensated by the solid advantage of having a fxed unalterable Constitution, and of having the whole power and property of Great Britain its guarantees. When once the hope of change were at an end, and the hope of forcing a change destroyed, dissatisfaction would sink into acquiescence, and acquiescence sofen into content. Another objection is, that if an Union be made upon Protestant Principles, it cannot fail to excite the opposition of the Catholics, and to encrease their disafection to a Government which perpetually bars them from power; that consequently the Catholics would be more and more disposed to cultivate a foreign connexion, and, when free from the vigilance of a Protestant Resident Parliament, more likely to efectuate that connexion, and the plans resulting from it, without being detected. To solve this objection it is only necessary to state it as a petitio principii.43 What ground is there to assume that the Catholics will oppose an Union, though founded on Protestant Principles? /

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

27

Why may not an Union be so shaped, as to be favourable to the Protestants, without being unfavourable to the Catholics? First. – A Free Toleration will be secured to their Religion. Teir power of electing Representatives will be perpetuated, as well as their capacity of flling most of ofces of State. Second. – It may be adviseable to connect with an Union a proper support for their Clergy and some system of regulation for their Church, not inconsistent with their Ecclesiastical Principles, and calculated to do away misconceptions of their religious tenets, and to discontinue practices which have been attended with inconvenience. Tird. – Te dissensions which arise in counties from Candidates standing on the Protestant or Catholic interests, and all little parish jealousies will cease, from which circumstance great inconveniences have been already felt. Fourth. – If the Protestant Interest be secured, there will be no necessary state partiality towards Protestants, which is a natural source of complaint. Fifh. – Catholics will feel more confdent under a Legislature framed upon a more extended basis / where the majority of members will not be infuenced against them by local prejudices or antipathies. Sixth. – Sectarian struggle will terminate, and, tranquillity being restored, animosities will gradually relax; and there being no ground for political jealousy and contention, the habits and connexions of social life will re-produce confdence and friendships, where exist, at present, rivalry and suspicion. Seventh. – An opening may be lef in any plan of Union, for the future admission of Catholics to additional privileges. And Protestants can never object to such an opening, as they may rest assured, that the British Protestant Parliament will not imprudently admit Catholic pretensions, as the Test Laws could not be partially repealed; and it is evident, that the Catholics could not force their claims with hostility against the whole power of Great Britain and Ireland. Eighth. – Te Catholics are most numerous in the south and west of Ireland; and it is conceived, that those parts of the kingdom would be most benefted by an Union, as to agricultural and commercial advantages. Ninth. – As all the struggles of the Catholics for political predominancy have failed, and as they cannot hope to carry their wishes by domestic or / even foreign force, they would do well to adopt a settlement, which would ensure them many political and all civil advantages, and to rest satisfed with a much greater degree of toleration than Protestants have ever enjoyed under a Catholic state. To answer the other objection which was stated, we may observe, it does not follow that, if an Union were made, that the government of Ireland would be less vigilantly administered; it probably would be administered with more attention; because it would be less distracted by the business of party and of Parliament; and for the same reasons, it would be administered more impartially.

28

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

With regard to Dissenters,44 they are supposed to be in a ratio of about one-seventh to the whole population of the kingdom, and of one-sixth to the Catholics. Tey are mostly manufacturers, and some of them are merchants; but they have little infuence in the present representation. Whilst Ireland remains a separate kingdom, they are the least considerable body of the people; but were an Union formed with Great Britain, the Dissenting interest would be in a very diferent ratio in the empire, and their importance and power would proportionably rise. / It is difcult to comprehend the wisdom of their junction with the Catholics,45 in order to overthrow the Protestant power and establishment; for, supposing their project to have been completed, they would have been at the mercy of their allies. If they had succeeded in their plans with the Catholics, their consequence in the state would have been probably annihilated; if an Union takes place, their importance in the empire will encrease; and, as to their staple manufacture,46 it will be secured for ever. As it is probable that a modus for Tythes47 will accompany the measure of an Union, both Catholics and Dissenters would be essentially relieved and benefted by that part of a new system. Some persons have conceived that it might be advantageous to the Dissenters, if the government of their Church were more assimilated to the Church of Scotland,48 which is under the most excellent discipline; but when the stumbling block of Tythes is removed, they may probably fall in with the Protestant Church. Te causes of diference between Protestants and Dissenters have been for some time obsolete, and they resort to separate congregations, more from early prejudice and custom, than from any rational or even alledged necessity. / Having considered briefy in what manner an Union would afect the great religious descriptions of the people, we may proceed to examine its infuence on the diferent orders and classes of the State. Te Peerage would probably, in any plan of Union, be represented like the Scotch peers,49 by a delegation to the British Parliament. Tis arrangement would not afect those nobles who are peers of Great Britain,50 and it would be favourable to those who reside in Great Britain. Tere are forty-one of the former class, and about eighty of the latter. Te remaining fourscore peers who attend Parliament occasionally, would be the only peers materially interested, but almost all of them have considerable property in land; and as all personal privileges and prerogatives would remain to them, the general advantages of an Union, in giving permanent security to their titles and their properties, would compensate any diminution of consequence they might feel from their not being all certain of seats in the British Parliament.

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

29

Te spiritual peers51 would be amply recompensed by the security given to their diocesan estates, and to the general interests and establishments of the church. / Te same reasoning will apply to those who have parliamentary infuence in the House of Commons;52 yet it must be acknowledged that some sacrifces must be made of power, of emolument, of importance. Many schemes have been in circulation for adjusting the representation of this kingdom in the British Parliament. It is not the design of this publication to examine them; but can it be doubted that a reasonable representation may be selected, which, however it must interfere with the conveniences of some individuals, will give this kingdom a proportionate infuence in the House of Commons of the empire? Tere is no difculty in the subject so great, which may not be obviated and overcome, if an Union is of importance to be attained, and if we seriously endeavour to efect it. Te chief opposition to the measure must be expected from the Bar,53 who are supposed to be more personally interested against it than any class in society. It is a general habit in the gentlemen of Ireland to educate their sons at the Temple,54 and the number of barristers is much greater in proportion here than in England. And as the profession will not support, by any means, the numbers which pursue it, lawyers in Ireland extend their circle to politics, and are very numerous in Parliament, and extremely active in the business of it. In England there are few lawyers in the House of Commons;55 whereas in Ireland they are / a formidable phalanx. Were a legislative Union to take place, Irish lawyers would be deprived of the parliamentary market for their abilities and ambition; they could not attend the British Parliament without renouncing business; they would be entirely confned to professional prospects; and mere political emoluments and situations would be taken from their grasp. But when opposition to an Union comes forward from the Bar, it must be taken into consideration, that the very reasons which make the Bar oppose an Union, are arguments in favour of it. 1. It is obviously the interest of the nation, that the law should be accurately and deeply studied; and it will be more probable that students will pay attention to their profession when their hopes of advancement are confned to knowledge and ability in the line of it. In proportion as you have abler lawyers, you will have abler judges, especially when the temptation of placing them upon the bench, from political reasons, is removed. 2. It is obvious that it would be prudent to exclude from the Legislature, young adventurers, who have but little stake in the country, who have acquired by habit a facility of speaking upon every subject, and upon every side of a subject, and / who only consider a seat in Parliament as the means of bringing their abilities to market.

30

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

It does not, however, appear that the prospects of the Bar would be materially injured by an Union; the ofces to which lawyers are usually appointed, would remain the same; and if the road to them was more through professional merit, than Parliamentary services, it does not appear, that either the Bar or the Public would be injured. It is said, also, that the opposition of the Bar is not likely to be unanimous; and that some leading characters, who have thought most on the subject, and who are capable of thinking best, who ought to have great weight, where their interest is in no shape concerned, and where pursuit of public good can alone sway their opinions; so far from considering an Union as destructive, conceive it as pregnant with solid and permanent beneft. Aged and experienced characters are certainly as liable to political temptations, as the virtuous ardency of youth; but where no private interest can operate, and especially where the point of interest, the cui bono,56 lies against an opinion given, one should never hesitate between the natural precipitation of youth, and the cautious decisions of experience. / To demonstrate to the Clergy the advantages of an Union, would be lost labour indeed; if they are supposed in general to be sufciently sensible to the interests of the Church, we may safely leave them to their usual discernment, in the question before us. Te gentlemen of landed property, would be merely afected, as the prosperity of the kingdom in general would be increased or diminished. If an Union would produce tranquillity, security, commercial and agricultural advantages, estates in lands would be proportionably benefted. Political contests, party struggles may be the harvest of enterprising adventurers; but they blight the hopes, and blast the fortunes of country gentlemen. Land in England, during times of peace, is sold from thirty to forty years purchase;57 in Ireland the price of land seldom exceeds twenty years purchase. Tis is attributable to the supposed diferent state of tranquillity and security of the two kingdoms. Te continual insurrections in diferent parts of the country, of White Boys, Oak Boys, Right Boys, Defenders,58 United Irishmen, have made residence unsafe, and diminished the certainty of rents, and the value of tenure. If it is probable that an Union would put an end to these disorders, by introducing steadiness of administration, and regular subordination, the value of estates would gradually rise to the English level, / and speculators in land, would naturally prefer this kingdom as the scene of improvement and experiment, in proportion as the soil is in general superior to that of England, and, from being less improved, more ft for experiment. Te monied capital of England, has of late years been increased to such a degree, that, notwithstanding the enormous loans which have been borrowed by Government, the monied men are embarrassed in what manner to invest their capitals with advantage and security. When a peace arrives, and loans shall cease, the difculty of employing capital will be augmented; and there can

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

31

be no doubt that, if the state of this country can be rendered secure, it will be abundantly employed in Irish purchases and Irish speculation. It is also certain, that Great Britain does not produce sufcient corn for her consumption; it must be a great object, therefore, for Irish landed gentlemen to secure a preference in the British market for ever, which an Union would certainly efect. As we suppose the Union, which we are discussing, will confer all commercial advantages which Great Britain enjoys upon Irish subjects, it would be lost time to prove that our merchants must be gainers by the measure. Te British administration, in order to encrease the wealth of the kingdom, for the purposes of power, are perpetually employed / in devising the means of extending the commerce of England; and under the wise regulations of that Government, a commerce has been established, and by the late naval victories59 has been secured, which is the astonishment of the world. An Union then will place the Irish merchant upon an equality with the British, and he will be certain to enjoy, for ever, the same privileges, protection, regulations, bounties and encouragements, as are enjoyed by the greatest commercial country that ever fourished. Te question of Union will be debated in the metropolis, and one of the chief arguments against it is, that it will ruin the metropolis, and render it a desert. Te same argument was used most powerfully at the time of the Scotch Union, with regard to Edinburgh: the desertion of that capital was predicted; the bankruptcy of its shopkeepers, the ruin of its proprietors, were foretold and insisted upon; yet, notwithstanding the Union, and the prophecy, Edinburgh, so far from decaying, has fourished more since the Union, than it had done before. It will be considered, that Dublin must still be the residence of a Viceroy and his court; the sciences, arts, amusements, may be cultivated in proportion, as there will be less attention to politics; that it will be the seat of justice, which will be administered as at present; the chief seat of revenue, and the head-quarters of the army. It will probably monopolize the corn / trade between Great Britain and Ireland; and, from the circumstance of the Canals, which are making in every part of England, and communicating with London, its commerce for all English goods, with Liverpool, will greatly increase; and in proportion, as canals from Dublin are carried to diferent parts of the kingdom, it will be the depot for their consumption in all articles of British manufacture and import. A similar predication is made as to the depopulation of the country in general; and with much less reason. For what induces residence? Is it not peace, and comfort, and security? What has banished so many families, but the loss of these invaluable blessings? Restore to Ireland good humour and tranquillity, and comfort, and security; her fugitives will soon return. Taxes will be lower in Ireland, living will be cheaper; these advantages, assisted by the natural attraction of property, and the place of nativity, will soon bring back the proprietors

32

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

of the soil. Property is ever fuctuating; men of estate are apt to be imprudent and prodigal; and the accumulations of wealth, acquired by the lawyer, the merchant, the manufacturer, and the farmer, are ultimately invested in the purchase of land. New purchasers do not easily abandon their property; as, therefore, the wealth and trade of the country encrease, the purchasers of land will encrease, and, with new purchasers, new residents. / Te adversaries of an Union admit, that it will be benefcial to trade and manufacture; we need not then be terrifed by alarms of depopulation. Te next city in consequence to the metropolis is Cork, which enjoys a situation particularly calculated for foreign trade, and an excellent harbour for Men of War to resort to, for the protection of the island and its commerce. It is also the emporium of provisions for the British Navy, and a place for all homewardbound convoys to make to in times of war, when the channel might be dangerous to approach. From the convenience of the situation of Cork, it would probably, afer an Union, become a Marine Station, and a Dock yard would be there formed. It is known that the three present harbours of England, viz. the Tames, Portsmouth, and Plymouth, are inadequate to the extent of the navy; and that a new station is greatly wanted. If an Union were once efected, there can be little doubt that Cork would be selected for the purpose. Limerick and Waterford would not be particularly afected, except in proportion as an Union, by inducing the import of British capital, and the general extension of trade, would naturally augment their commercial exertions; and this general argument is applicable to all parts of the South-west. / With regard to the North of Ireland, which carries on a manufacture of linen, of which 52,000,000 of yards have been exported in one year; all that can be desired is to confrm a trade, which, by this extent, seems a monopoly. Great Britain gives a preference in her market, to Irish over German linens of 37 per cent. and grants a bounty of three half-pence a yard on all Irish linens re-exported, the value of which does not exceed eighteen-pence a yard. Tese advantages in favour of the North of Ireland, England might repeal or diminish, whenever the pleases; by an Union, they might be fxed for ever. It may now be desirable to obviate several objections which are naturally and generally brought forward to dissuade Ireland from an Union. First. – An Union would extinguish Ireland. Te name may remain, surely it will not extinguish the people and the soil; though it may meliorate both. If its representatives sit in the same place with its Executive, and by that means obtain great infuence in the councils of the Empire; and the same security for its Constitution as the people of England enjoy, how will Ireland be extinguished? / Second. – What can be such madness and folly as for a people to send its Legislature fom the Metropolis of their own Country, which is convenient to all its Members, to sit in the Metropolis of another Country, separated by the sea, at a great distance, to the inconvenience of all its Members?

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

33

Te answer to this objection is, that Ireland is part of an Empire; that the King of Ireland resides in that distant Metropolis; that having two Legislatures in one Empire is incompatible with its safety; that a Consolidation of those Legislatures promises great advantage; that the distance of Ireland from the Metropolis of England, is not greater than that of Scotland; that in the French Republic the distance of Toulon and many other parts from Paris, is much greater than the distance of Dublin from London; and that in America the distance of Charlestown and other Capitals from Philadelphia,60 is in the same proportion; yet no inconvenience is felt in these cases; and the inconvenience of distance may be easily balanced by the advantages of Union. Tird. – Shall we tamely resign that Legislature, whose Independence was so gloriously asserted and established by the arms of the Volunteers?61 It is not intended to detract from the merit of the Volunteers of Ireland. In asserting the / independence of the Legislature of Ireland, they were convinced they were promoting her happiness and security; they meant well, they acted nobly, but they have failed in success. Te security and happiness of Ireland is at present suspended. It does not appear that the continuance of a separate Legislature will restore it. Some new arrangement must be tried. If the Volunteers of Ireland armed for the happiness of their country, they armed for a separate Legislature, provided that could obtain it; but if that has failed, and nothing but an Union can procure it, they armed for an Union; it was not the means, but the end, which was in their contemplation. To secure the liberty and the property of their countrymen, to encrease the happiness and prosperity of their country, were their objects; and whoever best pursues those objects, fghts in their cause, and enlists under their banners. Can we suppose, if, in 1779, Ireland had been united to Great Britain by an identity of Legislature; that if her privileges had been equally great, and equally established; that if we had then been in the enjoyment of a trade as free as the commerce of England; if our liberties had been secured by the Habeas Corpus Bill; if our judges had been independent, and if we had not been degraded by Legislating Privy Councils62 – in short, if our Constitution had been the same as the British, that the Volunteers would have stood forth to destroy the prosperity and happiness of such a state, and have / dissolved that Union which produced them? Would they not, on the contrary, have considered any attempt to separate the kingdoms as hostile, and have treated the advisers of such folly as enemies? Nor was it so much the theoretic defects of our former connexion with Great Britain, which roused the Volunteers, as the practical evils resulting from it, and especially the restraints upon our commerce. But their acquisitions, which removed those evils and restraints, have produced, (as was at the time foretold) new inconveniencies and evils: What then is the state of the case? a subordination of the Irish Legislature to the British, has been experienced and found injurious; a separate Legislature has been tried, and proved inadequate to secure our happi-

34

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

ness; an incorporation with the British Parliament may still be resorted to, which promises to increase the security of our subordinate state, and the advantages of our independent situation, and is in theory preferable to both. Fourth. – Must it not be the height if folly to part with the management of our own concerns for ever? Te obvious answer is, that, in a fair Legislative Union with Great Britain, we shall retain as far as is necessary, and not part with at all the management of our concerns. We shall have Irishmen in the originating Cabinet of Great Britain;63 we / shall have a number of Irish Representatives, in proportion to our relative consequence, in the Parliament of the Empire. Our afairs will be there discussed by our own Members, in the presence of the wisest and freest assembly which ever existed, where our interest is their interest, our prosperity their prosperity, our power their aggrandizement, and where of course the anxiety for our welfare must be as great in the British as in the Irish part of the Legislature. But this objection might as well be urged by Yorkshire, or any county in England as by Ireland. It will be said the Members for Great Britain will outnumber the Members for Ireland, as fve to one; so may Yorkshire complain that the Members for Great Britain are in proportion to the Members for Yorkshire as ffy to one. Te same weak argument was advanced at the time of the Union of Scotland; it was then refuted in terms, it has since been refuted by experience. Fifh. – A kingdom that subjects its own Legislature to the will of another kingdom, becomes its slave. Let the position be granted, and let it be allowed that it is true, with respect to an Union of despotic countries; with regard to an Union of free countries it does not apply. For an Union, presupposing / that the Legislature of the united empire is composed of numbers of representatives, proportionate to its component parts, and that the laws to be made must attach generally and not partially, and that there is an identity of privileges and interests throughout the whole; it will follow, that so long as any part of the Union remains free, the whole will remain free. Who would desire to have better security for his liberty than an Englishman possesses for his? Te liberties of the empire are at present maintained by a separate body of representatives for Great Britain, and a separate body of representatives for Ireland; how will they be endangered when a common body of representatives shall be formed on a scheme of mutual interest for the joint preservation of the Liberties of both? Sixth. – It is urged that the present is a most improper time to agitate the question, when the people are in such a state of irritation and turbulence, and the kingdom engaged in war. It may be argued on the other hand, that the present is the period most adapted for its discussion; for whist the feelings of our late misfortunes64 are fresh, it is natural that we should be anxious to provide every safeguard against

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

35

their recurrence, and that we ought not to adjourn the consideration of our permanent safety to a casual interval of / peace, when a temporary enjoyment of tranquillity may render us indiferent and regardless. As to a time of war, if it is true, that the Volunteers took advantage of the embarrassments of Great Britain in the last war,65 to assert the independence of our Parliament; it is likewise true, that the United Irishmen in the present war have taken advantages of the supposed weakness of Great Britain to play the game of separation. When, therefore, the enemies of the empire take advantage of a time of war and embarrassment to efect its ruin, we should turn against them their own game, and make use of a time of war to establish its security. Seventh. – Te question of Union is beyond the power and competence of Parliament; a House of Commons elected for eight years, cannot abolish the House of Commons for ever. Tis objection is easily answered by considering the end of Legislative Institutions, by which their competency is best defned. Te end for which Legislature is established by a free people is to maintain their property, to protect their charters, to secure the liberty of their persons, and to consult the convenience and happiness of the people. Now if it be not possible for a Legislature to ensure these ends to its constituents by preserving itself separate from another kingdom; and if, by / uniting itself with another kingdom, it is certain or highly probable that these ends will be attained; it follows, that were a Legislature to refuse entertaining such a question, it would desert its duty, which is the pursuit of the general good. Tat, in the discussion of the question, the Legislature ought to listen to the opinion of the people, is true, and it will not act against that opinion if universal; but on the other hand, it ought not to be terrifed by the clamour of a few, and should be satisfed by general acquiescence. If this argument had any real weight, we could never have obtained the reformation, and the establishment of Protestantism; we could never have procured the Revolution,66 and have changed the line of hereditary succession to the throne; the Union of Scotland and England could not have been entertained.67 It is a common maxim in logic, that what proves too much, proves nothing; and if this maxim is applicable to subjects, where strict reasoning is required, it cannot be excluded from political arguments, where probabilities and experiences must be resorted to; and questions are to be decided by the principles of moral reasoning, not by mathematical precision. Eighth. – Te arguments from national dignity, and national pride, have been obviated / already; but as they will be repeatedly urged, as being easy topics of declamation, another mode of refuting them may be suggested. Ireland, independent Ireland, has, at this moment, its commerce, in all parts of the world, protected, without expence, by the British Navy. Her supplies for the year are chiefy raised by the British Minister in England, on the faith of the

36

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

British Parliament; her country is protected from domestic and foreign enemies, by forty thousand British troops, at the expence, to Great Britain, of seven hundred thousand pounds a-year. If her dignity and pride do not sufer by receiving such assistance and protection, how can they be injured, if she makes herself a part of that nation, incorporates her Legislature into that of Great Britain, and converts that protection, which she now receives as a favour, into a right? Ninth. – When Ireland was subject to the controul of the British Parliament, was she not then kept down in a wretched state of penury, by the tyranny of Great Britain; and will she not be reduced to a similar state, by again subjecting her representative to theirs? Has not all the improvement of the kingdom arisen fom the exertions of a fee Legislature; and shall we consent to part with that power, which has been the only cause of our prosperity? / Tis argument would have some weight if an Union were a state of subjection, from which it is essentially distinguished, as has been demonstrated before. Te great advantage of an Union is, that it places Ireland on an equality with Great Britain, and prevents its subjection for ever. Te vice of our former connexion with England was, that Great Britain made laws to bind Ireland, without binding herself at the same time, by the same laws. Afer an Union, partial laws cannot be made, where general interest is concerned; we shall have full security that the British United Parliament will never injure Ireland, because it must at the same time injure Great Britain, and this is the best possible security. It is certain, that since the independence of the Irish Legislature, our commerce has increased; but that has been efected by Great Britain admitting us to her Colony trade, and by relaxing the Navigation Laws;68 and if the giving us some of the advantages of British Commerce, has been of such beneft already, what progress may we not expect, when all the advantages of the British Market, and British Commerce, shall be secured to us for ever, which cannot fail to be the efect of an Union! / Tenth – An Union must be our ruin or destruction; all we want is a good steady Administration, wisely and frmly conducted, and then all things will go well. Here we must ask, what is meant by a frm and steady Administration? Does it mean such an Administration as tends to the encrease of the nation in population, its advancement in agriculture, in manufactures, in wealth and prosperity? If that is intended, we have had the experience of it these twenty years, for it is universally admitted, that no country in the world ever made such rapid advances as Ireland has done in these respects; yet, all her accession of prosperity has been of no avail; discontent has kept pace with improvement, discord has grown up with our wealth, conspiracy and rebellion have shot up with our prosperity. What then is intended by a steady and frm Administration? Is it a determined, infexible support of Protestant Ascendancy, and a rigorous and indignant rejection of Catholic claims? Who will be a guarantee of that system, and whom will

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

37

it content? Te Catholics will not acquiesce in its propriety. A party of Protestants in Ireland, term it unjust and absurd; another party in England, term it by fouler names; great leaders in opposition, possibly the future ministers of England, may condemn it; and some members of the / British Cabinet are supposed to be adverse to it. Its stability may rest upon accident, upon the death of a single character, upon the change of a Minister, on the temper of a Lord Lieutenant; and the policy of this system is much doubted by the people of England. But perhaps a frm and steady Administration means Catholic Emancipation and Reform. Dr. M‘Nevin,69 however, and the United Irishmen, assure us, that these measures are the certain introduction of Separation and Republicanism, and that they were merely adopted with that view by the United Irishmen. Fas est & ab hoste doceri.70 If then mere attention to agricultural and commercial prosperity, and to general improvement, will not preserve good order, subordination and allegiance; if the power of maintaining Protestant Ascendency is uncertain, and the project of Catholic Emancipation and Reform is pregnant with danger, ought we to reject the consideration of a measure with contumely and disdain, which places our Constitution on the same footing of security as that of Great Britain, and holds out British Principles, British Honour, and British Power, as the guarantee of our Liberties and Establishments? A few of the topics relating to an Union have been now discussed, and it is hoped they have been / discussed in such a manner as to prove that the subject of an Union with Great Britain deserves the serious and calm deliberation of every honest man; that it is not to be encountered by passion, nor combated with arms. An Union has this advantage – it may be our salvation; it cannot be our ruin. Equal liberty, equal privilege with the people of Great Britain, guaranteed by a Parliament composed from the Representatives of both kingdoms, and upheld by the power of all the subjects of the two islands; in short, the consolidation of Great Britain and Ireland into one kingdom, with one Constitution, one King, one Law, one Religion, can never be the ruin of Ireland. It widens the foundation of our liberties, it advances our prospects of improvement, it strengthens the basis of prosperity by encreasing domestic security, and ensures our Imperial Independence by consolidating our power. Tere may be prejudices to overcome; there may be private interests to manage and to compensate; there may be the intrigues of our enemies to counteract; but if the nature of our situation, our permanent and great interests, demonstrate an Union to be salutary for our perpetual improvement, security, and stability, let us boldly follow where our reason leads, though private interest and / local prejudice, and hostile intrigue, shall attempt to impede and arrest our progress.

38

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Te design of what has been written is to remove any improper prepossession against an Union in general; the detail of the subject has not been entered upon. It may be observed, however, that the following points are supposed: First. – Te preservation of the Protestant religion and establishment, as a fundamental article. Second. – An equitable number of Peers and Commoners, to sit in the Parliament of the Empire. Tird. – An equality of Rights and Privileges, and a fair adjustment of commerce. Fourth. – An equitable arrangement as to revenues, debts and future taxes, suitable to our situation and powers. Fifh. – Te continuance of the civil administration in Ireland, as it stands at present accommodated to the new situation of the kingdom. Sixth. – An arrangement for the Roman Catholic clergy, so as to put an end, if possible, to religious jealousies, and to ensure the attachment of that order of men to the state. / Seventh. – Some further provision to the Dissenting clergy. Eighth. – An arrangement with respect to tithes. It is surely possible that all these points may be properly adjusted, by wise and able men, so as to produce upon the whole a rational and permanent system upon which we may securely close up our interests with those of Great-Britain: But it would be useless to enter into the detail of any measure, so long as the public mind should refuse to discuss its principle. If all advantages are to be rejected, because they cannot be obtained but through the medium of an Union; if we rather continue in turbulent insecurity, than be united in prosperity and happiness with Great-Britain; and if we prefer adhering with tenacious obstinacy to false notions of Pride, rather than to cherish the sentiments of true Independence, the labour of detailed reasoning would be lost and futile. But as we trust the foregoing observations may tend to incline every rational mind to a fair Examination and Enquiry, we may hereafer proft on the disposition and temper of the Public, and suggest a scheme for consideration, accompanied with calculations and details. / Some of the statements which have been made in this publication, seem to have the tendency of increasing Party Animosity; whereas the object of the writer is to reconcile and extinguish them; but he knows not how to induce men to think rightly, without making them see their situation and confess it. Te premises which have been stated cannot be controverted. If our situation be imputed to mal-administration, who can secure us from its recurrence? If to the instability of afairs, who can insure their future consistency? If to the prevalence of the Protestant Monopoly, who can induce men to relinquish what appears to them the security for their properties? If to the eforts of the Catholics, who can force them to abandon their claims?

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union

39

Is there not some settlement to be anxiously wished for, which may lay these causes of discontent asleep, and quiet them for ever? We have been sufciently distracted and harassed. We have drank enough from the bitter cup of dissension. Shall then any attempt to ensure tranquillity be the source of discord; shall the discussion of a plausible theory lead to passion and resentment; and an honest attempt to allay the commotions of the State, and to settle its jarring interests, be a provocation to new animosities and fresh outrages? / Te enemies of the empire have stated, that Ireland can never be happy until she is separated from England; it is the opinion of many of her friends, that she never can be truly happy till she is entirely united with England. Te one attempt would make Ireland the scene of contest in Europe; would deluge her with blood; would reduce her to desolation: the latter, by making her power the power of Great Britain, and the power of Great Britain her own, would enable the British Empire to defy every hostile attack, and to secure, to the happy coasts of the two islands, all the blessings of genuine and rational liberty, of true and solid independence and security.

THE END.

A REPORT OF THE DEBATE OF THE IRISH BAR

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar, on Sunday, the 9th of December, 1798, on the Subject of an Union of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland (Dublin: Printed for J. Moore, 1799).

Even before the Irish government had introduced a Union bill before the Dublin Parliament a large number of Irish lawyers were determined to express their opposition to the proposed measure. In the debate by the Irish Bar, published in the press, some of Ireland’s leading lawyers expressed their ferce hostility to Union and carried critical resolutions against the measure despite the eforts of some of their members to postpone any decision until the terms of a Union had been put before the Irish legislature. In a number of passionate speeches, the most vociferous opponents of Union advanced many of the arguments, which were to be repeated many times in print and in parliamentary debates over the coming months. Tey stressed their admiration for the conduct of the Irish Parliament since 1782 and insisted that Ireland was prospering in recent decades, thanks to its independent parliament. Te Report argues that great constitutional issues should not be decided because Britain was ofering commercial advantages and even these might not in fact be forthcoming. England’s treaty with Scotland in 1707 had soon been followed by actions that were contrary to the terms of Union agreed. It is argued that the word of Prime Minister William Pitt could not be trusted and the recent rebellion, the presence of large numbers of British troops in Ireland and the continuing threat from France made it the wrong time to be considering such a momentous constitutional change. It is posited that, if Union is accepted, Ireland will sufer from more absentee landlords spending their wealth in London, the Irish will be a permanent minority in the United Parliament and this Parliament will increase the tax burden on Ireland. Some of the most original arguments presented in this debate were on the question of whether or not the Catholic population favoured Union. No defnite evidence was forthcoming. Tose lawyers, who tried in vain to adjourn this debate before any resolution against Union was passed, maintained that it was the constitutional right of the Irish Parliament not the Irish Bar, or even the Irish people, to judge the issue and that no resolution should be passed by the Irish Bar before the terms of Union had even been put before the Irish Parliament. – 41 –

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar, on Sunday, the 9th of December, 1798, on the Subject of an Union of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland (Dublin: Printed for J. Moore, 1799).

IN PURSUANCE of the FOLLOWING REQUISITION, A

MEETING of the

IRISH BAR, WAS HELD, on SUNDAY 9th DECEMBER, “The undersigned Members of the Bar, request you will convene a Meeting thereof, to be held at the Chancery Chamber, on Sunday next, the 9th inst. to take into consideration a subject of the utmost importance.” Edward Mayne,1 Charles Bushe,3 H. Joy,5 Charles Hamilton,7 Redmond Barry,9 Richard Jebb,11 Peter Burrowes,13 John Lloyd,15 William Vavasour,17 William Sankey,19 T. O’Driscoll,21 Eyre Burton Powell,23 Beresford Burston,25 Jonah Barrington,27

J. W. Bell, 2 William Saurin,4 W. C. Plunket,6 A. C. M‘Cartney,8 J. Jameson,10 P. Doyne,12 R. Lyster,14 Gerald O’Farrel,16 W. P. Ruxton,18 M. J. O’Dwyer,20 Samuel Pendleton,22 Joshua Spencer,24 John Hamilton.26

– 43 –

44

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

In pursuance of the above requisition, Mr. Smith28 called a Meeting, for Sunday, at 12 o’clock. Which having taken place, and the Chancery Chamber not being large enough to hold the Meeting – And the Hall being considered inconvenient; it was adjourned to William-street, and held at the Exhibition-house /

Sunday, the 9th of December. Ambrose Smith Esq. Father of the Bar being called to the Chair – He addressed the Meeting. Gentlemen, pursuant to a requisition delivered to me by several respectable Barristers, I have convened this Meeting. I know not the object for which it has been summoned, and therefore I declare myself ready to hear any gentleman who is disposed to deliver his sentiments. I entreat that order may be preserved. mr. Saurin opened the business. Sir, I am one of those who signed the original requisition, and though I have always been adverse to calling a meeting of the Bar, to agitate political subjects, yet when a question is sent abroad by high authority, which goes directly to destroy and annul for ever, the constitution and legislative independence of the country, I think it is the duty of every great body of men, and particularly the duty of the Bar, as learned in the Law and Constitution, to step forward and declare their sense on the subject. In times of perfect tranquillity it is their duty to do this, but at such a period as the present, when the public are rendered incapable by the circumstances in which they stand, of considering so momentous a question, it becomes the duty of the Bar to declare whether it is wise or safe at such a crisis to discuss it. It is therefore not my intention to enter very deeply into the question, whether a Union in any circumstances might or might not be useful. I shall leave all metaphysical disquisitions on that subject in the hands of those who professed themselves capable of seeing into the remote consequence of such a measure, advantages, which to my understanding are totally unintelligible. I shall content himself with ofering a few obvious remarks on the / question, remarks that must strike the understanding and common sense of every man; and I will leave the learned gentlemen, whom I address, to agree in the resolution which I will have the honour to propose. It was not until the month of October last, that the people of Ireland were told for the frst time, that they were unworthy to govern themselves, that they ought to surrender for ever the constitution under which, with all its imperfections, they and their ancestors for 500 years had lived happily, and risen, and were rising to a degree of prosperity highly to be envied. – It was not till then that the people of Ireland were told, that the interests of their country, the morals, the dispositions and habits of its people were more likely to be promoted and improved by the care of a British Legislature, than by a Parliament of their own, resident among

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

45

them. But was it not obvious to every man, that if, in case of a Legislative Union, Ireland should be sufered to send an hundred members to the United Parliament, yet the Parliament thus constituted with fve hundred British members and one hundred Irish, must be infuenced by every tie of inclination, and I will add, of duty too, to prefer the interests of Great Britain to those of Ireland, when they should be found to clash? Must it not be acknowledged that if the Legislatures of the two countries should be united, their frst care would be to distribute the burden of public debt and public expence equally or proportionably over every member of the empire, and must it not follow that the burdens of Ireland would thereby be encreased to the utmost limit of her cpacity [sic] to bear? With respect to the morals and dispositions of our people, could it be reasonably believed that the British Minister would send over missionaries here to improve and reform them? Would it not be his frst care to extract from us our proportion of taxes in defence of the empire, and / would he not then leave our morals and manners to the slow improvement of time and circumstances? Yet it was for these advantages that the country was called on to give up for ever its independence and right to govern itself, and yield to the care of a foreign Legislature. But the Bar, and every gentleman who knows Ireland, must know that if ever there was a country which, more than another stood in need of the indulgent attention and watchful zeal of a resident Legislature – one which, from its knowledge of the people, their habits, and their local circumstances of the country, might adopt its regulations to the situation of the inhabitants, it was this country. – I will not, however, say that there can never occur a time when a Union with Great Britain on any terms would be injurious to Ireland. I will not enter into abstract disquisitions on the nature and benefts of the indivisibi1ity and incorporation of the empire, but I will say, that, at present I see no beneft which could accrue to Ireland from such a measure – possibly however, at a future day the light might fash on my mind; but, the advantages which should at any time induce me to agree to a surrender of the constitution and independence of the country for ever, must be of great magnitude indeed, and clear as the sun at noon day. With respect to the reasoning of those who now advise the measure, who was the man bold enough to say, he was convinced that those great advantages must accrue which the metaphysician pretended future time would develope? Who would be bold enough to pledge himself to his country that those advantages would repay her for her independence? At all events it was not at the termination of a rebellion, if it was indeed terminated, the most alarming and savage which had ever scourged a country, that a question of such magnitude was to be / discussed – it was not when a foreign army of 40,000 men were in the country, and military law scarcely yet suspended, that the people were to be asked on the moment, whether they would give up their Constitution, and transfer their Legislative power to another country. I therefore propose that the learned gentlemen who

46

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

have heard me, and whose voice the Administration and the People will probably look to with respect, should come to the following resolution: “Resolved, Tat the measure of a Legislative Union of this kingdom and Great Britain, is an innovation, which it would be highly dangerous and improper to propose, at the present juncture, to this country.” Mr. Spencer. Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to second the resolution which has been just proposed by my much respected friend, who has entered into the subject so fully and with such singular ability, that I shall trespass but for a very short time upon the attention of this Assembly. Te resolution proposed for our adoption, contains two propositions; the one declaring a Legislative Union between the two Kingdoms, to be an innovation on the Constitution of this country; and the other, that the present situation of this country is most improper and dangerous for the proposal of such a measure. As to the frst proposition, namely, that an Union would be an innovation upon the Constitution; there surely cannot be a doubt, even for a moment. For what is the Constitutions of this country, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland? By this Constitution, a majority of each house of Legislature decides upon all objects of Irish Legislation which come before them; but would that be the case in the event of an Union? Certainly not, in that case not only / a majority would not decide, but though all the Lords and Commons of Ireland of the United Parliament were unanimous on a question, which concerned Ireland alone, of which the Irish part of the Parliament must be the best judges, they might be overcome by the whole, or even part of the English Representation. Is this the Constitution of Ireland? And I am not supposing an extreme case, it is precisely what happened in the British Parliament, not six years afer the Scotch Union, when on the question for imposing the malt tax on Scotland; which was directly contrary to the articles of the Union: all the Scotch members of both houses opposed the measure, but it was carried against them by the English part of the United Parliament.29 But I shall shew from an authority, than which none can be greater, I shall shew from the authority of Mr. Locke, perhaps the most profound and systematic thinker, that England, or any other country ever produced, that Parliament is utterly incompetent to such a measure, without express authority from the people. It is unnecessary for me to inform this Assembly, that Mr. Locke wrote his Essay on Civil Government, for the purpose of vindicating the principles of our glorious Revolution;30 that it was esteemed the most perfect treatise upon the subject, at a time when the great question of Government and civil liberty had been discussed by all the ability and learning of England – With direct reference to the Revolution, and the English Constitution; and that from that time unto the present, it has been looked up to as an oracle upon the subject: His words are these, “*Te Legislative *

Locke on Government.

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

47

is not only the supreme power in the commonwealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands, where the community have once placed it; nor can any other edict of any / body else, in, what form soever conceived, or by what power soever backed, have the force and obligation of a law, which has not its sanction from that Legislative which the public has chosen and appointed.”31 And again, “Te Legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands: for it being but a delegated power from the people, they who have it cannot pass it over to others. Te power of the Legislative being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that possitive grant conveyed; which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws and place it in other hands.”32 But it may be said, that all this is just and true in theory, but irreconcilable with practica1 politics. On the contrary, the principle has been recently recognized, and acted upon, by that very America, to whose example we are referred, and whose political wisdom we are cautioned not to reject; and that very letter which is quoted by the author of a late pamphlet,33 is from the immortal Washington President, not of the Congress, but of a Convention immediately elected from the people, which sat at Philadelphia, in the summer of 1787, for the express purpose of revising the American Constitution, to which the Congress conceived itself not impowered without direct authority from the people.34 And now, Sir, as to the second part of the resolution, I am really curious to hear an argument, why the present situation of the country, when the agitations of a most deep laid, wide extended, and furious rebellion, have not yet subsided, should be selected for the bringing forward a question of that magnitude and vitality to the Constitution, which must agitate and convulse this country to its very centre. / In, England, ever since the beginning of this extraordinary war, the bringing forward of any question of political innovation, even that of Parliamentary Reform, has been reprobated both in and out of Parliament, as improper and dangerous, whilst the revolutionary spirit was afoat throughout Europe, and mens’ minds had been unhinged and unsettled on political subjects; and if England, notwithstanding her general loyalty, notwithstanding her superior learning, and her sense of happiness derived from her excellent Constitution, cannot bear the discussion of such subjects; is it in unhappily disafected and distempered Ireland, that their agitation will be perfectly harmless? What then can be the reason, why the English government, in this respect, should hold so diferent a language in Ireland from what they do in England? Why, it can be no other than this, which invincibly forces itself upon the understanding; that they would take an ungenerous and cruel advantage of the great army at present in this country, and of that suppression of the public voice, which the urgency of our situation had rendered necessary for a time; but I do conjure gentlemen to consider the awful and tremulous situation of this country: If, notwithstand-

48

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

ing our immense military force; if, notwithstanding all the zeal and ardour of the Yeomanry, it required three weeks to subdue one thousand French,35 during which period, insurrections broke out in two diferent counties; what would be our situation, if some thousands of French should land in this country, (an event, against which nothing can insure us:), while in the height of the fermentation occasioned by the discussion of this measure? Sir, I am sure that the gentry of this country, would, at all hazards and under all circumstances, resist to their utmost, and to / the last, the daring invaders of this kingdom; but can we calculate what efect their known disapprobation of the measure, and consequent disgust, would have upon the subordinate classes of the community; could the government depend even upon the regular military force; could they be certain, that that soldiery, which, for their own purposes, they have at times encouraged to deliberate, would not deliberate for themselves? Can they be confdent, that the English militia itself, would escape the epidemic agitation of the country? I have, however, heard it asserted, that from the circumstances I have just mentioned, viz. the great military force in this country, and the suppression of the public voice, this is the precise season for the introduction of this measure, which could not be carried under any other circumstances. Good God, Sir, is it possible that such a sentiment should circulate, without circulating revolutionary principles along with it? Can it be endured to be said, that the season for introducing the most momentous constitutional question, to the consideration of the Legislature of a free people, is, when there is an extraordinary military force in the country, and when, from the imperiousness of circumstances, the public lips have been closed? It is by the frank, open, and generous conduct, which should ever characterize free governments, and not by the dark and intriguing policy of despotic Cabinets, that the English Minister36 will succeed in checking the spirit of revolution, and all railing against the conduct of France, must be vain and hypocritical, while you yourself, in your practice, adopt the maxims of France; and whilst in pamphlets, written under the auspices of government, the incorporating policy of France is recommended, as the model for England to / follow in respect to this country.37 Te Irish Bar has already had the honour and the satisfaction of saving this country, or contributing most essentially to its safety, by taking the lead in the Yeomanry institution;38 and, I trust, that they will now have the sweet satisfaction of saving our country, by standing between the rash and ill-advised projects of the English minister, and mischiefs that are incalculable. Mr. St. George Daly39 moved that the further consideration of this resolution be adjourned to this day month. Mr. Jameson seconded the motion of adjournment, and opposed the original resolution, as tending to the prematurely forcing the discussion of the question of an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland; a circumstance of such great magnitude and consequence, that he thought the assembly were not at present prepared

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

49

to decide on the merits of the question, as having no evidence before them that a Union would be, in its efects, either benefcial or injurious to the country at large; he therefore, for himself, being the descendant of Englishmen, and he believed the great majority of those who heard him were of the same description, as well as some of the great proprietors and landed interests of this kingdom, did not hesitate to avow himself friendly to the principle of an Union between the two countries, on liberal terms, at the same time admitting, that much would depend on the arrangement of the business, and until such arrangement was made known, he considered every interference premature and untimely. / Mr. P. Burrowes. – I oppose the previous question. I support my learned and respected friend – From deference to him, I abstain at present, from submitting a stronger proposition to this Assembly. A Legislative Union with Great Britain upon any terms, which can be rationally conceived, is in its principle, at all times inadmissible; at the present juncture the measure is peculiarly pernicious. What is in truth and simplicity the Question? – Whether the Irish nation should at all deliberate upon the terms and conditions, upon which it should surrender a Constitution founded upon the soundest principles of human policy, which it has enjoyed for six centuries, and under which with all its imperfections and abuses, it arrived at a state of great improvement, and was proceeding in a course of rabidly accelerating prosperity, until in common with other countries, the political malady, which has of late, aficted the world, had visited it with evils, not ascribable to its Constitution. – I say this nation ought not to entertain such a question. – Te discussion is certain degradation – Te measure is certain ruin. We are told that the abstract proposition is harmless, and that everything will depend upon the terms. I answer, that every possible modifcation of an Union necessarily involves evils, which cannot be compensated in any possible modifcation. – Let us consider the necessary actual sacrifces and consequences, and see whether there be even any speculative equivalent. Te total extinction of the Irish name and independent Irish Legislature is a necessary preliminary. – Te merging of our Representatives in an Assembly where they will be more than quadrupled, and where if they were unanimous, they could have but slight infuence upon any subject, is a necessary preliminary. Te perpetual existence of the United Legislature in another country, to the infuence of whose wishes and opinions they will / be subject, is a. necessary preliminary. Te encrease to an enormous extent of the principal evil which, for centuries, aficted this country, namely, our absentees,40 is a certain consequence. – Te encrease of taxes is a certain consequence. – Te encrease of our national debt is a certain consequence – And that we must depend upon the good faith and feeling of a nation which experience tells us has, or may conceive, she has a rival interest, for the preservation of any part of the system which may beneft us, is a certain consequence. Who is not startled at this defcient catalogue of preliminary sacrifce? Can any price war-

50

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

rant the surrender of the Constitution and liberties of a nation? and what then is the price ofered? We are told of great commercial acquisitions, or embarrassing commercial difculties from which we may be relieved by this arrangement. I do not believe, even if I admitted our Constitution to be a saleable commodity, that England has any commercial price to ofer. As to foreign trade, we enjoy it already, except as far as it is locked up in companies, from whose monopoly an Union could not rescue it. As to the channel trade, we labour under some disadvantages, from which Government has promised to relieve us, which Parliament can easily settle and adjust, which are of but slight comparative consequence, and which never can be a justifable apology, for surrendering the source and security of all commerce, and of every thing else that is valuable – a national independent Legisture [sic]. Upon this head I will not dwell; it is too extensive in its detail, and too slight in its comparative import to be discussed here. I hasten to that which is the grand pretence for this alarming innovation. Te security of the connection with Great Britain it is said requires it. – Tis is indeed a / powerful appeal – Connected as we are by so many ties to that great and powerful people, there are but few things which we ought not to sacrifce to the preservation of that connection. But let not our zeal mislead us – Let us coolly investigate the probable efect of this measure in that respect. I assert, I hope without contradiction, that the security of that connection must depend upon afection, and not force. – Disafection is the only source of separation, and see whether, upon the whole, this measure be not more likely to extend than to restrain it. Consider it in relation to the governing and governed bodies of this country. Does any man seriously think our Parliament likely to endanger the connection by any thing hostile, or factious? Is it possible to add to their zeal for the interest of the empire? Perhaps that interest wou1d be more soundly promoted, if they displayed more local attachment. At all events, the transfer of one hundred, probably of the same, men into the British Parliament will not tend to abate the motives to disafection amongst the governed here, which is the prime consideration, and to which I hasten. I cannot, however quit this head, without expressing my astonishment and indignation, that the very men who but yesterday asserted that our Representatives were pure and perfect; and who seemed to think that the highest character in the land, who should asperse them, should be treated as a rebel, and an outcast;41 that these very men should themselves now load them with the most unmeasured calumnies – should represent them as mean, mercenary, profigate and incorrigible. I shall now consider this subject, in respect of the governed body of Ireland, and the infuence of this measure upon / them. Te very lower orders of the people, I consider as mere machines upon such occasions – Tere is, however, a middle order, in which the political energy, and actuating power of every free nation, resides; and which by accident in this country, is so subdivided, as much

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

51

to facilitate the present enquiry, the Yeomanry42 – the United Irishmen, and the Reformists,43 form I think an adequate division of the political body of this country – at all events, sufciently accurate and adequate for fair practical inference. Tey comprehend all religions, and extend to all classes necessary to be considered. Of the Yeomanry, who unquestionably preserved the connection and the constitution, which they had sworn to defend, I need not say much; I need not tell you, that loyalty to their Sovereign, and attachment to the constitution, so predominated in their minds, that all other sentiments and considerations seemed to be totally discarded. Teir loyalty could not admit of augmentation; but it may be forced to subside, and I cannot conceive any thing so likely to afect them, as to lose their Constitution at the very moment they have rescued it from invaders, and placed it, as they conceived, out of the reach of danger. I confess, I have seen without wonder, a very considerable, and a very lamentable change, within a very short time. Since this fatal question has come forth, the most loyal men I know, enquire into the afairs of the empire, with feelings, perhaps, insensibly altered; they do not hear of a British victory with that ebullient joy, which indicated, even at a distance, the approach of glad tidings. Are men aware of the consequences of setting speculation loose upon the probable state of Ireland, in new and untried relations? I hope the Minister, who is such an enemy / to innovation, has well weighed these consequences. I come now to the United Irishmen – Surely no man thinks a closer connection with Great Britain will conciliate them. But, I beg pardon – I am in error – the United Irishmen, I am told, hold a jubilee of joy at this measure – they are its warmest advocates. Tey well know that their numbers will be increased, and their views promoted by it – they well know, that France will not require an embassador to communicate the strength of her friends in this country, while such a measure is discussing. or afer it shall be carried – that France experimentally knows how such connections are formed, to what purposes they are subservient, and by what means alone they can be preserved. I come now to the Reformists – Tey object, and I think truly object, that the infuence of the Minister is too great, and the infuence of the Nation too little in the Representative body of the Nation – they will not, I think, consider matters to be much mended, when the former becomes every thing, and the latter nothing – at present they prefer, at least, the majority of them, prefer the present Constitution, even unreformed, to a revolution. If that Constitution be once displaced, ’tis difcult to know what Constitution they may wish to establish in its room; but it is tolerably certain, that they being Irishmen, they will wish for an Irish Constitution. It should be recollected, that I am now speaking of Reformists, as contra-distinguished to United Irishmen. Upon the whole of this head, I think, the attachment of the governing body to the connection cannot be increased, and that the attachment of every considerable portion of the governed, will be diminished by this measure, and that consequently it leads

52

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

directly to disafection and separation. Of the powerful efect which this terrifc innovation will probably have upon / the liberties of the British nation, and the balance of the British Constitution, I shall not here speak; this consideration will, I trust, be maturely weighed by the people of another country. But even though it were possible to devise a system of Union, which ought to be adopted, this is a juncture the most unft for propounding or discussing it. I am no metaphysician in politics – I do not derive my opinions from mere abstract reasoning. Yet I hold it to be indisputably certain, that the antient established Constitution of a nation, like this, cannot be justifably annihilated, without the previous consent of the nation, founded upon the feest and fullest discussion of the subject. Tat this measure will not be carried by fraud, or by force, I am fully convinced. Te illustrious nobleman,44 who presides here, and whom I am disposed to contemplate as a missionary from Heaven, sent to stop the efusion of human blood, and the progress of human crimes, is my security. Whatever may be the views, or the wishes of a British Minister, he will not hazard his well-earned, and widely extended fame, by any act which will not bear the judgment of future ages. If then, previous or even concomitant discussion be necessary, can it be now safely obtained? – Can it ever be credited than an Union carried now, was founded upon national consent? And if the contrary opinion should prevail, how fatal would the consequence probably be? How various are the impediments to popular discussion at present? Do we forget that assemblies of the people, are under temporary restraints,45 at least, regulations not heretofore deemed, necessary in our Constitution; that / the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended;46 that extraordinary powers are vested in magistrates;47 that that undefnable monster Martial Law still exists in parts of Ireland;48 that Rebellion is but just subdued, and Invasion still hovering around our coasts; and above all, that a numerous English army exists in this country. To that army, I acknowledge myself, amongst the rest of my countrymen, to be deeply indebted, I attribute no bad designs to it. But I assert, that there cannot be a fee discussion of the question under such circumstances, and I add that if there could, it ought not to be now provoked. I say therefore, that this is not only an improper time, but the most improper time that could be devised for setting afoat so dangerous and infammatory a topic; and I am astonished that any man could be so rash and daring to cast such a frebrand into a country so combustible. In opposing the introduction of this measure, I feel that I am contending for peace and tranquillity, as well as freedom. I confess, I feel a sentiment of national pride, and perhaps, national prejudice in favour of the liberties of Ireland, of which I am not ashamed. Perhaps these emotions may somewhat infuence my judgment; if they do, I am unconscious of it, because I feel a rational conviction upon the subject. I should not, however, much regret it, if it were the case; because I am persuaded that even a prejudice in favour of

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

53

the Constitution of one’s country is one of the best cements of human society. Condemning as I do the principle of an Union, I give the previous question my decided opposition. Mr. Barnes.49 – Father Smith, to use the words of a great man, (Mr. Grattan,) the gentleman who spoke last but one,50 “is an Englishman, contending for the power of his country, while I am defending the liberty of / mine.” He then spoke with considerable ability against a Union with Great Britain on any terms. Indeed what availed terms, however liberal, when if those were acceded to by Ireland, there remained no means of enforcing the performance of them? To shew that terms proposed by Great Britain as the price of an Union, could not be depended on, he adverted to what followed in the British Parliament a very few years afer the Union with Scotland – a tax on malt in Scotland was proposed by the Minister of the day, and though it was opposed by every Scotch Representative and Scotch Peer in either House, it was carried in direct breach of one of the articles of the Union.51 Nor was this the only instance of violated faith – another occurred a few years back respecting the rights of the Scotch Peers sitting in the British House of Lords – where a case was decided by the British Parliament in manifest contravention of one of the leading articles of the Union.52 Tis case is the more worthy the attention of Irishmen generally, on account of the particular circumstances attending it, and which you will allow me to detail a little at large. At the time of the Union, the Scottish Peers proposed, that a clause should be inserted to guard them against the injury which they had sustained by the last determination of the House of Lords; they were entreated not to press it, and to sufer it to be determined by the House of Lords, whenever the question should arise; they submitted, but by the proposal, they manifested their fears, and proclaimed their wishes. Te Lords did not disappoint them, and in the year 1708-9, their Lordships resolved, as the Scotch Peers wished, that a Scottish Peer becoming a Peer of Great Britain, ceased to have any interest in the Scottish Peerage.53 In 1787, they determined the same point, and thereby turned the opposers of Mr. Pitt out of the / representation.54 In 1793, a contrary determination answered the same purpose, and overturned the law, as settled immediately afer the Union. Such is the confdence Ireland should place in any terms proposed by Great Britain; he considered it as an insolent display of her superiority, that Great Britain should propose a Union at such a time as this; it was a measure dictated by her confdence in that proud superiority with which her feets ruled the ocean – but she should remember that that superiority would be of short duration, were it not for the force which Ireland aforded to man those feets – to his own knowledge, and he had been himself a seaman, half the strength of the navy of England, including the marine corps was drawn from Ireland; and yet English Captains have had the insolence to say, that in their ships, they would have no more Irishmen than main-masts! Such was the contumely with which

54

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Ireland and Irishmen had always been treated by England – but he contended that Great Britain had nothing to give Ireland, which could be considered as a compensation for the surrender of its independence. – To all the world except the East Indies we already had a right to trade – and a Union would not give us more of the East-India trade than we already possessed – for we could in that case, as well as now, only be permitted to share in it by individual merchants becoming the proprietors of East-India stock; and as to morals and melioration of manners, he ridiculed the idea of those resulting from new importations of vice from Portsmouth and Plymouth, or from Duke-street, St. James’s. While we had a Kirwan in the Pulpit,55 and a Saurin56 at the Bar, we wanted no empyrics in Law or Divinity. One word he would say, on the pamphlet, entitled “Arguments for and against an Union.”57 Tere was a / time, in the history of this country, and that within his knowledge, when an Attorney General would not have thought he discharged his duty to the country, unless he had indicted the author of it for high treason; unless the patriotism of the House of Commons had preferred an impeachment, as a mode of punishment more suited to the variegated crimes with which it abounds. With respect to the right of Parliament to agree to an Union, he declared it to be his opinion they could have no such right. He read the following resolution, agreed to unanimously by the Bar of Ireland, in 1782. At a full Meeting of the Lawyers’ Corps, the 28th of February, 1782, pursuant to notice. Colonel Edward Westby58 in the Chair. Te following resolution was unanimously agreed to. “Resolved, Tat the Members of the House of Commons are the representatives of, and derive their power solely fom the people, and that a denial of this proposition by them, would be, to abdicate the representation.”59 And then said, Father Smith, let this learned meeting remember the distinguished characters that ornamented the Irish Bar of that day; let them remember, that the late Chief Baron Hussey Burgh,60 and the present Chief Baron Lord Yelverton,61 were among the foremost leaders of the patriotic band; that the majority, if not all the present Judges of Ireland, were members of that corps, and that therefore the People of this country, had the character and authority of the present Bench of Ireland, for the truth of the proposition, contained in the / resolution he had had the honour to read. He would likewise say, that the Grand Juries throughout the kingdom, and the two Houses of Parliament, had declared that no power on earth, had a right to make laws to bind Ireland, but the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, and to no other power would he yield obedience: It was his right as an Irishman to be governed by those only, and bred as he

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

55

was to the use of arms, he would not tamely surrender that right to the cunning or the insolence of that serpent and political apostate, Mr. Pitt.62 Mr. T. Grady.63 – I am happy to perceive, Sir, that my learned friend, who originated this discussion, has, upon consideration, thought proper to withdraw ths [sic] plea in bar, he heretofore put in to the bill for an Union, and that he now contents himself with the dilatory measure of a special demurrer;64 and my friend who leads the opposition, seems not to difer much with him in principle, inasmuch as his object is to transfer the argument to the adjourned list, in hopes that the parties may compromise, before the question can obtain a fnal decision. I feel, Sir, that the part I shall take upon this occasion, may be attributed to those motives that in general are supposed to infuence men who have any dependence upon Government; but those who know me, know how lightly I estimate my dependence; and those who do not know me may, before I sit down, be induced to think that my conduct is only infuenced by the settled conviction of an independent mind. Sir, I not only approve of, but I solicit on Union; I mean an Union upon equitable terms. Te learned / member has talked of transmitting our valuable Constitution to posterity; and if I had any reason to think that the country considered that Constitution a security, that they looked upon it with respect, or even with patience, I would become a party to the deed by which it was to be indefeasibly transmitted to future generations. But I acknowledge to the world, that I am weary of a system which, except its expence, has been of late nothing but a source of perpetual confict, and civil hostilities. What moderate man is not disgusted at having seen the convulsions by which this unhappy country has been so long shaken, and which have been induced by that system! Te peasantry arrayed against the gentry, the gentry against the peasantry, and the physical force of the nation, drawn up in line of battle against its constituted authorities; demands, on the one hand, alledged to be unreasonable and turbulent; rejections, on the other, alledged to be unconstitutional and oppressive; the People, on the one side, charged with being a mass of bigotry and republicanism; the Parliament, on the other, reviled as not being the Parliament of the People, nor the Parliament of the Sovereign, but the Parliament of an arrogant aristocracy, who, while they held the Sovereign in shackles, trampled upon his People. We have seen the natural efects of such a system. Demands leading to rejection, rejection to recrimination, recrimination to chastisement, chastisement to rebellion, and rebellion to extermination. Is this the system that I am called upon to transmit as a blessing to posterity? Shall I visit posterity with a system, in whose train are carried war, pestilence, and famine? No; give me an Union. Unite me to that country, / where all is peace, order, and prosperity; and give me, in that Union, the unshackled councils of a nation, where no prejudice arrogates to dominate, no local interests to controul, and whose councils have, at

56

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

this important crisis in the history of the world, raised her head above all the nations of the Universe! Such an Union, we understand, is now ofered by the Minister of our Sovereign. Te People, defeated in their hopes of Reform, colleague for this purpose with the Sovereign, and you are going to colleague with the aristocracy, both against Sovereign and People; but you have not even the strength of an integral estate for your colleagues. A great proportion, consisting of the wisest personages, nay the heads of that respectable body, are said to favour the views of the Sovereign; you, therefore, have for your colleagues only the rump of the aristocracy. But what advantage do you propose to yourselves as a body, or what credit with the country, from an interference, where your motives, to say the best, must be doubtful, and where your interposition (to say the least) must be inefectual? Te People could see no middle term between Parliamentary Reform and Parliamentary annihilation. When they asked for Reform, you refused your assistance; and now, when they ask for annihilation, you interpose to prevent the extinction of that system which you then refused to redress. You then protected yourselves by the argument, that it was no time to disturb the public mind, by agitating the question; and now, when even upon your own admission, the embers of one rebellion are not yet cold, and while there is another supposed to be kindling in the country, you proceed without remorse, to the discussion. But the People will not think you inconsistent. / Parliamentary Reform, they say, would be to you Parliamentary annihilation; and exclusion would be the consequence of either extreme. But of what general advantage can the continuance of this system be to the profession? Tough it be not the case in the instance of any living Barrister, yet we all know enough of the history of the profession, to believe that the Bar patronage, the due reward of genius and of learning, has too ofen been lavished upon Parliamentary sycophants, at the expence of talents and perseverance. Many of my brethren who are now around me, and who perhaps will vote against me on this question, have frequently lamented to me, in an exaggerated picture which I could never subscribe to, that during the existence of former Parliaments, they thought the profession degraded in the persons of some men, who stood forward upon the foor, with a pistol in one hand and a bludgeon in the other, cufng down all the talents of the land; making their way to honours and emoluments, by impudence and servility. I therefore call upon all my brethren, who feel within themselves the impulse of genius, and the energy of learning, to vote for the extinction of a system that sacrifced the fair trader to the smuggler. Believe me, Sir, if the people feel that your motives are merely selfsh, they will not be touched with any sense of your suferings in losing the channel of Parliamentary preferment, nor will they make any common cause with you on the occasion. But what efect will your opinion have with Government? If it has any efect, it will be by leaning against the impression to give it a / bias the contrary

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

57

way. If you have a right to dictate in this instance, you will have a right to dictate in every other, and then it will come to this, that as ofen as any State measure is in agitation, the Minister must send his compliments to Father Smith to beg he would convene the Bar in order to take, what the learned mover has very sophistically called their legal opinion. And then the leading council of the State will be a body of Barristers erected into a synod, of Attorney’s-General in perspective, embryo Chief Judges, and animalcule65 Serjeants. But sufer me to ask that learned member what is to become of his legal opinion, if the physical opinion of the State be against him? All the cities of the South and West are from commercial motives strongly solicitous of an union. Situated as those cities are upon the great Atlantick, on the western extremity of the empire, between almost all the rest of the world and Great Britain, they know that they must become the storehouses of the empire; and the relative efect of this upon the landed interest in those parts makes that interest equally solicitous. But the great body of the people are the Catholics, and they desire it. (Here there was a violent outcry of no, no.) I desire to be understood, as only speaking from my authority of the Catholics of the South with some of the most respectable of whom I have the closest connections, and I can say, that they consider an Union, independent of its general advantage to the State, as the only measure by which, to bury in eternal oblivion, the dreadful confict that has been so unfortunately revived at the end of a century between Protestant and Catholic, or as the parties are now invidiously distinguished, between Orangery and Popery. But abstracted from this / authority, I think I have a right to argue what will be the probable opinion of the Catholics of Ireland when they come to decide upon the question. Tere are but two fair ways of anticipating the opinions and the actions of men, namely, from their interests or from their passions; but when their passions and their interests go hand in hand, the grounds of anticipation are irresistible. As to the interest of the Catholics, the trade of the [soil?] being principally in their hands, and the efect of this measure upon the trade being unquestionable, they will certainly be urged by the impulse of interest. But suppose some of the upper classes were to be deluded into an unnatural league with their inherent enemies, what would that weigh with the body against the interest of the peasantry, who form the strength of the country, and to whom this measure comes recommended by the great bounty of a tythe modifcation. Will they hesitate upon the subject: I believe, at least I may venture to answer for them. And indeed, I believe they would take upon trust any measure that came recommended from the nobleman, who now presides in this country, and who has already covered them with the shield of his protection. But in such a body there must be many who will reason from their passions. And in such a crisis, as the present, the man frequently predominates over the metaphysician. Tey will say, “For a century we lay like a morbed mass upon the surface of the soil, without

58

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

the capacity of enriching the country we encumbered. Whether by our friends or whether by our enemies, we were then brought into political exercise, and in the confict acquired considerable advantages. Teir [sic], however, we were not sufered to rest, but in the efort to toss us still forward we have barely escaped being as / remitted to the non-entity of our ancestors. We have as yet escaped, but we have been denounced. – And if the present system holds, we must expect the result of that denunciation. High and low, north and south, from the channel to the occean we have been branded as rebels. Te Rebellion was called the crusade of Popery, and that at a time when if we wanted to install the Pope we should not have known where to fnd him.”66 Tese are arguments which the Catholic will not be ofended with me for supposing in his behalf, for they are arguments which, if I were a Catholic myself, I should be very apt to use, and that too whether interest or passion was predominant, In short, Sir, it comes to this – Whether will they coalesce with their fiend or with their enemies. In their Sovereign they will recognize their steady their persevering friend. Teir enemies are distinguished by their badges. You see then, Sir, there is a great body of the people not likely to sympathise with us. And inasmuch therefore as the proposed resolution would probably be inefectual, I shall vote for the adjournment. Before I sit down, I must say that I am not capable of even hinting disrespect towards my learned and much valued friend who originated this question. I know, and the public knows, that he is as much above the principle as the necessity of a selfsh motive. I know, and the public knows, that he was ofered one of the frst law ofces of the State, an ofer as honourable to Government as to him.67 Without Parliamentary service, or Parliamentary connection, they cast their eyes upon the / Bar, and in selecting him, they only engrafed their own opinion upon the opinion of the profession and of the publick. Sir, I shall trouble you no further. Mr. John Beresford, Jun,68 I rise to observe, that I do not see how the object of the Meeting can be promoted, by coarse and violent invective upon the Minister and people of England. I think, the introducing upon the tapis69 the characters of great men, (who are not present to defend themselves), for the purpose of refecting upon, and of reviling them, is as irrelevant to the subject under consideration, as it is uncandid. To ofer insult, where resentment is precluded, I do not think characteristic of generosity or of decorum. It was not my intention to have obtruded my sentiments upon this assembly; but as they seem inclined to indulge me with a hearing, I will state my reasons for dissenting from the resolution, and voting for the adjournment. Te learned mover seems to admit, that conviction may still fash upon his mind the propriety of an Union. I am not surprized at this – for I am not aware how any decisive opinion can yet be formed upon the question, in its present state of embryo and imperfection. I

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

59

do not see how rational conviction can be obtained, until the arguments of all parties shall be adduced. I deprecate the discussion of it, therefore, as premature and improper, until it shall be submitted to the public, by that authority which alone is competent to specify the objects, and develope the plan of so complicated a measure; and I still more deprecate, gentlemen pledging themselves by resolutions to any opinion upon a subject which is, as yet, unproposed, undetailed, and consequently but imperfectly understood. It is the peculiar feature, and characteristic of the members of the / profession to which I have the honor to belong, to arrive at the attainment of truth, by minute and patient investigation; I should be sorry, indeed, they were in this instance, to deviate from that line of conduct, so just, so honourable, and so liberal. I should be sorry they were to afect to decide upon any question, much less, upon one of such vast importance, without documents or materials, upon which a fair or rational conclusion can be grounded; such a proceeding would be as disgraceful as it would be novel. But, I hope, I trust, I anxiously expect, that the good sense and good conduct of the Bar, on this day, will not sufer such an imputation to attach upon their profession. Tere is an argument which weighs with me, and makes me peculiarly anxious that the Bar should not commit themselves, by any sudden or precipitate determination, relative to a Legislative Union between this country and Great Britain, which, as yet, has not been propounded,70 and the terms of which have certainly not been explained; (and I appeal to the feelings of every man present, whether there is any colour for delicacy upon the occasion), that it is generally thought, that if a consolidation of the Legislatures of the two countries, was ever so advantageous to the empire in general, or to Ireland in particular, still the members of the assembly, which I have the honor to address, must sufer, in point of professional interest and political consequence, inasmuch as one of the channels to consideration, to honor, and to preferment, will, in this country, be for ever closed, upon this question; I did not mean to give my opinion, much less to decide; but I confess I fear their taking the lead in discountenancing even the entertaining or deliberating upon the measure; their pronouncing a sweeping condemnation upon the illegality of / a Legislative incorporation, and rejecting the present moment as improper for temperate discussion, might sanction the suspicion, and give colour to the charge of their being infuenced by narrow and selfsh views, instead of standing upon the broad and generous basis of public utility, and national advantage[.] I entreat you will not hastily commit yourselves, I entreat you not to act, as if you wished to carry by clamour and by tumult, that which it is the province of cool and deliberate reason to decide upon. I assert, that this resolution, if carried, will look like an attempt to overawe the parliament, and to deter the Legislatures of the two countries, not from fnally determining upon, but even from deliberating upon a question of national importance. Depend upon it, too, the attempt, if such a

60

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

one could be in contemplation, would be futile and unavailing; and I hope it would be so, for if it were not, the Parliament would be feeble, pusillanimous, and inadequate to the end of its institution. I again entreat you to wait until you have some materials to ground your reasoning and resolutions upon; I do not make this request as an advocate for or against the measure of an Union. Upon that great and momentous question, I have not yet formed an opinion, because it is yet in darkness. Te objections which gentlemen have made, if well founded, will lose none of their force, by their patiently waiting a detail of the plan in contemplation; their mouths will not be closed by such temperate and dignifed demeanour. Tey will still retain the privilege of expressing their sentiments, and that with tenfold weight and authority. It is unlike the minister, to bring a measure by surprise upon the people, therefore, I am sure sufcient time will be given to discuss and balance the expediency or inxpediency of such a connection. It is unlike the / English people to whom we are under such obligations for the prompt, generous, and efectual assistance they so nobly aforded us, to force a Union, if unpallatable upon us; and it is impossible that a question of so great magnitude, comprehending such a variety of interests and of such infnite bearings should be so hurried or hustled through the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland, as to preclude the public sentiment from being clearly ascertained, and expressed theron. Beware of being deluded by declamation, and misled by a semblance of zeal and patriotic ardour, sometimes assumed to acquire popularity, or to cover worse intentions. He is not most his country’s friend, who talks the most of the liberties of the people. If, upon fair, dispassionate, and sober discussion, a Union should appear pregnant with mischief, and national disadvantage, reject it. Your voice, as that of a respectable portion of the community, must always be attended to, and if that of the nation, will be obeyed. It will then be the voice of reason, of patriotism, and of just conviction; and not that of tumult, of faction, of intemperance, or of self-interest. Mr. Lloyd vindicated the Catholics from the charge of their desiring an Union with Great Britain. He contended that the Catholics were not friendly to an Union, and asserted he had as ample means of knowing their sen-sentiments [sic] as the learned gentleman (Mr. Grady). It was a slander on the great body of the Catholics, to describe them as actuated by so base and malignant a principle, as that of wishing to pull down the Protestants, because they could not rise to their level. But if the Catholics were actuated by so impolitic a motive, I am confdent the Protestant men would be able to maintain their rights in spite of their opposition. I am convinced, however, the Catholics could not entertain any such sentiments / – Tey had already obtained in the course of a few years a variety of important privileges, and there could be no reasonable doubt, but they must in a very few years more, obtain the only remaining object which they had to seek – Tey could not therefore be so absurd as to give up tamely and

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

61

willingly the advantages they had obtained, and the certain prospect of attaining those which they fairly pursued. He reasoned at length, and with great energy, on the impolicy of urging a Union at a time when the passions of the public were in so irritable a state, and on the injustice of proposing it at a period when a great military force, and martial law, prevented the people from delivering their sentiments on a question of such great national importance. Mr. Driscoll. – Sir, it is very idle in gentlemen to preface their speeches with eulogiums on the independence of their minds, and the purity of their motives, because the nature of the mind and of the motive is best understood by the conduct and sentiments of the man: if the motive be pure, it will here receive full credit; if not, no splendid preface can shield it from detection in the enlightened assembly, in which I have the honour to be heard. I feel the present a very awful moment, and I am strongly of opinion that upon your decision this day will, in a great measure, depend the safety of my country, or the separation of it from England, which is equivalent to its destruction. I rise to support the original motion from a sincere desire to exstinguish the hopes of conspirators and traitors who have brought their country to the brink of ruin – Hopes, which are revived at the chearing prospect of the convulsion which is likely to agitate the public mind, if the great question of a Union shall be introduced in the present state of the nation. Te power of the rebels is crushed, but their principles are not / subdued. I am bound by my duty as a subject, and by a solemn oath which I have taken, faithfully to maintain and support the laws and Constitution of this kingdom; and I will vote most zealously against the introduction of a question, the discussion of which in the present distracted state of the country would, in my mind, bring the laws and that Constitution into imminent danger, by encouraging Rebellion to rear its head again with encreased and ferocious confdence. As to the political advantages or disadvantages likely to accrue to this kingdom from a Union of our Legislature with that of England, I am incompetent to decide: Te discussion of it is premature, and wide of the question now before you, which consists of two propositions; frst, that a Union would be an innovation, and secondly, that it would be highly imprudent and improper to propose it at the present juncture (Here a loud cry of no, no, by those who opposed the motion, who said that the question then before the meeting was that of adjournment.) I am ashamed, Sir, to hear in this assembly such vociferation, and upon a ground so unworthy of notice. I have truly stated the original question, the adjournment of which I oppose. I did not conceive that any gentleman would be silly enough to insult the feelings of this meeting, by an attempt to trammel their sentiments upon so awful an occasion, through the means of miserable etiquettes and dexterities, the feeble instruments of faction, which should be lef where they were found, of which I hope I shall hear no more this night, and which if I do, I shall treat with the indiference they merit. I have stated the

62

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

two propositions contained in the question. No gentleman has yet denied the frst; and one feeble attempt only has been made in opposition to the second: An attempt has indeed, been / made as it were to absorb the frst proposition, by a bold position of blameable extent, and most unnecessary introduction. It has been asserted, “that the Parliament of Ireland has by the Constitution a power to form such a Union independent of, and uncontrouled by, the sense of the people of this kingdom”.71 I shall deny that doctrine to the last moment of my life. Te common principle of reason and justice deny the power contended for; the three great branches of our Constitution are, are [sic] the estates of the people of Ireland – Te existing members of all of them, are the trustees and agents of the nation. Upon the dissolution of the Parliament, the great reversionary right of the people comes into possession, and they excercise their right, as well by their Sovereign, as by themselves, in creating a new trust; but they do not absolutely transfer the soil. Tey delegate the stupendous power of making laws to afect their lives, liberty, and property. But when the term of the trust, as established by law, expires; the people have a right to demand, imperiously to demand, a restoration of their estate and the actual exercise of the actual exercise [sic] of their power to commit it to the hands of new trustees, either to increase its improvement, or to infuse new strength into any parts of it which might have been impoverished by the outgoing occupiers. Upon this principle I am supported by high authorities, unnecessary to be cited to this learned assembly. If a Union shall be efected with England in pursuance of the consent of the majority of the thinking part of the nation fairly taken when the nation can think, I shall hold it to be my bounden duty to submit, and to act under it. But if the separate right of Legislation for Ireland, shall be annihilated or transfered, or incorporated with that of any other country without / such consent of the nation, I cannot conceive myself justly bound by any such transaction. Gentlemen have complained of the animation which has appeared this night, in discussing the question before you. Tey have deprecated rashness of decision, and entreated you to allow a month for sober discussion, as the only means of enabling you to form a correct judgment. I meet those gentlemen upon their own ground; and if they are alarmed at what they call intemperance in the minds of the gentlemen around me, enlightened by education, and chastened by habit and deep refection, and that upon a question which only expresses our terror at the approach of the grand measure of a Union, what frightful tumult must they not expect in the great mass of the public mind, when the mighty proposal itself comes forward, and provokes the agitation at such a period as the present! It is in vain, Sir, to dissemble: Tose gentlemen must know that in the present convulsed state of this country, there is no class of men who are in a state of mind to give the sober consideration they are so fond of, to the measure of a Union. Will they seek sobriety of discussion, among the agonies of disappointed

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

63

treason? Will they look for it, in the exasperated resentment of loyalists, whose kindred are murdered, and whose property has been plundered? Will they resort to the husband of an abused wife, or the father of a violated daughter, for sobriety of reasoning? Is it from the sanguinary conficts of religious bigotry, almost unequalled in the annals of history, that they see sobriety of thought likely to issue? Are the minds of afrighted townsmen, and of panic-struck country gentlemen, ftted for the sober discussion of a / question, involving the irrevocable doom of their country? No, Sir; the promoters of this measure, going at 1east to a radical change of our mode of Legislation, and to the absolute removal of our seperate [sic] Parliament, know in their hearts that the sense of the nation cannot, by possibility, be taken in the present state of this bleeding, unhappy country; and therefore if a question of such vast moment shall be brought forward in such a a [sic] situation of the kingdom, I cannot view it in any other light, than a deliberate resolution to carry the measure either by force or fraud. But, Sir, in recommendation of a Union, I am astonished to hear most extraordinary topics resorted to. You are told that his Majesty and the disafected part of our people are united in their wishes for the measure. We are advised to betake ourselves to a Union, as our only refuge from the want of integrity in our own Parliament and in the Government of the country. Sir, I cannot listen to so scandalous a libel upon my Sovereign, without reprobating the imputation. It is not in his exalted nature, to form any sort of communion with disappointed traitors; nor can I hear without indignation, any aspersion upon our Parliament, or the Administration of Ireland, because I am clear that the obvious efect of it is, to pamper the malignity, and to realize the pretences of the horrible conspiracy from which the nation has so lately, and so narrowly escaped. Without any weight from property, infuence or connection, I consider myself as having as dear, and as highly valued pledges in this country, as any other man in it without exception. As a professional man, my very existence depends upon the stability of the state, / and the favour of my countrymen. What impression my sentiments may make upon you, I cannot presume to say; but I have given them to you sincerely. I think I see a cloud rising above our horizon, more livid, more fraught with desolation, than appeared at any time during the late rebellion. But I will not despair: Te efusions of manly sense and spirit, which I have this night witnessed in this numerous and most respectable assembly, have greatly animated my hope, that your decision will operate as a salutary conductor, in diverting the deathful fre from the bosom of your country. Mr. Goold.72 – Before I entered this room, my mind was made up, not only on the original motion now under consideration, but on the abstract question of an incorporating Union between Great Britain and Ireland. I had determined, that on the original resolution proposed by my honourable and much respected friend, I would not say a word; hoping as I did that a proposition so temperate in

64

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

its construction, and so reasonable in its object, would have passed this Assembly with out opposition; that it would have been received with acclamation, without the necessity of discussion. I have been disappointed – It has already undergone, and is undergoing discussion: in its outset it has met with determined opposition. Nor has my disappointment been the less bitter, when I consider, that that very opposition has proceeded from a quarter of much weight and respectability among us; of much value on the score of afection and gratitude, in the history of Irish afairs. I am, I say, Sir, deeply afected, when I consider the melancholy instability of / human conduct; the extraordinary and unaccountable revolutions of the human mind. Is it not then lamentaable [sic] to think, that a name which Ireland never can forget, whose exertions in her favour, Ireland never can repay, that name, which in the year 1782, by an happy and successful combination of ardent sincerity, and gigantic intellect, went no small way in contributing to atchieve the independence of this country, should in the year 1798 be the frst to surrender that independence?73 Is it not a source of sorrow and indignation, that a name which in the year 1782 would have fought and died for the liberties and constitution of Ireland, should in the year 1798 be the frst to sacrifce both, not to the wants, or convenience of Great Britain, but to the profigate and interested plans of an artful and designing Minister? By what fatality has it happened, by what process of the human understanding, is it to be accounted for, that the same hand that once held the shield, should now hold the dagger; that, that constitution which was once the object of anxious care and protection, should now become the inviting object of hostility and murder. I have said before, that Ireland never could, I say it now, Ireland never can forget this name. In the midst of these, melancholy observations, there is not wanting unto me much of pride and consolation. Perhaps the history of any country in Europe never exhibited to the eyes or understanding of men, a more awful, interesting, and dignifed spectacle, than that before me; and it is not with hope, but with confdence I say, that the result of this day will justify the observation of an eloquent writer; “Tat an additional fold in the shield of liberty, is an independent Bar.” Perhaps, the history of / no country on earth ever recorded a moment, which under all its circumstances created a stronger interest than this. Te Irish Bar, that great proportion of the thinking mass of this country, are assembled on the Lord’s day, (a day which our children may yet look for in the calendar, with emotions of augmented piety and veneration) not for the purpose of factious debate, but for the more glorious and important end, of national dignity, and national peace; and as they have but recently contributed to save the Monarchy from the encroachments of a populace, so it is my fervent prayer to the Almighty, that they may be able to save from the designs of avarice or ambition, the freedom and laws, and pride, and dignity, and constitution, of a great but unfortunate people.

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

65

But you have been moved to adjourn your meeting until this day month. Under the specious pretext of more mature consideration, I think I can discover the certain operation of political cunning. You have been told by a gentleman, bearing a name of no small authority and power, and infuence in this country, that a debate so lightly considered, and so quick in its determination, may be liable to be misrepresented. I agree with that learned gentleman; I stood not in need of his attestation, to know that we may be, as we have hitherto been, libelled. I know it to demonstration, that we have not been able to preserve the debate, and result of our meeting a few days since, from false and wicked misrepresentation. I know that one of the ablest and most virtuous men in this kingdom was grossly libelled in one of the daily papers. Let it not be told me that there are but one set of prints, that have contributed to our late misfortunes – I tell you, Sir, that if one writer can seduce, another may goad a people into rebellion. I hold those pari delicto,74 who / dare to libel the Government, and those who dare to libel the People. I hold those equally culpable, who shall dare to misrepresent the Prince to the People, and those who shall dare to misrepresent the People to the Prince. I hold it equally detestable, to represent the Prince to the People, as a tyrant, and the People to the Prince, as ft only to be slaves. Alas! to what incalculable hazards and danger, are they willing to expose all that is dear to Irishmen, who speak to me of an incorporating Union between Great Britain and Ireland. In vain shall they urge to me, as has been done this day, the inviting (and as they call it) tempting advantages, that in a commercial detail, may be gained by it. On a great constitutional question, my mind recoils from the stupid and unfeeling work of calculation. On a great constitutional question, my mind disdains to be governed by the rules of vulgar arithmetic. He is the libeller of my understanding; he is the violator of my best and fnest feelings, who dares to tell me, that he can give me an equivalent for independence, and a bargain for the constitution; and shall endeavour to prove it to me, by the rule of three direct. When was it ever heard of, that the free constitution of a great People, was a marketable commodity? When was it ever heard of, that the independence of a great nation, formed an article in the schedule of her export or import trade? When was it ever heard of, that national feeling, and pride, and dignity, could be ascertained, by the application of geometry, or numerical calculation? I say, then, that on this great, awful, and tremendous subject, I will not treat with the British Minister, or the British Merchant, with his pen in one hand, and his / Ledger in the other – or if I do treat with him, I shall treat with him on grounds, on which he never can come up to my price. He may open to me, his Ledger – I shall open to him, the great volume of human nature. He may read for me, his string of entries, and calculations – I shall read for him, the inexhaustible detail of my just and honourable feelings. He may ofer to tempt me, by his system of commerce – I shall resist the temptation, with the whole system of national feeling, national pride, dignity, afection and prejudice.

66

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

I repeat it – my mind is made up, on the abstract question of an incorporating Union, between this kingdom and Great Britain. Encumber it, as you please, with the whole detail of commercial advantages, I will not have it. I tell you, Sir, if this Union should take place, and that the British and Irish interests should ever clash, it is not possible that the British Minister can be the best judge, or guardian, of the Irish interests. Te British Minister must, for ever, be subservient to the will, and interests of the British merchant – the British merchant must, for ever, be subservient to his own interest. Should ever, then, such an unfortunate competition of interests arise, I will not entrust the welfare of Ireland to the impartiality of the British Minister, or the disinterested candour of the British merchant. I will not transfer from Irishmen, the privilege of considering the welfare of Ireland. I will not surrender that to any nation upon earth. I think I argue from the necessary operation of the human passion 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 afairs. And when / the question of self-interest once speaks, it speaks in a voice of thunder; the considerations 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, as well as an honest and feeling conduct, touching the afairs of this our country. But you are, at this moment, under the infuence of that British Minister. We are; and I will rather trust to the infuence, than to the power, of the British Minister. I will not adopt any measure, which can annihilate the principle of regeneration. It is possible, that Irishmen may yet understand, and feel and act up to, the true interests of Ireland. Te principle, by which a foreign, detrimental interest, is kept up, in this country, is uncertain, and precarious. Te motives of self-interest, are certain, and eternal. Tey cease only with the extinction of the human qualities, in human nature. If I am enemy to the principle of an Union, in whatever shape, and under whatever modifcations you please; so am I disgusted with the artful and insidious language with which the question is ushered to the notice of the public mind. Much talk there has been, of the protection and generosity of Great Britain; in the hour of our danger, and in the day of our distress: I am as happy as any man that liveth, in bearing testimony unto the protection and generosity of Great Britain. I am a friend, a most hearty and decided friend, to the connection between Great Britain and Ireland; but I will not wound the delicacy of the friendship of Great Britain, by / surrendering a Constitution I have already taken a solemn oath to maintain; nor shall I betray a trust delegated to me by forefathers, as the right of inheritance of my children for ever.

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

67

Much talk there also been, of the sacrifces which Great Britain is ready, and willing, to make, for the beneft of Ireland. She is forsooth, nobly and generously inclined, at the expence of her own interests, to concede unto Ireland, an incorporating, a legislative Union. She is the frst to ofer a boon, which neither reason nor dignity can refuse! Is the intellectual mind of this country so fallen? Are we become so stupefed, by our misfortunes? that we cannot discover, under this masque, and habit of candour and disinterestedness, the vital form and principle of cunning and selfshness. Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes.75 I will judge for myself. I will not trust, on the question of our importance as a nation, to the candour and generosity of the British Minister. Let him gild the pill as he pleases, I will not swallow it. And here again, do all my feelings of nation pride, and dignity, fnd full force and operation. I despise not for my country, the kind ofces of any nation. I disdain that she should be the mendicant of any nation; therefore, on that score, I will not be under any obligation to Great Britain. But, we are fertile in resources. We can, and ought to contribute to the necessities of England. I would embark my last shilling in the cause of England – I would stand or fall by 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 so with the solitary, but inestimable consolation, that, with my eyes open, I have been a bankrupt and beggard [sic] 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. But this nation, from her situation, language, and constitution, ought to be, and must ultimately be, a part of Great Britain. I understand, and feel the argument. Tere are forty thousand troops, in British pay, in Ireland; yet, with forty thousand bayonets at my heart, I would tell the British Minister, he shall not, can not plant another Sicily in the bosom of the Atlantic. With as many advantages as antient Sicily ever possessed, we have to plead for us the encreased and encreasing light of human nature, the uncalculated and incalculable strides of the human understanding. In this country, we have as grateful a soil, as temperate a climate, as convenient ports, and as safe harbours, as ever Sicily possessed. We have a more hardy, and a more sturdy race of inhabitants; and we have that which is paramount to them all, without which, these advantages are but as so many temptations to ruin: we have an intellectual mind, devoted to the cause of liberty and independence. It is impossible then, that the most profigate Minister that ever existed, can succeed in making us a province of any country. With a population of near fve millions of people, with a territory of considerable extent and dominions; with the most convenient ports and harbours in the habitable world; with a brave and hardy race of inhabitants; with a benignity of climate, and fertility of soil, demonstrated by every hour of our existence, and every inch

68

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

of our territory – it is / impossible that we were, in the distribution of nature, intended for a province. Travel from North to South, from East to West, you will see the bounties of Providence. I want not the assistance of Divine inspiration, to foretell; I am enabled, by the visible and unerring demonstrations of nature, to assert, that Ireland was destined to be an independent nation. Our patent to be a state, and not a shire, comes direct from Heaven. Te Almighty has, in magestic characters, signed the grand charter of our independence. Te great Creator of the World has given unto our beloved country, the gigantic outlines of a kingdom, and not the pigmy features of a province. God and Nature, I say, never intended that Ireland should be a province; and, by God, she never shall.* But, (continued Mr. Goold) if it had pleased Providence to deny unto my country these numerous advantages; if he had given unto it an unwholesome climate, and an ungrateful soil; if every inch of our coasts formed a precipice, instead of a shore, yet would I not repine at such a state, and lament the want of such luxurious benefts of nature. I would praise that God that made me free and independent; and if, in such a state, and with such a feeling, there could be cause for lamentation, it would be, that perhaps there existed, within my own view, a brave and generous people holding out, in the bosom of their country, all these glorious advantages, not as the sources of freedom and prosperity, but as so many temptations to hostility and ruin. I do maintain it, Sir, that no nation can be called a free and independent nation, where it is not competent to it to make its / own laws. I caution my countrymen, against this act of folly and injustice; they have no right to dispose of the inheritance of their posterity. Tey are not only dupes, but false trustees, who are willing to transfer for ever, not only the right, but the power of binding Ireland by Irish laws. But, Sir, if I am an enemy to this incorporating Union, on the broadest principle on which it can present itself to the human understanding, it is not without emotions of horror and indignation, that I contemplate the season fxed upon for the discussion of the subject. Is it brought forward to this country, in the calm moment of unbiassed collected volition? Is it brought forward, at the moment of our prosperity and strength? Alas! three months have scarcely expired, since open rebellion stalked through your land. Is it, I say, at such a season, that a question of such magnitude, should be ofered to the cool, unbiassed judgment of the gentry of Ireland? At a moment in which they are panic struck, they are paralized with fear, at a moment in which a principle of alarm has seized upon the dominion of the understanding – a principle, so quick and violent in its operation, as not only to mislead the judgment, but suspend the qualities of the heart; and by tending to make men forget, that the best way of avoiding *

Such was the sensation of the assembly at this moment, that they expressed themselves by reiterated bursts of applause,

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

69

danger is to meet it, it makes men fy from phantoms even into the jaws of death. Yes, but the Union will settle all your diferences heal all your wounds; it is a real panacea. No man shall prevail on me to take a medicine, which cures the distemper only by killing the patient. / But, if from these, and many other considerations, this be a time unftted for the reception of such a question among us; what shall be said of the season, in which it pleaseth the British Minister, to ofer this question to the consideration of the Irish people. Is it the day of her own humiliation, and the hour of her own distress, that she chuses as the moment for a fair, and, perhaps, feeling, discussion? No! No! She has chosen the hour of splendid and decisive victory – an hour, in which her navy (thank god,) is invincible, and her standing army is unprecedently numerous and powerful. Is her language to Ireland, the afectionate language of a sister? Does she ask Ireland, in a fair and open manner, to come forward and contribute to her wants, and endeavour to prop up her falling resources? No! It is beneath the dignity of Great Britain, to put the question to such a test. No! No! She ofers unto us better manners, better morals, more advantages commercial and agricultural, than we before possessed; she ofers unto us, security, and peace, and good government – I have, in vain, looked for this disinterested ofer, in the immutable nature of things – I have, in vain, searched for it, in the character of the British nation, or any nation upon earth – I know nothing less steady, than the abstract fdelity and disinterestedness of any nation. I own, I have not sufcient intellect to comprehend, or faith to believe, that on this question, of an incorporating Union, the British Minister is much infuenced by the considerations of the welfare of Ireland. And here too, I am to look, in vain, for such a principle, in the whole system of his political life. I own, I have not sufcient illumination of intellect to understand, or / credulity to suppose, that this Union is intended to be the Union of wealth, with poverty for the purpose of general difusion – I own, I can well conceive this to be an Union between threatening bankruptcy, and springing industry; I own, I can well conceive this to be an Union between expiring grandeur, and infant and growing prosperity. Sure I am, that I can foresee, in this Union, the seeds and principles of enmity and separation; and if it was on this ground only, with such a feeling, as I have, on the advantages and blessings of the connection that exists between us, I should be wanting to my own consistency, to the esteem I have for Great Britain, to the afection I bear my country, to the sanctity of the trust reposed in me for the rising generation, did I not declare myself in this public manner, and in this respectable assembly, hostile even to the broadest and fairest principle of an incorporating Union, between Great Britain and Ireland. Mr. Wm. Bellew76 said, he would not have risen to trouble the meeting with his sentiments on the subject in debate, were it not for the assertion which had been made by a learned gentleman who had lately spoken. Tat gentle-

70

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

man had thought proper to assert, that the Catholics of Ireland were, to a man, friendly to an Union, and had imputed this their alledged favourable opinion, to motives which appeared to him of the most unworthy description. Connected as he (Mr. Bellew) was, and in habits of intimacy with the leading gentlemen of that persuasion himself, a member of it, and from the opportunities he had of knowing the general opinion of the Catholics, on political subjects, he felt that to pass over that assertion in silence, would, in fact, be giving his assent to it; he therefore found himself under / the necessity of declaring, that the fact was not as stated. He said, the Catholics of Ireland had given no general opinion on the subject. Tey had never met to consider it; they probably would do so in the course of the week, and in the mean time, from his own intercourse with them, he knew several who were inclined to one way of thinking on the subject, and several to the other. Tis, he said, was sufcient to shew how unfounded the assertion was, which had been made. As to the motives which had been imputed as the ground of the supposed partiality of the Catholics to the measure in question, he, for one, as a man of honour, begged leave to disclaim them in the most unqualifed manner, as motives unbecoming men of principle or liberal feeling, and such as, he trusted, never would form the basis of any part of the conduct of the Catholics of Ireland. Mr. Bellew begged to be understood as not meaning to charge the learned gentleman with any intentional misrepresentation; he was incapable of making such a charge against any gentleman, and entertained no doubt but that the learned gentleman had conceived the assertion which he made to be well founded. Having said sufcient on this subject, Mr. Bellew said, that being on his legs, he would say one word as to the question before the meeting. He remarked that much had been said by gentlemen who opposed the original motion, which appeared to him to be quite irrelevant. Te only point before the meeting was, whether this was a ft time to propose a measure, which goes in the most extensive degree to alter our Legislative authority. Whether such a measure, if proposed at a proper time, would, or would not, be for the beneft of this kingdom, was a question not at all submitted for debate. On the point before the meeting, he said he could not hesitate / to say, that he was convinced in his own mind, it was not a proper time to propose such a measure, nor could he conceive how the reverse could be argued, unless it were alledged, that all which has hitherto been considered requisite towards ftting the mind for cool and solemn deliberation on a point touching our dearest interests, was wrongly considered so, and that opposite circumstances to those hitherto considered, as favourable to cool and temperate deliberation, were henceforward to be adopted as most suitable to it. He could not help being astonished at seeing the learned gentleman who moved the adjournment, and of whose sense and understanding he had the highest opinion, call for a month to deliberate. Did he want a month for the purpose of determining whether an Union would or

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

71

would not be benefcial to Ireland? If he did, he (Mr. Bellew) would tell him no such question was before them, and that a month’s deliberation would not perhaps sufce on such a question; but did he sincerely want a month to consider the only question before them, viz. whether this was a ft time to propose it. Surely on that question the learned gentleman could at once make up his mind one way or the other, and would hardly expect to be thought serious, when he expressed his apprehension, that by deciding now on such a question, the Bar would stand convicted of precipitation and rashness, and would forfeit their claim to attention from the public. It had been argued, that by agreeing to the original resolution, we determine on the merits of an Union at large; but surely every gentleman present well knows, that it is every day’s practice in the profession, to apply to the court to postpone a trial, on the ground of the public mind in the county from whence the jury is to come, being in that state which is not suited to a fair, / cool, and dispassionate enquiry into the merits of the case to be laid before them. It is every day’s practice to postpone trials on sufcient proof that such is the state of the public mind in the country; and was it ever yet argued, that by such postponement an opinion was pronounced on the merits of the case hereafer to be submitted to dispassionate investigation. Mr. Bellew then said, that he felt a full conviction that the public mind was not in a state which ftted it for calm deliberation, and that therefore he would vote for the original motion; but that in so doing, he gave no opinion on the general question, of the good or evil efects of an Union, which was not at all before him, and on which he had not made up his mind. He concluded by observing, that the question had been so fully spoken to by those on the same side with him, that without being guilty of repetition, of which he was not fond, it was not easy to say more on the subject, and that he would therefore trouble the meeting no further. Mr. Orr.77 – Mr. Smith, I profess myself an enemy to the very principle of an incorporate Union with England. And in the present state of the connection, England cannot ofer an equivalent for the surrender of our independence. At a former period when the question was considered, we were then in a very different situation. We had a Parliament controuled by the Parliament of England, and we had no trade or manufacture but, the making and exporting linen cloth. Te direct importation of goods from the West Indies, rum excepted, without frst landing them in England, was prohibited – And the exportation of woollen goods was totally prevented. At that period, I should have been more willing to have / subscribed to the assertion of a gentleman, who has spoken on the opposite side of the question, “that the South was friendly to the Union.” At present the South has every advantage it can desire, without an Union. What remains to be regulated, except the channel trade? (Here there was some noise.) Te gentlemen on the opposite side, have wished the question should be debated with temper; I think I am doing so, I think I am arguing the question fairly. But there

72

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

may be persons who would wish that it should not be discussed with either argument or temper, well-knowing that senseless intemperate opposition defeats its own purpose. Sir, I was saying that nothing remains to be regulated but the channel trade – And I think we have as good reason to expect an equitable settlement of the points still in diference in our present state, as with an Union. Experience justifes my opinion. For without an Union, we have obtained greater commercial advantages, than those, which forty years ago mercantile interest would have thought a good price for our independence. By this measure we should not gain any share in the East-India trade as a nation. And as individuals, we may become proprietors, by purchasing India stock. Another argument has been used for the measure. Te vices of our own Government. Yet with all their demerits, there are strong proofs of their being an Irish Government. Te political and commercial acquirements of the country, from the year 1753,78 down to the present period, prove my position. But admitting the vices of our own Government I cannot think our situation would be improved by taking refuge from Irish folly and Irish injustice, in the wisdom and liberality of the British Senate. Te Irish Parliament will not sufer by a comparison with the English Parliament. Te Ministers of each country can command their hollow majorities in their respective assembly. / If at the end of forty years Ireland owes twelve millions. England, in not a great deal more than double the time, owes fve hundred millions. In stating the account, the ballance is greatly in favour of our own Parliament. But I hesitate not to say, that if the advantages of the Union were not doubted, we should reject it. No bribe should tempt a nation to renounce their honour and abdicate their independence. Te ancestors of the diferent inhabitants of this country have always been zealously attached to liberty, and at one time or another, have in their turn bled in the defence of freedom. Be ye such ancestors to your children. Many of you have sworn attachment to the Constitution. I too have taken that oath – I will keep it religiously – I hope you will do so. And I have done. Mr. Stokes79 said, had he the good fortune to have agreed in opinion with the gentleman who spoke last, and with the number of gentlemen on the same side who had preceded him, he certainly would not have obtruded himself on the attention of the meeting, to enforce observations which has been so ably enforced before; but he had the misfortune to difer from them, and he could assure the bar he felt it as a misfortune. For the gentlemen who had brought forward the resolution that day, he had the highest and most unfeigned respect. Tat gentleman well knew he had a respect not merely following the unanimous voice of the public, but founded on many years acquaintance. Were not that gentleman present, he should say more; here he would not have said thus much, but that he could not dissent so widely from that gentleman’s opinion, / without feeling some apology necessary; but the meeting was called, to collect the sense of the Bar upon the subject. Tat sense never could be fairly collected, if any man

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

73

there, sufered himself to be governed by any consideration under Heaven, but the conviction of his own mind, upon the subject. He thought himself, indeed, peculiarly called upon, to obtrude himself, for a short time, upon their attention. On his coming to the place of meeting to-day, the gentleman who has moved the adjournment, mentioned to me his intention of doing so. He had perfectly agreed with that gentleman in opinion, that the Bar, having once agreed to take the question into consideration, ought not, in consideration of their country, in consideration of their own character, to come to a precipitate decision. He had listened to all the arguments used by the gentlemen who had supported the contrary opinion; but had as yet heard nothing to satisfy him that opinion was ill founded; and while this was the case, he could not but feel that it would be mean and ungenerous in him to leave that gentleman unsupported. Te numbers and talents of the speakers who had appeared on the other side, and the skill which they had availed themselves of the topics for popular declamation which it aforded, gave a colour of popularity to it, which encreased the reluctance which he must feel in coming forward to oppose them; but a reluctance on this ground alone, it was every man’s duty to overcome. Nothing, in his opinion, had done more mischief to this country, than that obsequious servility to whatever happened to be the fashionable opinion of the day, and the hunting for popular applause, when not sanctioned by self-approbation. Te one was the efect of base timidity, the / other of a most depraved, corrupt, and despicable ambition. Nothing more prevented the public mind from being fairly collected, nor was more the bane of national prosperity. In that assembly, however, he had the pleasure to think, that however his opinions might be condemned by any, he would not be condemned by any for avowing them. If any peculiar way of thinking made him difer from some gentlemen, whose opinions he most respected, it was what he must lament; but he was sure they would themselves do justice to his motives. Difer with them indeed he felt he must, and most widely, but particularly on the present question. Te question of taking one month’s time for the discussion of the subject. He ever must think that the measure of conducting the political concerns of those countries, by an united instead of a divided Legislature, was one that, though it might be ultimately, ought not to be precipitately decided, one way or the other. If, on due examination, it proves a bad one, let it, in God’s name, be rejected for ever; and if rejected, afer due examination, it will be rejected for ever; but precipitate discussion may produce heat and agitation, but never can produce stability. I own, Sir, that with great respect for the gentlemen who have gone before me, this question has not been yet put upon the right ground. Tey have enumerated various disadvantages fowing from a Union; some of them, I own, to my mind appear visionary, and some much slighter than is contended for. No doubt in every change some disadvantage will be felt somewhere. Change is in itself a disadvantage; but the true way of considering this

74

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

question, is to look to the situation of the country. See whether something must not be changed; and then see what change is the safest. He agreed most entirely with the gentlemen on the other / side, who said our situation was awful one; it was so in the extreme. Is was unnecessary to enumerate the causes which made it so; they came too near us, and lay too freshly bleeding in our memories, to require a recital; they must be present to the mind of every public body, that met to deliberate upon the concerns of the nation. Great and dreadful are the evils we have sufered; and no question can be more near to our hearts, than how we are to fnd remedies for those we have sufered, and how we are to guard against similar ones in future. But can we do this by shrinking from the consideration of any great measure that is ofered us as a remedy? Can we do it, by deferring or obstructing discussion on such a subject? Is it not childish to say, that we will not consent to the measure that is proposed to us because we must experience some losses, and give up some advantages nominal at least, and perhaps real, without weighing or considering what is the real value of what we are to lose, and what we are to get; what do we really give up; what are we likely really to obtain? Is this the part of enlightened politicians? Is it the part of rational men? I am not now saying whether we ought or ought not to advise the nation to listen to this ofer, I am speaking merely of the question of adjournment; is a month too long a time for considering a question of such moment to the whole Irish nation, not only its present inhabitants, but millions and millions of Irishmen yet unborn? Does it become this learned, this enlightened body, trained up in the sobriety of judgment, which is the surest test, and the happiest consequence of wisdom; to report before they examine, to try without evidence, to decide before they hear ? Surely Sir, amongst other considerations, / it will not be denied me, that a great part of the evils and benefts of an Union, must depend upon the relish or disrelish of it, that may appear among the various classes and descriptions of people in this country, and without going into minute particulars. Surely, Sir, it may be collected from this night’s debate, that we are as yet totally in the dark upon this subject; but, Sir, it is needless to go on with an ennumeration of this sort, every gentleman who hears me, will perceive how numerous and important are the various matters that must be weighed in considering this subject, before we can tell on which side the balance will turn; then, Sir, is it not rational and manly to look our situation steadily in the face, to probe our wound to the quick, without shrinking, and see whether if we can trace out the source from whence our disorders spring, it may not be in power to apply radical cure; let me then solemnly ask this enlightened and thinking assembly, one most serious question, let them ask it of their own hearts and understandings, is or is not, has or has not, the nature and modifcation of our connection with Great Britain, been the cause of all or any of the misfortunes of this island? If it has, it not worth the serious consideration of every Irishman who feels for

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

75

his native country, to enquire, whether among the infnite modes in which the nature of that connection may be varied, it may not be altered for the better, and how? I hear some dissatisfaction expressed at what I have said, but, perhaps, gentlemen did not apprehend me; I did not say our connection with Great Britain was the cause of our misfortunes, nothing can be more opposite to the whole train of my opinions on this subject; I spoke only of the nature and modifcation of this connection, a separation of the two countries, I hold to / be an idea the wildest and most dangerous; for those who conceived it, if any ever seriously conceived it, must have forgotten the geographical situation of the two countries, their history, and the various ties that bind their interests together; had, indeed, Providence been pleased to have fxed the foundation of this island fve hundred leagues farther into the ocean, far from the crooked politics of Europe, trained up to defend herself alone, and with the natural advantages she so eminently possesses, she might be fully sufcient to her own security; but nature and fate have ordained it otherwise; placed as it were in the bosom of Great Britain, guarded as it were by her, from all the rest of Europe; the two nations, now for more than fve hundred years connected together, under a common Sovereign, identifed together. As one nation, as to all the other powers of Europe, using the same laws, language, manners, and religion, the natives of the one country received as natives in the other, bound together by the sympathies of friendship, kindred, common properties, common interests, serving without distinction, in the armies and feets of their common Sovereign, endeared by mutual dangers, and triumphing in mutual victories, the man who would attempt to rend them asunder, must be a deadly enemy to both, or a most ill-judging friend to either. I can conceive nothing more dreadful than such an attempt, and nothing more fatal than its success. It would be tearing the arm from the body, agonizing both, producing debility in the one, and efecting the total destruction of the other; every true patriot in either country will feel, that their mutual Union is their best individual security. Jealousies between her nation, who are, perhaps, injudiciously taught to consider themselves as separate, are hardly to be avoided. But, / sure I am, that the enlightened patriots of both countries, will one day see, that every progress made towards, rooting out jealously, distrust, and all idea of separate interest, is a progress towards mutual security and mutual happiness. Is it not then worth while to enquire, how this can be obtained, and whether the nature of our connection may not be improved, whether the two nations may not be safely, successfully, and happily drawn together more closely. Teir present form an Union, is that of an united crown and divided legislature; is it not a question well worth discussing, in the present situation of this country, whether an united crown and united legislature, might not be a form of Union more permanent; less apt to promote jealousy and discord; and best providing for the security and happiness of both. For my part, Sir, I freely own it appears to me to

76

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

come to this alternative; if the Legislatures of the two countries are really independent, and the parliament should be the faithful organ of the will of the people, the causes of jealousy existing between two countries, and especially commercial countries, with separate rights of trade, being, as they would be in that case given way to and indulged by the parliament of Ireland, would rise from a war of infammatory recriminations, and protecting or prohibiting duties, to an angry and violent attempt at a separation between the two countries, and a war, which, considering the present intimate connection between them, I cannot but look upon as a kind of civil war, that would be more fatal and ruinous in its progress, and probably end in shaking Great Britain to its centre, and perhaps in the severe humiliation of Ireland. On the other hand, if the one Legislature is to be kept in a real, though not in a nominal dependence upon the other; is there not too, a great probability of this being efected / by a dark and crooked policy, fatal to the political character of the people so governed; might it not be looked upon as necessary policy, to shield that Legislature from the people whom it represented, by promoting disunion among themselves, and thus depriving them of their natural strength, or by the establishment of a system of infuence, fatal to probity and morals, or by both? And will not the bad efects of such a system, open, at last the eyes of the people, and make them see, that an united legislature is the only security for permanent tranquillity and permanent happiness? And is it not always better to anticipate experience, and not wait for the lesson of misfortune? In the history of Europe, we fnd nations united for a time by one Crown and separate legislatures, and have they not all since, from a sense and feeling of the weakness and bad political efects of such a constitution – have they not all since, either consolidated or separated? Tese refections, and many such presenting themselves to my mind, incline me to think a Legislative Union a measure necessary for the protection, strength, and happiness of these two united kingdoms, and of course advantageous to each. But upon so great a question as this, involving such a variety of considerations in so many diferent lights, it would be arrogant presumption in me to say, that I may not have fallen into a mistake, which more mature refection would correct; but do not the gentlemen on the other side, also say, that they are by no means pledged to the opinion, that an Union may not hereafer be considered by them as a measure advantageous for Ireland? Do not these very circumstances demand a temporary adjournment, and more matured discussion of this question? And would it be wise, in the frst instance, to adopt a motion, which goes to decide against it altogether – (a cry of no, no.) / I admit it does not on the face of it import to be an absolute rejection, but will it not be considered as such by the public, who will not attend so much to the cautious manner in which it is worded; but considering the Bar to have met to day merely for the purpose of deciding on the question of Union or no Union; and will, if we come to an absolute decision to day, take for granted, and perhaps

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

77

not in that be much mistaken that it was intended as a fnal one; but to meet the question on the ground which the framer of the resolution seemed to put it, he owned he would not be of opinion that it was either improper or dangerous to agitate it as present; if the measure was as necessary a one as it appeared to him to be, it never could be deferred without danger. Te two countries were at present, with exception of the rebels alone, in a state of cordial agreement and good will, who could tell the moment when causes of discord might spring up between them, that would make all negociation upon a subject of this kind impossible, and as to the danger of discussing it at present, it certainly did not strike him in the same light as it did the gentlemen on the other side; the chief danger which he thought to be apprehended from the discussion of it was that it was from its nature a subject ft to be used by popular declaimers as a topic of popular infammation, and the debate of this night had not removed that apprehension; if even in this place and in that assembly, where of all others, calm and enlightened discussion was to be expected; some gentlemen had not refrained from that species of eloquence that is addressed to infame the passions rather than convince the understanding; it certainly was to be dreaded that much more of that would take place in the discussions which this subject must undergo and ought to undergo among the people at large. Tis was from the very nature of the subject a / danger always to be apprehended, let it be discussed when it will. But he owned he could not but think there is less danger of this at the time, when the minds of the people have been sobered by misfortune, when we have been taught by severe experience, the danger of using, and the danger of attending to popular declamation; and the mischiefs, the dread mischiefs, to which popular agitation may lead. He thought no time was so likely for the people seriously to seek for a remedy, as when they seriously felt the evils of their peculiar situation. And here as on the question in general, he thought there was also something to be enquired into and known of the opinions of the people, with regard to this question, before we could pronounce with certainty on those very dangers of which, they seemed so apprehensive. All the gentlemen who moved the adjournment asked, was time for mature discussion; if the truth of the propositions, which the gentlemen on the other side had brought it, was so clear as they contended, would appear less so afer one months consideration. Can truth ever be injured by examination? and has an aversion to the permitting of it ever been considered as a test of its conviction? He owned, he thought too for the sake of the character of a fuller and more complete investigation of this subject ought to be adopted, and would be more becoming than a precipitate decision. Tis assembly stood high, and he would say deservedly high, in the estimation of this country; he really knew not where there could be found in the whole kingdom an assembly so numerous, with judgments equally exercised, equal to them in information in talents and independence. Of all bodies in the commu-

78

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

nity, it would least become them [to] decide without examination. Te present was no time for shrinking from it, we were come to that crisis in our history, when we must look our situation seriously in the face, and ask ourselves what must be the remedy? / Separation from England was an idea only inculcated by that power who wished to divide, in order to conquer, and to conquer, only in order to blast the prosperity of both. If the people get their due weight in the country while the Legislatures are the distinct. I think it is easy to see a gradual progress mutual complaints, plunging us at last into a state most calamitous and most destructive. We may to be sure, shutting our eyes to the dangers that are before us, and with the thoughtlessness, peculiar to our national character, hobble on in our old system some years longer; but where will it end, and are we not treading on a dangerous mine when we know not to what time, or from what quarter it may spring and overwhelm us with destruction, and among a people alternating between the extremes of political apoths80 and the ebullitions81 of frantic rebellion. All the movers of the adjournment asked was, that in matters of such infnite moment, they would refect before they acted, consider before they decide; and surely that request was not unreasonable. He thanked the Bar for the kind attention with which they had honoured him, an attention which when he plainly saw the majority of their opinions difered so widely from his, he could not but regard as a proof of their liberality and candour; again repeated that he would not have obtruded himself on their attention. Afer the debate had been so long protracted, if it had not been that agreeing in opinion with the gentlemen who moved the adjournment from the frst, and hearing nothing, he has changed his opinion since; it would have been acting a mean and ungenerous part to have lef that gentlemen unsupported. Mr. Geraghty82 supported the motion for adjournment, and argued, that the objection which was so confdently relied on, against the expedience of discussing / the question of Union at this time, from the peculiar state of public afairs, was utterly untenable, because it is the very extraordinary and distracted condition of this kingdom, which creates the very necessity for the measure; and it is very curious logic to advance a state of disorder and derangement, as an objection to a proposal which is produced by that state itself, and expressly brought forward for its amendment and relief. If in private life an individual, by a series of misconduct and extravagance, dissipates his fortune, and his afairs become embarrassed, so that nothing but a sale of his estate can save him from ruin and imprisonment, it would be highly ridiculous on proposing that sale to him, to assign as an objection, that which is the very circumstance which makes the sale necessary – namely, that his fnances are distracted. It has been objected, that during this war Great Britain has rejected every application for change and innovation in her internal government, because there was a revolutionary spirit afoat, which made it dangerous, and might extend that change to revolution;

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

79

and therefore it is asked, why make the present proposal to Ireland at this particular period? He answered, that it is this same revolutionary spirit which is so high in Ireland as to call for some immediate radical measure, to absorb and to extinguish it. In England it is repressed by the confdence of the nation in the excellence and frmness of their Government. But in Ireland it is encouraged by defects in the civil administration, which are not denied, but which arise from the peculiar frame of the Irish Government, and the imperfect connection between the two countries, and which defects will be removed and eradicated by an incorporated Union. Te existence of these undeniable faults in the Irish Government, is made the pretext for / demanding changes in the Parliamentary establishment, under which pretext is concealed the deep plan of efecting a democratical Legislature and separation from England. As is proved by the Parliamentary report of the proceedings of the United Irishmen,83 that the history of this country, since the year 1782, establishes the growth and progress of a disposition in this country to separate and that the moment has come in which this disposition must be combated, or it will prevail, and that at this instant there is no alternative between a reform, which will produce revolution, and an Incorporated Union, which will prevent separation. Te power of Parliament to adopt this measure is incontrovertible. It has carried the succession to the crown, and interrupted hereditary right; it has determined the time of its own duration, and frequently varied it; it prescribes its own qualifcations, and determines what description of the people shall exercise the elective right, and under what circumstances; and it has, in some instances, taken away the right of election altogether. Tese, and many other instances, establish what has been called the omnipotence of Parliament, because upon the pure and genuine principle of the English Constitution, the two houses of Parliament, when assembled, are not viewed in any delegated capacity, but are considered as the very body of the nation itself, and therefore has the full controul of its own conduct. It never was heard that the English Parliament, at any period since its foundation, declined any great national arrangement from its own incompetence, and wished an appeal to the people. Tis idea is desired from some other system, seems particularly taken from the undigested and unmatured Constitution of France. / And in the same error is it said, that the proposed incorporated Union would be a violation of the Constitution, as if the Constitution of this country were one simple and indivisible thing, which is also a French idea, instead of being, as it is, the systematised accumulation of the diferent legislative provisions of judicial determinations, which, from time to time, have followed the public necessities, which the national wisdom has occasionally modifed, according to new exigencies, and new combinations of circumstances, and which experience has improved and consolidated; and therefore it is unintelligible to ascribe an individual’s nature to such a complicated whole, or to say that a partial modifca-

80

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

tion is inconsistent and repugnant to that; the genius and character of which is to be modifed, varied, extended, or contracted, as the necessities, the liberty, and the happiness of the state may require. Mr. M‘Cleland84 opposed the original resolution and supported the adjournment. Mr. Leader.85 – If the gentleman who has just sat down, had not positively declared himself friendly to the amendment, I should certainly, from his mode of argument, have considered him a zealous supporter of the original motion – what was his description of the state of the country – he was pleased to represent the loyal party triumphant, and from thence to infer, that the opportunity was favourable for a due discussion of this great and unexampled measure. What – does he mean not to calculate on the re-union to the state, of those who have been disafected, or of those who have been classed with the disafected; or does he consider it impossible, that we can ever become in this country, / what we always ought to have been – one family – one body – infuenced by the same opinion, and actuated by a common sympathy. Let me ask him, is it the consent of a part of the nation, that he only looks for, in the consideration of a question which, if carried, is intended, at least, to bind the whole nation for ever. Is it liberal, is it wise, is it just, to adopt such a mode of conduct; all those who have spoken in favour of the adjournment, have pressed the idea of a Legislative incorporating Union with Great Britain being by possibility advantageous; so that whilst some of the supporters of the adjournment have, in their speeches, clearly shewed, that the country was not in a ft situation to have the question of Union agitated; other have, by dwelling on the possibility of an Union being advantageous, admitted the extreme importance of the discussion; and they have together superseded the necessity of any further argument, in favour of the original motion, by being themselves, by their arguments, its most unanswerable supporters. Since the question has been read from the Chair, I regret that it has not been more closely adhered to, as read by the learned and much respected mover (Mr. Saurin), it was most simple, it struck me as containing two propositions; the frst the innovation of the constitution, the second, the time in which that innovation was attempted; the frst part of the motion is self-evident, – an incorporating Union with Great Britain, would amount to a dissolution of the existing government, much less to an innovation; on the second subject, I would make an observation – what I ask is the present situation of the country – is it not in the hands of a foreign army – to my argument it is not material whether its presence is or is not necessary, but the fact is so. – Is this then the time for the discussion? Can / the Hessian86 or the Highlander,87 feel an interest or a sympathy with us, in a question which afects the dearest and most important interests of ourselves and our posterity. I have no doubt but that they would protect us from the enemy. But the foreign force in Ireland is estimated at 40,000 men in

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

81

arms, (a gentlemen from the opposite side replied not so many), I may be wrong – I would not, for the purpose of the argument, intentionally exaggerate it; my authority, however, is a publication, which is ascribed to a gentleman at the head of the military department;88 I do not say that this force, abstracted and separated from the people, and under the guidance of one personage, would be employed to any unworthy purpose – certainly not; but this I must say, that it immanacles the mind, although it may commit no insult to the person. I heard, no later than yesterday, that persons had been executed under sentences of court-martial, within a few days, in an adjacent county; scarce a paper is without some heart-rending account of popular excesses and can it be wise to discuss a question which can only tend to infame and exasperate the public mind, and if carried, must have all the appearance of being extorted by force, and not the result of inclination. I do confess, that I esteem it an outrage on our feelings, and an insult on our humanity, that a question of this momentous nature should be coquetted89 into our country, before its bleeding wounds are bound up, before we have had time to condole at our respective losses, and before we have heard from our families, the details of injuries which they might have sustained, or calamities which they might have sufered, in a never to be too sincerely regretted civil contest. Without being the dupe of faction, or the slavish and submissive tool of power, I feel myself, from the turn which the debate has taken, to be in a most / embarrassed predicament; the supporters of the adjournment, profess a desire to have the merits of the measure canvassed, though the resolution precludes the discussion, as dangerous and impolitic, and they complain that no satisfactory arguments have been advanced, though they, themselves, have not travelled out of the circle of desultory observation. For one, I should be happy to give my aid in the discussion of the commercial part of the question. Exclusive of the innumerable ruinous consequences of an Union; in my mind, there can be no question of the impolicy of exposing ourselves to be undersold by the British merchant, in the home market, for the only compensation which Great Britain can ofer, and that an extremely delusive one, an unrestricted, instead of the at present modifed right to endeavour to undersell the British merchant, in the British market. My anxiety, however, to confne myself to the question, prevents my going further than to declare my opinion on this subject; but, I confess. I dread extremely, that under the existing administration, the national voice cannot be fairly collected on this measure; acts of terror and of torture, leave a lasting impression on the human mind, and cannot fail to operate on the immediate public conduct of a large portion of the community, and it surely would be infnitely better, that the measure should never be discussed, than that it should receive a hollow and insincere approbation And here let me deplore the ungenerous, the unmanly conduct of the British Cabinet. Why was not this question proposed on any former occasion. Tis Cabinet was well acquainted with our danger before the Rebellion. If the Union

82

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

was a wise and unexceptionable measure, and calculated to prevent future conspiracy / and rebellion? Why was it not used to counteract and diminish the horrors of that conspiracy from which we can scarcely be considered to have escaped? Has any man of that Cabinet ever before publicly expressed himself inclined to this measure? Why in 1785, when the afairs of Ireland were so perturbed, did not Mr. Pitt express the expediency of this Minister.90 We recollect that the Administrations of those times were running a course of popularity, in their conduct to Ireland. We know that the stubborn and independent spirit of our country at that time made it necessary for his Majesty’s Minister to weigh with trembling solicitude and anxiety; though not with the expanded views of genuine magnanimity, the reciprocal interests of the two countries. Would the old Volunteers of Ireland have accepted the proposal of an Union? Since then in 1785, when the public mind was unbendingly devoted to the public interests, and when the afairs of the country were agitated in the English and Irish Parliaments for some months,91 the Minister, and those who have deserted the opposition of England to support the Minister, did not think it advisable to suggest the expediency of an Union, shall I, in 1798, when there is an immense armed foreign force, in the country, and while it is under the infuence of panic, esteem it a proper time to propound and agitate such a question. No Sir, on the contrary, I shall entertain an encreased suspicion of the expediency of the measure from the circumstance, alone of its being attempted at a period so peculiarly unfavourable to a fair, dispassionate, and honourable investigation. It is no argument, “that the augmented danger of the State requires it,” because the same force which would destroy the existing Government, would separate the two kingdoms. A learned / gentleman (Mr. Grady) has been pleased to say that the Catholics of the South, (Waterford, Limerick, Cork,) “to a man, are anxious for the measure.” No other Executive Director92 ever had so rapid information. It is scarce possible that the rumour of Union could have reached those parts of the kingdom, when the gentleman takes upon himself to say, that remote and distant bodies of men were unanimously agreed to the measure. I am satisfed that at this hour, that the rumour has not reached the extremities of our island. Te gentlemen has spoken of his intercourse with, and information from those quarters of the country. Te statements of fact has been already fatly contradicted by a Catholic gentleman, (Mr, Bellew,) but who has given this learned gentlemen this exclusive information. Tere are many near me as deeply connected with the South, as he is. Tan myself, no man can respect and revere the Catholics of that quarter more highly. But no meeting has been convened, no resolution has been passed. It is notorious that this meeting is the frst which has been summoned. For my part, I deplore from my heart any restrictions under which that great mass of Irishmen may labour. But I do not think it consistent with the uniform wisdom of the enlightened men of the Catholic body, to let in

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

83

the food of British taxation, to surrender the independence of Ireland, and lay their liberties and commerce at the feet of the British Administration for ever; on the wretched presumption that they would not be more abused. Te Catholics have every thing to expect from the augmented liberality of their countrymen, equal and impartial justice. But in common with the Protestant, they will look with disgust at an innovation, which in the present state of the two countries, would diminish their rental, by depressing our home-trade; and would desolate our country, at the future aggrandisement / of Britain. I rose merely to deliver a few words on the time this question is propounded, and I hope that I may not be entirely unsuccessful in bringing back this meeting to the only question which is before us for our consideration and decision, “the danger and impropriety of attempting this innovation in the present distracted situation of our country.” Mr. Plunkett,93 very ably proved the extreme danger and impropriety of agitating the question of Union, at such a time as the present. Should the Administration, however, propose a Union now; he had no doubt but it would be carried. Fear, animosity, a want of time to consider cooly its consequences, and forty thousand British troops in Ireland would carry the measure. But in a little time the people would awake, as from a dream, and what consequence would then follow, he trembled to think. For himself, he declared he opposed an Union, principally because he was convinced it would, accelerate a total separation of the two countries. He dissuaded the meeting from adopting the motion of of [sic] adjournment, because it would give a handle for further misrepresentation to those libellers who had already dared to misrepresent the motive and conduct of the Bar. It would give them an opportunity to say that the adjournment of the question argued the sense of the Bar to be for a Union. Tose audcious [sic] libellers had already ventured to misrepresent in a public print the meeting of the Bar, as a military body, on Friday last. He could not believe the insolent libeller was one of the body. But some person, within or without, had taken occasion in ten minutes afer that meeting was held, to carry to the Castle94 the falsehood, that the meeting broke up because the good sense of the Bar thought it not right in them to agitate in any manner the question of an / Union. He continued to argue, with great force and energy, upon the impropriety of the time chosen to bring this measure forward, and made many strong and pointed observations, well suited to the occasion. Mr. Lynch,95 (a Catholic Barrister) concurred in opinion with Mr. Bellew, and stated to his knowledge, the Catholics of Galway and other parts of Connaught were strongly against the measure of an Union. Mr. Francis Dobbs96 now rose, and said, that afer the long debate that had taken place, he would trespass only a few minutes on the time of the assembly. He said that if any doubts had remained on his mind, the arguments he had just heard from his learned friend and colleague, would have removed them. He was

84

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

therefore decidedly for the resolution proposed by the truly respectable Barrister who opened the business of the meeting. By doing so, he did not mean to pledge himself on the great question of an Union. He was, however, free to confess, that so far as he had considered the subject, he was of opinion that none would, or perhaps could be proposed, that would be advantageous to Ireland; but he might possibly fnd himself in the melancholy situation of considering it as the least of two evils. Tis could only arise from our own improper conduct as a nation. He therefore trusted, that every Irishman of every description, would see the necessity of healing measures; and that our own Legislature following up such opinions, would enact such laws in the ensuing session, as would put an end to the question for ever. He said he was happy to hear the patriotic sentiments expressed by many eloquent speakers who had proceeded him. He was also happy to see the warm / approbation with which those sentiments were received, by nearly the whole of that assembly. He hoped the same zeal would follow them to every place where their infuence extended, and that at length all animosities among ourselves, would yield before the great and desirable objects of constitutional freedom, and national prosperity. Mr. Webber97 said, that he had come into that room determined not to take a part in the debate – it was a sacrifce of a public, to a private feeling; but that the insinuation which had more than once been made against gentlemen holding ofce – (he is a chairman of sessions) had induced him, though reluctantly, to depart from that determination. He trusted he was above being infuenced by so paltry a motive. He was sure he was above shrinking from the suspicion of it. He considered the question of adjournment, though that least, if at all discussed, to be the only one then before the assembly. Tat should have his vote, and not on the grounds of an evasion of the original question, which he only lamented, was not more fully and fairly before them. For his part he was not one of those who thought the Bar as a body, however respectable, were at all called on to decide on, or discuss the question; nor did he think it one on which they were likely to have much weight. Te gentlemen who thought otherwise, urged that discussion, had avowed their purpose to be, to infuence and lead the public mind on the subject. If they were to have that efect, it should at least be on mature and dispassionate deliberation. Te learned gentleman who had proposed the original resolution, had objected to the conduct of Government as precipitate, in / giving the public mind only the interval of from October to the meeting of Parliament, to consider the subject. Other gentlemen, who had not thought proper to emulate that dignifed moderation of his truly respectable friend, had inveighed, and in proper terms, against this conduct as indecent. Would those gentlemen now come forward, and urge the assembly to decide, in one night, upon one heated, declamatory debate, a question, which they reviled the government for not giving years to consider. If they would undertake to legislate for the public mind, at least they should assume the appearance of deliberation, and sacrifce somewhat of their zeal to their consistency.

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

85

Much had been said in support of the original resolution, respecting the inaptness of the time to discussion or deliberation, and the consequent impropriety of stirring so momentous a question at such a juncture; and a learned gentleman (Mr. Plunket) with his usual talents, had forcibly impressed that objection. He had asked, and triumphantly, whether a people, one half of whom were sufering under punishment, and the other under outrages and persecutions, were in a state of mind to deliberate calmly on a great political subject. For his part he did not think that the active citizens who constituted the frst description, were then, or at any time before, in the deliberate habit of mind required by his learned friend; neither did he think them likely, at any future time, to be found in that state of philosophic composure, which his learned friend seemed so sanguine to expect. It was not so with the wretched victims of their ferocious wickedness. To those who remained of them, the present moment was perhaps the fttest for deliberation, which had ever or could occur to them in their lives. / Afer the frst paroxysms of grief or distress, the mind is in its most deliberative state. Calamity purifes the understanding, and corrects the heart. It sofens down the gusts of passion, and dispels the mists of prejudice. At what time then can men be so qualifed to refect, or so forcibly called to a just view of their interests? He did believe they were capable of considering those interests calmly aud dispassionately; but if they were not, he was sure they were not likely to be assisted by the example of this assembly, in which calmness is clamoured for, and deliberation declaimed on. Te Chairman then put the question, and a division took place:– Ayes, for the Adjournment, 32 Noes, 166 On which the following Resolutions were put and carried:– At a most numerous meeting of the Irish Bar, convened by public notice, on Sunday the 9th of December, 1798, at the Courts, and from thence adjourned to the Exhibition-room, William-street, the following Resolutions were agreed to:– AMBROSE SMITH, Esq. Father, in the Chair. Resolved, “Tat the measure of a Legislative Union of this kingdom and Great Britain, is an innovation which it would be highly dangerous and improper to propose at the present juncture of the country.” It was then resolved, Tat the Chairman do leave the Chair, and that Wm. Saurin, Esq. do take the same.” Resolved, Tat the thanks of this meeting be presented to our worthy Father, Ambrose Smith, Esq. for his very proper conduct in the Chair. Resolved, Tat the foregoing Resolutions be published. Signed by order, Wm. RIDGEWAY,98 Secretary. /

86

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

PROTEST. Te undersigned Members of the Irish Bar, having attended at a meeting of that body on Sunday the 9th instant, at which meeting it was proposed by Mr. Saurin, to come to the following Resolution:– “Resolved, Tat the measure of a Legislative Union of this kingdom and Great Britain, is an innovation which it would be highly dangerous and improper to propose at the present juncture of the country.” And the proposed Resolution having appeared highly objectionable, as well as unseasonable; to the undersigned, the question of adjournment for one month was moved, which latter motion was negatived by a large majority, and the original Resolution put and carried. Te undersigned think it incumbent upon them to lay before the public the reasons which have induced them to dissent from so great a number of their brethren. First, Because the original Resolution could not be adopted without betraying the Bar into a precipitate disapprobation of a measure, the term of which were unknown, and of which consequently either approbation or disapprobation must be premature, and could have no other tendency than by a hasty censure to prevent the discussion of a great and important question, in which the constitutional, landed and commercial interests of this kingdom, as well as the safety of the empire, were materially involved; whereas the proposed adjournment / evidently tended to mature the question in the mind both of the Bar and of the public, and to promote calm and deliberate discussion. Secondly, Because in resolving that the measure of a Legislative Union of this kingdom and Great Britain is an innovation, it appears to the undersigned that it was intended virtually to decide against the principle of any Union, however fair, liberal just, and wise; such Union might be in its terms and provisions, inasmuch as altho’ a change or alteration may be introduced into any system, not only consistently with, but in furtherance of the ends and essential principles of such system; yet the term innovation is always considered, and universally accepted as the introduction of something in its nature, foreign from, and discordant with that previous system or constitution of things upon which it is intruded, and tending to the subversion and destruction of its essential principles; and therefore also it appears to the undersigned, that the frst branch of the Resolution carried, insinuates a position which the latter branch of that Resolution evades. Tirdly, Because the chief grounds on which the original Resolution was attempted to be supported, namely, that the state of things in Ireland, and the agitation of the public mind, render it dangerous and improper to introduce or debate the question of Union at present, appear to the undersigned to fail, inasmuch as it does not seem to them that the present political organization of this country has been found to be productive of so much tranquillity or happiness, as to induce a / friend to Ireland to shrink at this particular time, from all

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar

87

idea of alteration; and also, because if any agitation has taken place in the public mind, it has evidently been occasioned by attempts to dissolve the connection which subsists between this country and Great Britain, which attempts, long previously projected, having been lately made; and the design being by no means relinquished, the undersigned conceive, that if a strengthening of that connection be desirable as opposing an obstacle to the success of similar attempts in future; no more proper period than the present could be chosen for introducing or discussing a measure which has this strengthening of the connexion between the sister countries for its object. Fourthly, Because it seems to the undersigned that the proposed adjournment led to a calm deliberate discussion, without having any tendency to suppress the opinion of the Bar, upon the question of an Union, and would, if adopted, have had the good efect of preventing the Bar from committing themselves upon a question, upon which they are at present not sufciently informed. Fifhly, Because the undersigned do imagine, that on so complicated and extensive a question as that of an Union, (on the advantages of which, ignorant as they are of the conditions on which it shall be proposed, they expressly disclaim pledging themselves to any opinion), the public will be decided by a full and adequate discussion / of its interests, and will not be dictated to upon such a subject, by any description of men, however respectable. N. B. Te names marked thus (*) are of Barristers who were not present at the Division, but who agree in sentiment with the minority. St. George Daly, J. Jameson, *William Smith101 Tomas Monsell,103 C.K. Garnett,105 *John White107 *William Johnson,109 *Archibald Redford,110 James M‘Clelland, *William Turner,113 *John Schoales,115 J. Homan,117 *W. Norcott,119 *Tomas Vickers,120 Tomas Grady, John Dwyer, Jun.123 John Beresford,125

R. G. Leslie,99 Tomas Scott,100 P.F. Henchy,102 J. Keller,104 Henry Brook,106 Robert Torrens,108 James Geraghty, F. W. Fortescue,111 *Richard F. Sharkey,112 J. D. Clarke,114 Tomas Morgell,116 Wm. Longfeld,118 J. W. Stokes, John Ball, Jun.121 Henry Cole,122 *William Roper,124

FINIS.

[BUSHE], THE UNION. CEASE YOUR FUNNING

[Charles Kendal Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning (Dublin: Printed by James Moore, 1798).

Tis pamphlet is full of ironic and even sarcastic attacks on Edward Cooke’s famous pamphlet supporting the Union, Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered, which is printed above on pp. 15–39. Te author pretends that Cooke cannot be serious in his arguments supporting Union and he even suggests that he must be a radical United Irishman masquerading as a loyal Englishman. He takes this line because he cannot accept that any of the arguments that Cooke presents in favour of Union can possibly be taken seriously. He implies that Cooke appears to be foolishly arguing that the independent Irish Parliament was the cause of the recent Irish rebellion and French invasion, a claim that no one should believe. He also implies that no serious person could claim, as Cooke appears to be doing, that Union will bring Ireland enormous commercial and political advantages. He maintains that the Irish people must not be so credulous that they believe Cooke’s claims. Cooke and the British government are advocating Union because the Irish Parliament is too independent and too ready to serve the interests of the Irish people rather than those of the British government. Clearly, the Irish people should unite in defence of their separate and independent parliament. At least seven editions of this pamphlet were published in Dublin as well as editions in London and Cork. In some editions the phrase ‘or, Te Rebel Detected’ was added to the title. Te author of this pamphlet, Charles Kendal Bushe (1767–1843), was an Irish lawyer and MP for Callan from 1796 to 1799 and for Donegal borough from 1799 to 1800. Despite his vehement opposition to the Union, he accepted the post of Solicitor-General for Ireland from 1805 to 1822 and then became Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in Ireland from 1822 to 1841. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800.

– 89 –

[Charles Kendal Bushe], The Union. Cease Your Funning (Dublin: Printed by James Moore, 1798).

“Oh that mine Enemy would write a Book!”1

[…] Cease your Funning. I LOVE wit as much as any man, but a joke may certainly sometimes be carried too far. – I have never submitted to the justice of Lord Shafesbury’[s]2 fanciful position, that ridicule is the test of truth,3 and I own I think its application is peculiarly ofensive when political subjects of the deepest and most serious importance, are treated with idle levity and bufoon irony. – Tese sentiments have been principally excited by reading a pamphlet entitled Arguments for and against an Union considered.4 – Te Author of this work has evidently written afer the model of some of Swif’s5 lighter compositions; a style which in my apprehension has never till now been successfully imitated, tho’ attempted with some talent by the supposed annotators of the late Alderman George Faulkner,6 and in some few other instances. Tis stile consists altogether in the art of supporting / in a strain of grave irony the opposite of the opinion which you mean to establish. It is a good-humoured application of the argument called by logicians argumentum ad absurdum;7 but whether it partakes more of jest or sophism, I again protest against the use of either upon subjects of national importance and public concern. I shall briefy enumerate a few of the most prominent artifces by which the Author of this work, who I am convinced is either a member of Opposition or an absolute United Irishman, endeavours by an afected recommendation of the measure to cry down and depreciate the projected Union, the only chance of this country’s salvation; premising that, in order to give a higher relish to his ridicule, he has had the address to circulate a report with very successful industry that the work in question is the production of an English gentleman of considerable talents who is an Irish member of Parliament, and in high ofcial situation in Dublin Castle.8 Indeed such has been the prevalence of this report, and so well simulated is the mask assumed, that

– 91 –

92

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

on the frst perusal I was scarcely able to distinguish whether the Author was in earnest or not, and I am credibly informed that to this hour several well-meaning people continue in the erroneous opinion that he was so. / I do not pretend to trace the progress of this facetious writer regularly from page to page, but shall point out a few of his topics which appear to me sufcient to detect at once the duplicity of the style and the depth of the intention. He afects with great appearance of gravity throughout the entire pamphlet to denounce the existence of the Irish Parliament as the cause of the late rebellion and invasion, and he draws from these principles once established an inevitable conclusion that the return of such calamities is only to be prevented by the annihilation of the cause of them. Here, indeed, latet anguis in Herbâ.9 Tis is the very language of the United Irishmen. – Te same positions, the same inferences, are to be found faintly visible in the speeches of all the Opposition members in England and Ireland, and glaringly conspicuous in every number of the Press,10 and Union Star;11 avowing themselves in the confessions of Doctor M’Nevin,12 proclaiming themselves in the manifestos of Arthur O’Connor.13 Is it not evident then that the Author in question is such as I have described him? – Is it not evident that by insidiously inferring the necessity of an Union from the corruption of the Irish Legislature, he in fact directs the attention of this deluded nation at one and the same moment to the pretence of a Reform and the project of a Separation? – He / never imputes the late calamities of this country to any thing but Parliament, and so far from accusing the prevalence of French principles or the extravagance of French ambition as instrumental to our misfortunes, he never speaks of that abandoned nation without partiality and panegyric. He cannot expect that so fimsy an artifce must not be seen through by every discerning man. Every such man knows that his assertions and his arguments are equally unfounded, that his Majesty14 has every year since his accession, returned thanks to the legislature, for the patriotism and loyalty of their conduct, and that both Lord Cornwallis15 and Lord Camden,16 have repeatedly declared (from the throne) that the discomfture of the disafected and rebellious, was entirely owing to the virtue, spirit, and sagacity of Parliament. It is well known that if it was not a good Parliament, it would never pass the intended Union, which is to be the salvation of the country, and which there is very little doubt, will be passed by a great majority – notwithstanding the sly opposition, and afected support, of such wolves in sheep’s clothing, as the author of the pamphlet in question. But this writer knew very well that his inference / was a non sequitur;17 that in truth the Union is to be conceded to Ireland, because the Parliament is a good one, and deserves to go to a better place – and that even if the Legislature, as he insinuates, was the cause of our misfortunes, it evidently could not improve our condition, to remove these representative delinquents18 into a more remote theatre for the exhibition of their depravity, and give new tempta-

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

93

tion and opportunity to transgess at a distance from the controul and censure of their constituents; he saw plainly, that every thinking mind would be struck by the disproportion of the remedy to the evil, and would of itself precipitate into the real conclusion – that so abandoned a legislature could only be corrected by radical reform, or complete dissolution. Tus have I satisfactorily proved, in this instance, that a concealed United Irishman has jesuitically19 assumed the style and character of a loyal Englishman, who does honour to our country by representing it, for the basest and worst of purposes. It providentially happens, that the best concerted and best executed fraud cannot long remain undiscovered, and frequently is the instrument of discovering itself. Tus, reader, it is worth observing, how artfully this disafected / scribbler introduces an eulogy upon the French Republic. Even the incorporating Union, which is to be the salvation of the country, he afects to recommend principally upon the example of France, well knowing that this salutary measure stands independently upon its own intrinsic merits, and really seeking to depreciate its excellence by putting it upon an improper footing. Vide page 8 of this work, where you may fnd these words: – “France has not only united to herself, and incorporated a great addition of territory, but has rendered absolutely dependent on her will almost all the smaller states which surround her.”20 Mark the vile and profigate insinuation, that the consequence of our Union must be an absolute dependence of Ireland upon the will of England, whereas, every unprejudiced man knows, that, in fact, an Union is the only thing which can secure the independence of Ireland, and ensure the salvation of the country. He proceeds – “Geneva is incorporated, Savoy is incorporated, all the Austrian provinces in Flanders, all the German states on this side of the Rhine are incorporated, Spain is subject,”21 &c. &c. It would be disgusting to transcribe more of this nauseous hypocrisy. Te reader has already perceived the drif of it. In the frst place, it seeks, by these pretended comparisons, to excite an idle national pride, and to suggest to Ireland how little her case resembles that of Geneva, / (which contains about 25,000 inhabitants) or Savoy, or any petty province, or conquered enemy. But Ireland will not be diverted from her great object by such silly sophism; she knows her own greatness and dissimilitude to those afronting caricatures, and she adopts the Union upon its own intrinsic merits, and because it is certainly to be the salvation of the country. Te second object is not less mischievous, and indeed it was scarcely to be expected that any man could have the audacity to pronounce, even under the mask of this scribe, an exaggerated and fulsome panegyric upon the enemies of his country. We all know very well for what purposes certain persons thought it proper to magnify all the exploits of the French. Te invincibility of their troops was a constant theme of declamation with the paragraph writers of the Press, and other coadjutors of this pamphleteer, at the time those troops were impatiently expected for the invasion of this country, and now

94

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

that the Great Nation22 has been defeated in her attempt to efect an incorporating Union with Ireland, the same gentry fnd it expedient to renovate the hopes of their party afer the late disappointment, and the wretch whom I am now employed in detecting, in his pretended recommendation of an Union, absolutely adopts the cant of French phraseology, and talks of establishing an united empire, one / and indivisible. – Vide page 9.23 Nor are these the only instances in which the rebel vocabulary breaks through, and exposes the hypocrite. In page 11, the gentleman has thought proper to say – “Te king of England resides in another kingdom – the councils of the government of Ireland are famed in the British cabinet – the government of Ireland is actually administered by a British Lord Lieutenant, who distributes the patronage of the Crown – the Irish Parliament is subject to British infuence, and near one million of the rents of this kingdom are annually exported to absentees – nor can this inconvenience cease whilst afairs remain as at present.”24 It sometimes happens to a man, on hearing particular things, to fancy he has heard them before, and to ask himself, where did I meet this last? Just-so did I feel upon perusing this passage. I rubbed my eyes, but found it was not a dream; for, on taking down an old fle of the Press, which was my part of the plunder in ransacking a rebel’s house as a yeoman, I found not only the sentiments, but the identical phrases. Te weak argument by which he would thus injure the cause of Union is this – that if English infuence at present predominates, the transplantation of our legislature will remedy the evil, and power, consequence, and government, will revert into Irish channels once more. He knew such an inference could not be swallowed by any man at the outside / of Swif’s hospital,25 and thus, in fact, wounds the cause, by an afectation of unskillfully defending it. He knows it is his premises that are false, that they are the mere cant and fabrication of the United Irishmen, that English infuence does not predominate here, and that, in fact, an Union is made necessary by the unpliant and stubborn independence of the Irish parliament, as he is forced aferwards to admit and to exemplify by the mulish resistance in which the said parliament counteracted the interests of the empire upon the questions of the Regency, and Commercial Propositions.26 – Vide page 12 and 13 Every one knows, that afer an Union such mischievous instances can never occur again, that this is the real motive for the measure, and therefore it was necessary for this cunning incendiary to throw dust in our eyes upon the subject. I shall no longer, by disguising my sentiments, follow the example of this sophist, whom I reprobate. I have hitherto hinted my opinion of what he is, and shall now boldly avow my sentiments as to who he is. I have consulted several eminent political and literary personages, who all agree with me in discovering in legible characters the principles and style of a certain democratic counsellor, the well known author of Hurdy Gurdy, and the Old Lion of England,27 and who has recently experienced the lenity of government, / in being sufered to banish himself, and for the sake

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

95

of his health, to make Lisbon the scene of his exile. For shame, Mr. Sampson! Is this gratitude? Is this honor? Is this a return for the mercy extended to you? And had you no other way of thanking my Lord Cornwallis, than by opposing the wisest measure of his government, and by making a travesty and caricature of his Secretary,28 the vehicle of your malignity? – Tis is one of the many proofs, that rigid and efectual justice ought, long since, to have been executed upon the author of the pamphlet in question. It is almost below criticism to notice the puerile and school-boy allegories, tropes, and metaphors of this author. Such, if a writer was serious, might be considered as innocent relaxations from reasoning, and sometimes happy, though light, illustrations of argument; but when a gibing satyrist wishes to counteract this great nation, in her struggle for such a constitutional blessing as the Union, it is evident that he must intend to ridicule both the country and the measure, by comparing her successively to the Seven United Provinces,29 to the Sabines,30 to a lady going to be married, a trader going into partnership, and an aukward booby commencing his education. To the following passage, I am not able, with candour, to deny the merit of wit: / If any person has a son, uneducated, unimproved, and injured by bad habits and bad company, in order to remedy these imperfections, would it not be his frst endeavour to establish him in the best societies, and introduce him into the most virtuous, the most polished, and most learned company, and if he could once reconcile him to such companies, and teach him to relish their conversation, would he not be certain of his son’s improvement, and of his fnally turning out to his credit and satisfaction. – (Vide page 8.)31 – Tis I admit to be witty, irresistibly amusing; no gravity can withstand the idea of Old Ireland going to school to England; but while I pay this just tribute to the humour of the writer, I once again, and once for all, protest and exclaim, against the use of wit upon such occasions. – I trust there is too much good sense, or (as the Rt. Hon. the Attorney General32 says,) spirit and honor, in this nation, to be disgusted, or in any other way diverted, from the great object of an incorporating Union, either by any ludicrous or afrontive similes, or by the afectation of using weak and trifing arguments in support of it. – Te real argument in support of it, stands upon a rock, and none but cloven-footed traitors pretend there is any other; – I wish it was the only, because I am sure it is the best, argument ever advanced upon the subject, and that is, that it will certainly be the salvation of the country. Another topic of this work, I cannot pass by / with the slight censure reluctantly imposed upon pardonable wit, and amusing bagatelle.33 It is of a more serious complexion, and betrays the suppressed United Irishman in every feature. Tis Gentleman afects to recommend the Union (but non tali auxilio,34 &c.) as if it would preclude the possibility of any future rebellion at home, or invasion from abroad. – If we believe him, the existence of the Irish Parliament constitutes a disunited state of the British Empire, which leaves a particular part of it open

96

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

to the attacks of France, and if that avenue of disunion should be closed, then, &c. &c. – (Vide page 9.)35 Now we all know, that though an Union will certainly be the salvation of the nation, yet it is impossible that a new modifcation of a moral relation, can produce any change in the physical situation of the country. Under every possible mode of connexion, the coast will remain in the same geographical position as to France; and and [sic] as to the probability of internal dissension, the foolish malecontents of this island, may, perhaps, be recruited by some more foolish malecontents, whom this salutary measure of an Union may disgust, in consequence of such infammatory productions, as the Pamphlet in question. Terefore we must admit, that though an Union will certainly be the salvation of the country, yet it is possible, and in rerum natura36 that afer it is accomplished, there may be such a thing as rebellion and invasion. What then does this / Judas37 mean? Evidently to lull us; and England, into a fatal security on this important subject: – To persuade England of the physical impossibility of such events, and to give France an opportunity to elude our invincible feets, and once more annoy our domestic peace; – but it is impossible I trust that the French can be so easily gulled; they have already sufered pretty smartly by taking the advice of our Author and his auxiliaries, and I appeal to every reasonable man, whether there is not every probability that even afer an Union the gallant and generous nation of England will make upon a similar emergency as great, or nearly as great eforts to save this country from invasion as it did before such an event was in contemplation. As all the Irish militia will necessarily and ipso facto38 become Englishmen, and the Protestants become the majority of our people upon the establishment of the Union, (vide page 26) it will of course be useless to send over the English militia as heretofore, and therefore probably that may not be done, but I really cannot see why the English navy should not sail to our assistance afer this desirable event, – we know it did so before very efectually, and therefore I think I may justly conclude that as an Union was not then found necessary to bring the English navy to our succour, so that (as far as men may conjecture about futurity) there is no great probability that there is any thing in an / Union which will make it impossible for the same thing to happen again. I pass by the idle and intentionally feeble inference drawn from the preference which the United States of America gave to an incorporating union over a federal one: but as I pass, must observe upon the artifce which this sly gentleman displays in recommending upon all occasions the example of avowed republicans to this loyal nation. However, let me just hint how little analogous the cases are: in the frst place, afer the success of the rebel arms all the States of America started upon equal terms – no one had any thing to give up to another – there was, therefore, no stratum for the benefts of an incorporating union, whereas in our case Ireland has an independent Legislature established for many centuries to surrender, and must naturally expect the resulting benefts to be exactly in proportion to the sacrifce made, and perhaps it is owing to this very circum-

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

97

stance that America, notwithstanding all the advantages of an incorporating union, and the interposition of the Atlantic, has remained subject to French cabal and intrigue and all the mischiefs resulting from them; whereas in Ireland, under all its peculiar circumstances, an incorporating union will certainly be the salvation of the country. – Tis Man in the Mask39 has really passed by the only national analogy / applicable. Te case of Corsica is precisely in point. Upon the acquisition of that island in this war, England was weak enough to establish a connection with it upon such federal principles as the present connection with Ireland – an English Viceroy and Corsican Parliament; and what was the event? Te Corsican gem dropped out of the British Crown almost as soon as it was set there,40 whereas had the union been incorporate, without any Parliament at all, it would certainly, as in Ireland, have been the salvation of the country. I know very well what he means by the introduction of Scotland. I know he would suggest that England is divided from it as it was from Mercia41 by a river, and from Ireland by a sea; but the fallacy of this dark and malignant insinuation is plain to the simplest understanding. If the truth be once established, distance cannot afect it. If it be true that an incorporated union is advantageous for countries divided by a river half a mile broad, the addition of another half mile will not alter the moral, though it does the physical, position. Terefore you may add ad infnitum,42 &c. &c. Q.E.D.43 But as the Author remarks, example is the best of arguments, and what more pregnant example can be conceived than the case of America. America was united to England by an incorporated union, that is, / by an English Government without any Parliament except that at Westminster, and though the entire Atlantic lay between them, no country was ever more happy or prosperous, or advanced more rapidly in every desirable improvement, until the unnatural and profigate rebellion which broke out in the provinces, and which ended in their separation from the parent country, and which if any form of Government could have prevented it, would have been that incorporating union, the blessings of which she unmeritedly enjoyed. But it is easy to know a certain person’s sentiments of that unnatural rebellion, who in page 19, panegyrizes the virtues of Washington,44 and the sagacity of Adams,45 and who if the late dreadful rebellion had succeeded here, would have spoken with equal sincerity of the virtues of Holt46 and the sagacity of O’Connor. In speaking of Scotland, I know, too, that he would suggest to our minds discouraging ideas: For instance, that though Edinburgh has considerably improved since the Union, yet that the two events stand not in the relation of cause and efect to each other, and that such a city in the same space of time must at all events have advanced. Tis is certainly fimsy, for who can tell what might have been the situation of Edinburgh at this day if there had not been an union? Most probably the luxury that would have been induced by the residence of a Court and Legislature / would long before now have been its destruction, and it might at this hour be a heap of ruins.

98

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

He also must have wished to insinuate that all the avenues of ambition and promotion being fortunately closed in Scotland by the Union, Scotsmen are proverbial emigrants, and are obliged to transplant themselves into England, where their success in pushing their fortunes is a source of endless ridicule and national jealousy, and where in spite of all their pains in asserting themselves to be Britons and not Scotsmen, the surly natives never fail to remind them that they are not Englishmen. Why this is true; but how entirely does the application fail as to Ireland, whose natives have always been popular and favourite characters in England. We know no jealousy ever exists in the bosom of an Englishman towards an Hibernian, and that the males and females of that liberal nation have always vied in paying compliments to their fortunate neighbours. Neither does the example of Scotland militate against our adoption of an Union, for though there have been two rebellions47 in 80 years, and though in spite of an incorporating Union the French contrived to intrigue there lately, and Muir,48 Palmer,49 and others, preached republicanism and the pike philosophy in that happy province, yet we all know that / all this happened AFTER the Union, whereas in Ireland, the Union being subsequent to such misfortunes, must completely extinguish the possibility of their revival, and be in every sense the salvation of the country. I come now to the most unprincipled part of this work. Every body knows that one of the strongest and most unanswerable arguments in favour of an Union is that it must of necessity extinguish all religious animosities, and for ever silence the discordance of sectarious [sic] conficts. For instance, it is obvious that the Catholics can never hereafer complain of not participating in the constitution, because there will be no constitution for them to participate in; and that they will have nothing to ask from their Protestant brethren, because their Protestant brethren will have nothing to give them; and on the other hand, the Protestants can have no alarm least their privileges should be taken from them, when they will have nothing to to [sic] be robbed of. – Tis equitable and natural composition of claims, which otherwise must have clashed in endless discord, has almost without an exception, reconciled both parties in a common unanimity of approbation, to a measure which demonstrably will be the salvation of the country. But how does this abandoned hireling of a desperate faction, endeavour to distort this happy / circumstance, and frustrate so desirable a consummation? Forsooth he laments, with hypocritical quotation, in page 22, that it is a consummation devoutly to be wished,50 but never to be expected; and in order to tear open and fester the gaping wounds of his languishing country, he labours to disgust both religions against the Union, by afecting to represent it as exclusively advantageous to each. – He argues that each religion is to be bettered at the expense of the other, and that both must gain, because each must lose. – To the Catholic he afects to say, while the present order of things continues, the Protestant Ascendancy must be maintained; – there is no getting rid of it – the King’s

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

99

Coronation Oath – the Test Laws – the Constitution in Church and State – all stand in your way; – Government wish to serve you, but the Constitution is a Gordian Knot51 of difculties, and there is no way but cutting it asunder; What will signify an Irish Act of Parliament, if the Irish Parliament itself is out of the way? – His Majesty can have no further scruples about his oath, when his Irish Parliament have made free with theirs; in an Union all difculties will vanish, and then who knows what the King and British Parliament, may hereafer do for you. Tis is a just paraphrase of the topics he addresses insidiously to the Catholics – for this very purpose, / that they should see the tendency of his sophisms, and be prejudiced against that Union, which is to be the salvation of the country. To the Protestants he says, the Catholics are the majority now – nothing but an Union can make them the minority. For though four Catholic Irishmen, are more numerous than one Protestant Irishman, yet if to the latter you add ten Protestant Englishmen, the Protestant Irishmen will then exceed the Catholic Irishmen, in the proportion of eleven to four. – Hasten then, to work this sum, and avail yourselves of political arithmetic – Besides, your True Blue politics52 are going out of fashion – (Vide page 52) – Who will be a guarantee of that system, and whom will it content? Te Catholics will not acquiesce in its propriety – A party of Protestants in Ireland, term it unjust and absurd – Another party in England term it by fouler names, great leaders in Opposition, possibly the future Ministers of England, may condemn it, and some members of the British Cabinet are supposed to be adverse to it. Its stability may depend upon accident, upon the death of a single character, upon the change of a minister, or the temper of a Lord Lieutenant; the policy of this system is much doubted by the people of England, and while your Parliament exists, you are never secure against such contingencies. – And again, in Page 26 – Great Britain is not pledged upon any specifc principle to support one sect in Ireland, more than another – I know not by what tie she is debarred fom assisting the Catholics, while / the kingdoms remain separate53 – that is, in other words, perhaps in the next rebellion, the English may join the Catholics against the Protestants. No comparison is too ludicrous for such trash as this, and indeed I am fatigued with serious resentment against such absurd profigacy. It is like an old sinner, clapping two boys on the back, to make them break each other’s heads, while he runs away with the prize for which they contend. It is like a fraudulent groom porter,54 proclaiming the odds in favour of one gambler, while he whispers them in favour of the other – or a sharper55 looking over, and advising one hand,56 while he is making signs on his fngers to the adversary. It is impudently, and for disafected purposes, representing Government as an Auctionier, setting the blessings of an Union up to a puf auction,57 threatening the Protestants that they will be outbid by the Catholics, and the Catholics that the Protestants will get the market; and presumptuously imputing to Lord Cornwallis’s administration, the abominable and Machiavelian principle of divide &

100

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

impera,58 which is in reality the badge of the United Irishmen, and other confederates of the audacious pamphleteer. – A gang of swindlers in London (a place notorious for such gentry) hired an alley which communicated from one public street to another. At each end stood one of the gang, and vociferated / “Walk into the auction, great bargains, walk into the auction.” Te deluded passengers, who were quietly going the broad way to St. Paul’s cathedral, listened to the voice of the charmer, and stepped in; while, at the other side, the equally deluded croud going through Ave-Maria-lane59 did the same. What was the consequence? Tey knocked their heads together in the dark, and the remainder of the robbers picked the pockets of both. Such would be the despicable images justly applicable to the British nation and cabinet, if this shameless scribbler was a true representative of their sentiments, but we know very well the magnanimity of that nation and cabinet in conceding this Union to Ireland, which is to be the salvation of the country, and we will not be infamed by such scandalous misrepresentation. We know that government is incapable of such monstrous and depraved duplicity as to say to the Catholics, emancipation can never be granted till there is an Union; and to say to the Protestants, emancipation can never be refused till there is an Union. In the treating of this topic the rebel blood breaks out in spite of every concealment – Vide page 19. Te old infammatory topic is put forward, that nine-tenths of the property of Ireland are in the hands of British descendants, and that these Protestants thus possessing nine-tenths of the property, are only one-fourth of the inhabitants in number, and have been obliged to rely upon / British assistance for the preservation of their property and existence.60 Tis once more, as in a former passage, suggests to the Catholic Irish the desperate project which the United Irishmen have ever proclaimed as the only chance of recovering their rights, a separation from England, and yet the same man who urges this argument of the Catholic numbers as conclusive upon the occasion, afects in another passage to recommend an Union upon the specifc merits of its annihilating that argument altogether – Vide page 26. In the event of an Union the Catholics would lose the advantage of the argument of numbers which they at present enjoy.61 But, alas, this is not mere nonsence – human wickedness is equal to such a fight, though human folly is not. Te sophist well knew, that the inferences founded upon the numbers of the Catholics are no more afected by the numbers of the English Protestants than by the number of Dutch, Swiss or American Protestants, and that before and afer an Union, whether the English nation were Jews, Turks, or Anabaptists,62 the Catholics in Ireland would continue the majority of the people, and all arguments and expectations drawn from that fact, whether justly or otherwise, remain precisely as before. But this is neither more or less than a hint to the disafected part of the Catholics, to turn this sophism to their own purposes. It teaches them to say – if we are the minority of / the empire, the danger of our claims, which results from our numbers, and with which you alarm the Protestant, vanishes;

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

101

and if we are the majority, you establish our right to emancipation upon the very same principle that you establish the rights of the Protestants. Vide page 23. Every state ought to establish that religious sect which is most numerous.63 In page 53, already cited, among other dangers incident to the Protestant interest, while the legislatures remain separate, we fnd that its stability may rest upon accident, upon the death of a single character. Te word single is printed in italics. Reader, restrain your indignation when this is explained to you. It is generally conceived, in consequence of the misrepresentations of the United Irishmen, that his present Majesty is hostile to a further emancipation of the Irish Catholics, but that the heir apparent to the crown64 entertains diferent sentiments upon that subject. Observe, then, this incendiary, with afected zeal for the established religion, running the king’s life against the Protestant ascendancy, but, in reality, suggesting to the Catholics the short cut to the accomplishment of their wishes. It required more than ordinary presumption to introduce into a work, afecting to recommend that measure which is to be the salvation of the country, the blasted assassination principles of the Union Star, and to point out the beloved father of his people to his loyal subjects as / an obstacle to their prospects, which only can be removed by the termination of his life. Indeed the mischievous principle which pervades the whole work is (to use a colloquial expression) the putting bad things into one’s head, under the subtle pretence of doing general good. It reminds me of a familiar, though innocent illustration. Some college students were inficting the discipline of the pump upon one of those unpopular characters called a bailif, who had been detected in violating the academic sanctuary. A senior fellow who was a spectator of the punishment, and who, though bound to enforce collegiate decorum, entertained the usual antipathy to the sherif ’s ofcer, exclaimed, “fye, lads, don’t be cruel, don’t nail the man’s ear to the pump.” Te youths, who had not before thought of this improvement, thanked the preceptor65 for his hint, and the unhappy victim was accordingly afxed to the instrument of his disgrace. In page 31 occurs a passage worthy of observation. – “It does not follow, that if an Union were made, that the government of Ireland would be less vigilantly administered; it would probably be administered with more attention, because it would be less distracted by the business of party and of parliament, and for the same reason it would be administered more impartially.”66 In the frst place, this is a malignant and slanderous calumny against government in general, / and not merely insinuates, but proclaims that government hitherto has not been administered vigilantly and impartially, but has been distracted. In that general slander is also included much private defamation of Major Sirr,67 Inspector Shee,68 Mr. Gregg,69 the gaoler of Newgate,70 Mr. Justice Swan,71 and other active and cool ofcers in the executive department. Secondly, it impudently asserts that such the misconduct and frenzy of government is owing to that very patriotic parlia-

102

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

ment which is about to pass a measure for the salvation of the country; and thirdly, it seeks to infame and stir up the good people of England against their legislature, by advancing an argument which, if pushed, would conclude against the existence of all parliaments whatsoever, and at once demonstrate the pre-eminent superiority of an absolute monarchy, not disturbed by any distractions but its own. Tis sophist well knew the maxim – “he who proves too much proves nothing;”72 and with afected simplicity exposes himself to the application of it. But, in truth, it is very possible that the mixed government may be best for England, and the pure executive for Ireland. However, though it were to be admitted that the liberty of the subject is secured by the responsibility which the executive owes to the legislative, yet the British executive who will hereafer govern this country, undistracted by an Irish parliament, being composed of men of honor, / they will fnd themselves bound in honor to feel that responsibility encreased, in proportion to the distance at which it resides, and therefore, in fact, the principles of the Irish Constitution, moving in an orbit more remote from the focus of the prerogative, will be attracted thereto in the encreased ratio of their own centrifugal force. Besides, if hereafer any ill-advised Lord Lieutenant should be tempted to make any unconstitutional attempt in his Government, a direct appeal can be made upon the subject, with a reasonably fair wind to the Parliament of the empire, in about four days, and as from the encreased numbers of imperial senators,73 there will be much more time for public business, than formerly, there may be always expected a debate, and satisfactory determination, upon the subject to be known in Ireland, (wind and weather still permitting) in about ten days more, unless it should unfortunately happen to be the time of the Session allotted for Measures of Finance, or English Turnpike Bills, and in the interval, whatever little encroachment has been made by the prerogative, will only have been de bene esse,74 and the same instance will probably not recur, soon afer the law has been settled upon the subject. In page 48, this disafected man almost openly charges Government with taking advantage of a season of war and confusion, to force an / Union upon the Irish people, whereas, in truth, that very circumstance demonstrates the magnanimity of Great Britain, inasmuch as the greater are our calamities, the greater is our necessity for a measure which is to be the salvation of the country. – But mark the manner of this slander. As to a time of war, it is true that the Volunteers took advantage of the embarrassments of Great Britain in the last war, to afect the Independence of our Parliament. – It is likewise true, that the United Irishmen in the present war, have taken advantage of the supposed weakness of Great Britain, to play the game of separation. – When, therefore, enemies of the empire take advantage of a time of war and embarrassment to efect its ruin, we should turn against them their own game, and make use of a time of war, to establish its security.75 What is this but to say the Volunteers76 were no better than the United

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

103

Irishmen, and that Lord Cornwallis’s government is as bad as either of them. Observe the generalship of this masterly position – he posts his favourite corps, the United Irishmen, in the centre, and fanks them with the Volunteers, and Lord Cornwallis’s administration. – He knows too how popular the memory of the Volunteers is with all loyal subjects in the country, and that the Lord Chancellor77, and all the great ofcers of state, are proud to have belonged in their youth, to that immortal association; and yet in so many words, he stiles them the enemies of the empire, who took advantage of a time / of war and embarrassment, to efect its ruin. – Can the views of this disguised traitor be any longer disguised? In the same manner that he has halloed the Protestants against the Catholics, in the hopes of their joining in a common cry against the salutary measure which is to be the salvation of the country, has he endeavoured to commit all the classes of society in pernicious jealousies against each other, the Lawyer against the Merchant, the Man of Landed Property against both the Clergy and the Dissenters, and the Dublin Citizen against the Inhabitant of Cork. To all these several descriptions, he successively afects to demonstrate their peculiar and exclusive advantages, at the expense of all the rest, in the corrupt expectation of uniting them all (as I foresee will be the case,) in one common opposition to the measure. Tis man for his own abandoned purposes, would set the two breasts on the same bosom against each other. To demonstrate (says he) to the Clergy the advantage of an Union, would be lost labour indeed. (Vide page 37.)78 And yet, (in page 56) he afects to give as the 8th Article of the Union, an arrangement with respect to tythes.79 – We all know what an arrangement that factious crew to which he belongs would make in that respect. – He wishes to disgust the Rebels against an union, which is to be so advantageous to the Clergy, and to terrify the Clergy / from a measure which is to be accompanied by an arrangement with regard to tythes; one would suppose he did not expect any one would read his whole pamphlet, but that each part would be studied by those it was intended to mislead. In one and the same page (32,)80 he afects to conciliate the Dissenters, by urging inducements irreconcilably contradictory. Tey too, like the Catholics, are to be appeased with a burnt-ofering of tythes – they too, like the Protestants, are to be reinforced numerically, by the accession of Scotch and English Dissenters; and yet, in the same page they are told, that the inevitable consequence of the measure, must be the annihilation of their sect, and their necessary merging in the mass of the Protestants. Te author knew that no man writing in a strain of such profigate inconsistency, could be supposed to be in earnest, and he advisedly, at once subjects the measure of an Union, to reprobation, and the defence of it to ridicule. In page 33, the temporal peers are insidiously reminded, that nothing will be lef to them but their properties; and are insultingly informed, that being allowed to retain their properties, will be more than a compensation for the loss of their consequence; while the spiritual peers are told, that they will

104

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

be amply recompenced by the security given to their Diocesan Estates, and to the general interests of the Church;81 – and what is that security, and what are those interests? – Tat desertion of the Protestant / interest, and that arrangement of tythes which are promised to the Catholics and Dissenters as the reward of their acquiescence. It is easy to see that the same unprincipled attempt is made in the passage addressed to Country Gentlemen, and that they are scarcely mentioned in the pamphlet except for the purpose of invidious classifcation, and of shewing them their interests as contradistinguished from the profession of the law and the mercantile community; whereas in truth all ranks, trades, and professions are equally concerned in this momentous measure. To the merchants the Author evidently insinuates with his characteristic artifce that none of the expected commercial advantages are necessarily connected with an Union, and that in the present system of connexion a liberal and honest policy on the part of England would communicate this participation of privileges as efectually as under any other modifcation of the relation between the two countries. Tis is evident by the insinuations in pages 38, 39, and 40, that the English will never consume Irish corn, until there is a Union; that unless that measure takes place they will never make use of the great canals which they have extended to Liverpool and other western ports, but like the dog in the manger,82 will deny the enjoyment of these benefts both to us and themselves. Tis nonsense / could never have been written with any view but that of fomenting national jealousy, and representing the magnanimous nation of England as a monster of mean injustice and cruel illiberality. Tis nonsense would represent our generous neighbours buying our Constitution with their Commerce, commuting their substantial advantages for our illusory pride, and content to injure themselves provided they degrade us. Whereas every one knows the reverse to be true. It is well understood and universally believed that the English have long determined upon the most liberal equalization of the commercial privileges of both nations; that such an event is by no means dependent upon the measure of an Union, but concurrent with it, and that the only reason for making the two circumstances contemporary is the wish of heaping favour upon favour till the compliment overpowers us. Tis reservation of the one boon until it can be accompanied by the other is evidently the dignifed and munifcent intention of Great Britain, and as nothing manifests an handsome intention so much as a handsome manner, it particularly appears from the guarded and delicate silence preserved upon the quantity, degree and nature of the commercial blessings in reserve for us; not afronting this great nation by a mean numerical detail of paltry items, but enveloping the benefce / in an indefnite mysteriousness, so as to take us by surprise, and confound us, as it were, by the magnitude of advantages which we had no opportunity of calculating. It is important, therefore, that this unfortunate

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

105

Scribe83 should not be sufered to misrepresent this matter. Indeed, wicked as his insinuations are, they have not the merit of originality: I remember on the debate of the Irish Propositions in the English House of Commons84 another factious character, Mr. Fox,85 said with epigrammatic afectation, I would not give the Commerce of England for the Constitution of Ireland: It is not the thing I wish to purchase, nor the price I wish to pay.86 Tis foolish and reprobated notion of compromise, where there is nothing but munifcence on one hand and gratitude on the other, is adopted by the pamphleteer, but, I trust, is now sufciently exposed. Te rational Irish merchant knows that the Union is to be the salvation of the country, and that is as much as he wishes to know about it. Te opinion I have here combated is pressed by the enemies of both nations for obvious purposes. Te benefts to be acquired by an Union must be either such as are obtained by compact between the countries, or such as are the natural operation and result of the measure itself. Now in this case the advantages to be contracted for, whether for Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, or Galway, are altogether out of the question, / inasmuch as they are all equally attainable under the present connection, and as the two countries are already imperially connected, there could be no honest or rational motive assignable, why they are not at present imparted, (especially as such benefts could continue only while the connection exists) except the generosity of Britain wishing to make each kindness more valuable, by giving them all at once. But because that description of advantage is out of the question, we always hear of it from the enemies of the measure, who entirely overlook, or afect to do so, the benefts which naturally result from the measure itself, which fow from the mere fact of Union, and are created simply by the transfer of legislation. It would be useless to detail the particulars of such benefts, honorable confdence has already given credit for them, and sceptical incredulity is proof against conviction. A few of these which the transplantation of Parliament must instantly, and of itself, generate, are, the total oblivion of all religious animosities, the immediate conversion and repentance of the United Irishmen, the multiplication of the Protestants, and consequent satisfaction of the Catholies, the rush and infux of English capital into this peaceful and contented country, the improvement of agriculture, by the brotherly and edifying intercourse of English and Irish farmers, the diminution of absentees and taxes, the reduction of an / expensive standing army, the improvements of the metropolis, peace with the French, and glory with the world! – Tese are but a few of the blessings necessarily connected with the simple fact of changing the seat of legislation. Blessings innumerable, and which only can be described by saying, that the measure must be the salvation of the country. I am sorry to fnd that it is not unnecessary to caution this credulous country, against the artifce of this disafected hypocrite. – I lament, that since these sheets were begun, his subtle and malignant poison has taken efect, in one

106

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

member of the national body. – I lament that a description of men, whom I respect so much as the Bar of Ireland, has not been able to resist the infection, and I have the vanity to repent, that they had irreparably erred, before this publication could appear, to warn them of their danger. – However, my resentment to the dupes merges in my superior indignation against the impostor, and candour compels me to remember, that if it were not for the audacious pamphlet in question, most probably 166 Irish lawyers would never have disgraced their profession and themselves by publicly denouncing to the nation a measure which is to be the salvation of the country.87 Tis libeller knew the strings upon which to touch the profession, and by afecting / to represent their possible objections to an Union as frivolous, has, in reality, made them the subject of the liveliest anxiety and irritation. Tirty-two independent and public spirited characters have certainly rescued the Bar from universal opprobrium; they may be considered by an ominous coincidence of numbers as so many county representatives, and in that respect, as speaking (ex cathedra)88 the sentiment of the kingdom – but it is melancholy to see the extended corruption of 166 men, all infuenced by the expectation of sitting in parliament, and desperately monopolizing more than half the representation of the people, and upon this base and selfsh principle resisting the salvation of their country. God knows there were lawyers enough before in the House of Commons, as the writer truly has stated (page 35,) a formidable phalanx, Of our 300 members89 there are no less than 17 practising barristers, and at least a dozen more, who, though they never followed the trade, were bred to that unconstitutional profession. Tis is bad enough, but no honest Irishman can be sufciently grateful for the prevention of 166 more from sitting in the next parliament. It is lamentable to see the best and most respectable characters stoop before the idols of ambition. Even Mr. Saurin,90 who, during* Lord Camden’s / administration, was in his cool senses, and refused the ofce of Solicitor General and a seat in parliament, has sufered his quiet and sober intellect to be infamed by the artful insinuations of this rebel in disguise, and has for ever lost his reputation with his country and profession, and for what? For the idle speculation of sitting at the head of 166 lawyers in the next House of Commons. Tis passage in the pamphlet was intended for more than the Bar. Te author slily reminds us (page 34) that it is the habit of Irish gentlemen to educate their sons as lawyers, and by this hint that there is searcely a gentleman’s family in the kingdom which has not some dear connection in the profession, he hopes to engage the whole class of our gentry in one common resentment with those whom he exclusively appears to infame, while he makes sure of the *

Tat nobleman was weak enough to treat the profession of the law with respect, and their armed association with afection, but the more vigorous intellect, which distinguishes the administration of his successor has appreciated the bar and the yeomanry with more justice.

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

107

indignation of both by one round assertion, (page 35) that what is bad for the Bar, must, of necessity, be good for the country. Another most deep, and, indeed, ingenious scheme, in order to deter the Bar from an Union, is a positive denunciation, that, in the event of an Union, there will be abler judges upon the bench than at present. Vide page 35. Tis had the desired efect with Mr. Saurin, Mr. Duquery,91 Mr. Fletcher,92 Mr. Plunket,93 and some other Irish smatterers in law. Tis was an evil, the prospect of which they could not bear. Tey fnd it easy now to humbug / Lords Kilwarden94 and Carleton,95 and Judges Downes,96 Chamberlaine,97 Smith98 and George.99 Tey can hood-wink Lord Yelverton100 at Nisi Prius,101 and in Equity the facility and sofness of Lord Clare102 is so proverbial, that the lowest attornies daily out-wit and over-reach him. But there would be an end to this hopeful trade if the bench were flled with abler judges, as in the event of an Union, from the superior learning of the English bar, there is every probability it would. Te notion of young adventurers who have little stake in the country, but a facility of speaking on every subject, (page 35) was not intended to afront the bar, as might at frst appear, but to excite their emulation, and stimulate their ambition, and it unfortunately has had the desired efect. Te bar must have observed instances of young adventurers from another nation,103 who had no stake in this country, or any other, and no facility of speaking upon any subject, but merely a facility of writing, (and that too with clerical errors) upon some subjects, who yet contrived to rise from the lowest, to the highest, situations; and they inferred, that they were not excluded from such pretensions, merely because they are Gentlemen by birth and education. Te truth is incontrovertible, though it appears / in the pamphlet in question, and that is, that the bar are too fond of politics. Shortly before the French came to Bantry Bay,104 the bar, in a political fury, took up arms, which they have not yet laid down; and, under the vain idea of defending the country, they not only wasted their own time, but inspired all over the kingdom a similar and general idleness. In the time of the rebellion this mischief was at its height, and no man could get his business out of the hands of a lawyer. He was never to be found at home, but indulging upon guard, or dissipating in camp; and I am convinced, if, for near six months, the attornies had not been equally indolent, that the complaints of clients would have been innumerable. But this, though inconvenient to others, was, most of all, inconvenient to the United Irishmen, and hence the resentment and venom of this hackney scribe. – Hinc illæ lacrymæ.105 However, I trust the bar will come to their senses, though for a moment led away by this profligate sophist. I trust they will, even if against their own interest, concur heartily in a measure which must be the salvation of the country. But, even their most selfsh interests, in my apprehension, must be promoted by an Union. Te Irish gentlemen who will emigrate for the good of their country, must borrow money to support the expence of English living, upon mortgages of their Irish property.

108

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Tis must multiply foreclosure causes,106 / and the encrease of ejectments, and other actions for non-payment of rent in the city of Dublin will be incalculable. I pass by, with contempt, the insinuation in (page 39,) that this popular measure is, in the city of Dublin, to be supported by force, as being the headquarters of the army. Te city of Dublin will derive more benefts from this measure than my short limits will sufer me to enumerate. Its beauty (to mention but one instance) will be considerably contributed to by the desirable introduction of Rus in Urbe107 in several parts of it. Tis, together with the ascertained advantage which Dublin must derive, afer the Union, by getting rid, altogether, of that riotous and troublesome description of men, the manufacturers in the Earl of Meath’s liberty,108 demonstrates, that, in spite of this fagitious frebrand’s insinuations, this city will be benefted by an Union as much as Cork, or Waterford, or any other place in the kingdom. I touch, with equal contempt, upon the crafy hint, that parliament is incompetent to its own dissolution. He repeats the sophism of Rousseau109 in defence of suicide – that reason being given to man to atchieve happiness, he has a right to destroy himself whenever it tells him that death is preferable to life. He knows that delusive argument was easily answered by Rousseau himself, / and therefore urges it as a mock defence for what he hints to be a political suicide. Te object of Parliament, says he, is general good. Now if general good is attainable by self-destruction – ergo,110 &c. &c. Tis would be very school-boyish if it was not very wicked. Tis topic is, (upon the plan of the work) strongly enforced, by being weakly combated; – one example is worth a dozen arguments. – In the reign of Oliver Cromwell,111 the Long Parliament perpetuated itself by a vote.112 – History informs us of the good consequences of that measure. – Of course, a multo fortiori;113 if Parliament has a right to perpetuate, it has a right to destroy, itself. I shall conclude now with two remarks: 1st – Tis infamous production labours to establish one proposition: – Tat no man can agree to an Union, unless impelled to do so by the most abject fear, or most abandoned corruption; whereas, in truth, all good men concur in their approbation of it, upon the most enlarged conviction, (independent and regardless of all paltry detail) that the measure will be the salvation of the country. 2d – Tat there is demonstration of the utility of the measure, from one circumstance: – Tat during the successive reigns of various Viceroy’s, no / English secretary114 had ever the public spirit to propose this important revolution, but that as soon as an amiable young nobleman of our own nation115 assumed the reins of government, the frst measure of his administration was the salvation of his country. Lord Castlereagh, uninfuenced by the selfsh examples of his English predecessors, felt the Irish blood running in his veins, and determined it should never blush in his face – his country, and posterity, will do him justice.* *

I hate old proverbs and vulgar adages. – One most illiberal one is contradicted by this Nobleman’s conduct; that if you put an Irishman on a spit, you can always get another to turn him.

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning

109

Te pamphlet I have answered, I do not hesitate to pronounce, the most audacious, profigate, and libellous production, which ever disgraced the licentiousness of the press, or insulted the feelings of a nation. – A bad head, and a bad heart, must have concurred to compose it, and the most unblushing and unfeeling efrontery, alone, was equal to the publication of it. – I rely upon the wisdom and spirit of the British Parliament, in which my country is so soon to be represented, not to sufer it to escape with impunity, and I trust one of the frst motions made in the Imperial Legislature, may be – “Tat his Majesty’s Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. John Toler,116 / or Captain Taylor,117 the Lord Lieutenant’s Aid-de-Camp, may be ordered to prosecute the Author, Printer, and Publisher, of the said Libel, by Indictment, Information, or Court-Martial, as the circumstances of the case may require.”

FINIS.

McKENNA, A MEMOIRE ON SOME QUESTIONS REFLECTING THE PROJECTED UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

Teobald McKenna, Esq., Barrister at Law, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union of Great Britain and Ireland (Dublin: Printed for John Rice, 1799).

Teobald McKenna (or Mackenna as the ODNB refers to him) was born in 1765 and died in 1808. A barrister and political writer, he was secretary to the Catholic Committee up to December 1791, when he seceded with the more conservative members led by Tomas Browne (1726–95), fourth Viscount Kenmare. Although he supported Catholic emancipation and moderate parliamentary reform, he opposed the more radical policies of his successor, Teobald Wolfe Tone. He later wrote in support of the Union between Britain and Ireland, with the encouragement of Chief Secretary Viscount Castlereagh and the Irish government. He was seen as a useful infuence on Catholic opinion in particular and he apparently received a small annual pension as a reward for his eforts. In this pamphlet McKenna tries to reduce the alarm felt by those who feared the consequences for Ireland of giving up the country’s separate and independent parliament. McKenna maintains that a separate parliament was not essential to protect Ireland’s civil liberties and economic interests. He argues that it is essential to Ireland’s interests to be connected to Great Britain and that an incorporating Union might well be the best means of establishing good relations between the two countries. According to McKenna, much would depend on the precise terms on ofer. Britain’s commercial, industrial and fnancial strengths would beneft Ireland more efectively if the two countries shared the same government and legislature. Union would also strengthen Britain and Ireland in the present war against France, while at home it could reduce religious animosities between Catholics and Protestants. McKenna points out how much Scotland had gained from the Union with England agreed in 1707. McKenna, as an Irish Roman Catholic, was very anxious to promote Catholic emancipation and to gain Catholic access into the legislature and executive. He hoped that Union would reduce Irish Protestant fears of the Catholic major-

– 111 –

112

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

ity in the country because the Protestants would be in a clear majority in a new united kingdom. He also tried to prove that the late rebellion had not been a Catholic uprising since many Catholics had been active in opposing it. While he supported moderate parliamentary reform, he was not in favour of the Irish Catholics seeking political power proportionate to their numbers, because that could be obtained only in a democracy and he himself clearly accepted that property should be represented more than mere numbers. Nor was he in favour of extending the Pope’s jurisdiction. Given their limited demands, Catholics property owners should be allowed into the legislature and into the executive. McKenna’s eforts to reduce Protestant fears of the Irish Catholic majority was not aided by his attack on the Orange Order, which he blamed for increasing sectarian tension in Ireland. Tis part of his pamphlet produced the ferce reply to McKenna’s Calumnies Against the Orange Institution, published in Volume 5, pp. 239–58. McKenna accepted that the Irish Catholics had not come to an agreed position on Union, but he supported the proposed bill, because he believed that it would lead to Catholic emancipation, which would allow Roman Catholics to serve in the Imperial Parliament and in the executive of the United Kingdom. He was later to be disappointed that this concession was not made and he continued to advance temperate arguments why emancipation should be granted.

Theobald McKenna, Esq., Barrister at Law, A Memoire on Some Questions Reflecting the Projected Union of Great Britain and Ireland (Dublin: Printed for John Rice, 1799).

Sed mea me fata et tristia oracula Divum His mersere malis.1

[…] A MEMORIRE, &c. DUBLIN, DECEMBER 5, 1798. Our dissensions and our calamities have called forth the project of a new, and, it is hoped, a fnal arrangement in the politics of this island. It is proposed to augment the energy of the empire, by simplifying its Constitution, and to tranquilise Ireland by removing a great domestic cause of irritation. An Union, considered in the abstract, does not strike me with that assemblage of horrors, which some persons appear to feel. Te conditions of the contract must render the measure salutary or pernicious. It seems a question merely of terms, for I cannot admit the existence of a separate legislature to be so essential to Ireland, and so much an integral part of the public welfare, as to render a treaty, for consolidating the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland, at all events inadmissible. / I have no grounds to form a conjecture that the liberties of the Irish people may not be as secure under the superintendence of an imperial, as of a domestic legislature. Few men have ever been invested with power who did not feel a disposition to exceed the limits regularly prescribed. As a corrective of this evil tendency, we have recourse to the establishment of our parliamentary tribunals, appointed in a good measure by the people, but acting wholly under the con-

– 113 –

114

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

troul of public opinion. All the powers of the nation are a fduciary2 deposit in the hands of these councils, and of their co-estate the crown,3 to be exercised for the nation’s advantage. Such is the legislative function; it is equally their duty to revise the conduct of those persons who administer the executive authority, and to superintend the distribution of justice. – Here is the principle, but to what extent shall it be applied? a single institution of controul may be productive of essential service, and yet two, as well as twenty, may be excessive, inconvenient and dangerous. By the liberties of the people, I understand the confdence which every man ought to feel, that he may safely and freely do every act, which is not forbidden by laws enacted for the welfare of the community; and that he cannot be molested in his person or possessions, unless he ofend against those established principles. Foremost in the catalogue stand the trial by jury, / the common law and statute right of habeas corpus,4 the administration of civil and criminal justice by regulations of law, positive, notorious and invariable. Te guarantee of these rights is the frst object of civil society. Tis is the end; Peers and Representatives are but the means. But again: what reason is there to suppose that the supreme tribunals of the Union may not be as open to complaint, and as vigilant in redress, as anxious to prevent injustice, and to avoid imposing an hardship, as our Irish parliament? To many it would be highly pleasing to erect an independent Government on every ten square miles of Europe. We might rehearse the advantages which the inhabitants were to derive from such organization; and surely the passions arising from local attachment would not fail to be highly gratifed. But then how many avenues would be thrown open for faction? What disunions among the people! What feebleness, what distraction in the public councils! What a feverish existence for the subjects, where the passions and prejudices of individuals are so close at hand, as to be felt in every operation of Government! Such states would be incapable of vigorous enterprise or efectual combination for resistance. Tey must fall beneath the frst powerful adversary. But / whilst casual circumstances retarded the inevitable doom, the miserable people would be the prey of mischiefs, from which no degree of ability could protect them; teazed by dissensions, factions and discontents, and fuctuating, discordant, inoperative administrations. Let me not be considered fanciful in the position I am about to lay down, that the arguments addressed to our national pride may exactly be inverted. Te appearance of paradox will vanish, when we consider how much more real importance Ireland will derive, when by the share in the general representation, which she is entitled to obtain, she will be enabled to infuence in some respect the councils of the empire, than at present whilst she receives laws from the more powerful member of the confederacy;5 and from that quarter must she ever receive laws, whilst she adheres with unrefecting pride to this languid and ambiguous independence.

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

115

I have been led so far into the investigation of a subject collateral to my original undertaking. Te range of enquiry which opens from it is immense. If it were even ripe for discussion, I have traced to myself a more limited duty. But as to the general question of the Union of our legislature / with that of the empire, it seems to me to stand upon the terms which shall be proposed, and upon national expediency; and the rule of expediency again resolves into these two propositions: 1st, Te circumstances of Europe and the state of Ireland render it the essential interest of Ireland to be closely combined with Britain; and 2d, an incorporation of all the powers of the two states, executive and legislative, is the most permanent and eligible form of connection. I do apprehend that, in the actual circumstances of Europe, every motive, by which man, in a state of nature, is induced to abridge his native rights, and associate for mutual security with his neighbour, does urge Ireland to cling to the sister island, and cultivate the connection with every reasonable assiduity. Suppose France should intrigue herself into an establishment in this country. When she had extinguished the funds on which depend our national securities, and divided the lands among her adventurers and partisans; when she had harassed our commerce by exactions, and our population by military requisitions, what a blessed consolation would remain in the legislative independence of Ireland! But when we do not perceive that any particular advantage is in jeopardy, we are disposed to consider it, as confrmed beyond all hazard, and that the establishment / of another object for which we contend, cannot interfere with the former. On political matters you cannot reason forward in a direct line; you must ofen subtract when you would expect to add, and divide where you have hoped to multiply. But people talk of the National Debt of Britain; and what then? I contend for it, that though, not legally, we are at this hour efectively pledged to support, with our resources, the credit of Great Britain. It is our interest to do so, even to the extent of contributing in aid of the National Debt according to our means, in case such contribution could be necessary. If the National Debt of Britain were efaced by a Bankruptcy, a very great number of the persons who consume our articles of fabric and export, would be reduced to penury, a stagnation of trade must ensue, and goods be thrown back upon the hands of the manufacturers. Follow this calamity of a failure of demand through all its ramifcations; a general depression of industry from the cessation of encouragement; every consumption diminished, the produce of land comes to be less in requisition; land and house-rents fall; and all the elegant arts decline which thrive in luxurious life, and are ripened by the overfow of opulence. Take the matter in another point / of view. Te credit of Britain gives efcacy to her resources; it covers the ocean with her feets; it is the lever by which she moves mankind; one of the pedestals of that Colossus6 which bestrides the world! – What would become of this Island, unprotected and unprepared for the event, if the artifcial power

116

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

of Britain were subverted? We should certainly neither have security for what we now possess, nor receive encouragement to improve it. If France continued omnipotent, we should be her slave. If her present frantic vigour were exhausted, to be the subject of contest on our own soil among the European powers, or their factions, would be our mildest destiny. I have not rested, because the reader can easily supply the defciency, on the intermediate pillage of the holders of every sort of property. Of these obligations to support Great Britain, arising from private interest, the former applies, in some degree, to every nation whose commerce feels the invigorating infuence of British speculation; the latter is appropriate to Ireland. But that a necessity should arise for repairing a breach in the credit of Great Britain, is a mere fction of the imagination, introduced to demonstrate, by an example, the degree of ardour which should animate our attachment to the sister nation. I am aware that her former treatment of / Ireland was culpable, but the conduct of Ireland to herself was yet more so. I am no friend to posthumous resentments. It is more becoming the dignity of a wise people to throw our passions into the shade, and cultivate our interests. What intercourse can be so benefcial to Ireland as with a rich country, stretched by it, within a few hours sail, possessing the most extensive commercial connexions in the world; a sure and steady mart, and a quick return; mistress of a powerful navy, which is equally engaged to protect our trade and our repose, and enjoying the habitual respect of the world, in which we participate? Tat Britain was vulnerable on the side of her public credit and resources, and that they were marked by destiny to direct the blow which should lay prostrate that immense power, was among the delusions of that credulous and deservedly-unfortunate party,7 who, disguising their ambition, very probably to themselves, under the name of patriotism, endeavoured, by an apostate connexion with France, to seize the Government of Ireland. Te fnances of Britain cannot fail whilst they are managed with ability. Tough the nominal debt is immense, the capital is irredeemable; and the perpetual annuities, which constitute in truth the charge, are paid to residents in the / country. It is the right hand settling accounts with the lef; whilst such is the case, the course of circulation may be diversifed, but the property of the nation cannot be overwhelmed. Te improvement of the steam-engine, the various modern discoveries in chemistry, the application of these discoveries to manufacture, the abridgment of labour by introducing machines, have performed what is perhaps better than paying of the debt of the American war; they have created funds which are equivalent to the imposition. Ingenuity and enterprise will in like manner reduce the burden of the present loans to a feather weight. Perhaps inquisitive research is at this very instant employed in exploring or in opening the markets, by the supply of which this momentous operation is to be efected. From France herself we shall

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

117

draw back, as we have done from America, a part of the expence of the contest we maintain against her; for she has sacrifced her manufacturers to the War and Revolution. At the return of Peace she will have wants which can be most satisfactorily provided for by the English merchants, and she will disgorge the plunder of the Continent into their counting houses. I must not dissemble that these sentiments originate in great partiality to the sister nation. But / it is a partiality founded on a sense of her virtues; on the importance of the functions she performs towards human nature; on the character and glory of the people, and on the essential utility, which I apprehend accrues to this, my more immediate country, from her situation as a part of that respectable Empire. If I could fatter myself with the expectation, that any degree of public attention may be bestowed upon opinions so humbly presented by the mediocrity of station and ability, I should tender them as evidence of this fact, that the education and habits of an Irish Catholic do not indispose him to the glory of the British Empire. Te contrary has been asserted ofen, and by persons of no small authority. Some years back, the Dublin Journal,8 a publication in many instances of great improvidence and indecorum, but for a long time a peculiar object of our Government’s care and patronage, speaking of the loyalty of that part of the King’s subjects, used these remarkable expressions:– “it exactly resembles the loyalty of a chained tyger to his keeper!!”9 How many controversies have been moved on the reciprocal obligations of Great Britain and Ireland as fraternal states; in any of which, if the Parliament had been so constituted as to have followed its own minority into the popular notions / of the day, there was an end to the unity of the Empire. If the two nations incline variously on public questions, they can only be employed in watching each other. And will any man of ordinary observation say, that he can count on the temper and forbearance of their respective people, to correct these disorders in the constitution? No; but Parliament can be induced, as hitherto has been the case, to preserve the harmony of the federal connexion. Why resort to circuitous means and complex machinery for an efect which may be produced simply and directly, and by the sacrifce of a very secondary object? I am sure the Irish Parliament has done well in preserving, on many questions, a coincidence with the Minister.10 It is needless to scrutinize the motives which actuate men, when their conduct produces benefcial consequences. Few take the trouble to weigh the widely mischievous inconvenience of bickerings and broils between the Sovereign and the States, or between the representative bodies of two nations whose concerns cross each other every day, and whose views and interests must be intimately combined, or irreconcileably discordant. How invidious the talk we impose upon our Parliament, by majorities, under the suspicion of infuence, to thwart the opinions which their own discontented minority disseminates through the people! It has been tauntingly said, on innumerable /

118

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

occasions, that our Independent Government takes order from a power we do not recognize, and carries them to our Independent Parliament, by which they are ratifed! Tat such mock Independence afords no reasonable occasion for vanity. I have already touched upon this subject. To reject a permanent settlement on the ground of vanity, resembles the simplicity of a poor man preferring gaudy tatters to the comforts of industry. – I cannot see the wisdom of postponing the useful, to the ornamental parts of civil liberty. But how, it may be said, are we to be enriched? Britain has no new commercial advantages to impart. What commercial laws, and concessions can atchieve, is already pretty well accomplished. What are laws, and opportunities, without a capital? Tey are but as beautiful machinery to a mill without a water-course. Te improvement of agriculture, and the increase of the linen trade, and more than either, the so-much-reprobated repeal of the penalties against adhering to the Catholic Religion, have added much to the wealth of Ireland. But more must / be done to meet the exigencies of our population. Where the linen manufacture has not taken root, the people, at a certain distance from the coast, are wretched. Tey cannot recur to any other employment than the manufacture of land, so that the landholder has a double monopoly against them: he can command his own price for the ground he lets, and he can fx what value suits him on the labour he purchases. Te general introduction of manufactures must open new markets for labour, and raise the price of it by a steady, and not a violent operation, before we can expect, to see the condition of our Poor materially ameliorated. I did once imagine that the causes I have here enumerated, proceeding slowly, though regularly, would have been adequate to the remedy of our disorders. But experience, and the observation of what daily passes, have convinced me that this sanguine hope is vain, until a great change of manners shall have taken place; and this only is to be efected by a great change of Constitution. Contests for power in the upper circles would be innocent, if to them they were confned; / but acting on the tenacity of the Protestants, and the expectations of the Catholics, they carry bitterness to every fre-side in Ireland. You must root out these feuds if you would banish wretchedness from the land; you must exclude them; not by elevating the pride of these, or reducing those to sullen acquiescence, but by completely removing the cause, by placing our concerns under the care of a superior power, impartial by situation, and by the absence of the local passions and prejudices that distract us. Te People of Ireland will then have an undivided interest. Foreign Capital may be induced to visit us; the property of natives will stagnate in the country, and be formed into masses sufcient to give employment to our people. It is from hence I expect the augmentation of our trade, the increase of export and of home consumption. When the alarms of people of property are at rest, and a perfect confdence created in the settlement of the country, they will not hesitate to assist industrious or speculating men by advancing money or credit to them.

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

119

I have in my view the great number of small banks, and liberal discount-ofces, which are to be met in every part of England and Scotland. / Two other circumstances disposed me to consider favourably the project of an Union with Great Britain. Examining, not long since, in a course of amusing study, the treaty of the year 1785, generally called the Commercial Propositions,11 I observed it to be a well-intended and benefcial system, but defective in some respects. Tere was not a jurisdiction superior to both contracting parties, to enforce the rules, and decide upon the breach and the performance of the agreement. In consequence of this charm, all the wise purposes of the adjustment were very likely to be rendered abortive. My other cause of conviction was the very great resemblance, which, previous to the Union, Scotland bore to the actual state of Ireland. Scotland had a popular and a fashionable religion,12 actuated against each other by a degree of rancour infnitely more inveterate and unmitigated than the sectarian animosities of Ireland. Te Government was jealous of the people, and the people of the Government. She had too her parliamentary factions, who as well as their co-adjutors at Westminster, assiduously fomented the discontents of a people, without exception the most turbulent in the world. I do not count so much upon the West-India or Plantation trade to the single port of Glasgow, when I talk of the means, by which / the Scotch grew to be rich, orderly and contented. No, – internal quiet was the mine to which they owe their wealth; it was to the establishment of private credit and confdence on the basis of tranquillity; it was to the formation of a Government, which had no feeling of subaltern resentment, of habitual or hereditary prejudice. But here let me mark the error of the Scotch Union, as a lesson and a warning to the legislatures of both countries, to examine narrowly into the circumstances of Ireland, and leave no grievance unredressed, when the adjustment is completed. If the people of Scotland had been emancipated by abolishing the heritable jurisdictions,13 the Rebellions of 1715, and 1745,14 would as to that country have been most probably, prevented. Must the settlement of Ireland by domestic means be then given up as an hopeless enterprize? Such I apprehend to be the fact, although I have not always entertained that sentiment. And as I do not aspire to seek the favour of any party, more especially that of which upon every principle I disapprove, I shall lay down, precisely as they occur, the grounds of my opinion. – I begin with the general diffusion through the country of what are called Orange Lodges,15 and the temper / which appears to actuate these societies. Tey claim the credit of having assembled for the protection of a tottering throne. Let them take the full merit of their loyalty. But the spirit of revenge which, under their auspices, has so ofen lingered afer victory, and the dominion over their fellow subjects, which they seem to claim as their reward, reduce very considerably the value of their services.

120

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Tese clubs, are instituted to suit protestants of every age, and education and degree. Filiations of them have been formed in most country towns, in the University,16 in many regiments, and even among school-boys, so that if they are of doubtful portent to the harmony of society, the evil is not like to be of limited extent or short duration. Te drawing-room and even the nursery bear their emblems. It is not a benevolent association, calculated to extend or to preserve, or to improve the system of pure religion, by which they consider themselves enlightened. Te frst object of the confederacy is to maintain, and the next to celebrate the political supremacy of one part of the King’s subjects over another. – Tey commemorate not Ty great name, Nassau, Who stamp’d the bless’d deed of Liberty and Law –17

not the purifer of the monarchy and the founder / of civil freedom, but a sort of spurious William of their own creation, resembling John Wesley,18 or any other fanatic founder of a sect, without a trait of character, by which, if he repassed on earth, the sage and hero would recognise himself as fairly represented. Far be it from me to suppose that many very honourable persons may not have been induced to enrol themselves under this symbol of dissension. We have passed through a very trying season to men’s feelings. Tere is not any situation in which one is so likely to be led astray, as when he fxes his eyes upon one side only of a political object; and that passions, terror, and resentment, screen from his view the consequences by which his frst conception might be corrected. But let me tell them, that they are under an error when they hope to manage the monster whom they nourish. Tose who are now among the most submissive of their party will become its leaders, if it shall take root; and its excesses, the men I here address, will in vain attempt to moderate. Lord George Gordon19 had never the fre of London in his contemplation. With all their faults, the persons, who projected this late wanton insurrection,20 / had no participation of guilt with the ferocious mobs of Wexford and of Mayo. Another circumstance contributes to the delusion of the Gentlemen I have been describing. Tey do not feel the importance of the Catholics to this country. – I do not speak of them as an opulent order in the state – rich men “may fourish and may fade,”21 but as they supply almost entirely the labouring and industrious classes of the community. If I treated of an Indian territory, I would say, let the mind of the Gentoo22 be free from every restraint, except the wholesome horror of iniquity. Public prosperity proceeds from the base to the summit of the cone. Te foundation must be large and frm to support a durable superstructure. Te Government, in combination with a part of the people, may, so far as physical force confers authority, impose restrictions on the Catholics; but Ireland will pine over the dungeon of her children. Without debasing itself into

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

121

a standing jest to this refecting Empire and age, by appearing to punish men for their Religion, a system of manners may be introduced, which shall reduce, to an unoperative theory, all the advantages which the Constitution supposes them to enjoy, and which a wise Prince23 / has studied to procure for them. Now precisely to this point does the invidious confederacy, called Orange-men, tend. Let us put by the consideration, that people of every character and temper may procure admission to the Society, and that the worst propensities of bad minds are not like to be restrained when there is a prospect of protection: If this business continues, it must lead to outrages on persons and property, and there will be no lack of justifcatory pretences.* I put also out of view this fact, which in this age and country bears evidence, unfortunately too strong of authenticity, that political associations, on any extensive scale, are in an extreme degree dangerous to any Government. Te spirit of the institution is to inculcate an opinion that its votaries form a superior order in the state, with superior title to every kind of consideration and privilege. As a leading principle, it asserts that certain immunities of our Constitution have been improvidently granted to the Catholics, / and that similar concessions are in future to be resisted. Can any scheme be devised more efectually calculated to excite antipathies and disgust among the inhabitants of the same country, and render them adverse to each other, in sentiment, as pole from pole? And can that divided country prosper? Can it be denominated Independent? Can human happiness be brought to perfection? What retribution for these evils is a titular independence in which a few men have an interest? Not a man in Ireland feels more ardently for the liberty of my country; but I call for practical Independence, which shall be felt in every sinew through the land. I am adverse to the system under which – a factious band agree To call it Freedom, if themselves be free.25

I protest against a scheme thus fanciful and oppressive. Let me conclude the detail of evils by calmly laying before these Societies, the perverse temper, the barbarism, let me call it, which they necessarily must induce, and necessarily perpetuate. Men in easy circumstances may turn aside for consolation from an object that disgusts them. Among persons of the higher class, the arrogant pretensions of a rival party may only occasion an irritation. / But, even so, they must assuredly become more indiferent to the public welfare, and more inactive in the improvement of their country. In humble life men are chained to the oar by their situation; there indeed will qualities be found too ft *

What numbers, during the late disturbances, would not believe the evidence of their senses, that every Papist was not a rebel! How many were sadly chagrined at the propriety with which the persons of property of the Romish communion acted!24/

122

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

to produce mischief, and materials too easy to be worked on. Little minds are prone enough to assume authority where they can, and to practice an overbearing insolence of demeanor. Te Protestant Mechanic, who has studied manners and politics in an Orange Lodge, and has there been taught his measure of forbearance, will be spoiled with regard to his own duties, and he will equally spoil his neighbour, a man of more feeling than refection, whom he teazes and bullies, and drives either into seditious turbulence, or enervated despondency. I am persuaded a state has no better resource than in the well-regulated frmness of its People. – I borrow this sentiment, which, on former occasions, actuated me in some feeble eforts to serve the country through the Catholics, from Dr. Adam Smith,26 an excellent judge of the springs by which men are moved. He attributes the prosperity of England to the temper of the Yeomanry: and this character he thinks is formed in a good measure by their election privileges.27 It is apparent, that I consider the / Union rather eligible by the system of police to which it leads, than on any other consideration. Here let me add one word, called for by the construction I put on a pamphlet,28 published, it would seem by authority, in order to break the ground for this discussion. Unless the Servants of the Crown mean, among other internal regulations, to include a settlement under the head of religious diference, completely co-extensive with the grievance, then will an incorporation of the Legislatures be found a measure bad for Ireland, but, if possible, worse for Britain. – Te penalties against Catholics ought to be repealed, if it were only to discountenance the Orange faction, by shewing the error and impotence of the Association. Te measure would be popular and acceptable. I assert this fact in contradiction to the State Prisoners,29 who averred, in their examination before the Committee of Parliament,30 that emancipation, as it has been called, was slighted, except as a pretence. So perhaps it was among the Catholics with whom they mixed, or those on whom they practised; the latter, an ignorant peasantry; the former, a cabal of ill-intentioned Democrats, who dreaded not any thing so much, as lest the King’s Government should disarm the public discontent / by a concession so highly grateful. Tere is, and always has been, a body of Catholics, numerous, respectable, and of steady loyalty, to whose minds there is no nearer object. I am aware that I brave the censure of many respectable persons whose sentiments are cast in a diferent mould, and whose passions are exasperated by recent resentment. What! a lenient rule of policy for ungrateful men, whose rebellion has produced so much public and private calamity! Exactly so. If every Catholic in Ireland had been a rebel, it ought to make no diference. Tere is an immutable rule of right and wrong, politic and inexpedient, by which the merits of the question are to be tried and decided. And again: if even such were the case, the moment of victory would be the critical time to make the concession; what might have been in the last year injudicious, as liable to be represented a pusil-

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

123

lanimous compromise, might at this day be compliment and heroic sacrifce. Te whole continent of America was in open hostility at the time that liberal terms of accommodation were proposed.31 Here I am at issue with the Orange-men. Tey propose to encrease the weight of the criminal law by a / corrective discipline, regulated by each private man’s sense of propriety. I assert that a strong Government ought for some time to be maintained, and the laws to be enforced with rigid impartiality. But no other awe, no fetters on the mind, no subjection. Am I told that it is not intended thus to debase the public mind of Ireland? To be sure these designs are not in familiar contemplation; I think better of my species. But let me tell these Societies, that if one man in ffy expects to mend his fortune by dabbling in the system of espionage, which has so long vexed this country, that man is of more efcacy to do ill, than ever so many well meaning, inactive men, are to counteract him. And let me tell them, that the tendency of their institution to produce the efect I have described, according to the habitual tenor of human proceedings, is not more regular than that of a sphere to drop to the ground by the laws of gravitation. I am discoursing of lenity and mercy. What has the repeal of the disqualifcations against Catholics to do with the Rebellion? – In certain counties there was a rising of the peasantry; provoked, cajoled, seduced by certain gentlemen, / Deists,32 some of Catholic, more of Protestant education. Te insurgents were Catholics, just as any man, who ofends the laws against property, is, within the same limits, a Catholic, because it happens to be the popular religion of those districts. Tey were combated by Catholic militia regiments; by Catholic noblemen, gentlemen and farmers; that is, by all those who had kept themselves aloof, not from the religious, but the political illusion. Indeed I believe the principal person in point of dignity of the Catholic party33 did exert himself with more gallantry, than any other of his rank, not professedly a military or militia ofcer. When the clown had proceeded a little way under his doctors and generals of the rights of man, he bethought himself of his early reverential impressions; and having out of about two thousand fve hundred Catholic Priests, who are in Ireland, collected fve and twenty in the diferent rebellions,34 mingled together superstition and rapine, and murder and liberty in a manner, which I want words to stigmatise, which I am appalled to contemplate; as to ferocity, very similar to all other mobs; and, as to superstition, most like what Mr. Bruce relates of Abyssinia.35 Now, which is it better to reclaim those people, or to confrm their / disorderly habits? Tey have proved themselves to be in that state of society, where observances have more infuence upon the mind, than moral principle. A state, which no system of religion that was ever known on earth, is calculated to produce among its votaries. It is clearly indicative of something vilifed and stupid in the mind, not from nature surely, but superinduced by extrinsic circumstances. It is the result of a certain course of manners, whilst these continue,

124

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

it will prevail. But whenever by teaching a man to set a higher value on himself, you give a greater expansion to his faculties, he will be formed to a more enlightened mind, and will acquire a superior tone of vigorous understanding. Somewhat previous to this insurrection, the Orange Society was transplanted from its original nursery in the county of Armagh; and, being applied to parts of the country, where even upon its own pretexts of justifcation it was not necessary, did favour in no small degree the intrigues of the incendiaries in the French interest. Te ignorant people saw a mysterious association, of which they were in some respects the object, but they could not divine to what intent. I know that this circumstance, / and the terrors, which from thence were artfully deduced, did in many instances drive the common people to seek for arms. Te Irish peasantry have been, from various predisposing causes, at all times but too prone to riot; and when this frst step had been gained, it was no hard task to lead them forward. Why should Democracy, solely a political monster, be opposed by reviving religious prejudices, which never existed to any benefcial purposes. Tere were holds of full as much efcacy and more capable of extensive application. Te truth is, that whether from perverseness, or blindness, or the horror of all kinds of innovation, or the occasional appearance of some persons on the scene in both dramas, there has been a strange confusion of a just with a base pursuit, of men who sought to improve their condition under the state, and of men who desired to subvert it. I will exactly lay down the diference. Te Gallic Reformer36 invited you to change for change sake; the Catholic pointed to an inconvenience in your laws, and he shewed you how he would himself derive beneft from the alteration. Te objects of the former were indefnite, and the consequences incalculable; but in a single glance you could hold under your / eye the beginning and end, and all the implications of what was sought by the Catholic. – You tell him, I think the Church Establishment is connected with the peace and property of the country. I wish to secure it, in its actual course of succession. He replies, that the disqualifcation, of which he complains, afords no additional security to the Church; that its pillars are the connexion with Britain, and the balance of property. Tat he does not desire the aggrandizement of his fellow-religionists, as a body; but that there should be no obstacle in the way, of any individual of that communion, to push, to the utmost extent of which they are capable, the advantages of birth and fortune, talents and industry. Tese are the distinctions which grow necessarily out of the social institutions; but we in this country add a new distinction, Religion; and, as it is unnatural, so does it appear to me to be impolitic; and, as it is of very universal operation, I do think it distorts and vitiates the entire system. Without any leaning to the doctrines of the Church established, there is not in the land a more true friend than the writer of this essay, to the principle of supporting the dignity and possessions of its Clergy. My reasons are solely politi-

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

125

cal. I think, in a better state of things than we have / witnessed for some time, that reformed episcopacy might hold the balance between the other great religious bodies. Te popular Religions ought to be provided with every liberty and decent accommodation for worship, and with the means of rendering their Pastors respectable. But an opulent establishment could not suit them. To divide the wealth of the Church, from the wealth of the State, would only give occasion to new broils, and produce an order of things, in my opinion, unjust, but surely unnatural. Here is the scope and course of my attachment. So far as my observation extends, the refecting Catholics of this country never entertained a wish to give an establishment to their Clergy. Shall we be told that, as they were uneasy under the civil disqualifcations, so if all diferences between them and the State were reduced to the ecclesiastical establishment, that would furnish an occasion of repining. I answer, that such is by no means the necessary consequence. Te civil disqualifcations are of a nature to cross a man every day in his interest, and in his passions. Te Religious establishment afects the one not at all, and the other very slightly. People meet, or think they meet, the afected superiority of a neighbour in daily superciliousness of look and gesture, and in all the ordinary ofces of intercourse. – Te penalties yet / in force against the Catholics must by some persons be unpleasantly or severely felt; but yet it would, compared with the number whom they afect, be idle to treat of them, at this day, as of a very oppressive burden. Tey are the watchword for a party. Tey minister to a vanity that ought not to exist. Tey feed unjustifable pretensions. Tey confuse the duties of the subject, and distract him in the performance of them. Tey tend to ulcerate* the minds of the people. – “My “Clergyman is better endowed than yours,” is an assertion not calculated to create so much controversy and pique, as this other – “by the law “of the land I am your superior!” It is moreover not the temper in which a demand is made, but the justness of the proposal, that ought to infuence / the judgment of a law-giver. If the people are unreasonable, be they never so clamorous, he ought to rise in his vigour and repress them. How easily might all these matters be arranged, if the Catholics would only be submissive, and accept the protection which these Clubists38 hold out to their *

I must advert to the temper of a Poem called the Orange; a printed collection of Orange songs; and, until very lately, to the tenor of the newspapers in that interest, to shew that if the Catholics were willing to be at ease, they would not be permitted. I copy this stanza from one of them; it appeared since the rebellion was suppressed. Describing the overthrow of the rebels – See their Clergy march before them, With their sacred vestments o’er them; Sprinkling them with holy water, And calling on to blood and slaughter.37

It is not every man, who despises those ridiculous revilings, that will not be roused by them. /

126

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

loyalty, only now and then seasoned by a little sharpness of observation; that is, in more familiar language, “let matters remain as they are.” In the name of all those feelings which are irritated and infamed at the prospect of diminishing your hopes of Parliamentary importance, are men, constituted like yourselves, to behold every day the travellers passing and repassing, from humble situations to eminent honours in the State, and do you expect they shall never long to join you in the journey? Tis world was made for Cesar.39 O admirable adepts in the science of the human heart! O benevolent and considerate Fellow-Citizens! In what respect does the Constitution of a Catholic difer from your own, that he should shrink in awe before the silly emblem of your faction, or tremble at the polluted name of the great William?40 Forbearances of that nature are, I conceive, not to be expected; and, least of all, under the circumstances to which I have so ofen pointed. Rich men will pine afer the compliments which / generally await on wealth. You cannot contract their means of prospering, without ruining the resources of the State; and that, give me leave to prophecy, the supreme Government, for its own interest, will not consent to. Aspiring young men at the Bar41 will perceive that the passage into the House of Commons is not very difcult, and that, in a course of Parliamentary exertions, a man may rise high without very extraordinary endowments. It does not stand to reason that these claims can be at rest, whilst the inducement to urge them is so very near; and though they may happen to be dormant, that is no evidence that they are forgotten. I do not presume to deliver the sentiments of any description of my fellow-subjects. – On this very question of an Union there must be ten thousand diferent opinions among the Catholics, and nothing more unwise than to think of reconciling them. Te land-owner, the merchant, the professional man, the manufacturer, the inhabitant of Cork and of Dublin, will have separate views, and the peasant will be indiferent to them all: Te builder in Dublin, and the dairy-man contiguous to the port of Waterford, who pay the same rent, one for a few feet of ground, and the other for a mountain, will make up their minds upon very contradictory foundation. I answer for other persons, if the comparison / be not arrogant, as Fielding42 answered for mankind, when he drew apposite characters, and faithfully described how men would act under certain infuences. It is not advancing a claim to importance, but merely to avoid misapprehension, that I declare, I do not write in political connexion with any person or party. Entertaining the warmest wishes and the best intentions for the service of the Catholics, I have no disposition to soothe, or court, or cultivate them. When they fourished less than at this day, my insignifcant labours were freely given to their cause, and not, it was said, without some utility. I contributed my mite to expose their claims, and to draw to them the attention of the Empire, certainly without detracting from their reputation on the side of attachment to the Constitution, or its duties. I owed to them,

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

127

in return, the enjoyment for some time of a very grateful partiality. But as that partiality must have been either rashly bestowed, or withdrawn with levity, the rapid transition lef my mind in a state of apathy, as to any similar event in future. I plead in my own right. I should never have submitted to the toil of delivering these ideas on the present topic, but that I conceived, / from the Government publication* on that subject, that notions prevailed, where it is most important that they should not, founded in inaccurate policy; and that unless they were reconsidered, whether the Union take place or not, we could only expect a patch work settlement. I deny the position that the Catholics “demand such an alteration in the Parliamentary Constitution, as will give their numbers proportionate power.” – (page 20)43 No such thing. Tat would be, to demand a Democracy, with all its inconveniencies. Population would then become superior to property, and the acquisitions of a Catholic would not be more safe than those of any other. But they have demanded, and ought to demand, that, without moving any man from his legal place in our society, the tenure of power should be property, and not party. What could any a man propose to himself by asking for a good house, where he knew there must be an earthquake? I again deny that “any new Parliamentary Test Oath should be formed to admit the jurisdiction of the Pope.”44 Te jurisdiction of the Pope is as clearly ascertained as the jurisdiction of the King’s Bench, and would not be let in on temporal points, by omitting the oaths which assert the King’s ecclesiastical supremacy, / and which deny the doctrine of the Eucharist. Te supremacy of the Pope is practically little more than reverential; and if they are lef to themselves, no persons are more inclined than his Clergy to cavil at, and restrict it. – I am again constrained to controvert the position (page 25), that there would be indecorum or inconsistency in “admitting the Catholics to seats in the Legislature, and retaining the present Parliamentary Constitution.”45 I think more Catholics might gain admittance to Parliament, under the Borough system, than if the basis of Representation were landed property. Tese extracts, and many like passages in the same publication, according to my apprehension, are erroneous in point of fact, inaccurate in policy, calculated to create in the Catholics disgust, and further misapprehension in the Protestants. Yet it is a work in several other respects of good sense and judgment. It proves in what manner the Catholic question has been understood amongst men of situation in the country, who have few opportunities of collecting the sentiments of that people from intercourse. It proves to the Catholics how much they have sufered by the giddy politics, that have prevailed amongst many in the metropolis, in consequence of which their cause / became the footstool of Democracy; the cant of men who had no serious wish upon the subject. It was huddled up and brought before the public amidst a throng of impertinencies *

“Reason for and against an Union.”/

128

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and indiscretions, intemperance and innovations. It cannot then be a matter of surprise that its nature and consequences were misapprehended, and that opponents to it arose among some of the soundest heads in Ireland. When men were confused in the pursuit of their own interests, it was less extraordinary that the nature and extent of the demand should not be comprehended by others, less accustomed to consider them. But the disposition to Jacobinism46 which prevailed in Dublin, (where I deny that it was any thing like universal) and in some other places, according as the infuence of the Dublin party extended to them, is to be ascribed, in the frst instance to be sure, to the intrigues of the French Union, and the vehemently seditious speeches and publications, which were sent among the people; but no small part of it was owing to resentment and disgust at the assiduous illiberality of the Corporation of this City, and to another cause not much noticed. Every body knows the importance of newspapers in forming the mind of that numerous class in this country, who have not leisure or reading habits beyond / the daily occurrences, and the remarks that accompany them. Whilst the prints, in the party of Government, inculcated order and the social duties, they treated the Catholics with malignity. Tey were of course excluded from the houses of the people thus ofended, and the vacant ground was occupied by others, holding a language in all things directly contrary. Te train of evils I have laid down are not within the competence of the Irish Government to rectify. Tere are extravagant accumulations of the sovereign power in the hands of a few men, which lead also to extensive infuence out of Parliament, and the Government cannot be carried on without the concurrence of these persons. – It must then be subject to their passions and caprices, and to those of their adherents, and neither may be liberal and enlightened. Some of them may even protect, or indirectly patronise the abuses we complain of. Te reply is, reform the parliament. Whatever attention I am capable of giving to any subject, I have bestowed on the various proposals, which have been ofered to remedy the obvious defects and inconveniencies in the constitution of our House of Commons. I have found no scheme ofered which did not directly lead to one of these two practical consequences, either to render more inveterate, / the evil of power accumulated in few hands, without a Sovereign’s interest in the public welfare, and at the same time to confer a tenure more secure and more independent of the people; or on the other hand to endanger the stability of the throne; and of property, which seldom has survived the evil destiny of its mate; to banish commerce by disquiet; and conduct the nation through the ways of turbulence to anarchy. To a disorderly system, resembling in several particulars, if it were permitted to take efect, the administration of Egypt by Pacha, Beys, and Mamelukes,47 the king’s advisers can have no predilection. It is calculated in many instances to thwart the royal authority. For although the people have no great beneft from extra-parliamentary opposition, such a thing seems to exist, to what extent

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union

129

men remote from power cannot determine. To risk an appeal to the people at large would in these, or almost in any times, be, on the part of Government, an hazardous experiment. But how is the Government itself afected? Whilst the adherence of Ireland to the Empire is, in any respect, precarious; whilst it does not stand upon the strongest legal security; whilst the mettle of Ireland is liable to be stirred up to a division by frequent and familiar debate, and highsounding / appellations, so long will the supreme Government and its Minister, the dependant Government, be jealous of this people. It will be apprehensive of every party, and of the combination of any. We all know how prone, we little mortals are, to fall upon each other, on one pretence or other. Te temper and the occasion will be improved, and dissensions connived at, if not fomented, by persons combining the will, with the situation, to act efectively for that purpose. Te Government will not sufer any of the parties to be crushed, but will preserve the equilibrium by occasionally shifing its weight into the balance of the weaker. Te Catholics, as more exposed to the abuse of power, as being more generally dependent and standing more in need of protection and of quiet, seem likely to be the greatest suferers in this horse-play of politicians. It is very far from my thought in this statement to treat with disrespect any individual, or any order whatsoever; but such is the manner in which a perverse interest is likely to afect the actions of very honourable persons. Tis is perhaps, we shall be told, an argument for a separation. So it would be, but that a separation would be a still greater evil. An enterprize of separation, successful or otherwise, would just / lay the country down, where it was lef by Cromwell;48 and very probably without the same opportunities to retrieve from the disaster. What security have we then of better treatment and a kinder policy afer an Union? Te very best which the nature of the thing admits of, and that is the best possible, the urgent interest of the Imperial Government. Since the loss of her American dominions, the British Cabinet seems to have felt the necessity of bringing forward all the energies of its remaining territory. Britain, as compared to France, is an artifcial power which can only maintain, by the resources of the State founded on the difused prosperity and opulence of its subjects, the commanding attitude from which it cannot recede without destruction. Te wedge must be strong, frm, solid and compact, by which any impression can be made on the extended front of France, or the edge turned of her modern enthusiasm. Tis is our shield against the possible injustice or partiality of men, who, on the Union establishment, shall be called to administer power in this island. Britain at present dreads to interfere, lest it might turn out that she was acting against her very valuable interests. So soon as that apprehension ceases, the Ministers of the Crown will be under an irresistible necessity to satisfy the People, and bring forward all the / capabilities of this kingdom. Tey are at this day so fully sen-

130

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

sible that the State only exists by the accommodation of its subjects, that every neglected acre of ground in Great Britain is assiduously investigated and put to culture. And will they abandon this fair land to be the sport, and prey and waste of silly factions? Tese factions have had a permissive existence, and when the purpose shall cease for which they were wanted, they will be sufered to decline into contemptuous oblivion. For these reasons I cheerfully embrace the principle of a legislative Union with Great Britain. I do not think any thing better can be done for the country. In the existing circumstances of this part of the Globe, and in any circumstance which probable conjecture presents as likely to arise, I do not see that Ireland can attain a prominent rank in the afairs of Europe. If my country cannot be great I wish to see her comfortable. But in out politico-religious arrangement, although we ought to consult the lights, we should not be bound by the example of Great Britain. In that respect the analogy fails between the Countries.

the end.

AN OLD FRIEND, AN ADDRESS TO THE ROMAN CATHOLICS OF IRELAND

An Old Friend, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, on the Conduct they Should Pursue at the Present Crisis; on the Subject of an Union (Dublin: Printed for J. Moore, 1799).

Te author of this pamphlet claims to have heard that the Catholics of Ireland wish to support Union in order to bring the Irish Protestants down to their level. He rejects such a calumny and seeks Catholic support against what he perceives to be the folly, treachery and danger of Union. He warns the Catholics that the promoters of Union will not grant them political emancipation, but rather will retain the divisions between Catholics and Protestants to render Ireland dependent upon Britain.

– 131 –

An Old Friend, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, on the Conduct they Should Pursue at the Present Crisis; on the Subject of an Union (Dublin: Printed for J. Moore, 1799).

I heard with disgust a few days ago, a man presume to pronounce what he called the ascertained sentiments of the Roman Catholics. He stated, that the Catholics were unanimous in favour of an Union,1 and that their motive was this, that as they had failed in their attempt to elevate themselves to the political privileges of the Protestants, they were determined to have the satisfaction of seeing the Protestants brought down to their own level. In an enlightened and liberal assembly, that declaration was received with universal indignation; for it imputed to you sentiments which are infatuation, and motives which are diabolical, and the contradiction and reprimand to which the asserter was obliged to submit, gave general satisfaction. I do not now address you, in the fear that so abandoned a calumny had the smallest foundation in / truth; I do not exhort you to a general and manly co-operation in resisting the ruinous project of an Union, with all the virtuous and public spirited of your countrymen of all persuasions, from the slightest apprehension, that you have ever warranted the foul slander uttered against you; for if I felt such apprehensions, I would tremble at the thought of your alliance, and deprecate your co-operation. But I address you as the great body of Irishmen, and implore you to consider seriously and anxiously the fate which threatens your country, and not sufer any mean resentment or feminine jealousy to prevent you from averting it. Tis is no time for personal or secondary feelings, the great cause of your country is equally before all descriptions of Irishmen, and I behold already with pleasure, good resulting from evil, and this desperate enterprize of government, promising the absorption of all our intestine and deplorable dissensions in one generous oblivion of the past, and in one vigorous and patriotic combination in defence of the liberties of this land. Te public have been already appealed to, and you have had the opportunity of seeing this projected Revolution canvassed and examined; it is not necessary, therefore, to exhibit to you here, the folly, the treachery and danger

– 133 –

134

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

of the measure, I shall only, in a word or two, remind you of its particular relation to yourselves. You have long desired to participate in the Constitution of your country / and is it possible you can be duped into acquiescence or neutrality, upon a measure which is specifcally recommended to your enemies, upon the exclusive merits of silencing your pretensions for ever. Read the work of the ministerial advocate for an Union,2 that work which introduced this subject to the nation, and observe his account of the state of your claims at this moment; observe him seeking to terrify your Protestant brethren by the pertinacity of your expectations, and observe in their unanimous indignation, that your Protestant brethren are not terrifed by him. “Whilst Ireland continues a separate kingdom, the Catholics will not drop their claims, nor the argument of numbers in their favour. So far from dropping their claims, they have already renewed them; and the Catholics of Waterford, in an address to the Lord Lieutenant, have repeated their demand for political equality, and advanced it on a plea of merit. Tey have still, and will ever have, electioneering partizans in parliament, and speculative advocates in England, to feed their hopes, and they will be supported by every open opposer and secret ill-wisher to the government.”3 You may take the word of the Author – his position is too obvious and plain to be afected by his authority, and it is true, though he has said it. An Union must be the extinction of your hopes – Until that political death overshadows you, your pretensions as they did before, may / work their own way; time must at last heal the lacerations of the public mind: the human intellect naturally advances to justice and liberality in spite of casual interruption; the activity of the bad passions fatigues itself, and bigotry and uncharitablenass are tyrants of the heart, which do not reign for ever. A new ministry, a new Parliament, a peace, a great event, or a slight change may each, or all decide upon your ultimate success. But learn from the ministerial oracle, that an Union is the grave of your hopes, beyond which there is no redemption, Learn also from him the maturity of your cause at this moment, and that the fruit is ready to drop into your hands, unless the tree be cut up by the roots. “Who will be a guarantee of the Protestant Ascendancy, and whom will it content? A party of Protestants in Ireland term it unjust and absurd; another party in England term it by fouler names; great leaders in opposition, possibly the future ministers of England, may condemn it; and some members of the British Cabinet are supposed to be adverse to it. Its stability may rest upon accident, upon the death of a single character upon the change of a Minister, on the temper of a Lord Lieutenant, and the policy of this system is much doubted by the people of England.”4 I do protest to God, whether I consider the natural tendency of the measure itself, or the principles and declarations of its promoters, I am at / a loss to see any one object which it must so completely efectuate as the permanent subjugation of the Roman Catholics of Ireland. And what is hinted to you as the premium for this eternal surrender? Te pension-

An Old Friend, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland

135

ing of your Clergy, in dependence upon Government, and an intimation that in the new order of things some open may be lef for you. And yet you would be disgusted if you knew the language which this very Government, who have thus acted by you, and written of you, speak now in the hopes of your preserving a sulky neutrality upon this great national question. (I speak not of Lord Cornwallis,5 when I mention the Government – his conduct to you, and to Ireland, has been magnanimous.) It little avails, (say your old task masters,) what the Bar, or the mercantile community, or the city of Dublin may declare; the Catholics have not yet spoken, and theirs is the voice of the people. Alas! Catholics, can it be for good, that the men call you the people to-day, who yesterday denied that you were so, and to-morrow will treat you as if you were not so? Depend upon it, they seek to make your resentments, at which they will laugh hereafer, the instruments of their politics; but I rely upon you for a diferent conduct, and expect that you will set the example of a magnanimous forgetfulness of every thing but the honour of your native land. Tis conduct will reclaim the prejudices of thousands, and the liberality which you practise, you will inspire. / If you are not to be moved by superior considerations, I would in vain appeal to you for consistency, yet I cannot but remind you that in the year 1795, when the recall of Lord Fitzwilliam6 snatched your hopes from your grasp, the Catholics of Dublin, in a numerous and most respectable meeting at Francis-Street Chapel, unanimously resolved “that they would not accept of Emancipation upon the terms of an Union.”7 He who takes the liberty of thus addressing you, is one of that party of Protestants in Ireland, who, (as the Secretary has told you) thinks your exclusion from the Constitution unjust and absurd. He has always thought so. Many years ago, tho’ an humble and obscure man, he asserted through the press, the justice of your pretensions, even in the infancy of your demands:– He sought no emolumental reward, and denied himself even the pardonable indulgence of reputation. He looks forward steadily to the same object, and relies confdently for its accomplishment upon the progressive illumination of the human mind. He hopes to see his countrymen of all persuasions, one great, prosperous, happy, and loyal nation, and he trusts that the Catholics of Ireland will not contribute to its becoming a degraded and divided province. an old friend. December, 20th, 1798.

FINIS.

COLLIS, AN ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND, ON THE PROJECTED UNION

John Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland, on the Projected Union (Dublin: Printed for James Moore, 1799).

John Collis was a barrister at law who staunchly opposed Union, though he did not take part in the great debate held in Dublin by the Irish Bar on 9 December 1798 (printed on pp. 43–87 above). He is adamant that Union will end Ireland’s status as an independent kingdom, reduce the country to the status of a dependent province of Great Britain and remove legislative power from the Irish people and give it to another nation. He supports this claim by examining how England had mistreated Ireland ever since the reign of Henry II. Collis argues that Ireland had the natural resources to be a prosperous country, but that England had always put its economic interests before those of Ireland. Economic improvements had recently been brought about in Ireland precisely because the Irish Parliament had achieved legislative independence in 1782 and could put Irish interests frst. Tese advantages were now being threatened by the prospect of Union that would increase the tax and national debt burdens on Ireland as well as increase the number of absentee landlords taking their wealth out of Ireland to spend in Britain. According to the author, Irish representation in the United Parliament would always be outvoted by a British majority. Irish traders and manufacturers would not be able to compete on an equal footing with those in Britain and the Irish peasantry will face higher rents to meet the expenses of absentee landlords. John Collis was a member of the Society of United Irishmen in Dublin and served as president for a month in 1794. Although a King’s Counsellor and High Sherif for County Kerry, he was briefy detained during the Irish rebellion of 1798. Tere was, however, no evidence that could lead to a prosecution.

– 137 –

John Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland, on the Projected Union (Dublin: Printed for James Moore, 1799).

AN ADDRESS, & c. kinsale, january 1, 1799. Fellow Citizens, Upon the present momentous crisis of your fate, when a Union of this country with England is about to be proposed, permit an Irishman, ardently attached to your interest and prosperity, to ofer you his sentiments on the probable infuence such an event (should it take place) may have, on the present and the future fortunes of this isle. Te frst necessary consequences of a Union must be, the annihilation of your national existence, the transfer of the legislative power from yourselves to another nation, and the reduction of your country to the situation of a province subject to foreign domination. In the following pages, I shall consider the probable result to these consequences. As I look upon experiment to be the true basis of natural philosophy, so in politics, I look upon the historically recorded manner in which one nation has uniformly conducted itself to another for past ages, to be the only rational foundation for inferring what its future conduct to it may be; and upon this ground, I shall take a rapid and concise view of the mode in which England has exercised its dominion over this country, from its frst acquirement ’till the present time; that from a retrospect of the past, my fellow-countrymen may be / able to form an idea of their future prospects in a Union with that kingdom. Henry the Second,1 taking advantage of the divided and distracted state of this country, acquired an imperfect dominion over it; and as this power, such as it was, had been obtained by the divisions existing amongst the inhabitants, so was it preserved by fomenting and perpetuating them: Irishman was set against Irishman, and the unhappy island was universally desolated by violence, rapine,

– 139 –

140

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and murder; which were encouraged and rewarded by English rulers; and thus their government was founded upon crimes, the most revolting to human nature. In this wretched and crime-stained situation, did this kingdom continue from Henry the Second’s time down to Elizabeth’s;2 when, by the vigorous and steady administration of that princess, it was more completely subdued, and its administration conducted upon something like the ordinary principles of policy and justice. From that period the natural advantages of the country began to operate in its favour, and in spite of the narrow policy of its rulers to force it into a state of rising prosperity and happiness, a woollen manufacture arose amongst you: you not only supplied yourselves with this article, but also exported a large quantity to England, and to other countries; your population was increasing, and wealth and prosperity were fowing in upon you apace. But now, mark the conduct of England upon this occasion; of this England, to whom you are going to transfer the power of legislating for you. In the spirit of that narrow policy, which cannot see the general prosperity of the empire in the prosperity of all its parts; in the true spirit of commercial jealousy that cannot bear a rival in even a sister / country, she made an act of Parliament,3* laying a duty amounting to a prohibition, on your woollen manufacture, imported into England; and procured from your complaisant Parliament an act,4 prohibiting its export into foreign countries. Your manufacturers, deprived of employment, sought refuge in France; and in the reigns of William and Anne, emigrated to the number of near twelve thousand, establishing the woollen manufacture in that country.5 In this instance, England, unfortunately for the empire, received a severe punishment for the illiberality of her policy, by the establishment of her staple manufacture in the country of a rival and an enemy. But England did not rest satisfed here: – fearing that your Parliaments might feel a returning sense of their own dignity; fearing that they might feel a returning sense of the duty they owed their country, in the promotion of its manufactures, and the advancement of its prosperity – she, by an act of George the First,6 virtually took from them the power of legislation, and transferred it to herself; thus was your natural manufacture destroyed, and thus were you deprived of your independence by this kingdom, to whom you are about to be required to make a voluntary sacrifce of your country. And now, my fellow-countrymen, let me pause a moment to turn your eyes on the island you inhabit; behold her situated in a most temperate climate, with a fruitful soil, cultivated by a numerous, a hardy, a brave and industrious population; placed on the ocean, which is ever ready to waf the rich productions of her soil, and of the industry of her inhabitants to every part of the world, and to bear back its wealth to her numerous harbours, that open their safe and capacious *

Vide 7th William the Tird.

Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland

141

bosoms for its reception, / What a proud pre-eminence of wealth and happiness had God and Nature intended for you; and how large a measure of perverted human power must have been exerted to mar these bright gifs of Providence! but how successfully this power has been exerted, let the following picture of your country at the close of the year 1781,7 demonstrate: At that period, when the rest of Europe had advanced in arts, in sciences, in civilization, in commerce and prosperity, far beyond any former æra of its history, you were retrograde in all these advantages; excepting your linen manufacture, you had nearly lost all your old manufactures, and no new ones had arisen; your woollen cloth manufactory was entirely gone; your woollen stufs, especially your tabinets,8 (which equally shewed the talents and ingenuity of your people) were languishing, and almost ruined; you had scarcely any agriculture; you did not supply yourselves; public and private poverty went hand in hand; your aristocracy were generally absentees, increasing the misery of their country by draining it of its capital; your merchants were poor, few, and pedling; your manufacturers starving; your peasantry indescribably wretched, ignorant, bigoted, and almost barbarous. Such, my countrymen, were the efects of the legislative dominion exerted over you by Great Britain. Te year 1782 has become the most memorable period in your history. An armed body of patriots9 had arisen, to whose loud, repeated and frm demands, your independence was conceded. – From that moment, the age of your prosperity may be dated: a wise system of corn laws was enacted,10 and your country became the scene of almost universal cultivation; new manufactures arose, and wealth, happiness and comfort began to be difused amongst / all ranks of the community. In the seventeen years that have succeeded this æra, you have made a greater progress in population, wealth and cultivation, than has ever been made by any other nation within a similar space of time; and these advantages are still progressive. Tese are the fruits of your independence: and will you, my countrymen, exchange this independence, from which you have derived and are deriving so many blessings, for that legislative dependence on Great-Britain, which had already reduced you to so abject a state of misery and national degradation? For the purpose of more fully discussing the subject of a Union, I shall now for argument suppose, that if such an event shall take place, England will lay aside the narrow policy and commercial jealousy which have hitherto directed her conduct to this country. I will even suppose, that she will exert her utmost power (consistent with her own safety) to advance your prosperity; yet even upon these suppositions, I think I will demonstrate, that from the present situation of Great-Britain, and from the motives (resulting from her situation) which now induce her to propose an Union to you – that such a measure, if carried, must be ultimately your ruin!

142

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Supposing the present war11 to have a speedy conclusion, England will have incurred a debt of between four and fve hundred millions! At the close of the last war,12 she found it extremely difcult to raise taxes sufcient to pay the interest of her debt, and the current expences of her Government. How much must these embarrassments be increased, when her public debt is nearly doubled? and if at that period she found it difcult to pay the interest of half its present amount, she must now fnd it nearly impossible to pay the interest of the whole. In this / situation, she turns her eyes on your rising prosperity, and hitherto almost untouched resources; and to share her public burdens, and enable her to keep her faith with her creditors, she now proposes a Union to you. And if it should be said, that these are not her motives for now urging this measure, let me ask, why in the lapse of so many centuries, since her frst acquirement of dominion over this kingdom, did she not unite the countries when her power of enforcing a Union was greater, and our means of resisting it were less than they are at present? Te answer, in my opinion, is obvious; because she was not so overburthened with taxes as she now is;13 or even if she was, you had not, until the present time, sufcient wealth to bear any material part of them. It appears to me, upon this view of a Union, that its immediate and leading efects must be, the removal of the seat of Government to Great-Britain, and an immense increase of taxation; and I think I shall prove, that the consequences resulting from these efects must inevitably be ruinous to this country. Te greatest evil you at present labour under is, the non-residence of your men of great landed property.14 It has been lately stated in the English Parliament by Mr. Pitt,15 that a million is annually drawn by them from this country to England; and I think this annual drain has been little less than that sum for these last twenty years.16 Te more clearly to point out the ruinous extent of this evil, I shall for a moment suppose, that during that space of time this money had not been drawn from you, to what an immense sum would it now have arisen! How great a capital would it be, and how powerful a stimulus would it give to your agriculture, your / manufactures, and your commerce; and how severely must you now feel its loss! Te great landed proprietors who at present reside amongst you, are almost to a man retained by their parliamentary interest, and their places under Government. How enormously then will this evil be encreased, when your Parliament shall be annihilated, and your Government transferred to England!17 Te evil arising from an immense increase of your taxes, grievous as it must be, will be rendered still more destructive by having the greatest part of their produce sent to another country; for they will then go to discharge the interest of the national debt of England, which is in the hands of capitalists residing in Great-Britain, and must therefore centre in that country.

Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland

143

To what a miserable situation then must you be reduced by a Union, which will deprive you of the entire income of your lands, and the greatest part of the amount of your taxes. How will you be able to support this double drain? Tus will every chance of accumulating a capital be destroyed, and with it every rational hope of continuing your present state of progressive prosperity. Having thus, I think, demonstrated that a Union must be destructive to the kingdom in general, I shall now attempt to shew, that it will be equally ruinous to every description of its inhabitants; and I shall frst address myself to the great leading men of the realm. A Union will deprive them of the great political power they now possess. Te increased taxation, which must be a necessary consequence of it, will also take from them a very large part of their income. Tey will doubtless receive considerable pensions as a purchase for their boroughs, and a / recompence for the loss of their political infuence;18 but although these may be some remuneration to them, will they be any to their posterity, to whom they are in some measure bound to hand down that political power which they derived from their ancestors? To the middling gentry it will be still more ruinous, as the high taxes will deprive them of these comforts and conveniences of life which they have hitherto enjoyed; and they will be forced to take refuge in America, or to fll the petty towns of the European continent. I shall be more particular in detailing the infuence of a Union on the mercantile classes of society, as an idea is gone abroad that it will bring English capital amongst them, and increase their commercial prosperity. As all foreign markets are at present open to them, the only advantage they can gain by a Union is the British markets; and I shall now examine their chance of succeeding in a commercial contest with the merchants of that country. It has been lately stated by Mr. Pitt, that the British merchants have a capital of one hundred and twenty millions employed in trade; their manufactures have machinery that our whole capital would not be sufcient to purchase; they have established skill, established credit, and established markets.19 What have our merchants and manufacturers to oppose to these great advantages? Scarcely any capital, scarcely any machinery, unskilful artists, no established credit or correspondence. Supposing the present state and independance of our country to continue, what gives us so fair a chance of rivalling, nay even of out-doing the British merchants? Our almost total freedom from taxation, when compared with Great Britain, / and the consequent cheapness of labour, which will enable us to undersell them in foreign markets. Let these advantages be taken from us, (and I think I have proved that a Union will deprive us of them) and what probability will our merchants then have of success in so unequal a contest? What then shall we have to ofer the English merchants and manufacturers, that will induce them

144

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

to bring their skill and their capital amongst us? What recompence will we then have to give them for the sacrifce of their country, their connexions, and above all, their prejudices? I have thus, I think, demonstrated that a Union is so far from increasing the trade of the mercantile classes, that it will inevitably destroy their present commerce, and totally cut of all hope of its future advancement. It will be equally destructive to the peasantry, as it will increase the necessities of their landlords, and oblige them to raise their rents; and by inducing them to reside in Great Britain, it will draw from the people of this country these sums which would otherwise center amongst them. Having thus, I think, proved that a Union will not only be destructive to Ireland in general, but also to every class of its inhabitants; I shall now point out, from the relative circumstances of the two countries, that Ireland must derive almost incalculable advantages from the continuation of its legislative independance [sic]. England at the close of the war, when all her debts shall be funded, will exhibit the astonishing political phenomenon of a country owing a public debt, nearly equal to the purchase of every foot of land within its territory. Ireland, if the war shall have a speedy termination, will not owe a much greater sum than one year’s income. / From these circumstances, two important consequences must inevitably follow. First, that from the astonishing amount of the English debt, an enormous taxation must take place in that country; and your landed proprietors residing there, will either in direct taxation upon income, or by indirect taxation upon every article of their consumption or expenditure, lose two-thirds of their annual fortunes, and from the comparative lightness of the taxes in Ireland, they will be induced to reside in this country; and thus will your independence eradicate the greatest evil you labour under; an evil which must be so dreadfully increased by an Union. And secondly, the same causes will operate in making the prices of provisions and labour so much cheaper in this country, than they will be in England, that the English capitalists and manufactures will be induced to settle amongst you, and this island will become the emporium of the manufactures and commerce of these kingdoms, and the great depository of their wealth. I have now, I think, my countrymen, demonstrated to you, that your independance must lead you to power, wealth and happiness; whilst on the other hand, a Union must inevitably involve you in debt, taxation, misery, and ruin! I am aware that to all I have advanced it may be objected, that England might propose an Union to you, in which taxation shall be so modifed as not to bear more hardly upon you than it does at present; to this I answer, it is impossible she should propose such an Union, because it would be inconsistent with her safety; for if she was to open her markets to you, and give your merchants all the

Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland

145

privileges and advantages of her own, and still permit your taxes to be lighter than her’s, all her manufactures and her wealth would be speedily transferred to Ireland, to her own manifest destruction. / I therefore assert, that Great Britain cannot, consistently with her own safety, propose a Union to you upon any other terms, than these of sharing her taxation and her burthens to the utmost stretch of your abilities; which, I again repeat, must inevitably be your destruction, as your prosperity is not sufciently matured to support them. Having gone through all the arguments which have occurred to me against a Union, I shall now examine those that are generally advanced in its favour; and, I think, they may be classed under the following heads: Tat it will increase our commerce and prosperity, by opening to us the English market; and of this argument, the prosperity of Scotland is adduced as a decisive proof. Tat it will secure our at present endangered Constitution, and our connection with Great Britain. I shall not further discuss the frst of these arguments, as I think I have already fully confuted it; but I shall shew you, that the prosperity of Scotland has not proceeded from its Union with England, or even if it had, that the Scottish Union, at the time it took place, is in no manner analogous to a Union of Great Britain and Ireland at the present period. Te Scotch are a wise, well-informed, ingenious, sober, industrious, and frugal people; qualities, in my opinion, more than adequate to bring them in the hitherto progressive state of Europe to their present prosperity, and causes more natural, more inherent, and more conducive to that end, than the adventitious one of its Union with England. At the time of the Scotch Union, the debt or England was comparatively small to its present amount. I believe the land and malt taxes were more than sufcient to pay its interest, and the Scocth [sic] / Parliament made it an article of the Union, that these taxes should fall but lightly on their country; (yet this solemn article was violated in the instance of the malt tax.) Te increase of the national debt and of its consequent burthens, were gradual; and the progressive prosperity of the country enabled it to meet and support them. And what analogy can there be between the Scotch Union, under the circumstances I have described, and a Union of Great-Britain and this country at the present time, when her immense debt will oblige her at once to lay numerous and heavy taxes on Ireland, before her prosperity is sufciently matured to enable her to bear them. Add to this, that the non-residence of your great landed proprietors, which would be one of your greatest evils in a Union, is almost entirely prevented from taking place in Scotland, by the love the Scottish gentry bear to their country

146

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and their hereditary properties, which makes them generally resident on their estates, and causes less real property to be brought to market in Scotland than in any other country of Europe (Switzerland only excepted;) and in this kind of Amor Patriæ,20 our countrymen are, I am sorry to say, proverbially defcient. Having thus shewn you that the Scottish Union, at the time it took place, has no analogy to a Union of Great Britain and this Country at the present juncture, it necessarily follows, that no inference can be drawn from that fact of what the efects of the proposed Union may be. Now, as to the second class of these arguments, – that it will secure our endangered Constitution, and our connexion with Great Britain; and as to the frst of these propositions, – how our Constitution can be preserved by that which must inevitably / destroy it, is an enigma, that I must confess myself unable to solve. I have ofen heard it asserted, that a Union will preserve the connexion between this Country and Great Britain; but I do declare, that in my own mind, or from others, I never could fnd a single argument to support the truth of this assertion. I never heard a single proof that it will have such an efect; but I know many that evince it will have a direct contrary one. In the frst place, it will increase the discontents unfortunately too generally difused through this Kingdom, by the enormous taxation it will produce. In the second place, there are many patriotic and high-minded Irishmen, who are at present ardently attached to the King and Constitution of Ireland, yet who will but ill brook the sacrifce of their Country’s Independance [sic]; and thus possibly may the proudest and bravest spirits of the land be thrown into the ranks of the present half-smothered rebellion; and it is unnecessary to point out how formidable it may then become, when no longer led on by Vice or Ambition, but conducted by the talent and virtue of the realm. Add to this, that your landed proprietors, who from their residence and their infuence might restrain rebellion, will emigrate to Great Britain; and your government, who by its vigilance may discover and prevent, or by its promptitude and vigour, fnally defeat the machinations of the disafected, will also be removed. Tus will a Union swell the number of the discontented, whilst the means of restraining, discovering, or defeating their conspiracies, will be infnitely lessened. I have now, to the best of my judgment, examined the argument for and against a Union; I have entirely addressed myself to your reason, and I have with difculty restrained my own indignation, that / I might not address a single word to your passions; but give me leave, my Country-men, to call your utmost attention to the awful importance of this subject; the more especially awful to you, as if the evils which I have pointed out shall unfortunately be the consequences of it, they will be the more infnitely grievous, as they will be irremediable; for this measure once carried into efect, will be irrevocable, or if at all revocable, only so, by the last dreadful appeal to the God of Justice and of Battles.

Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland

147

As I am sensible that the present political malignancy of party ascribes to all those that oppose a Union, the intention of separating the Two Countries, to prevent myself from being included in this misrepresentation, I do declare that I am, and ever have been, an advocate for a political connexion between them; from its necessity, as neither of the Islands can, separately, oppose a sufcient population to secure it against the attacks of the great Continental Powers; but for all purposes of defence, the union of the executive power of the two kingdoms in the same person, appears to me to be fully sufcient; nor can I see how the union of their legislatures could, in the smallest degree, conduce to that efect; but on the contrary; such a union, by sowing divisions amongst us, and by destroying the prosperity of Ireland, will dry up these resources which have enabled, us in the present war, to give such strong assistance in men and money to Great-Britain; and should our legislative independance continue, the consequent increasing wealth of this kingdom, will promise still more powerful succours on a future occasion. As a Union has been the cure generally held out for the great evils that at present too unhappily afict this kingdom, and having, I think, shewn the ruinous tendency of that measure, I think it / my duty to point out a remedy for the present unfortunately distempered state of the realm; and I think I see an efectual one in the public and private virtues of the frst classes of Society;21 let them but practise these, and their properties, and the laws and constitution of their country, will be safe; let them but consider, that it is not in vain that the Almighty disposer of all human events gives them information, honours, wealth, and power; in return, he expects from them that they will enlighten the poorer classes of their fellow-subjects by their wisdom, comfort and support them by their wealth and power, give them in private life bright examples of pure morality, and in public life, of ardent patriotism. And let that portion of these classes which our constitution calls to the almost God-like power of legislation, exercise it solely for the beneft of the people; let them indignantly spurn at all those who may attempt to bribe them to sell their own honours and the interest of their country,22 to the wild attacks of democracy, ambition, or anarchy; let them oppose the fair and invincible shield of public virtue; let them, by the wisdom and goodness of their laws, rally every honest and well thinking Irishmen around the natural power of Government, and they may bid defance to the machinations of the evil-minded and the turbulent, and then shall they reap their rich rewards in their own safety, and the security of their properties, in the noble consciousness of manly virtue, and the glowing gratitude of a happy people. Nor will their legislative labours be great, as they have before them the fnest model of a constitution, that the wisdom of past ages has furnished; let them but act their parts honestly and uprightly in it: let them but bring it’s practical

148

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

/ perfection as near as possible to it’s theoretical beauty, and they may say to it (with a greater probability of success than ever attended any human institution) Esto perpetua!23

HAMILTON, A LETTER TO THEOBALD McKENNA

John Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq., Occasioned by a Publication, entitled A Memoire on Some Questions Respecting the Projected Union (Dublin: Printed by James Moore, 1799).

Te following letter is a reply to one of Teobald McKenna’s pamphlets, printed above on pp. 113–30. Te author admits that McKenna has written a temperate and rational work in favour of Union, but he maintains that McKenna has attributed all of Ireland’s problems to the existence of a separate and independent Irish Parliament in Dublin without supporting this claim with general arguments or specifc evidence. He, in contrast, places much of the blame for Ireland’s problems on Britain and insists that the continued existence of the Irish Parliament ofers the best chance of solving these problems. It is argued that the growing prosperity of Ireland over recent years is owing to the actions of the Irish Parliament and that Britain will never give Ireland equal commercial rights in the event that Union is achieved. While he supports a continuing connection with Great Britain and he is willing to see Ireland contribute fairly to the costs of imperial defence, he believes that the Irish Parliament is the best judge of what contribution Ireland should make. Although he does not fully defend the actions of the Orange Order, he points out that the creation of this Protestant organization was in response to the sectarian attacks made on Protestants by Catholic Defenders. McKenna’s pamphlet is likely to infame Catholic hostility towards Protestants rather than heal sectarian disputes. He maintains that Catholics in Ireland will not gain by Union and that they should recognize how many concessions the Irish Parliament has made to them in recent years. Te recent Irish rebellion and the present war against France make this a bad time to consider such a major constitutional change as Union. Furthermore, if Prime Minister Pitt makes too many concessions to Catholics this will alienate Protestants and encourage the Catholics to seek even more power over the Protestants. Union will not bring peace and stability or even the commercial and economic benefts that Britain is claiming to be ready to ofer. Rather, according to this

– 149 –

150

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

author, Dublin will decline if the Irish Parliament is abolished, British economic interests will dominate a United Parliament, and Union will increase rather than decrease French infuence in Ireland. Te author of this pamphlet, John Hamilton, was a Protestant Dublin barrister who was present when a majority of the Irish Bar passed resolutions against Union in December 1799 (reproduced on pp. 43–87 above). His pamphlet produced a reply by McKenna: Constitutional Objections to the Government of Ireland by a Separate Legislature, in a Letter to John Hamilton, Esq. Occasioned by his Remarks on a Memoire on the Projected Union (Dublin, 1799), which went through three editions.

John Hamilton, A Letter to Theobald McKenna, Esq., Occasioned by a Publication, entitled A Memoire on Some Questions Respecting the Projected Union (Dublin: Printed by James Moore, 1799).

Divide & impera.1

[…] A LETTER TO THEOBALD M‘KENNA, ESQ. OCCASIONED BY HIS MEMOIRE, &c. SIR, Your memoire on some questions respecting the projected Union between Great Britain and Ireland, &c. is, I believe, the third argument that has appeared to endeavour to reconcile this kingdom to the measure of a legislative Union, and is written in a stile and with a temper so very diferent from the two frst, is so apparently calculated to seduce men by the temperate and rational allurements, you hold out to them of moderate national rank and certain domestic security, / that you evidently build your hopes of success on the acquiescence of the most uninfuenced and respected part of the community. You have attempted this with an exterior of candour, which bears so strong a semblance of reality, that had I not felt that your foundation were so evidently unsubstantial, I should have been led to doubt whether your talents have not undergone a temporary suspension, whether the enormities of the crimes we have just passed through may not have made you the victim of timidity without your perceiving it. But a more close observation of your memoire convinces me that it may lead to a division of the public mind, fatal in the extreme, and though I do not accuse you of having lost your national feelings, I give you credit for the – 151 –

152

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

best motives in your endeavours to seduce your countrymen from the operation of theirs. But though the vicious cruelties of which we have just beheld our countrymen guilty, are to you and to me equally sources of disgust and shame, – yet something has taught us to seek diferent modes of recovering the national character. – You at once surrender the Irish as not susceptible of reform from within, and in the outset propose the radical cure of amputation, by removing for ever the great domestic cause of irritation.2* By this I understand you to mean the parliament, to it you attribute all our ills, our dissensions, and our calamities, and to infer that our want of energy arises from our complexity of constitution. When you attribute all these evils to our parliament, you must either allude to some universal principle of mistaken legislative conduct, or some distinct instance of error and unsteadiness, connected with some particular political subjects, that have of late been the object of agitation in this kingdom. Tat the former of these did not lead to the late rebellion, to me appears satisfactorily from the description of persons by whom it was promoted, but still more so from that of those by whom it was put down. – Had a general odium towards the legislators of this kingdom kindled an opposition to its acts, you would not have had so far to seek for its latent springs and sources. – You would soon have descried the abettors among the better ranks of society, and not have been driven to an almost chemical process, before you could trace its movers and their motives. Tat the political subjects latterly agitated here were not the cause of it, you fairly argue and I readily admit. I accuse no religion of ascendancy in rebellion. Tough I trace the fury and the savage barbarities of Wexford to religious animosity, – yet I do not assert or think / that originally they were sworn in to a religious warfare, – but you will allow me to say that their passions were infamed, and their exertions prolonged by religious awe and persecuting animosity, that sectarial antipathy led to inhuman barbarities, and sufciently evinced to the rational mind that Ireland was not then so devoid of bigotted animosity as to render it a country, the police3 of which ought to be surrendered either to the association of the lower order of people, or the bare terror of the bayonet of the mercenary. My mind suggests a very diferent species of cure, – the calamities which you so justly deplore, I attribute fundamentally to causes exterior, and I neither confne them to the parliament nor to religious feuds, – they arose in my mind from the intrigues of a power,4 aiming at the destruction of Great Britain, and were facilitated by the erroneous governing principle infused into our cabinet, by that power to which you are so solicitous, we should altogether surrender ourselves. But I conceive it belongs to ourselves, and to ourselves alone, to cre*

Page 1. /

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

153

ate and establish our means of security. – Regeneration is a principle universally inherent, allowed to exist throughout all nature. Would you deny to your country alone the universal recuperative faculty? or would you voluntarily and gladly extinguish it? / You say* that Union in the abstract, does not strike you with that assemblage of horrors, &c. I will freely own, that in the abstract horror may be too strong an expression. But if it should prove unnecessary, unproftable, and dangerous, ‘tis enough without presenting more hideous features. You talk of conditions in the abstract also – and again I admit, that in the nature of things two countries may be so situated as to allow of the consideration of conditions; but ‘tis not fair to argue in the abstract, and found thereon a principle that should govern us. You must shew me that as we now stand, in the existing circumstances, it must be most eminently serviceable, and the benefts not otherwise attainable, for unless you do so, there is one short answer to all your positions. Independence is preferable to dependence – independence can procure us all we can desire, and therefore must be retained. You next proceed to argue, that our liberty may be as secure under the superintendance of an imperial as a domestic legislature.† But here again your attachment to frst principles leads you into an error – for you forget the cardinal distinction between the liberty of an individual, and the liberty of a state. You indeed, by your subsequent defnition of personal liberty, shew that you build your reasoning thereon – your reasoning on this part of the subject I shall not / controvert, but I contend, that it contains no argument whatsoever, applicable to the present case. I do not fear that the Union will subject us to an annihilation of Magna Charta,5 or an unnecessary suspension of the Habeas Corpus act.6 Tese are rights that are common to all his Majesty’s subjects, and the English are interested in the support of them equally with ourselves. But there are many subjects on which an equality and reciprocity of privilege are not so uninteresting to England, the regulation of trade is a subject on which the people of Great Britain have been hitherto very solicitous to prevent our being placed on an equal footing, and the proportion we are to bear of public expenditure is becoming so, the rank we now hold in point of trade was obtained against their wishes, and has been retained with an eye of envy – of envy principally existing among the English mercantile interest, amongst whom the minister must ever raise his loans, and to whom he must ever partially incline. Tese are subjects, that without pretending to much penetration, I can discover many grounds to form a conjecture, that the rights of the Irish nation may not be as secure under an imperial legislature; and therefore I shudder at the surrender of our domestic one. * †

Page 1. Page 2.

154

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

While America was subject to Great Britain, I never heard that any national infringement of the personal liberty of the colonial inhabitant was complained of – the English constitution was / extended that scarcely civilized people, but the national rights were not so readily allowed by the imperial legislature; they thought the Colonies were ft subjects for national depression, to promote the national elevation of the mother country, and by proceeding on that principle, they drove them to a rebellion, which ended in American independence. Before 1782,7 Great Britain, I may say, legislated for us, and before that time our personal liberty was well secured, but our trade was not; there the rivalship stepped in, and you may have seen that the bankers and merchants of Dublin have attributed our unprecedented progression in prosperity, not to the impartial laws of the formerly rejected, but now intended imperial legislature, but to the wisdom of our newly obtained domestic and self-interested parliament.* When you talk† of erecting an independent government on every ten square miles of Europe, forgive my saying, you descend below any title to notice. If there is one so frantic Politician in this kingdom, to him let your reasoning apply; but I conceive the fnger of nature in general points out the line of demarcation. Tough in continental situations this may better admit of controversy, yet even there a chain of mountain or large rapid river satisfes all but inordinate ambition; but surely our insular situation might / have protected us from the sarcastic line of argument you resort to. Had the most eccentric of the French Directory,8 at the moment of the greatest elevation of the Republic, applied your reasoning to England, and founded on her comparatively small extent of territory a claim to imperial legislation, even the enthusiasm of republicans would have smiled; yet, believe me, I do not conceive the idea more extravagant than yours. You next proceed to argue‡ that our imperial rank will receive an accession from the surrender; how you mean to prove this I confess is a matter of some mystery. I have heard indeed an argument held out to induce the borough proprietor9 to accede to the measure, that one seat in the parliament which represented three kingdoms was equal in value to three in a parliament representing one; how true that calculation may be, and what efect your position will have on them, I leave to their consideration; but, if you seriously mean to argue that Ireland inseparably connected with the crown of Great Britain, and possessed of an independent legislature, will raise its estimation in the eyes of Europe as a kingdom by becoming a province, with the power of contributing one-sixth to the representation of Great Britain, I feel that you will have but few to support you. As well might a mighty lorded interest attempt to persuade an independ* † ‡

See Resolution of Merchants of Dublin. Page 3. Page 4.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

155

ent country gentleman, that / by surrendering to him irrevocably the votes of an inferior interest, the power of making leases, the choice of tenants, nay, the modifcations of family settlements, he would increase his prosperity and respectability, from being assured that his tenantry should always form a part of the lord’s interest at the election. You next tell us,* that laws we do, and ever must receive from Great Britain; but here again your general position furnishes an argument of which you make use, but which when examined radically fails in its application. You forget that situated as this country and Great Britain are, there must exist an imperial general code of laws, as well as a national and local one. When you say that we must ever receive laws from Great Britain, had you added the word, imperial, every man must have acquiesced; but when you speak generally, and include local appropriate regulations, every Irishman should dissent. It is to me equally paradoxical that Ireland should force imperial laws on Great Britain, as that she should compel us to obey her most probably unjust regulating edicts relating to our domestic arrangements, not obviously clashing with general imperial advantage, though possibly opposite to her distinct emolument. Here the rivalry of trade occurs, and here we require a legislature of our own to defend our infancy, and check and expose their power and intrigue. Here our local / broils may call, in our equally imperfect system of police, for laws that in a country so matured may be received with disgust. I defy the information of a British parliament to provide against every exigency of the latter; and I much doubt whether they will ever satisfy this kingdom that they are disinterested in their decision on the former. Suppose that previous to the frst appearance of our late unhappy rebellion,10 we had been represented in the British House of Commons by eighty Irish members. We have seen with what struggles the bills for the suppression of seditious meetings were carried through the legislature in that country.11 Had the innovations on the received freedom of discussion in that kingdom, and the extension of the treason law as confned to Great Britain,12 been accompanied with our system of insurrection laws as relating to us, had the minister then introduced a bill for subjecting to death in any part of the dominions regulated by the parliament he then addressed, a man who took an oath to conceal a secret however treasonable, for enforcing magistrates to exact all the enormities of the execrable Corfew,13 and for transportation without a jury condemnation, how triumphantly would an English opposition have resisted such innovations! Not smarting under the circumstances that justifed them, he could never have been convinced of their necessity; he would have told the kingdom that their being enacted for the correction of our people was but introductory to / their institution as the scourge of them; the English might have recoiled at the prospect of *

Page 4.

156

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

such a superaddition to the innovations introduced among them; the minister would have submitted to a distant, in preference to an imminent evil; we should have been sacrifced to the selfsh or the generous efusions of Englishmen, and our rebellion have arrived at an irresistible maturity, before we had power to oppose or investigate it. Here is an instance where our social existence might have been lost, from the want of conviction coming home to the understanding of the representative; but the danger is still stronger when the conviction comes too home. Suppose, that previous to the peace, we all so earnestly desire, the measure of an Union should be completed. Suppose, as we all earnestly desire, that peace should open new sources of British speculation and of British trade, that our present Mediterranean superiority should lead to connexion beyond the Straits of Gibraltar, that we have hitherto been unable to form; should the mercantile power of Great Britain strongly urge the exertions made for our present Premier during the variable contest that now opens to so glorious a termination; should she with energy represent the eforts made by Great Britain, and without exaggeration represent the obstruction ofered by our rebellion, – do you think that every minister would feel himself bound to exert his usual infuence to prevent national attachment to themselves, and national / aversion from us, from operating as it might on the English parliament, in securing some little trifing pre-eminence that might with their capital be every thing? Would the knowledge of our representatives avail against it? Or would this nation feel they were equally dealt with? I fear not – I may be mistaken, but I am sure I argue truly as to men and to nations, as far as history afords example; and I sincerely hope my country may never make an experiment with example against them. I fervently pray she may never sufer even England to legislate for her internally, nor ever ofer to legislate for England imperially. Te feelings which have dictated the observations I have just concluded, aford a decisive answer to the next paragraphs of the memoire, I say the next, for I pass over the proofs of the utility of cultivating the English connexion with every reasonable assiduity. Every man acknowledges the inseparability of the connexion, and we agree in the common position, that it is only how it is to be most cemented that is now to be considered. It is advanced* that we are, if not legally, certainly efectively pledged to support the credit of Great Britain. Every argument produced from this I admit to be unanswerable, and I admit your position, with this addition, in proportion to our means: but, Sir, that trifing addition, to my comprehension involves the whole of the distinction between an imperial and an internal national / legislature. I think we are the best judges of our means, I trust we shall never be illiberal, but we are too much in our infancy to bear up against extravagance. I can foresee, in the complacency and indolence *

Page 6.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

157

of a British parliament, an absolute surrender of the question of Irish fnance to the budget proposal of the premier. I can foresee the difculties and the danger of the premier to lead to improvident and unnatural imposition; but I can foresee no means of redress: an impeachment would prove abortive, opposition rebellion; but I cannot foresee that a domestic legislature with a minister of our own would admit of a proportion much beyond our means. Te Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer would not pledge himself for an Irish remittance he was not sure he could raise. He could not be sure of one beyond proportion; if he exacted beyond bounds he is responsible to ourselves for the mistake, and will be less liable to be guilty of one. Let not then the opponents of the Union be taxed with unwillingness to assist Great Britain, to contribute the utmost of their means to support her naval glory; they only ask to have a power of securing and amending the contributory system, of judging of its equality, and of apportioning its burthen. You next* proceed to awaken our ardour to the connexion between the two kingdoms. Were you addressing the miserable hordes of deluded rebels, who have acted upon the principles of / French attachment, your reasoning might apply, but it has been my lot to participate military labour with you during the struggle between the French and Irish parties in this country – and I feel myself authorized to ask you, do you think that the respected and momentous power of this country, even counting it numerically, needs your stimulating rehearsal of British power, to rouse and instigate their zeal for British connexion? I thought every man I could deem worthy of association acted upon the conviction of it. – I remember the enthusiastic struggle that drove men, till then almost efeminate in their habits, to manly exertions, incredible and unexampled. – I saw the gouty honorary members of our yeomanry body,14 forget their inability and carry arms with those by whom they had been excused, and with vigour and energy that seemed supernatural; – and I thought that French repulsion, and British connexion, were the secret springs of animation that wrought so powerfully and so successfully. I saw the British auxiliary force arrive amidst the/plaudits of our city, – and every door opened with amplifed Irish hospitality for their reception. – I saw in every man that true interchange of connexion, that the mutual danger and the mutual assistance led to – and I attributed it to that cause. – I saw it in you equally with others, – but I did not attribute it to any partiality to the sister nation,† nor to your wish / to convince me that an Irish catholic is susceptible‡ of the glory of the British empire. – I admit your memoire glows strongly with that partiality, – And I doubt not its sincerity, while I attempt to expose the false conclusions it has suggested. * † ‡

Page 7. Page 9. Page 10.

158

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

You talk next* of the popular questions in which you say had the parliament been so constituted, as to have followed the minority into the popular notion of the day, there would have been an end of, &c. &c. If you mean by this a panegyric on the constitution of our parliament, I am in no manner bound to controvert you, – but I would ask you, have parliament hitherto preserved the connexion? With one solitary exception there has not been an instance of any thing leading to the reverse – that exception was the regency, an occurrence very explainable on almost constitutional grounds, but which a condemned omission of our fœderal connexion rendered possible. – How many instances have we had of co-operation? If you really fear separative measures on imperial subjects, I have already ceded the point to Great Britain, but I own I do not see the proneness to separation in our legislative bodies, that should deter the general minister from cordial co-operation with us, or that any circuitous or complex† mode of proceeding, opposes our unanimity on questions of imperial / importance. – You talk of our independent government taking orders from a power we do not recognize, and for remedy recommend us to adopt that power as our sole governing medium, and thereby secure permanent settlement, – thus you argue that the power which now agitates us, through a domestic legislative, would, through a foreign, cloath us in the comforts of industry. Can a power of such omnipotence be so unpropitious as to require a selfsh participation of our government, or resolve that otherwise we shall remain deprived of the means of industry? If she does, she has some sinister scheme to forward, and I deprecate the surrender to her ambition. You next‡ proceed to argue that from want of capital, our commercial concessions can atchieve nothing, and that nothing can induce foreign capital but a change of manners, which change of manners cannot be efected but by a great change of constitution. I shall, when we come to talk of police, endeavour to prove that a Union would destroy what little police we have, and that thereby the introduction of foreign capital would be repelled. But let me here endeavour to controvert your positions by denying the facts you build upon. If you say that our prosperity has not increased since the year 1782, you are the only man in the kingdom that thinks so. If the increase of civilization, extension of manufacture, / the progress of the fne arts, were ever rapid almost to a miracle in any country, they have been in this. It is within my own observation to have traced the gradual remedy of our disorders, viz. wealth and industry, advancing with a rapidity scarcely to be paralleled. – Ask the northern merchant, Did the diferent manufacturing towns of the counties of Armagh, Down, &c. supply the quarterly fairs with linen cloth, previous to the year 1780, as abundantly as they now do their * † ‡

Ibid. Page 11. Pages 12, 13, 14.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

159

weekly markets? How many considerable market towns have been established through the province of Ulster since that period, that are weekly exhibitions of the most animating industry, and produce weekly difusions of wealth and comfort to the peasantry, throughout almost the whole of that comfortable district? Is it not spreading with a rapidity that more than satisfes, that astonishes? I have been told, that it is scarcely fve years since the linen manufacture was hardly known in the county of Cavan, and that at this moment, almost every cabin enjoys the fruits of it. If you have formed your ideas from your own observation, Did you consider the eastern part of Ulster, a year before the breaking out of the deplorable rebellion, inferior in the comfort and industry of its inhabitants, to the most industrious parts of England? Agriculture, I admit, has not arrived at so much perfection, manufacture is not yet so general, but the improvements in the former must come down from the Superior,15 / and there the absentee16 is to blame; the great extent of the latter must wait for a population proportionate, and all the capital of England could not force us to get on beyond a certain pace, which though I do not argue that we have kept up to, yet I contend for it we were sufciently rapid to satisfy every moderate speculatist. Your observations* on the defciency of our present or improved commercial system, through the want of a superior jurisdiction to decide upon the breaches of the agreement, are, in my mind, sceptical indeed; but, supposing that it is impossible for two countries, each possessing a legislature of their own, to regulate their Trade upon the basis of equality and sound policy – let me deprecate this monstrous proof of your avowed partiality for Great Britain, when you recommend her Legislature as the impartial jurisdiction to judge of her own possible aggression, and of our possible innovation. – It is the frst time I ever heard a political speculatist advance that the more powerful nation was the impartial judge for the inferior to look up to, to decide questions relating to the rival trade of both. – Surely, the frst ingredient in every satisfactory jurisdiction must be impartiality; either we are likely to be rivals or we are not; if we are not, we need no superior jurisdiction to appeal to; if we are, I deprecate the surrender of every thing to the more / powerful country – her decision, though just, could not produce satisfaction. You next talk of Scotland – Tis subject has been so much and so ably handled in many of the publications since this question has been agitated, that I certainly shall not insert what must be an extract from them – I shall only observe cursorily, that I do not see that an Union would remove our religious broils, (of which hereafer) and that I do not wish to see the peace of this country obtained through half a century of rebellion. Indeed, I undertake to assert, and I hope to prove, that if every gentleman of property and of sense in this kingdom *

Page 15

160

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

would exert his infuence as he ought, that one-ffh of that time without any unnatural revolution, would be enough to do away all that was dangerous of religious animosity, and to raise this kingdom to real rank in the eyes of Europe. I have heard, indeed, from respectable authority, but yet have been compelled to doubt, that some of our Catholic brethren have been induced to accede to the measure, merely as they avow, because the Orangemen17 oppose it. – When a mind becomes so malignant as to be ready to surrender eternal privileges to gratify temporary resentment, to rivet its own disability and humiliation, barely to cast some degradation on an opponent whose bounty had scarcely ceased to fow towards it – I deem its opinion to have lost all title to public respect; but I cannot be easily persuaded / that men possessed of such feelings are considerable in point of number – I no more believe that the whole Catholic Body is so impregnated with envy, than I do that as a religion they promoted the rebellion. – However, it is vain to disguise that much of that spirit has escaped in your arguments.* – You reason on it, because you have heard of it; you are, I know, incapable of possessing it, and I hope there is no man, who, on refection, would be actuated by it. You will give me credit for my observations on the Orange Lodges, when I assure you that I am not an Orangeman, and that I sincerely hope no exigency of times will ever require me to become one. – But in saying so, my objection goes much more to the general evil tendency of political clubs, containing religious exclusion, than to the particular principles on which the Orange Societies are founded, as far as I can learn from their declarations and their conduct. – Te Orange institution has as yet been of short duration, it had its commencement in the North, at a time when religious animosity and republican spirit united to render the Protestant the victim of a short-lived and unnatural coalition between the Dissenter and the Catholic. – It was at frst an union or principle of self-defence, it aferwards broke out into acts of retaliation, not to be defended I admit; yet I do not see why the entire of the ofence should be visited on the Protestant; / I feel convinced that the political society called Defenders18 led the way, and that every degree of opprobrium visitable on the Orangemen as the continuers of a club, is also attributable to the Defender as an original promoter of an opposite one. – It was a considerable time before the distinction reached the metropolis. And when did it arrive at any alarming degree of consequence here? at a moment when the most deep-rooted system of anarchy and cruelty had broken out into a rebellion that threatened immediate destruction to the Constitution as established by King William,19 and was then raging with all the fury religious enthusiasm could inspire, to the certain destruction of every Protestant, for that was a sufcient crime, and to the avowed annihilation of every

*

Page 16.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

161

thing Orange in the land.* – Now, Sir, do not attribute to me any of the epithets you are so lavish of, when I say that I do not consider the extension of that body at that time an unnatural event; their frst principle, as well as I can learn, was the defence of royalty – so far they were commendable and useful; to disseminate that principle at that moment among Protestants of every age, education, and degree, was a most useful and commendable duty; the next principle was Protestant self-defence – I ask you, was / there not a great deal of Protestant danger to justify such a principle of association? Nay, I ask you farther, had the rebellion extended much farther and been conducted with the same religious barbarity wherewith it was carried on in Wexford, must not every Protestant in the kingdom have fallen into the Orange Society, and have separated himself from the Catholic? By the merciful interposition of Providence, the rebellion was checked, and I think much merit is attributable to those who had temper and good sense to resist the baneful system of political associations; but I do not attribute to those who did not all the venom, or any part of the spirit of revenge you so liberally bestow on them. You† say that the spirit of revenge lingered afer victory, and that they claim a dominion over their fellow-subjects – You pass over in silence the spirit of revenge that raged amidst the Catholics during the confict, and on what do you ground your charge? – I should have expected from your candour when you charge a body (among whom certainly some of the most respectable members of the community are enrolled) with revenge and love of power, that you would have adduced some examples to support you; – they have openly again and again disavowed every thing like religious persecution; they have published extracts from their regulations, tending to satisfy the Catholic, that unless he is an enemy to his country, they bear no enmity towards him.20 – / I know, indeed, that many acts of atrocity have been attributed to the Orange party spirit, but I know also, that many of these have been explained to me as not involving at all the question. – I do not feel any conviction that the Orange Lodges may not celebrate King William’s birthday21 as I do myself, as the anniversary of an event that established civil and religious society on principles of wisdom, toleration, and liberty; they may drink King William as a John Wesley,22 but they say they do not – you have given us no proof that they do – they have published resolutions breathing toleration – you have not shewn any to the contrary, or produced examples of persecution. I have been led so far into an investigation of the origin, principles, and conduct of the Orangemen, not from any wish to be understood as approving of their *

†

It is a fact, that in the County of Wexford, a debate took place between some rebel captains, whether a house should be destroyed or not, when a plunderer in his search discovered a pair of Orange hand screens, whereupon it was forthwith ordered to be demolished. Page 17.

162

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

principles, but from a desire to convince the Catholic that they are not so objectionable as you and many others represent them, and to endeavour to establish this position, that the man who would concede to the projected Union on the principles either of alarm from, or enmity towards the Orangemen, is possessed either of shameful timidity, or of ten-fold the malignity he would attribute to them – To dread their power, is to mock the government under which we live; to concede our everlastingly irrecoverable independence from the dread of a power controuled by the government, of about three / years duration, and which, from the nature of its institution, must dissolve with the circumstances that led to its formation, would be an act of equal intemperance with that of your committing suicide to relieve you from a temporary and naturally healing wound. But without pretending to much penetration, I can readily discover a very insidious scheme at the bottom of all this abuse thrown out against a particular body of the Protestants. A pamphlet which came from unquestionable authority,*23 has endeavoured, strange and incredible as it may appear, to kindle anew the seeds of disunion between the Protestant and the Catholic. It has talked to the Catholics of their numbers and their disabilities, and with much address endeavours to silence the Catholic opposition, and to deter the Protestant from the repugnance it was natural to expect he would express, by informing the parties that “Great Britain is not pledged upon any specifc principle to support one sect more than the other, nor debarred by any tie from assisting the Catholic.” Much has been made of this assertion, to endeavour to convince the Catholic that under an Union his claims would be more likely to be attended to. You assist the government in the efect they wished that observation to make upon the Catholic, by feeding their animosity against the whole Protestant body, and explaining the improbability of their / attaining their object from them, by painting the bigotry of the Orange Lodges. But let not the Catholic be seduced by the writer of that pamphlet; let him take into his consideration the concluding sentence of the paragraph from which the words above quoted are an extract, viz. “but if Ireland was once united to Great Britain by a legislative Union, and the maintenance of the Protestant establishment were made a fundamental article of that Union, then the whole power of the empire would be pledged to the church establishment of Ireland.” But it may be whispered, for it will not be more openly declared, that the maintenance of the Protestant establishment may not be made an article of the Union; that if the Protestants oppose it, and the Catholics consent, Great Britain is bound by no tie, not to support the Catholic in preference to the Protestant. If you possessed the same real love for the Irish Catholic that your publication appears to breathe, you would have told them, as I do, that hopes founded on such principles will end in a feeting and imaginary vision. Let the *

I mean the one generally attributed to Mr. Cooke.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

163

Catholic look to the political history of Great Britain during the period of the present minister’s power,24 and he will see a system of government that ought at one view to convince him of the fallacy of such expectations. Has he seen repeated eforts to repeal the test acts rejected on solemn debate, and does he remember the principles whereon they were refused?25 Does he know that state ascendancy / in its fullest extent was then as strongly relied on, as at any period our history can aford? Does he remember the eforts of episcopal zeal to support it, seconded and confrmed by almost the whole nation? And does he look to a reversal of that entire system, as the price of his acquiescence to this degrading measure? Te man who tells him so to hope is his worst deceiver. – Let him look thro’ the same period and trace the Irish history – What will he there fnd? a system of concession and conciliation – a change in his situation, extensive and emancipating, every disqualifcation seriously injurious, removed, none but a few disabilities, rather of ambition than reality, remaining. Tis amelioration how obtained? from a Protestant parliament, moved, promoted, and secretly impelled by Protestant members, a vast number of most powerful families pledged to endeavour to have the system continued, addresses procured and voted by Protestants declaratory of national fellow feeling and afection, men of honor and of talent their decided friends. Will he look to the parliament of a nation so disposed and so proved as his merciless enemies, and assist in the annihilation of it out of pure envy, thereby sealing the eternal continuation of those disqualifcations that, as matters now stand, he has every reasonable prospect gradually to be relieved from? If he does, he becomes a victim to the intrigues of his enemies, and the folly of those he esteems his friends, and on so important a subject I can only / repeat the prayer of a celebrated Irish character now no more:26* “that the God of Truth and of Justice who has long favoured him, and has of late looked down upon him with such a peculiar grace and glory of protection, may assist him against the errors of those that are honest, as well as against the machinations of all that are not so.”27 I do not mean to accuse you of being a dupe to such schemes, much less to attribute to you any of the malevolence I think, such principles contain; But, I merely state that when you look to the Orange Lodges of this kingdom as a permanent obstacle to the removal of the Catholic disabilities, you attribute to them a systematic connexion, and a degree of weight, that they by no means appear to me to be entitled to. Why were they not in existence to impede the concessions already made? because they were made before the rebellion had discovered religious fury, or before the personal aggression on the northern Protestants. You tell the Catholic† “that the Orange men do not feel their importance, that they overlook that they supply almost entirely the labouring and industrious classes in * †

Mr. Flood. Page 19.

164

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

society.” I conceive the Orange men in their foundation to have speculated upon a full consideration of their importance rather than their impotence. I look to it as much more grounded in personal defence than political intrigue. I never heard of any Orange resolution / tending to prevent further extension of privilege to the Catholic body; and I venture to prophesy that so soon as this country shall be delivered from the seeds and the impressions of the rebellion wherein we have been and are still engaged, when personal insecurity shall have ceased to render social intercourse unattainable, when Irishmen of every description by mutual intercourse shall have ceased to dread each other, you will fnd our national feelings return to that state of harmony that you and I may remember, and then in my comprehension will the distinction and the order of Orange-men gradually and quickly be dissolved; and should the evils attendant upon such societies which you so justly detail, fnd any increase in the speed of their removal from your observations thereon, I assert it will aford equal pleasure to me as to you. You are ingenuous in one part of your memoire. You say you consider the Union more eligible by the system of police to which it leads, than on any other consideration. I do not know a better recommendation any measure can carry with it, than its leading to a good system of police. But, it is on this ground that you and I most materially disagree, for I consider the hopes of a compleat and general police as utterly destroyed by the measure; and as I ground the absence of British capital principally on the want of police, whereon you lay so very powerful a stress, / it is fair that I should with some anxiety endeavour to establish my position. If I understand the principle of a sound and well regulated police, it consists of many parts, and a co-operation of a number of gradations of rank: it requires a resident gentleman independant in his property, dispassionate in his feeling, infuencing a surrounding yeomanry of respectable and comfortable establishment, who employ with him the labourers of their district, to whom he ensures justice and protection, and among whom he enforces subordination, honesty and sobriety by example, and, if necessary, by terror. It is in the last stage that I look for the assistance of the police man; but you seem to look for him in the frst. My system appears to me to ensure a circulation of property in the spot from whence it is procured, an example of moderation, urbanity and justice, a set of men zealous to emulate it, and a still inferior set obeying it at frst, but gradually admiring, adopting and embracing it. Your system appears to be from frst to last a system of terror, and a police regulated not by principle but by the bayonet. We have been latterly forced perhaps to assist in compelling obedience by force, but while I admit and deplore the necessity, I abjure the establishment of it as a permanent principle of government; and yet I confess it is the only one an Union will sufer me to look forward to. / When I say so, it is evident that I feel convinced that the system of police I would recommend, would be for ever removed from our hopes by the Union.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

165

Of my system the resident Irish gentleman is the frst mover; of him I think the Union would inevitably deprive us, there can be no system of internal police of which he must not of necessity be the main spring. It is not to the rapacious agent,28 or to the temporary and grinding middle tenant, I can look for either example or popularity. Tey, as birds of passage, look only to the moment, and care not whether their objects are efected by the bayonet, or by voluntary compact, – not so the permanent holder, his interest looks not only to the passing scene, but to the succeeding; every improvement in agriculture and civilization, holds forth permanent immoveable amelioration, from him both must fow, and without him neither will increase. We have seen the efects of residence and example, polishing and enlightening every corner of our isle. We have seen ourselves horridly cast back to barbarism. We behold the men of fortune, our best hope for reformation, balancing between a return and an eternal separation,29 and we are asked to cast into the adverse scale, the eternal surrender of our parliamentary rights, and with that the eternal assurance of their separation and indiference, nay, their detestation. Perhaps you may doubt that the measure of an Union would ensure the removal of the Irish gentleman. I confess I do not feel that much is necessary to be said on that / part of the subject. Human nature, in my mind, afords the best argument. We have found that an imperial court, and a numerous legislature, with the infuence and anxiety attendant, have proved very unequal to counter-balance even such attractions, as the so very subordinate a circle as our absentees have moved in in Great Britain has held out; the court and its appendages, may well be considered as the sun of our system. Our subordinate and inferior luminary, even as it has been illuminated, has found it hard to preserve a respectable number of attendants. It was found more proftable to be a satellite attendant upon the frst mover, than a planet annexed to the secondary, but when you deprive us of all our cherishing and attractive rays, I fear our disk will become truly unilluminated and opake. And at what moment are our powers of attraction to be annihilated? – Is it when civilization triumphed, when subordination was acknowledged, when agriculture had been progressively improving, when a peaceful and happy residence of fx or seven summers had attached the lord to his soil; or when the establishment of a number of manufactories under his protection, and possibly with his pecuniary assistance, had rendered his continuance necessary and delightful? Or is it when he has scarcely ventured to visit his mansion, when every tree in his plantation has presented a concealment for an assassin, when his house / has been the receptacle of military defenders, and his residence perhaps the country village nearest his mansion, where alone he could sleep in safety? Must it not be allowed that to persuade our men of property to live with us now, we ought to be super-endowed with accumulated means of conciliating their residence, and not be called upon to surrender all their consequence and rivet their alienation?

166

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

How difcult we shall fnd it, even situated as we are, to reconnect the orders of society in this kingdom, is a melancholy refection. – Our higher ranks, from the various aggressions they have either sustained personally or been witnesses to, loathing and viewing with fear and abhorrence those with whom they were accustomed to interchange the necessary duties of society, – while the lower order of people, either from actual habit or the frequency of public crimes, considering as trivial those ofences, which, before they became familiarized to, they hardly thought possible, and living in actual intercourse with those who commit them, whom formerly they would have driven from their district, – How tedious and laborious will it be to reunite them – and without a reunion how is the country to become civilized or endurable? Leave the Irish peasant now to his own meditations, and compel him to be decorous by bare dint of power, you will but condense and confrm those principles of barbarity and outrage, that as yet are but slightly imprinted, / but which on every opportunity will break forth with reanimated force. But if by virtuous example, and the eforts of interested philanthropy, you cast a shame upon their vices, the native character may still throw of the newly introduced vices it is yet but acquiring; and the reformation that is the result of conviction, and moral feeling, may become lasting and worthy of our confdence. What a diferent prospect then does our country present, when we contemplate the absence, and the residence, of our men of property? You labour much* to prove to us, that the removal of the remaining catholic disqualifcations is a matter of pure justice, that it will have the efect of reforming the national character, but that it is incompatible with the existence of Orange Lodges, and the present state of our politics. – Te diference between you and me on this subject, as to the essential point, is very immaterial. I abhor religious distinctions as much as you do. I hold the Catholic Loyalist in as high estimation as you do. I admire his ambition, I feel for his vexation, when he sees others passing to rank in the state by means from whence he is excluded. – But I do not hold the Orange Lodges as possessed of all the religious acrimony that you do; – and if they were, I deny their ability to counteract the Government, the Catholic, the Dissenter, and the Protestants who are not Orangemen, in their schemes of extension of catholic privilege / whenever it can be judged expedient. You say, the rebellion has furnished the Orange-men with arguments against the catholics, and you shew most satisfactorily that the rebellion should not impede the progress of their cause. I perfectly concur, and call on you for equal candour, to a position of mine, that though the rebellion is not an argument against the catholics fundamentally and permanently, – Yet it is a temporary bar to any great constitutional change. It has placed the country in a situation that requires the best exertion of every man in the state, to be directed to one object, the pub*

Pages 29, 30.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

167

lic peace. Catholic privilege is a question of awful importance, the antecedent arrangements are numerous and difcult. Teir burdens are neither heavy or intolerant, they ought hardly yet to have recovered from the joyous feelings, that recently removed restrictions must have created in them, and though I am not one of their body, I venture to assert in opposition to you, that the mass of the Catholics are impressed with feelings of afection towards the mass of the Protestants, and I do most sincerely and disinterestedly recommend to them to rely on such feelings, as the surest means of obtaining their grand object, – they have the best grounds for such reliance in the patriotism and liberality of this country at large – in the certainty that such a measure must precede the true glory of this kingdom, and they possess the best and most impressive earnest, in the / concessions already made. – Should they look to an Union for the means of it, certain must be their disappointment. By the removal of the Parliament, the great object they now aspire to will be placed for ever beyond their reach. – It will prove, I assert, their truest wisdom, to unite with the Protestant to defend the Constitution – Tey cannot fail, and at no distant day, to become partakers of it. Tis is a moment, I may say, of mental ferment – ’tis difcult to fnd any man capable of cool refection. – Should the Catholic madly acquiesce in the proposed constitutional surrender, in the hope of participating in the English Legislature, I have already endeavoured to prove that his hopes must be fruitless – let us then look a little forward – Will this become a country for the residence of Protestants? Tey are now possessed of a great proportion of the wealth of the country; as such, with an additional increase of Catholic consequence, obtained against their will by an unconstitutional violation of the rights of every Irishman, will many of them be likely to remain? If not, the proportion of Catholics must necessarily increase, and with that, their restlessness under the present Church Establishment, which you admit ought not to be altered.* When the public mind has recovered from its fever, the Catholic, increased in his national proportion, rankling under the continuance of Church Ascendancy, admitted to no share in the / miserable shadow of representation that will absorb all the patronage of the Crown in this kingdom, will be apt to feel the addition of national degradation to his own religious inferiority. – He will lament that he assisted in the removal of that Parliament, from whom he had received the means of acquiring that wealth that has led to his ambition and his disappointment – He will feel disgust, that the means he looked to for the gratifcation of his favourite objects, have proved the eternal barrier to his attaining it – He will feel with increased disgust, that the whole was but a scheme for subjecting his country to a foreign tribute, scarcely appearing to be voted by its representatives. – Te kingdom then, almost wholly Catholic, will spurn at the tributary connexion with a nation wholly Protestant; *

Pages 29, 30.

168

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and then, indeed, will the Catholics, in a body, look to a separation; then will every thing that has lately passed before our eyes, be reiterated with accumulated vigour, but with palsied opposition, while our unhappy country may sink beneath the calamity, so low as hardly to be worth contending for. I seriously consider this measure of an Union, if carried, as the certain foundation of future attempts at separation that will involve us in endless civil wars, and subject us to incessant attempts by intrigues and false hopes to countenance French connexion. – Look to the political history of the world for the last thirty years, and try / if the public mind has graduated towards slavery, or freedom – How individual was public exertion in America to shake of the yoke of foreign power – How zealous was the fruitless and lamentable struggle of the Pole to preserve the connexion and independence of his country30 – How vast is the power by which the conquest is retained – How immensely disproportionate were the numbers of the invading French army to the possible exertions of the valiant Swiss31 – How honourable their opposition even to a Republican Union, – How truly grievous their lot. But these exertions aford me abundant grounds for one assertion, that formed as the public mind now is, imperial concession is not at this moment a wise foundation for fæderal connexion. You appear to me* as desirous of impressing on the public mind, that whatever share of interference religion has had in the rebellion was attributable to the Catholic inferiority, which, as you hint, had vilifed his mind. – Tis furnishes me with one observation as to the propriety of agitating the public mind at this moment by the discussion of the Catholic question. – What are the disqualifcations from which the Catholics have been relieved since the year 1778,32 or I think I should rather ask, what is lef that the Catholic peasant can complain of ? Have the various immunities to which he has been advanced, made / no impression on him? Have they induced no gratitude, no pride, no self-importance? Has the efect of the constitutional prerogative that he has but once exercised already escaped his mind, or does he think that he has possessed it from beyond the time of memory? If he is so instructed, if he is taught that all he has obtained is immaterial, and can be persuaded yet to be guilty of acts founded in bigotry and persecution, he must be flled with a degree of ignorance, that never will admit the introduction of such generous sympathies as ought to precede fnal constitutional participation. And the instance you adduce fortifes me - You say that when the Orange Societies made their appearance, the Catholics saw a mysterious association, and therefore sought for arms. I say if they did so, they were ignorant and ungrateful – Had they looked to the Government for protection, they would have found it there - Had they looked to the Protestant for explanation, they would have *

Pages 26, 27.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

169

found assurances that must have produced satisfaction, and in many instances, perhaps, co-operation, but Catholics like those of Wexford, who were induced to acts of unparallelled cruelty, by way of retaliating, forgot the Protestant Acts which had so recently benefted them – they yielded to the old instigation of religious vengeance, and as far as their numbers went, disgraced their body; such men, you must admit, deserve not imperial participation When one partial act of mystery can counterbalance years of open and courted fraternity, the mind cannot be said to be in a state ft for general afliation. – If gradual concessions do not as gradually do away antipathies that ought to be obsolete, no man can argue for equal participation. I have said that a moment of popular ferment is unft for discussion of important state subjects, and with that feeling I cannot help expressing much displeasure at the very infammatory language* with which a writer of your professed moderation treats the remaining disqualifcations of the Catholics in temporal matters, for the spiritual you give up, and that too with an admission in the midst of them, “that it is idle, considering the number afected by them, to treat of them at this day as a very oppressive burthen.” Tat opinion is in my mind too universal for you to combat, yet why do you accompany your admission of it with declarations that “people meet the afected superiority of a neighbour in daily superciliousness of look and gesture, and in all the ordinary ofces of intercourse,” and with saying “that the assertion, that by the law of the land I am your superior, is calculated to create controversy and pique;” and you! then accompany the proofs of the restlessness of Protestant superiority by the insertion of an Orange stanza that could only infuence minds as vulgar as that of the composer of it. Afer the advances made / towards a good understanding between these religions you conceive so strong in their rivalry, afer the gradual progression towards equality conceded from the one to the other, with no oppressive burthen remaining, is it good sense to recur to such stale and common-place observations, or to insert such a paltry reviling? Is it that you fear the Catholic body are too near an Union with their Protestant fellow-subjects? I am sure it is not, for I believe you heartily wish to promote it; but I must without ceremony say that I consider such observations at this time to admit of most dangerous consequences. It is pretty well understood that the measure of an Union is not to be forced against the wishes of the people, and it is equally well understood that a great majority of the Protestants are against it. If the government are as desirous of obtaining it as I believe them to be, (trusting with perfect reliance on Mr. Pitt’s conviction of the importance of it to himself ) I know no means of furthering it so obvious as to secure the acquiescence, or even the indifference, of the Catholic. And how can such a scheme be better promoted than by *

Pages 29, 30, 31, 32.

170

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

rekindling their animosity towards the Protestant, by endeavours to shew them that their interests are distinct, that it will level at once such supercilious superiority, and involve them both in one common degradation. Such arguments may for a moment create a pause, but they contain too much fallacy to remain long with any operation; and I foresee that / the detection of the insidious object held out will animate the opposition to the measure, and unite the whole kingdom in one universal burst of indignation and rejection. Afer recounting a variety of causes, which, as you conceive, led to the failure of the Catholic question, and which, whether they did or not, appear to me wholly inapplicable to the present subject, you proceed* to say, “that the train of evils you have laid down are not within the competence of the Irish parliament to rectify.” I really am at a loss to discover throughout your memoire what train of evils you allude to. You confne your observations generally to the Catholic question, on which you have dilated with considerable force of argument, but I think it ill directed and ill timed. You endeavour to infuse into the Catholic the inadmissibility of his claims through the medium of the Protestant, and most particularly describe the parliament as the place of all others where he must make it with least hopes of success; and the only manner your observations can apply to the question you propose to treat of is, by your endeavours to reconcile to the Catholic the removal of a body hostile to his advancement. A publication tending to raise such sentiments would have been wholly unexplainable, had you not avowed your partiality for Great Britain, and if the public mind had not required some unnatural subject to create a / division, for without shewing the Catholic some extraneous ground to induce his concurrence, he must naturally be led to join the Protestant in his detestation of the measure. I have already thrown out many grounds to induce the Catholic to confde in the Protestant, as the sure means of his attaining the removal of such disqualifcations as can be dispensed with, without the surrender of the spiritual ascendancy. How many men of experience, ability, and consequence in this kingdom stand pledged to the measure at all times? How many more have dissented, not from general principles, but from temporary motives, who have argued in concurrence with the received opinion of many able statesmen, that great political changes should proceed gradually: that to level at once all religious distinctions in a state, would be to make an experiment, the issue whereof might be fatal? Has the amount of the concessions already made been considerable, and the progress of them rapid? Will not the religious dissension, while it exists, be an inconceivable drawback on the prosperity of the country? Will it admit of our ever venturing to engage in any national object that may require universal coincidence of will and of action? Will not intercourse and social communica*

Page 38.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

171

tion break down the prejudices which stand in the way, and will not the general advantage to the country press the matter forward, and carry it into efect, in spite of prejudice or party? How / numerous and irresistible are the grounds whereon the Catholic should stand with certainty for the full attainment of his wishes, as matters now are? But how equally irresistible will be the obstacles he will have to encounter afer the proposed change? You tell him that there are “extravagant accumulations of sovereign powers in the hands of a few men,” which must stand for ever in their way. If there are such accumulations, let the Catholic examine the principles of those in whose hands they are placed, and let him learn that many of them stand pledged to the attainment of his object. Let him with dispassionate refection view his interest as it stands in the nation and he will see that his political situation must acquire gradual increase; but how will it be lost in the scale of the empire, when he parts with that parliament, of which alone he can ever be a partaker, and of which his body now constitute a majority of the electors. Let him discredit every speculatist who tells him that parliament are incompetent to his admission. If you intended any allusion to the rebellion and the causes of it, which you would argue that our parliament are incompetent to remove, I must beg to express my most unqualifed dissent. I think this is one of the most prominent features where the superiority of a domestic to a foreign parliament is discoverable. Look to the code of laws calculated to meet every step in the gradation of rebellion, and which though unable to control / the unbounded exertions of our secret enemies, yet were of the utmost advantage in checking and opposing it. Look to the report of the Committees of both Houses.33 See the evidence they waded through, written and unwritten: could the development of a mystery of such complication have taken place in any other country, or by the investigation of any other parliament? Surely matters of this nature require the prompt decision and the accurate information of a legislative body acting on the very spot where the evil exists. I should have expected that a writer who seems to have the success of the measure so much at heart as you do, would not have confned his arguments in support of it to a short catalogue of evils to be removed, and totally omit any persuasive observations, grounded on advantages to be conferred. – Perhaps you tried it, and having found, afer deep research, that every attempt at argument, grounded on advantages to be conferred, ended in a circle, you very prudently relinquished that very operative mode of conviction; and it would, in my mind, be equally prudent in every writer on that side of the question to follow your example. – Indeed, the most warm advocates for the measure, confne their promises on that side of the subject to two points, extremely desirable I confess, viz. internal peace, and external commerce; but I own I have heard / little to seduce me to consider either of them as likely to be improved by it.

172

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

As to the promotion of internal peace from the measure, I have already mentioned the subject, and endeavoured to argue that it would be much more injured than improved by it. – As to commerce, I certainly am unequal to go into the detail of the subject, but there are a few thoughts that have occurred to me, as to the general probability of our being benefted by the change, that I shall here subjoin. Te great and leading objection to the surrender, in a commercial point of view, arises from the degree of rivalship that already exists between the two kingdoms on that subject, and that is likely to encrease as we get forward in prosperity. – Te opposition of the British merchants to the propositions of 1785, which were of so inconsiderable consequence as to be rejected by this kingdom,34 is one example worth a thousand, to satisfy us of their attachments to their own interest. – Indeed, the general character of the British merchant, the frst for enterprize and knowledge in every branch of trade with every corner of the globe, is known to be as universally established for intrigue and exclusion; – add to this, the immense diference between us in point of capital – Will you attempt then to argue, that it is safe to surrender our still infant manufacture, and far from matured trade, to the actual control of men elected and infuenced by the English / merchant. – Tough in every branch of legislation the concession might be desirable, the danger attendant upon this would, in my mind, be a very sufcient counterbalance – this is the great source of our prosperity – it is by this that we are to attain to that rank, and that wealth, that nature seems to have pointed out as our portion, from our situation and our internal resources; and it ought not to be hazarded for any transitory gratifcations, supposing them even to exist. But how is the great increase of trade to be promoted – Is it argued that Ireland is situated upon the map so advantageously, as that she might become a kind of emporium for the entire of Europe to resort to for the purchase of West Indian commodities? – In my apprehension not – she contains admirable materials for success in the promotion of manufactures of various kinds, and will certainly arrive at population to make use of every advantage she possesses; but to talk of foreign imports, all I would ask for her would be, that she might arrive at the exclusive carrying and importing all the materials necessary for her consumption, and for her manufacture. – England now, with little exception, enjoys the carrying trade for both kingdoms – through her we obtain most of our sugars and West Indian articles. – I should hope, indeed, that we might soon obtain that by ourselves; but I have not the vanity to aspire to be the carrier of West India product for England, or the channel through / which she will receive it. – Let every man, therefore, who talks of encrease of commerce, be assured that the diminution of consumption may not counterbalance any advantage the measure holds out; and the diminution, I should fear, would be immense, when I consider that every absentee who leaves this kingdom draws with him at least one artizan, and every artizan, perhaps, six working mechanics. – How this will operate a few years will evince, with, I dread, most melancholy proof.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

173

My last observation is grounded on a supposition, that our commercial system is capable of being amended by concessions from Great Britain – Whether it be or not, is for those who are versed in the subject to decide – from every thing I have been able to learn on the subject, our commercial rank needs not, indeed is not susceptible of, much improvement; but admitting that it does require some alteration, and that Great Britain is willing to purchase our legislative surrender by a grant of commercial immunity; it does not, in my mind, follow that we would be prudent in accepting of the terms. – Te beneft derived to our trade may perhaps be counterbalanced by the injury sustained by our private security; the want of the latter may annihilate the means of taking advantage of the former; but, above all, let every Irishman consider – Has not nature entitled us to as free a trade as Great Britain. – You are eloquent and forcible in your / reasoning upon the equality of the Irish Catholic and Protestant, and triumphantly say, “this world was made for Cæsar,”* but your admitted partiality for Great Britain has blinded your discrimination as to the equality of the English and Irish character, for you seem to me to consider the equality of mankind, and the equality of nations, as subject to very diferent modifcations. For my part, I think better of Great Britain, than you with all your predilection appear to me to do, for I look forward with hope, to the removal of every jealous restriction, if any exist – in the certainty that our increased connexion will lead to increased afection, – but should it not, I still am against “bartering constitution for commerce,” feeling perfectly contented with the gradual advance we have latterly made in trade and prosperity, and which ever increases in its rapidity during its progress. It is said and appears to be relied on, that parts of this kingdom are likely to be much benefted in a commercial point of view by the projected Union, – and the the [sic] manly opposition made by Dublin, is sought to be frittered away by insinuations, that the interested feelings of its inhabitants, on account of the probable injury the metropolis would sustain, was the true cause of it. Tis argument admits of one objection that tells / very strongly against the measure to every part of the kingdom, viz. the injury to the metropolis. – Our rank amongst nations in point of civilisation is still below mediocrity, our manners admit of still considerable improvements, and the fne arts, I may say but lately introduced, have a vast journey indeed to travel, before they will arrive at an honourable maturity. It is by a metropolis of considerable extent, that the continuance of their progress among us can be secured. Will a deserted and tumbling city induce amongst us resident artifcers of eminence, or teachers of experience, – Will the stage, that great improver of taste, and corrector of morals, already so much on the decline, ever rear its head in a city deprived of its court and its wealth? – Let not then a selfsh hope of advancement hazard the prospect of refnement among us, but let every man feel impressed with the opinion of a *

Page 32.

174

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

profound philosopher,35* –” that the ages of refnement are both the happiest and most virtuous.”36 Tere is another observation I would address to the merchants of the south, to whom I must be already understood to have alluded – which is, that a change of the direction of public trade can be no argument for the measure. If one part of the country is injured as much as the other is improved, there is little national feeling annexed to the man, who would for partial improvement, / surrender general independence. – Besides, let the idea I have hinted on the subject of consumption be taken into consideration, and let the southern merchant calculate whether even supposing that the destruction of the trade of the metropolis would ensure the whole of it to center there, the advantages might not be coun[ter]balanced by the general decrease of consumption, and whether he would not on the whole fnd his situation at least not bettered by the measure. Tere is a temporary argument against the measure, which strikes me with a degree of force that would render it criminal to pass it over. – I have stated that in my apprehension, the frst moment of cool deliberation afer the measure is carried, would present this province to Great Britain, composed of discontented Protestants, disappointed and betrayed Catholics, and degraded Dissenters. – Te emissaries of the French republic found in this kingdom, notwithstanding the loyalty it shewed, a melancholy number of our people whose discontents made them ft objects for their schemes. What increase this measure might produce, I tremble to refect on. If this country, with the zealous ardour of the yeomanry, and the love for the constitution they evinced, aforded to France such means of attacking the power of Great Britain, as with a view to it alone, to induce her to break of the negotiations at Lisle;37 with what accumulated force of argument will Mr. Tone’s38 successor at / a future conference, recommend a repetition of the experiment among a nation, almost to a man discontented, and having no constitution to inspire the inhabitants with a renewal of their ardour? I say, France must be frantic, not to yield to such argument; and that the measure will lead irresistibly to a repetition of invasion, and the prolongation of a war, that has so severely fallen on every description of British subjects, though attended with unusual traits of glory. Your concluding argument,† appears to me to aford but little ground, to diminish the natural aversion we must conceive to the adoption of the measure. – You talk of the urgent interest of the Imperial Government, of the necessity of her bringing forward all the energies of its remaining territory; and when you talk of the necessity of universal action against France, – You tell us, that “her power must so terrify the British minister, as to shield us from injustice and par* †

Mr. Hume. Page 41.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

175

tiality.” – If nothing but an interested motive can ensure us a kind policy, it is not prudent to concede every thing to a tribunal so self-devoted. Every hour will not equally press her, and enforce her to be just – in the moments of continental quiet, she might commercially annihilate us; and I like not the omnipotent power, that requires necessity as the governing principle to lead to its justice; attached, / connected, and devoted, as we are, to one common fate, – must we surrender our interest to insure our protection? Is our national importance so trivial, that without an Union the policy of England would be justifed in being unkind, – I should hope she felt diferently. Indeed, we have examples that she does. Te dependance of our parliament was long a bone of contention between the two kingdoms, the removal of the cause silenced the dispute, – How many supporters had Great Britain during the rebellion of 1798, – that had the constitution remained as it was in 1781,39 would have been at best passive? It is not good policy to create anew a stumbling block, that has already been the subject of so much political antipathy. We now truly participate the British constitution, and would hazard every thing in its defence. But if you remove the source of our exertion, the efect of it may become in-operative, by possibility repugnant. Te reasons that I have ofered, make me with much decision reject the discussion of the subject of an Union. It is a subject that appears to me to be fraught with internal danger, and external injury, and to call for an awful revolutionary surrender, without any equivalent, or in any point of view, a substantial consideration. Discussing it as a native of this country, it must be considered I feel a national prejudice, that may subject my opinion to the objection of interested consideration, – Yet, I have endeavoured / to divest myself of false and senseless pride, to view the subject in every shape of projected beneft; and I have found it impossible to trace one solid advantage, that can arise to the kingdom from the measure. Te disadvantages and dangers to which it subjects it, to my comprehension are manifold, and therefore, I feel myself sheltered from the charge of endeavouring to rouse in my countrymen a false pride, when I address them by the general term of Irishmen, and call upon them as one people, that hope to coalesce and to form a powerful nation, the pride and sinew of Great Britain, – to speak forth regardless of distinction one voice, and to tell the empire with one unanimous declaration, that they feel, respect, and will maintain their freedom. If this appeared to me to be the language of separation, I would be the last man in the state that could give it utterance; but most fervently do I declare, that in no one point of view do I consider the Union more deplorable than in its tendency to a separation. One question it would seem might aford a proof of this, Has the connexion since 1782 been loosened or cemented? If my countrymen will attend to the language of that day, how forcibly does it apply to my opinion. Let it be remembered, that when the concession of Irish independence was avowed from the throne, the frst emanation of Irish gratitude, and which

176

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

was received with delight by the empire / was, that “gratifed as we were, we did assure his Majesty that no constitutional question between the two nations would any longer exist, that could interrupt their harmony; and that Great Britain, as she had approved of our frmness, so might she rely on our afection.”40* Here was a parliamentary declaration voted by many of our present representatives, that the removal of constitutional disqualifcations must lead to national cement and co-operation. Surely the recorded tranquil opinion of such men, at a moment of national triumph, must weigh more in the opinion of Irishmen, than the heated, if not timid conception the present moment might lead to. But we are not lef to the bare decision of Irish feeling on the subject, for we have a recorded declaration of the British Cabinet, pronounced by a nobleman, whose abilities now contribute to the government of the united empire, that must silence clamour, and render doubt shameless. We were addressed through our legislative bodies, at the conclusion of that memorable session, by his Grace the Duke of Portland,41 in the following words: “Te great and constitutional advantages you have secured to your country, and the wise and magnanimous conduct of Great Britain, in contributing to the success of your steady and temperate exertions, call for my congratulations on the close of a / session, which must ever refect the highest honour on the national character of both kingdoms. It must be a most pleasing consideration to you to recollect, that in the advances you made towards the settlement of your constitution, no acts of violence or impatience have marked their progress. A religious adherence to the laws confned your endeavours within the strictest bounds of loyalty and good order. Your claims were directed by the same spirit that gave rise and stability to the liberty of Great Britain, and could not fail of success, as soon as the councils of that kingdom were infuenced by the avowed fiends of the constitution.42 Such a spirit of constitutional liberty communicating itself from one kingdom to the other, must naturally produce that reciprocal confdence and mutual afection, of which we already begin to feel the most salutary efects. A grateful zeal and generous ardour have united this whole kingdom in the most cordial and vigorous exertions, which promise efectually to frustrate the designs of our common enemy, and to re-establish and secure the glory of the whole empire.”43† Here is the language of an English senator, the congratulatory address to both kingdoms, on Irish emancipation. He has frst told us that the advantages we then gained called for congratulation; that the conduct of Great Britain in ceding to our exertions was wise and magnanimous, and that the session must for ever refect the highest honor on both kingdoms. May no subsequent one by the annihilation of the immunities we then obtained, refect the reverse!! * †

Address to the King, voted Monday, May 27, 1782. Speech from the Trone, Saturday, July 27, 1782. /

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna

177

He next commends our temperate conduct during the struggle, and tells us, that we were actuated by the same spirit that give rise and stability to the liberty of Great Britain; that when the British councils were infuenced by the avowed fiends of the constitution; that the cause of Irish liberty could not fail of success; thus asserting that Irish liberty then formed a principle of the British constitution. He then assures you, that the spirit of constitutional liberty communicating itself fom one kingdom to the other, must produce confdence and afection. – How baneful may the stuggle [sic] against slavery prove? – How injurious its example? – Could his Grace have foreseen the present moment, and have wished to furnish this country with an opinion against the measure, he could scarcely have conveyed more interesting truths than these few strong sentences contain. He lastly tells you that the constitutional concession united the kingdom, / and established the glory of the empire. Should it prove the hard fate of our present Chief Governor,44 to address us on the 27th of May 1799, when he may unfortunately be compelled to exercise his ofcial duty in the House of Peers, by giving the Royal Assent to the Bill of Union, if he wishes to rank as a prophet, he will accompany our subjugation with a speech the critical reverse of that delivered at our glorious emancipation. But I should trust that event is not be dreaded – surely “our temperate and steady exertions” will have as much avail at all times in retaining a Constitution we possess, as they had at that time in obtaining the concession of one we did not. But that such exertions would now be successful, admits of no doubt. It is our peculiar good fortune that the British Councils must now be infuenced by the same spirit; that the wise Senator45 who gave us here that solemn admonition, to revere our Constitution, then newly acquired, is now the Secretary of State for the Home Department in Great Britain, and will unquestionably prove the truth of the adage, that Calum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt.46

May our patriotism, good sense, and loyalty, give Great Britain on this occasion, a second opportunity / of commending “our steady and temperate frmness” in support of our rights, and may every subsequent transaction worthy being recorded in history be a prominent proof of “our afection.”

FINIS. / The Gentleman to whom this Letter is addressed, is requested to consider it as proceeding solely from the writer’s wish to prevent religious divisions from operating so as to induce any class of his countrymen to be actuated at this moment by prejudice, to which, in his conception, the Memoire on the projected Union very forcibly leads.

178

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

He will also, should he deem it worthy of perusal, and light upon any expression that conveys to him a symptom of improper warmth, rest assured that it is directed to his arguments only and accept the writer’s apology.

[O’CONNOR], AN ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF IRELAND

[Roger O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland; Shewing them Why they Ought to Submit to an Union (Dublin, 1799).

Te author of this curious pamphlet had long been a critic of the Irish Parliament, which he believes has always been dominated by a bribed and corrupted propertied and religiously bigoted oligarchy. Hence, he scofs at those members of this parliament who were now seeking popular support to save their legislature from being abolished by an act of Union. Tis does not lead him to favour Union, however. He sees such a policy being brought about by British wealth and power to the advantage of Britain but not to Ireland. He maintains that the Union will bring no real benefts to Ireland, but that it is likely to prove inevitable in the present circumstances because there are no real reasons for the Irish people to support the critics of Union in the Irish Parliament. He is therefore implying that the critics of Union could rally the Irish people behind the defence of a separate and independent Irish Parliament only if that parliament ended all aspects of the penal code, treated Protestants and Catholics alike, reformed the political grievances of the Irish people and acknowledged the sovereignty of the people. In other words, he wished for a radical reform of Irish politics that would unite all Irishmen and commit them to opposing the Union and British infuence over Irish afairs. Roger O’Connor (1762–1834) was the brother of the more famous United Irishman, Arthur O’Connor, and the father of the radical Chartist leader, Feargus O’Connor. A lawyer and a landowner, though ofen in straitened fnancial circumstances, he had been involved in the activities of the United Irishmen and had been arrested in 1797 and again in 1798 and was imprisoned at Fort George in Scotland from 1799 to 1800. It is difcult to detect how active he was in treasonable activities, but he did write a number of radical tracts, including O’Connor’s Letters to Earl Camden (London, 1797), For the People of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1798); and To the People of Great Britain and Ireland (Dublin, 1799).

– 179 –

[Roger O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland; Shewing them Why they Ought to Submit to an Union (Dublin, 1799).

Of Comfort, as man speak; let’s talk of Graves, of Worms, and Epitaphs. shakespeare.1

[…] an ADDRESS, &c. countrymen, I have seen with an indignation, suspended by astonishment, the eforts which have been made use of to raise an opposition to the intended measure of an Union. I have attended with anxiety to what might be the result of this opposition, and I have been convinced that on your part it will be impotent and injurious. Te period is a singular one, the events of the present year mock the calculations of the last, and where the revolution of the public mind will rest, who will be daring enough to say, who would have been hardy enough to predict in 1798, that at the commencement of 1799, Parliament would oppose the measure of the British Minister?2 Who could have forseen, and by whom would it have been believed, that patriotism, long sufering, much reviled, and much calumniated patriotism, driven from the Northern coast to seek refuge on the sea-beaten wilds of the West – pursued wherever it could be traced, by extermination – branded wherever it rose, with infamy – and marked wherever it was met, for destruction. Tat spirit, against which every hand of power was raised, which like the troubled dove, / could fnd no place on which to fx its feet, on which to rest its wing; should seek and should fnd a sanctuary in the great chair of the House of Commons, and animate the declamation of the opposition.3 Accustomed as I have been to consider Parliament not as the sanctuary of patriotism, the adoption of the name does not bring conviction to my mind that – 181 –

182

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

they are animated by the spirit; and I warn my countrymen to beware of the delusion. You are called on to oppose this Union, and to preserve your rights. Now, I ask the men who call on you, what right you have to support? I ask Parliament what right they have not wrested from you? Tey adjure you to support the Constitution.4 Alas! for that Constitution, originally a shadow, now embodied a substance of corruption. You are called upon to resist, what? Not oppression, it has been protected – Not injustice, it has been legalized – Not cruelty, it has been indemnifed. You are called on to resist an Union. You are called on to oppose an incorporation, by which you are to lose – a name. If I am to bend to the altar of British supremacy, if I am to wear the chains of everlasting slavery, it matters not to me whether I wear them as an Irishman, or a West Briton – It matters not to me, whether my fetters are forged in East or West Britain: if I am to receive the essence, I will not war about the form in which it is presented to me – If you had one right unalianated [sic], I, too, would say to you, while the life blood fowed from my heart in defence of that right – never submit to an Union – never, never, never. / But to retain what, are you to resist this Union, to support this Parliament? Is it to preserve your Penal Code,5 that you are to resist it? Is it for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act?6 Is it for the Convention,7 the Insurrection,8 and the Indemnity Acts,9 that you are to resist the annihilation of the Parliament which passed them. – While those bills stand recorded on their journals, Parliament ought to know, that the country cannot dread their extinction. And if the Minister of England10 wishes to use any argument, but military force, for the accomplishment of this measure, let him present that statute book to the people, and ask them – Why should you wish the duration of this Parliament? do you not feel that I am omnipotent in it? are not my mandates written here in blood? – Have you ever obtained one measure from your Irish Parliament, against my wishes? – Have not they, as I commanded, ofered you conciliation, and given you persecution – Have they not elated you with hope, but to crush you with disappointment? – What have you then to dread from an English Parliament, which you have not sufered from your own? People! submit, when you cannot resist; and afer all that you have borne, repine not at the consummation of your fate. If the Parliament meant fairly by the People, if they wished to gain their confdence, or to deserve it, they would expunge from their records those acts which must for ever blast confdence, and destroy hope – Tey would say to the People, Countrymen, / we are men, and we are weak – We have injured you, most deeply, most fatally – We were placed here to protect; and we have destroyed you; but we will repair that injury, we will revoke that destruction – We here repeal, in the face of our country, that code which the barbarous prejudices of our ancestors instituted – We repeal too, that code, which our own sanguinary policy framed – We return into your hands the power which you delegated to

[O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland

183

us; purify it, regulate and restrict it; and from the sovereignty of the People, if the People wills it, we will again receive it. Parliament of Ireland, act thus, and the people will oppose an Union – Expunge from your Statutes those sanguinary proscriptions; and a generous People will erase from their remembrance, the recollection that they ever existed, from their bosoms, the feelings which they have excited – Do this, and you will stand; if you do not, you sink? I tell the Parliament of Ireland, that they must depend either on the People or on the Minister – I tell them, that if they adhere to the one, they may exist; if they resign themselves to the other, they are annihilated – I tell them, it is not on the adoption or rejection of an Union, their existence depends; it depends on the adoption or rejection of measures of sound policy and enlightened humanity – I tell them, that if they do not receive invigoration from the spirit of their country, they will sink cyphers in the hand of an arbitrary Minister – or, if they do not conciliate the afections of their / countrymen, they will become victims to their long suppressed resentment. Is Parliament aware of the point on which it has fxed the attention of the country? Does it know to what it leads the minds of Irishmen? and that while by the great majority, Union is unthought of, their power of opposing the measure is an object of serious import. Te People see, that the Minister may be defeated; they see that those very laws, which are enforced against them, are nugatory against the higher orders – Tey see the Convention Bill infringed by the very men who framed it; and county meetings called universally under the auspices of Members of Parliament. If great men have a right to call county meetings, to express their disapprobation of one measure, have not poor men a right to call them, to express their wishes for another? Are laws only binding, when they are to restrict a people from stating their grievances, from demanding redress? County meetings ought to be called, the people ought to instruct their representatives to examine into their grievances, to redress them; to frame a parliamentary reform, on the broad principles of immutable justice and universal franchise; they ought to instruct them to address the King, to withdraw his foreign troops, only retained here to intimidate and extirpate. Te Parliament will receive instructions, they have declared themselves bound by them, afer receiving them, when they coincided with their own wishes; will they, because they do not reject them, have they mocked you with a power, that / under it they may shield themselves from the resentment of the Minister, and will they deprive you of it, when it is no longer useful to themselves? If such is their intention, I maintain that the duration of such a Parliament is not to be wished, nor for this on [sic] Union to be resisted. I shall not enter into a discussion of the merits or justice of the measure; in my mind, there can be but one opinion as to its justice; and but one argument for its adoption, necessity. – If I was inclined to oppose an Union, it should be with the

184

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

speech of the English minister; in which I cannot fnd one argument in favour of it, save that one to the potency of which I bow, Force. When that sophistry which blinds and deceives a nation, cannot adduce one solid reason for the measure, and when the gigantic talents of a Pitt descend to adopt the assertions (for they do not deserve the name of arguments) of an English, Irish, Clerk,11 who will be weak enough to attempt arguing on the merits of the question. But let the Parliament believe me, when I assure them that this measure will yet be carried, unless some better is adopted, that this measure, so obnoxious to their feelings, so hostile to their interests, will be adopted, let them not fatter themselves, that because they have rejected it, it will be relinquished. It is not the temper of the British Minister, thus to relinquish a favourite object. Te man who has armed Europe in a war of extermination, who when he fees ruin recoiling on the assailants, and monarchy hurled from her frmest / seat, pursues still the same conduct is not to be afected, or his purpose changed by the voice of an Irish Parliament. For what think you, is the daily importation of English soldiers? Is it to subdue rebellion, rebellion no longer exists and the work of extirpation is nearly over; the Ancient Britons12 are fully equal to the accomplishing of that – it is to intimidate – it is to tell you, in a language that it would be stupidity not to understand, and it is madness not to attend to, that the Minister of England wills an Union. – As long as foreign troops13 are spread over your country, as long as they swarm in your capital, trust me an Union is not relinquished, trust me it is the intention to dragoon you into the acceptance of it; and as long as you, legislators of the land, permit, without representation or complaint, force and illegality to stalk triumphant through your streets, you cannot wonder if the People doubt your sincerity, and feel an indiference about your existence. I beseech you to consider, fairly and seriously, for what purpose the British troops are here; consider it only with a reference to this measure: and to this measure alone do I consider it as refering – What is to be the result? Are they meant to protect the freedom of debate, or to destroy it? If you reject an Union, are they to support the rejection, or to contradict it? I ask you, whether it is your wish to have them here; and if it is, I will tell you that you are not the Parliament of the country but of the Minister, and that you will soon cease to be a Parliament. If even in this measure of an Union, / you mean honestly by the People, what have you to fear? Do the opposers of the measure require protection from the too fervid gratitude of their countrymen? Learn from the excess of that gratitude, to estimate the feelings of a generous and credulous People. You all know the motives of your own conduct, ask yourselves then, to what portion of praise that conduct is entitled; and if your motives are not pure, blush at receiving it. If they are, return to the bosom of your country, in the spirit of regenerated patriotism. If you do not give her cause to fear you, you will not have cause to fear her; you will discard your foreign guards; you will rely on the merited afections

[O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland

185

of your countrymen, and become in reality the representatives of their wishes, and the guardians of their rights. Nor shall I dwell more on the advantages which are to accrue to this country from an Union, than I have done on the justice of the measure; nor do I believe that one advantage will result from it, or from any other convention between Ireland and Great Britain, which the English Minister proposes, and which the English mercantile interest approves of, no convention or community of interests ever will be equitably conducted where both parties are not equally able to assert their own rights, and to resist the innovations, or injustice, of the other. How far our commerce is likely to be fostered by the hand which has nearly crushed it, or our rights attended to by the power which has annihilated them, is not necessary to be commented on. I beg my countrymen not to suppose, that I think the / measure a good one; no, but I know it to be inevitable. I beg them not to suppose that I place the smallest reliance, on the promises of equity, and disinterestedness of the Minister. No, but I know that we cannot either reject the measure, or insist on the performance of the treaty; I know that our part of it be signed and most strictly performed, and that the English part of it will be flled up, how and when it suits the interest of the Minister. As to the justice we are to meet, it will be like that which is shown to a child by the guardian who wrests his all from him while he tells him; I will make you happy; and gives the child a whistle, or a cake. Te boy may feel that he is injured, but he must then submit! It is said by one party, that Cork will be advantaged, and by the other, that Dublin will be injured. In the great scale of national interest, it appears to me of little importance, whether Cork, or Dublin, is to the richest city. But I deny that Cork will obtain any durable accession of wealth from the Union, commerce may animate that city, but the wealth which results from that, will not remain in the bosom of Ireland, it will be poured in the lap of Britain. Should any accession of commerce happen, or an encrease of industry arise, (which I do not admit probable); neither the accession of commerce, nor the encrease of industry will enrich this country. No, England would banish commerce from your coasts, would sap the source, of industry, if she did not know, that to her, resulted all the advantages. As to the argument, that Dublin would be ruined; they must be miserably ignorant of the state of Dublin, who suppose that the reign of ruin would / then commence: who do not know, that ruin has been long an inmate of their capital. Let them seek the haunts of ruin, they will fnd her, not merely destroying edifces, they will fnd her destroying man! Tey will see her consuming the habitation, and the inhabitant! Let them contemplate the ravages of desolation, in every mansion of misery in their liberties and their suburbs; and they will perhaps feel as I do now; that it is not the destruction of stone and lime which is to be deprecated, it is the destruction, the unalloyed, unobserved, destruction of the human species, which ought to be lamented! –

186

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Te ruin may be more striking and more marked, which moulders the edifces of ostentation; but to humanity, it will not be so awful, nor to political wisdom so important. Should this ruin come, it will but assimilate the glaring distinctions of the city into one mass. Splendour will no longer rise in the vicinity of wretchedness, nor misery curse the unfeeling luxury which mocks its hoplessness [sic]! It has been a misfortune to this country that abundance and want have constantly come into contact, they have met with mutual defance; – they have parted with mutual distrust. – With respect to another objection, that the seminary of instruction would be destroyed, I declare in my conscience I do not think that if Trinity College,14 its learning, its illiberality, its prejudices, and its venality were all sunk together, the country would be injured by it. If from its extinction I could see arise, the simple principle of – do justice and love mercy,15 – I feel that my country would gain. It is / not science I would wish to destroy, it is not learning that I would wish to limit; but I would wish science to be accompanied with liberality, and learning with humanity. It is not my intention to awaken resentments, or to excite hostilities between any parties; my wish simply is, to warn parliament of the intentions of the Minister, to shew them how alone they can defeat them; how alone they can preserve their own existence; and to prevent the People from placing an implicit confdence in Parliament, if it does not prove itself worthy of trust. I wish to shew the People what they have to hope or expect. I wish them to prepare their minds for what is to happen: and I entreat the Parliament, and the Corporations, and the County meetings, not to turn the People’s attention to a point from which it may not be easy to withdraw it. I entreat them to consider, that though by resistance they may not mean any thing; the People would mean much, and that when they frame the public mind to resistance, and lead it up to the entrenchments of British connection, and stop there or march over and resume their places under British supremacy; the people may not be prepared to stop too, they may not have been aware that they are to go so far as the interests of Parliament shall lead them, and no farther. I conjure the People to preserve their temper, and not to sufer themselves to be deluded with any idea that they can or ought to resist this measure. I conjure them to beware of insurrection; and I do not address them thus from thinking meanly of their strength, I know their strength, I know it from the apprehensions of Government, / I saw a small portion of it in the late immatured, ill-contrived, ill-conducted and unfortunate insurrection, without heads, arms, ammunition or discipline, shake the Government to its centre. I would beg the People to remember that it is the wish of the Minister to have them in a state of insurrection that he may have a pretext for this measure, it was his wish to have them driven into insurrection before; it was his command to goad them into it; and hence the system of unparalleled

[O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland

187

cruelties which we have witnessed, and from which I trust my countrymen have learned to detest cruelty, – I trust that in their suferings from the measure; they have learnt to abhor the principle, and that those injuries which they have born with a patience and magnanimity unexampled and which never can be exceeded they will not seek to avenge, – that they not stain that fair page of history which records them as a People of Heroes, by making it also record them as a People of vengeance. – It was equally the wish of the friends of the country, to keep the People from commotion, as it was that of the Minister to bring to it; both felt that partial insurrection must be as injurious to the country, as advantageous to the Minister. – Insurrection has been one of the favourite measures of that man; he has tried it in France;16 he has attempted it in Holland;17 and he efected it in Ireland – steering wide, in his political career, of every principle of avowed and understood policy; he astonishes and awes – bewilders and leads a fascinated people. – Minister of England, you are a great man! while I detest your principles and deprecate / your measures, I admire your abilities ! – for ffeen years you have ruled Great Britain18 – you have converted a fuctuating and delicate situation, into a certain and critical one – You have blinded a selfsh nation to their own interest, and led them on their own destruction – You have paralyzed, or energized all Europe – You have sent Liberty to the Asiatic and the Indian19 – You have persecuted the spirit, and the genius has arisen to avenge the persecution – wherever the name of Pitt and the fetters of slavery have gone, the Genius of Emancipation has followed. – You have conceived uncommon designs – you have attempted them, and they have failed – Man of immeasurable talents, why have you not learnt that rectitude would have assisted you! – why has not your policy taught you sometimes to appear to feel like a man – and why has not your reason detected the fallacy of your crooked policy! – for ffeen years you have held the helm of Britain, you have ruled her with an undivided and absolute authority – you have ruled her ill – you have been to England a bad Minister – to Ireland, a destroying spirit – passing over the land with devastation, sparing only those whose thresholds were marked, with blood20 – You have sought to precipitate her into the gulph which you have formed for England, and you have overwhelmed her in chaos and confusion – whether to Ireland is to rise light out of darkness, and order from discord; yet remains with that Providence, whose inscrutable wisdom works good out of evil, and ofen makes the crimes of men, the instruments of good to the species. – / PEOPLE OF IRELAND – It is not your duty to oppose an Union – your duty is to cultivate universal good will and mutual confdence, to merge in divine philanthropy – –Te persecutions of mutual bigotry – –too long have they been retained; too much have we sufered from it! it has been an irresistible engine in the hand of power; it has been a pestilence to the land – blind and willful, we have been led on (not by religion) – religion has retired to weep over the

188

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

horrors committed in her name – and appeals to her founder, to the founder of universal benevolence, from the charge of exciting those crimes – from the misery of supporting the imputation – Not for thee, Lord, not for thy honour or mine are those things done – we teach them not – you practised them not. God of humanity dispel the mists of bigotry and superstition; let not your altars be stained with blood; let not your worship be profaned by persecution – teach brother to love brother, and man to love man – bury their mutual injuries and animosities, restore the purity of peace and justice! – We have been led on by sanguinary policy; we have worshipped barbarism – we have elevated cruelty – and forming to ourselves the idols of Protestant Ascendancy, and Protestant Bigotry, and Catholic Zeal, and Catholic Superstition; we have destroyed the altar, and forgotten the God of Christianity. – Countrymen awake – look back on your delusion with shame – Unite your hands – unite your hearts – remember that you are men – that you are Irishmen – Embrace.

the end.

DODD, CALM CONSIDERATIONS ON THE PROBABLE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNION

Dr Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union of the Kingdom of Ireland with that of Great Britain (Dublin: Printed for J. Milliken, 1799).

Te author of this pamphlet maintains that it is possible to agree a Union between the governments, legislatures and kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland because Ireland can choose to reach such an agreement since it gained legislative independence in 1782. He admits that Ireland is divided between those who hope for and those who fear Union with Great Britain because there is a serious dispute over whether Union will beneft or damage Ireland’s economy and people. He suggests that this dispute might be resolved if men look with an independent and unbiased mind at the earlier Union between England and Scotland achieved in 1707. To assist Irishmen in coming to a sensible decision, he goes into some detail in explaining how the Act of Union of 1707 was negotiated, what terms were agreed, and why some Scotsmen resisted the Union. He maintains that the Scots were treated fairly and gained many advantages from the Union. Tose Scots who had opposed Union, soon came to appreciate the benefts gained. He goes on to claim that Ireland too will beneft from a Union with Great Britain. Even though the number of representatives it will be allowed in the United Parliament will be reduced from the present number of 300, Ireland will actually beneft from the elimination of its rotten boroughs. Union will bring considerable benefts to Ireland’s commerce and manufactures and Dublin will still retain many of the advantages of being a seat of government. Te author of this pamphlet uses a pseudonym. Te name Dr Dodd has been added to the title-page by an early cataloguer at Trinity College Dublin and the library there names the author as James Solas Dodd. Born in London in 1720/1, Dodd trained as a surgeon and served for some years in the Royal Navy and also built up a practice in London. He later settled in Dublin where he became well-known as a writer and lecturer. He produced a wide variety of publications, including Essays and Poems, Te Funeral Pile: A Comic Opera, Te Ancient and Modern History of Gibraltar and An Essay Towards a Natural History of the

– 189 –

190

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Herring. While president of the Dublin Oratorical Academy in late 1771, he produced A Funeral Oration (in the Manner of the Ancient Romans) on the Late Charles Lucas, Esq: MD. Representative in Parliament for the City of Dublin. He died in Dublin in 1805. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB, which does not mention him as the author of this pamphlet on the Union.

Dr Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union of the Kingdom of Ireland with that of Great Britain (Dublin: Printed for J. Milliken, 1799).

Are you not one? Are you not join’d by Heav’n, Each interwoven with the other’s Fate? Are you not mix’d like streams of meeting Rivers, Whose blended waters are no more distinguish’d, But roll into the Sea, one common food? Rowe.1

[…] CALM CONSIDERATONS, &c. &c. During the last thirty years reports have prevailed, from time to time, that an Union between the sister kingdoms would be attempted, but they gradually died away.2 Indeed, till Ireland was acknowledged as a separate and independent kingdom; the carrying into efect such a measure would have been merely an act of power, not of compact, which would have bred confusion, not unanimity. But now, when Ireland has a legislature and government of her own, the two kingdoms may separately treat of terms of an Union, and a coalescence of both. Within a few months, the report has been revived with fresh force; persons of consequence, in both islands, who, from their / connections and situations, may be supported to be of competent information, are said to have pronounced, that a plan of an Union is now in agitation. Te minds of the people of this kingdom are now variously afected, as their hopes or fears predominate. Disputes arise in private companies, which are sometimes carried on with a degree of warmth, that ofen precludes the operation of calm reason; when it is obvious, that no sound judgment can be pronounced in this matter by any who are under – 191 –

192

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

the infuence of party, are warped by mere self-interest, or want the necessary information whereon to found an opinion. In this state of the public mind, two contrary decisions are constantly made: the one, that an Union will be the aggrandizement of Ireland; the other, that it will be the destruction of the dignity, commerce, manufactures, and population of this nation. Both these opinions cannot be true; therefore, it may not be unacceptable to the public, for an impartial man, calmly to consider the arguments that may be brought on each side of this truly-important question; / examine their force and validity; observe which preponderates; and, by laying them before the reader, may thereby assist him to point out the probable consequences of an Union. Tere is little doubt but the majority of those who may endeavour to promote, or defeat the measure of an Union, whenever it may be seriously urged, may be equally friends to this country, though they may adopt contrary means, to assure its welfare. For this reason, neither ought to be condemned for the part they may take; those who may err, may err only in judgment, which error will cease, in each candid person, upon sound reasoning, and fuller information. Happily, we are not without some clear light to guide us in our enquiry. We have, for near a century, experienced the consequences of an Union of the two kingdoms. England hath united with herself two diferent nations, and incorporated them in one – Wales and Scotland; but the Union of each was diferent. Wales was assimilated with England by conquest – and Scotland / by compact; we know what has been the result of both, and that knowledge may help our conjectures as to the consequences of a subsequent Union, if it should take place. Te writer of these lines is a sincere well-wisher to the prosperity of Ireland; he is of no party, and cannot be benefted or prejudiced by an Union as an individual, but only in general with the bulk of the nation. For this reason, he has no motive to bias him to either side. He promises to discuss each point he may bring forward, with all possible calmness and candour, to the best of his judgment. Tat, and that only, may fail; but his will shall be pure. To proceed with regularity in this enquiry, the following method will be pursued: First, a succinct account will be given of the proceedings of England and Scotland, for efecting an Union of the two kingdoms, with the terms of the Treaty established by the two separate Parliaments. – Tis will be the more necessary, as a preliminary to / the consideration of Irish afairs; as there are many persons not thoroughly acquainted with the progress of that event; and who thereby have entertained mistaken notions of the modes of settling an Union here, which most probably will be similar to those already employed, in the beginning of the reign of Queen Anne.

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union

193

Second, a summary comparison between the state and circumstances of Scotland, at the time of the Union, and at present. Tird, an enumeration of the chief objections that may be brought against an Union of Ireland with Great Britain; with an examination of the force, including a consideration of the probable consequences that may result form an Union. /

SECTION I Te proceedings in England and Scotland for efecting an Union. From the year 1602,3 when James the sixth, King of Scotland succeeded Queen Elizabeth in the throne of England (which he ascended by the name of James I.) ideas were entertained of uniting and incorporating the two kingdoms, which, by that event, had both the same Sovereign. But the plan did not take place, till one hundred and four years had elapsed; for though the treaty frst began to be seriously in train on the 22d of October 1702, yet it was not fnally settled till July 1706, and did not take place till the 1st of May 1707, the frst Parliament of Great Britain meeting October the 23d following. Tus it appears, that the two nations were four years, six months, and eight days in settling this arduous and important business. Te long postponement of this measure was owing to sundry untoward circumstances. Form the time that the two countries / had one and the same Sovereign, the mutual jealousy entertained by the inhabitants of each nation, against those whom they beheld in the light of rivals, prevented any overtures being made during the reign of James I.4 Te troubles that ensued under the turbulent reigns of his son, and two grand-sons were equally unfavourable.5 When William III. was on the throne, as he was a foreigner,6 he was not sufciently acquainted with the interests of the English and Scots, to set on foot a measure that in the then present temper of the times, would, in all probability, have added fuel to the fames that prevailed, not only in respect to the partizans of the abdicated King, but also in respect to the diferent religions that were established. When Queen Anne ascended the throne as she was of the family of the Stuarts, she was more acceptable to the Scots than her predecessor. Te time seemed to favour an attempt to efect an Union of the two kingdoms; and accordingly in the year 1702, Commissioners were appointed to treat of an Union. Tey frst met on the / 22d of October, and on the 20th of November they settled the preliminaries of the negociation. In December, the Queen paid them a visit, in order to quicken their mutual endeavours; but the Scottish Commissioners so strongly insisted on their claim that the Scottish African and Indian companies should have all their rights and privileges preserved to them, that no farther progress was made in the Commission; and the opposing party became so prevalent in the Scottish Parliament, that it passed an Act the next year (1703) to vacate

194

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

the Commission, with an absolute prohibition to grant any other, without the consent of Parliament. Te design, though thus postponed, was not however abandoned; there were numbers in each kingdom, who thought an Union would be advantageous, but each party was willing that the other should commence the business; and on the 29th of November 1704, the grand Committee of the English Lords resolved (on the motion of Lord Wharton)7 that the Queen, by an English act, should be enabled / to name and appoint Commissioners to treat about an Union – provided that the Scottish Parliament should frst appoint Commissioners, on their part, for the same purpose; and on the twentieth of December following, an act for that purpose, having passed through both houses, received the Royal Assent. In order to stimulate the Scots into compliance, the English Parliament passed an act,8 enacting, “that no Scotchman, but such only as were settled in England, Ireland, or the plantations, or are in the army, or navy, should enjoy the privileges of Englishmen, till an Union was efected;” also “that the trafc of cattle from Scotland should be prohibited:” also, “that the exportation of wool from England to Scotland, should be prohibited;” and also, “that all ships trading from Scotland to France, or the ports of any country, enemies to England, should be attacked by the English ships of war, or privateers, and when taken should be condemned as lawful prizes.” / Tere can be no doubt but such terrifc acts had some infuence on the minds of many: and to enforce those clauses, as well as to repel any commotion that they might occasion in Scotland, orders were issued to put the town of Newcastle upon Tyne into a state of defence; to secure the port of Tinmouth;9 and to repair, and put in order the fortifcations of Hull and Carlisle. Te Militia of the four northern counties, were disciplined, and furnished with arms and ammunition; and a competent number of regular troops maintained on the northern borders, and in the north of Ireland. Tese precautions being taken, on the 22d of August 1705, the Scottish Parliament passed an act, (presented by the Earl of Mar)10 for a commission for an Union. It as compared with that passed in England, and Duke Hamilton11 moved, that the Queen should nominate the Commissioners for each kingdom. When this motion was made, fourteen members ran out of the House in indignation; and Andrew Fetcher, of Saltoun,12 inveighed bitterly / against the imperious conduct of England, in this afair. However, when put to the vote, it was carried, and the Queen appointed the Commissioners, as well for Scotland, as for England. Tey held their frst meeting at the Cockpit,13 at Whitehall, on the 16th day of April 1706. Te Commission was formed of some of the frst, and most able men in both kingdoms, the names of whom may not be unacceptable to the reader.

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union

195

Te Commissioners on the part of England, were these:14 1 Tomas, Archbishop of Canterbury.15 2 William Cowper, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal. 3 John, Archbishop of York.16 4 Sidney, Lord Godolphin, Lord High Treasurer of England. 5 Tomas, Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery, Lord President of the Council. 6 John, Duke of Newcastle, Lord Privy Seal. 7 William, Duke of Devonshire, Lord Steward of the Household17 8 Charles, Duke of Somerset, Master of the Horse; 9 Charles, Duke of Bolton. 10 Charles, Earl of Sunderland. 11 Evelyn, Earl of Kingston. 12 Charles, Earl of Carlisle. / 13 Edward, Earl of Orford. 14 Charles, Viscount Townsend. 15 Tomas, Lord Wharton. 16 Ralph, Lord Grey. 17 John, Lord Powlet.18 18 John, Lord Somers. 19 Charles, Lord Halifax. 20 William Cavendish, Marquis of Hartington. 21 John Manners, Marquis of Granby. 22 Sir Charles Hedges, } Principal Secretaries of State. 23 Robert Harley, } Principal Secretaries of State. 24 John Smith. 25 Henry Boyle, Chancellor of the Exchequer. 26 Sir John Holt, Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench. 27 Sir Tomas Trevor, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. 28 Sir Edward Northey, Attorney General. 29 Sir Simon Harcourt, Solicitor General. 30 Sir John Cook. 31 Stephen Waller, Doctor of Laws.

Te following were the Commissioners on the part of Scotland: 1 James, Earl of Seafeld, Lord Chancellor of Scotland. 2 James, Duke of Queensberry, Lord Privy Seal. 3 John, Earl of Mar, } Principal Secretaries of State. 4 Hugh, Earl of Loudon, Principal Secretaries of State.19 5 John, Earl of Sutherland. 6 John, Earl of Morton.20

196

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

7 David, Earl of Wens.21 8 David, Earl of Leven. 9 John, Earl of Stair. 10 Archibald, Earl of Roseberry.22 / 11 David, Earl of Glasgow. 12 Lord Archibald Campbell. 13 Tomas, Viscount Duplin. 14 Lord William Ross. 15 Sir Hugh Dalrymple, President of the Session. 16 Adam Cockburne, of Ormistown, Lord Justice Clerk.23 17 Sir Robert Dundas, of Arnistown, } Lords of the Session. 18 Robert Stewart, of Tillicultrie, } Lords of the Session. 19 Francis Montgomery, one of the Commissioners of the Treasury.24 20 Sir David Dalrymple, one of her Majesty’s Solicitors. 21 Sir Alexander Ogilvie, Receiver General. 22 Sir Patrick Johnston, Lord Provost of Edinburgh. 23 Sir James Smollett, of Bonhill.25 24 George Lockhart, of Carnwath. 25 William Morrison, of Preston-grange. 26 Alexander Grant. 27 William Seton, of Pit-midden.26 28 John Clark, of Pennycook.27 29 Hugh Montgomery.28 30 Daniel Stuart.29 31 Daniel Campbell.30 It would be tedious to detail the various discussions that took place at the several sittings of the Commissioners; sufce it to mention, that those of England made three leading propositions. 1. Tat the two kingdoms should be for ever united under the general name of Great Britain. 2. Tat the two kingdoms should be represented by one Parliament. 3. Tat, / failing any descendents of the Queen, the succession to the united Crown should be according to the settlement of the act of William III.31 namely, on the Princess Sophia of the house of Brunswick Lunenburgh,32 and her issue. On the other hand, the Scottish Commissioners were at frst for a federal Union, like that of the States of Holland; but that being settled in the negative, they proposed, 1. Tat the subjects of each nation, should enjoy the same privileges in the diferent countries mutually as in their own. 2. Tat there should be a free communication of trade and navigation, between the two Kingdoms, and the plantations thereunto belonging.

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union

197

3. Tat all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom contrary to the terms of the Union, should be repealed. Te Queen visited the Commissioners twice, to hasten their determination. At / length every obstacle being removed, they came to a fnal settlement. Te treaty was concluded July 22d, 1706.33 Te treaty was presented to the Queen the next day, by the Lord-keeper,34 in the name of the English Commissioners: another sealed copy of the same, by the Scottish Commissioners. Te Lord-keeper, and the Lord Chancellor of Scotland, (the Earl of Seafeld) each made an oration on the presenting it; to each of which, her Majesty made a most gracious reply. Te same day, an order of council was issued, that every person concerned in any discourse, or libel, or in laying any wager relating to the Union should be prosecuted to the utmost rigour of the law. Tere then remained to have the treaty confrmed by the diferent Parliaments; but before we consider the steps taken on each side, it may be proper to lay before the reader, the substance of the stipulations of the treaty, more especially as they may serve as a specimen of what we may expect relative to the intended Union with England. /

Substance of the articles of the Union of Great Britain. 1. Te Kingdoms of England and Scotland to be perpetually united under the name of the Kingdom of Great Britain. 2. Te succession to the Crown to be vested in descendents of the Electress, Princess Sophia. 3. All subjects to enjoy the same privileges and advantages. 4. All subjects to have the same allowances, encouragements and drawbacks, with respect to Commerce and Customs; and to be under the same prohibitions, restrictions and regulations. 5. Scotland not to be charged with the temporary duties on certain commodities. 6. Te sum of £.398,885 10s. to be granted to Scotland, as an equivalent for such parts of the customs and excise, / charged thereon, in consequence of the Union, as would be applicable to the payment of the debts of England; according to the proportion which the customs and excise of Scotland bore to those of England. 7. As the revenues of England may encrease, a farther equivalent shall be allowed for such proportion of the said encrease as shall be applicable to the payment of the debts of England. 8. Te sum to be paid at present, as well as the monies from future equivalents, shall be employed in reducing the Scottish coin to a standard with the

198

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

English coin; in paying of the capital and interest to the Scottish African Company,35 which shall be instantly dissolved; in discharging the public debts of Scotland; and in encouraging manufactures and fsheries, under the direction of Commissioners to be appointed by the Queen, and accountable to the Parliament of Great Britain. / 9. Te laws concerning public, rights, policy and civil government, shall be the same throughout the united Kingdom; and no alteration in the laws concerning private rights shall be made, except for the evident utility of the subjects within Scotland. 10. Te Scottish Courts of judicature shall remain as heretofore, with the same authority and privileges: subject, however, to such regulations as may be made by the Parliament of Great Britain. 11. All heritable ofces, superiorities, heritable jurisdictions, ofces for life, and jurisdictions for life, shall be reserved to the owners as right of property, the same as by the Scottish laws. 12. Te rights and privileges of the Royal Boroughs shall also remain. 13. Scotland shall be represented in the Parliament of Great Britain by sixteen Peers and forty-fve Commoners, to be elected in the manner to be settled by the Scottish Parliament. / 14. All Peers of Scotland, and their successors, shall, afer the Union, be Peers of Great Britain, and have rank and precedency next afer Peers of England, of like orders and degrees at the date of the Union; and before all Peers of Great Britain, of like orders and degrees created afer the Union. 15. Tese Peers shall be tried as Peers of Great Britain, and enjoy all the privileges as Peers, as fully as they are now enjoyed by the Peers of England; except sitting in the House of Lords, and the privileges depending thereon, and particularly the rights of sitting on trials of Peers. 16. Te Crown, Sceptre and Sword of State, of Scotland, with the records of Parliament, and all Scottish records, rolls and registers, shall remain as they are in Scotland. 17. All laws and statutes in either Kingdom, inconsistent with the terms of this Union, shall cease, and be declared void by the respective Parliaments. / When this treaty came to be considered in order, for confrmation, by the two Parliaments, it underwent minute discussion. Te Scottish Parliament met the 3d of October 1706, the Duke of Queensberry36 being the High Commissioner. Much heat prevailed; many commotions were raised in divers parts of Scotland. Te party called Cameronians37 (a more rigid set of Presbyterians) fomented the tumults of the people. In some parts they took arms, the house of Sir Patrick Johnston, Provost of Edinburgh, was attacked, and his person so greatly insulted, that, had he not been protected by the military, he would have been murdered; merely because, as one of the Commissioners, he had agreed to and signed the treaty. However, by prudent conduct, the insurgents were dis-

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union

199

appointed in their views. Te public were gradually disabused, and taught to consider the Union as tending to the good of their country; and convinced that what the nation might lose in point of punctilio of honour, and extent of dignity (which was more imaginary than real, and more concerned a few individuals than the bulk / of the people) would be, more than compensated by the great increase of manufactures, trade, and commerce, that would be the undoubted consequence of an Union. At length, afer some slight alteration, the articles of the Union were accepted by the Scottish Parliament. Te English Parliament met the 3d of December 1706, and on the 28th of Jan. 1707, the Queen went to the House of Lords; and in her speech, told them, that the Scottish Parliament had confrmed the Union, on their part. In both Houses some debates ensued. Te Queen went to the Lords, and was present at the discussion that took place there on the 25th of February. Te Bill passed the Commons, by a majority of 114, and the business was fnally settled; and the Parliament was prorogued 24th of April. Te act of Union took place May 1, and both national Parliaments being dissolved, writs were issued for a general election; and the frst Parliament of Great Britain, met on the 23d of October 1707. /

SECTION II A Summary Comparison between the State and Circumstances of Scotland at the Union, and at present. Lord Haversham,38 speaking of the Scots, in the debate on the Union, said, of their state at that time, that “the nobility and gentry of Scotland, were as learned and brave as any nation of Europe, but generally discontented; and that the common people were very numerous, very stout, and very poor”.39 Te character was doubtless just, and those qualities were the main sources of the opposition, that was made to the Union. Learning and bravery in the upper ranks produced pride, which made them fear the Union would lessen their rank and consequence; and the poverty of the common people made them dread, that the little trade they possessed, would be lessened. Te Scottish nobility at that time amounted to one hundred and thirty-eight, of whom seven were also Peers of England, therefore could / sufer no degradation from the Union. Out of the remaining one hundred and thirty-one, sixteen were to be chosen to represent the whole peerage; that is somewhat above one-eighth. At the present time the Scottish Peerage, far from being degraded by the Union, is become more respectable, by being less numerous. A number of titles are extinct; some others have merged into other titles, and some have been forfeited; so that the present Peerage of Scotland amounts only to eighty-fve; from which, deduct seventeen who have English peerages, and it appears, that the sixteen represent only sixty-eight Scottish Peers, (somewhat above one-fourth of the whole number.) Hence, the dignity of the Scottish Peerage, so far from being degraded, is rendered more honourable.

200

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

We have seen the state of the Peerage, before and since the Union; let us now advert to that of the Commons. Before the Union, there were eighty-nine Commissioners for the thirty-three Shires, like our members for counties, and / sixty-seven Commissioners for sixtysix Boroughs, Edinburgh having two, and the rest one each. Tese one hundred and ffy-six members were, by the articles of the Union, reduced to forty-fve; that is to say, thirty for Shires, and ffeen for Boroughs; and as there were thirtythree Shires, six of them were united, and formed but three in the representation. In respect to the sixty-six Boroughs, Edinburgh still sends one member; but the sixty-fve other Boroughs are consolidated into fourteen; some comprehending fve, and other four Boroughs. Yet each in its turn has the preeminence in election. In like manner, the fears for the common people proved merely imaginary. Before the Union, there were no expensive manufactures in Scotland, and its commerce was but little. Te lower ranks were held in vassalage, the peasantry of every clan being subjected to its chiefain. Hence, they were constantly involved in petty wars and commotions. It was only for the Barons and heads of clans, to have animosities with each other; the / disputes were generally decided by dint of arms, and the vassals of each were obliged to follow their lords whithersoever they chose to lead them, though at the risque of life and limb. Behold now the contrast: the slavish vassalage is at an end. Capital manufactures have been established. Te linens, cottons, muslins and cambricks manufactured in sundry parts, especially at Paisly,40 give bread to great numbers: and the iron works at Carron,41 are now extensive, and employ more hands than any other of that kind in all Europe. Fisheries are improved; and commerce is carried on to the ports of the Baltic, Holland, France, Spain, Portugal, and the whole range of the Mediterranean. Tis change is owing to the encouragement given to industry, to the encrease of capital consequence thereon, and to the taking of the many restrictions under which they laboured from England. Te country has also assumed a new face. Fine roads have been made, and canals cut to facilitate the transport of commodities; and the number of houses have encreased above one / third in the whole Kingdom. Edinburgh, the capital, has been extended on all sides, sumptuous bridges have been erected, elegant squares laid out; beautiful streets traverse the north and south of the old City, and house that emulate palaces, with splendid public buildings, proclaim the advantages that have resulted from the Union. Te like encrease may be seen in Glasgow, and sundry other cities and large towns. Te religion established in Scotland, and the laws and courts of civil and criminal jurisdiction, sufered no change from the Union: they remain in full force, and still subsist with all their authority, rights, and privileges. Some few only of the state and crown ofces were abolished, and most of the old establishments continue to this day. /

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union

201

SECTION III An enumeration of the chief objections that may be brought against an Union of Ireland with Great Britain; with an examination of their force and validity. Te objections that have been started against an Union, are many. Men of diferent ranks, stations, and occupations, have each urged their reasons, as party and self-interest have prompted; the principal objections are these: In respect to the Irish nobility, it is objected that their birth-right of being the hereditary counsellors of the crown, will be taken away fom all who may not be elected to represent the Irish Peerage, in the united Parliament: let this objection be examined. Te Irish Peerage amounts at this day to one hundred and ninety-nine Temporal Peers, (setting aside the Spiritual Peers;) of these forty, by having also British Peerages, cannot lose any dignity, neither can they / be elected to represent the Peerage of this kingdom, to the remaining number will be one hundred and ffy-nine. Now as sixteen were held a proper proportion to represent the one hundred and twenty-one Scottish Peers, a similar proportion of the one hundred and ffy-nine cannot be less than twenty-four; then it appears there will be sixtyfour Irish Peers sitting in the Parliament of the empire; and from the number of absentees, it has frequently happened, that not more than that number has been sitting and voting in the Irish House of Lords, on some of the most important questions; and is it not obvious, that the interest of Ireland will be as well promoted in the one, as in the other, in either general, or particular and local points? But still, it is said, that although so many will be elected, the remainder who may either lose the election, or not be put in nomination, will thereby lose some rights and privileges, which, without the Union, they would retain: Te only privileges the unelected Peers can lose, will be those of sitting in Parliament, and on the trial of a Peer, every other of rank, privilege, precedency, / and inviolability of person, (except in cases of breach of the peace) will be continued and confrmed. Nay, they will be extended beyond the limits of Ireland. In Britain hitherto an Irish Peer, unless he is also a Peer of Great Britain, is not privileged from arrests in civil actions, and is not above the rank of a Commoner. As several Irish Peers are elected to the British Commons, afer an Union the case will be altered; and an Irish Peer, though not a representative of the Irish Peerage in the United Parliament, will enjoy personal privileges throughout the whole empire; and though not successful in one election by his fellow Peers, may yet be so in another. Besides, as no Irish Peer can be created hereafer, in a few years the present number will be diminished, and continue to diminish; thus gradually becoming more respectable from their paucity: Another salutary end will be answered from this very circumstance:– It has not unfrequently been urged, and

202

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

with a manifest degree of acrimony, that the Peerage of Ireland was too numerous; was constantly increasing; was bestowed on some, who / had no kind of pretension by character or services, to be ennobled – Nay, it has been said, (how truly we cannot say,) that some Peerages have been purchased. By an Union all discontent, or invective on this head, will totally and immediately cease. It is also objected, that the taking away the Irish Parliament, will be prejudicial to such persons as have infuence in the election of representatives for counties, or a patronage of boroughs. Tat it will deprive electors of their right of fanchise, and take away the salaries and profts of all the ofcers and servants, dependant of both Houses of Parliament. Tat an Union will avert these efects, in a certain degree, must be acknowledged; but it is worth while to examine candidly, how far these efects will be of injury, or beneft to the nation at large. Te constitution says, that all elections should have the free choice of the electors; and that no Peer ought to have any infuence, or coercive power in the choice of any representative. If so, the use of any infuence or nomination, is a breach of the / constitution; and any steps taken to remedy that breach, must be praiseworthy. It should be also remembered, that Commoners of Ireland must be sent to represent the Commons of the kingdom, in the united Parliaments; therefore, there will still be elections of Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses, in proportion to what there are at present. If we may conclude, that the mode adopted at the Union with Scotland will be followed in an Union with Ireland; then we may say, that as the eighty-nine members for shires were proportioned to thirty; and the sixty-seven members for boroughs, proportioned to ffeen; (that is forty-fve present members in the place of one hundred and ffy-six, who sat formerly;) so our present three hundred, will probably be represented by seventy-fve members; therefore no man will lose his elective franchise; for if, as in Scotland, any two small counties may be consolidated, and send but one member; the freeholder of each county must still have his vote. In like manner though two, three, or more boroughs may be united, the real electors of each must have his vote also. / Te boroughs! Te rotten boroughs, ought to be abolished! Tis had for many years been the outcry of the framers of Parliamentary Reform. Surely then, if an Union, by uniting the small, unconsequential boroughs, and thereby extending the number of burgesses who elect, takes away the cause of repeated clamour, and is in efect providing so far in the road of Reform, it ought to be received with pleasure, by every man, of what degree soever, who was sincere in his opposition to boroughs. But it is also said, that every Peer or Gentleman who has patronage, and thereby can nominate to a seat in Parliament, however, that nomination may be deemed an evil; yet, as it is his property, it ought not to be taken from him without paying him for that property. And accordingly some of the most popular advocates for Parliamentary Reform, have calculated how much money should

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union

203

be raised to pay, what they called borough owners. Te value of each borough been estimated at 12,000! / If this is now held as proper, the expence of this part of Reform will be great indeed. But, setting aside the propriety or unconstitutionality of borough patronage, two things deserve consideration: First by what means the owner came by that property? whether by descent or purchase? If by the frst, he can sufer no wrong, if he is deprived of it, without any recommence; for no person can justly inherit a right of commanding a freeman to vote for this, or that candidate. But if he has purchased the property, that is supposed to convey to the buyer, a power of nomination, as there is, no doubt, but that consideration enhances the quantum of the purchase. Justice may probably allow of the re-imbursement of the money he has paid over and above the real intrinsic value of the estate he has bought. But yet the price must be greatly diminished by the consideration, that such boroughs as will be united, and others cannot demand such a price, as if they were totally annihilated. In regard to the loss of salaries and profts of the ofcers and servants of Parliament, / that will be a real grievance to the individual losers; but none to any others, or to the nation at large: and it is a constant maxim in politics that the interest of the whole is to be preferred to that of any part. Te salaries and profts in question, are very considerable, and are all paid out of the public money. Te salaries alone of both Houses amount to near 17, 000l. a year, besides the fees; and when the expence of stationary, printing, lights, buildings, repairs and other contingencies are considered, the saving to the nation will probably be above 50,000l. a year, and there will be doubtless places and employments enough remaining to reimburse to deserving individuals what that may lose by the Union. But it is farther objected, an Union with Britain will be the destruction of Irish Commerce, Trade, and Manufactures. Can any man be really serious in making such an objection? Surely he cannot, if in his sound senses. Tis must be only thrown out to deceive the unthinking multitude. By the treaty with Scotland, the natives / of both nations became one people, “to enjoy equally the same privileges and advantages, the same allowances, encouragements and drawbacks, with respect to commerce, and customs, and to be under the same prohibitions, restrictions, and regulations.” It is not within the bounds of the most unenlightened imagination, to conceive but the Union with Ireland will be, nay must be on similar terms. Te moment the treaty is confrmed, every shackle on Irish commerce will be unloosed; a perfect reciprocity of imports and exports of British and Irish produce and manufactures will be mutually established: we shall hear no more of British restrictions on the commerce of Ireland: of which, complaints have been long and fervently made. Te manufactures of each will be received mutually by the other, with no other preference than what may arise from the superior goodness of the articles. No more than port duties will be demanded. Dublin will pay no more for importing goods from London than

204

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

from Cork – coasting duties alone will prevail on aught but foreign goods, or in foreign bottoms – no more crying out for protecting / duties; no more need for non-importation schemes. Te commerce of Ireland equally with that of Britain, will extend to and from every quarter of the globe. Commerce being unlimited, will extend manufactures, population follows trade, and agriculture, the basis of trade, will advance with rapid strides. Well! object some. If all that has been urged be allowed, and should we grant, that the kingdom at large will be beneftted, yet taking away the Parliament will be the destruction of Dublin. Tat some speculative builders will fnd a temporary stop put to carrying Dublin to the eastward, to the already depopulation of the western part of the city; and to the erecting six or seven-story-high palaces, to the exclusion of the middle ranks of the people, is granted. Tat a check will be given to the destructive custom introduced within the last ffy years of exacting heavy fnes for houses, which has had the most baneful efects on many honest and industrious shopkeepers, and by eating up their capitals, has induced more bankruptcies, than all other causes put together, is also granted. But where / is the harm of all this to the public? Avaricious and speculative individuals may fnd themselves somewhat disappointed; but that thence Dublin will be ruined, does not follow. – Dublin will still be the seat of the King’s deputy; it will still be the seat of equity and law; it will continue the seat of science; the centre of the military department; the great depôt of arms; the grand receipt of the revenue; the ecclesiastical department; and courts of Dublin, and the whole kingdom; the stamp-ofce; the post-ofce; the national bank; the municipality and guilds; the commercial establishments; and all the several charitable establishments, will still remain, with their dependent ofces, and the multitudes of persons who subsist thereon; all this must necessarily be supported in Dublin, which joined to the infux of people which an extended commerce will bring to the capital, will still render Dublin as populous as it ever was, and fully balance the absence of about one hundred persons, which the Union will oblige to a temporary residence in Britain. / Te above will be the probable consequences of an Union, and more it would be premature to consider, till the exact terms of the treaty shall be known; then will be the time of dwell more minutely on each article. Some other early objections besides those here enumerated, are certainly in circulation, which are here passed over, as not deserving, at present, to be answered; as they seem to be made, merely to swell the account, and endeavour to make number compensate for weight.

the end.

ENGLISH UNION, IS IRELAND’S RUIN!

‘Hibernicus’ [pseud.], English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin! or An Address to the Irish Nation (Dublin: Printed for James Moore, 1799).

Te anonymous author of this pamphlet seeks to rouse his fellow countrymen to their common danger, for he believes that Union will annihilate Ireland as a nation. He insists that British ministers and merchants have always sought to plunder the wealth of Ireland and to keep the Irish divided on religious grounds. Fortunately, with the assistance of the Irish Volunteers, the Irish Parliament successfully gained legislative independence in 1782. He argues that this had taught Ireland its own strength and importance, but that the English had not learned from it, or from the loss of the American colonies. In a highly emotive appeal he implies that Prime Minister Pitt might yet be impeached and that the Irish people might have to resort to civil disobedience. Te people can legitimately withdraw their allegiance if their governors neglect their duty. If Union is imposed on Ireland the United Parliament can be expected to plunder and oppress the Irish people. Te Irish therefore need to rally in support of those members of the Irish Parliament who are seeking to defeat the Union bill. He argues that the Irish Bar and the corporation of Dublin have led the way in passing resolutions against Union. Te people should summon town and county meetings to pass similar resolutions. Furthermore, the English ofer of commercial concessions will not be enough to satisfy Irish opinion because the more advanced manufacturing industries in England will always be able to undersell Irish manufacturers. Te Irish should learn from the Scottish example since the English had not kept to the terms agreed in the Act of Union of 1707. It is argued that Ireland has prospered since legislative independence was gained in 1782, but that this success has aroused the jealousy of Britain, which has always wanted to plunder and oppress the Irish and keep them divided along religious lines. In this author’s opinion, all the internal problems facing Ireland have been caused by Britain. While not advocating a complete separation from Britain, he does maintain that Union will threaten civil war, anarchy and confusion, and that it should be defeated at all costs.

– 205 –

206

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Te pseudonym ‘Hibernicus’ was ofen used by Irish pamphleteers seeking to defend Irish interests against English interference throughout the eighteenth century. Tis particular author may also have produced A Letter to the King, on behalf of the Irish Nation, with Observations on the Evil Consequences of an Union, as Destructive to the Balance of Power within the State, which was published by Vincent Dowling of 5 College Green, Dublin, in 1800.

‘Hibernicus’ [pseud.], English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin! or An Address to the Irish Nation (Dublin: Printed for James Moore, 1799).

“Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.”1 by hibernicus.2

[…] PREFACE. FOR delivering the following sentiments to the public, the Author deems any apology unnecessary. – At a period like the present, when the very existence of Ireland as a Nation, is about to be annihilated; it is criminal in Irishmen to remain silent or indiferent. – His sole object in the present publication, is to exhort his countrymen to be unanimous, to rouse them to a sense of their common danger, and of that sacred duty they owe to God, to their Country, themselves and posterity. As an individual he conceives he has so far fulflled his obligations to society; he is yet willing to go farther if necessary. It now remains with Irishmen to determine whether they will, like men, assert their Independence, or basely prostrate themselves at the feet of the British Minister,3 and the British Merchant. /

AN ADDRESS TO THE IRISH NATION. There cannot to a subject, my fellow-country-men, so well worthy your attention, and so highly deserving your most serious consideration, as that of a legislative Union betwixt this Country and Great Britain. We can now no longer doubt the intention of the Ministry in respect to this measure. – We cannot any longer doubt what their wishes and sentiments are – 207 –

208

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

with regard to it, they have given you something more than presumptive evidence of this their design; the rumours they are daily circulating amongst you, the Pamphlets they are sending amongst you, and the conversation of the Castle,4 which is but the echo of the British / Minister’s, amount to a plain declaration, that the Cabinet of England and the English Nation are determined to make the daring attempt, of robbing you of that Constitution, which your ancestors had long struggled for, which the Volunteers of Ireland5 at length obtained, and in defence of which, my countrymen, you yourselves have so lately risqued both your lives and properties.6 What then, will Irishmen tamely submit that Constitution to be taken away from them, which their renowned forefathers looked up to, and considered as what was most valuable? Will Irishmen at the close of the eighteenth Century, give up their freedom and independence? Will Irishmen silently deliver up their civil, political and religious liberties? Will Irishmen submissively surrender the management of their trade and commerce, to English rapacity? No, my countrymen, no, you cannot, you will not thus sacrifce your dearest rights and privileges. Te right of Legislating for yourselves, independent of any foreign interference or control, is a right which no human power upon earth, can with justice deprive you of – a right as unalienable as the soil, which gave you birth. Tis is the noble prize the Swiss fought for and gained, when they found themselves oppressed by Austrian tyranny,7 what the Dutch fought and bled for, when they threw of the yoke of wicked Philip.8 And ’tis the / prize Irishmen now possess, and will never surrender but with their lives. It requires no great ingenuity to point out, nor any extraordinary depth of political sagacity to observe, that when once your Parliament is no more, your name as a nation, your independence, your glory, honour, interest and welfare perish along with it. And if we may judge of what is to come, from what is past, you will fnd, alas! this sad prediction of mine too fully verifed, if ever this unfortunate event take place. But turn over the page of Irish history, my countrymen, mark there diligently the transactions of this country, observe well the general course of conduct of the British ministry and merchant towards Ireland and Irishmen, and what is it you behold? Why on the one hand, such an uniform scene of plunder perfdy and oppression, as integrity shrinks back from, and good faith disowns; whilst on the other hand, you behold, sad spectable [sic]! poverty, misery, discontent and wretchedness. Tey have moreover, with all the insolence and ofensiveness of a Moorish9 despot, added insult to oppression, and heightened our calamities by scofs and revilings. And why? Because you had demanded that liberty which is your birth-right, and that independence which alone can secure you happiness. No abstract reasoning, my Countrymen, no declamation, no arguments are here necessary to prove / to you the truth of these assertions. Facts stand alone, and facts stare you in the face, history and tradition broadly declare them to you; to quote a few instances of English con-

English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!

209

duct will be sufcient for the present. Look then to the Policy and cunning of the British Cabinet on Irish afairs so far distant as the period of the rebellion and revolution.10 What was it? I’ll tell you – the forfeitures to the crown, at that time were immense, but the laws respecting these forfeitures were never rigorously put in force; the reasons are evident, should we, said the wise and liberal men of that day, confscate the whole of the property of those who have transgressed the laws, the consequences will be fatal to our own cause and interest; for we would drive the unfortunate Irish to despair, and so dispirit and harrass the Catholic, that emigrations to an alarming degree, must infallibly ensue, at the same time, so many protestants will enter into and settle in the kingdom, as to destroy that nice balance betwixt those two distinct and opposite interests, which we must always preserve in order to keep Ireland subordinate to and dependent on England. Such I say, was the language and policy of the ministry of that day, and such is the language and policy of the ministry of the present, behold their motto – “Divide et impera.”11

Passing over several unjust laws made as to diferent articles of trade, and cruel enormities committed / against this nation, let us go on to the reign of Geo. 1st. – Here you fnd an act of the British Parliament laying an embargo on the exportation of your provisions to the utter detriment and destruction of the Irish Farmer. – Here is an act12 to prevent the Irish manufacturer from working and manufacturing his own wool, merely to gratify English rapacity at the expence of Irish happiness and Irish prosperity. Good Heavens! could there be any thing more unjust, more cruel, more impolitic; thus to leave the wretched weaver and family to brood over their melancholy fate without any means of redress, and pine away from want and penury. – And drive the hardy farmer from his peaceful cot, in quest of a soil free from tyranny and more congenial to happiness. – But let us leave these gloomy scenes. – Let us pass over in silence the various oppressive laws enacted by our sister country, such as an Act entitled the better to secure the dependency of Ireland on England.13 – Several laws as to commerce and manufactures, favourable to the welfare of Britain, but ruinous to Ireland, such as that made with regard to Paper, Glass,14 and many others, during the period that elapsed from the reign of George the I. till the American war. Let us come on now my Countrymen, to the most memorable and glorious Æra in the Irish History – Behold the year 82 ever dear to Irishmen – You were then declared a free and Independent Nation. – Your virtuous Parliament at that period procured for you Liberty / and Commerce. – But did the British Legislature and the British merchant grant you liberty and free-trade with good heart and will? No, no, no – Tey were forced to give them you – Tey gave them you with reluctance – but they found it to be their own interest to hold up a good correspondence with the Irish – their own situation too was critical; and

210

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

the Volunteers of Ireland were in arms, a set of men as unrivalled in fame, as they are renowned for true Patriotism and public spirit.15 When England deserted them, when the British Minister ordered away that army which Irishmen paid for, and which, by compact was to remain for the defence of Irishmen, and lef the kingdom to the mercy of any foe formidable enough to seize and destroy it. – Inspired with a national pride, and provoked and disgusted at the ungenerous and unworthy treatment of Britons, the people of this country boldly stepped forward, and resolved to defend themselves – Yes, my Countrymen you did do so – happy period for Irishmen – Tey were then frst made sensible of their own strength and importance, they found themselves able to resist the encroachments of any power foreign or domestic, and thus frm and united, and made sensible of the dignity of Men, they acted like Men, by asserting that liberty and independence which they were conscious they had been so unjustly deprived of. – And here would I not be, justifed in saying that a wild political phrenzy has sized both Ministry and People of England in / attempting to forward such a measure, and in pursuing such a line of conduct with regard to this country, as lost to them for ever the brightest jewel in the English Crown, I mean America. – One would imagine that this glorious Revolution should operate powerfully on the minds of all succeeding Ministers – should stand up as a lesson, a warning to deter them from ever making an attempt to act contrary to the voice and wishes of the majority of any other kingdom; or to suppose that a nation resolved to be free, can be enslaved by the bayonet. Te great Western Continent was lost to England by such base, impolitic conduct. – So may Ireland – Be not too narrow sighted Englishmen, don’t sufer yourselves to be imposed on by any language however specious, or by any promises however specious, or by any promises however fattering. – Tink not that Irishmen will ever submit to a Legislative Union. – Te Irish Nation love and revere their gracious Sovereign and Constitution. – You have had ample demonstration of our loyalty and attachment at diferent periods. – In a late unfortunate instance, you have seen our zeal, activity and courage manifested in defence of both. – No other proofs are necessary. – Irishmen have fought and conquered in defence of their King and Constitution, and will fght and conquer again in the same honourable cause. – Let me persuade you it will not fnally be the interest, nor will it at any time be becoming the dignity of the / English Nation even to wish to rob Ireland of her rights. – You may make the attempt, but I am confdent you will be defeated, and what must for ever afer be the state of the Irish mind? you say yourselves that we will one and all be for ever afer jealous of Englishmen; or of any men who would presume to make Ireland dependent, and Irishmen slaves. – You little think that in endeavouring to subdue the spirit of liberty in this Country, you are destroying yourselves, and that for every act of violence you commit against Irishmen, you are but stabbing the English Constitution and planting daggers in the hearts of

English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!

211

your own Countrymen. – Te very idea of enforcing a legislative Union may be fatal to both countries. – Sufer then the connexion to remain on its present footing. – We have shewn ourselves prompt and willing to support you in the war, our Parliament has very liberally granted you large supplies of men and money, the very sinews of war. – Why then Englishmen take away from us that Parliament which has favoured you in all your wishes, and supported you in all your designs? How shall we term such unkind treatment? Ingratitude at least, you yourselves will allow it to be, but I will tell you, it is something more than Ingratitude, I say, it is treachery, it is robbery, it is rapacity, it is tyranny on your side, towards a brave, frank, generous and free-spirited people. / Be not too precipitate Mr. Pitt. – You are a man of a solid judgement, experience, abilities and extensive information. – You are blessed with a great and comprehensive genius. – To such a character, it may appear presumption in me to address myself; the only excuse I can make, is that warm, and sincere attachment I feel towards my native soil, which, neither hopes of reward nor fears of persecution will infuence me to suppress. – I beseech you then, Mr. Pitt, that you will not allow even the question of a Legislative Union to be discussed. It is in your power as Prime Minister to prevent it, and be not so weak as to suppose that the Irish people will ever separate your character from this measure. – You may seem to disclaim entering into its merits; you may not have it frst proposed and debated in the English house, yet believe me this Nation is not so blindfolded, as not to perceive that you are the great and principal agent, that you are the grand spring by which all will be actuated:– You are Mr. Pitt, you are truly a great man, but human nature is not perfect; on this score therefore I could make many allowances for any act of yours, the consequences of which you had not foreseen, nor been made previously acquainted with: in the present instance you will have no plea of ignorance on your behalf. – Te people of Ireland are giving you daily instances of their abhorrence and detestation of this measure; take care then how you proceed, you may do an act, which you / cannot recal, and which may be destructive of the life of both kingdoms. – I tell you such a measure may shake the throne of your gracious master, know well then the sentiments of the Irish before you proceed any farther. – Tink not you have the voice of this Nation by purchasing the voice and interest of our Borough-mongers.16 – Never persuade yourself so far as to imagine that you will be able to purchase Irish independence, No, you do not, you cannot entertain so monstrous, so unnatural an idea. – You do then with me deprecate the evils and horrors that must follow if you proceed farther. I profess the most profound respect for our beloved Sovereign; his private virtues and philanthropy are the constant theme of the Irish. – We can never confound the goodness of his heart and the integrity of his wishes with the false ambition, vices and follies of his Ministry. His Majesty looks with a gracious eye towards this kingdom, he would be blessed in seeing it

212

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

prosperous and happy: Do not then Mr. Pitt, do not, I pray you, by bringing forward a measure so odious, and so destructive of the happiness of Irishmen, blast that of your benefcent Sovereign – pay, at least, some regard to the character of the chief Magistrate, though you appear regardless of your own. Ministers before the present day, have been denominated Traitors to their King and Country, for pursuing, or allowing to be pursued measures, which, in their consequences might be ruinous to both; they / have been impeached, and have forfeited their lives too, for such criminal conduct; presume not then to bring forward a question which may lead you to the block, and in its consequences may shake the empire, by involving the right hand and arm of England in all the horrors of civil war, anarchy and confusion, and eventually tear it from the British diadem,17 the experiment is rather too ticklish. Trust me the Irish Nation will never sufer a Legislative Union with England, or in plainer language, the people of Ireland will never prostrate themselves at the feet of a British Ministry. Irishmen know too well the value of that independency, and that freedom of trade obtained in 82, ever to part with it except with their lives. I tell you Irishmen never will be slaves, and slaves they will be in case of an Union. Oh! My Countrymen, how miserable is the condition of that people, and what a base and contemptible fgure do they appear in to surrounding Nations, when they have not sense to feel, nor spirit to resent all and every infringement made on their rights and privileges; but his Stigma, my Countrymen, is not applicable to you, – No, You have a keen sense of your duty and interest, and I’ll venture to say, you possess as noble and independent a spirit as was ever infused into the Patriots of Greece or Rome when panting afer Liberty. / Let us consider this question a little farther: once your Parliament is given up, can you say to yourselves that you are represented in an English one? No. Can you govern or direct any measure favourable to your native soil? No. Can you improve your agriculture, encourage arts, manufactures and sciences? No, you say. Will your petitions be heard, or your grievances redressed, by an English Legislature? No, England by her conduct, has given you demonstrative evidence of all this. What then is our situation? reduced to the state of an abject province, robbed of our Representatives; we are taxed beyond our means, we are plundered and oppressed, we appear but as a cypher, a blot in the map of Europe, and our petty transactions as a province, scarcely considered as worthy of a margin in the page of English history: Good God! my countrymen, what a situation! But you will not bear it, no, for on the bare recital, I see indignation and disdain painted in your countenances, I behold your souls ennobled with the greatest and noblest of designs – the liberty of your country – and with heart and hand sinewed and well strung, I behold you ready and anxious to oppose every base and unconstitutional attempt that may be made on your freedom and independ-

English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!

213

ency; fear not then, my countrymen, but preserve this determination, and your rights are secured to you, if you swerve from it, you are lost. / One of the many questions, which naturally ofer themselves to the imagination, is whether or not the representatives of our nation, have any power or authority whatever, to make away with the Constitution, and with the Constitution, the rights of their Constituents. ’Tis surely a matter ft for enquiry. I do in the frst place deny that any such power or authority is placed in the Parliament; and do declare, that in case they do commit so enormous a crime, they are responsible to the people; and the people are in no wise bound by such act or deed of theirs. It is allowed by every friend of human nature and society, that in every nation where there is any shadow of liberty, there does exist a mutual compact tacit or express, betwixt the governors and governed, and that if the governors will not perform their duty and ofces, the governed are released from theirs. And as the people are the source and origin of all civil power and authority, that power and authority returns to them again, on such non-fulflment of the duties of their governors. Moreover, when the Legislative powers act contrary to the trust reposed in them, there still remains inherent in the people, a supreme, natural and original right, to remove or alter the Legislative, when, they may place their authority in the hands of those in whom they have / confdence, and who will fulfl their duty as governors. Te King Lords and Commons of Ireland constitute its government, and “the power of the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland is not an arbitrary power, they are the trustees not the owners of the state, the fee-simple18 is in Us, they cannot alienate, they cannot waste. When we say that the Legislature is supreme, we mean, that is the highest, in comparison with the other subordinate Powers established by the laws. In this sense, the word supreme is relative not absolute. Te power of the Legislature is limited; not only by the general rules of natural justice and the welfare of the community, but by the forms and principles of our particular constitution. If this doctrine be not true, we must admit, that King, Lords and Commons have no rule to direct their resolutions, but merely their own will and pleasure. Tey might unite the legislative and executive power in the same hands, and dissolve the constitution by an act of Parliament.”19 Tis doctrine, my countrymen, requires no comment; you need but apply it to yourselves, if it appear in your eyes false or absurd condemn it; if on the contrary, it appear to you just and equitable; shew to the world that you think so by acting up to it’s precepts. – Your / Representatives, I hope, will be mindful of their duty. I trust in God that at the present momentous period they will preserve the dignity and character of men, that they will shew themselves superior to the corruption, bribery and machinations of the Minister, and inspired with National Liberty and national pride, they will make Ireland rise above the standard of her former self. Ye Senators of Ireland! your country looks up to you with

214

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

joy and gladness in her countenance – she beholds in you the brave defenders and assertors of her rights, privileges and interests. She beholds you in your senate, on so solemn an occasion, with aspects calm, steady and serene, and fnding you armed with truth and virtue on one hand, and patriotism on the other, she cries out in the emphatic words of “Hibernia’s Sons come of victorious.” – Yes, and O! never let it be said that you would be capable of betraying that trust your Country has reposed in you. Te Representatives of Ireland, my countrymen, will not desert you in the time of need, they will not forfeit your faith and friendship. Tey know they cannot, they therefore, never will attempt to delegate that right to others, which they possess not themselves. But you yourselves, my countrymen, as a great body, must not remain either silent or indolent, never was there a period in the Irish History more awful and critical than the present; you are now to determine by your conduct whether you are / hereafer to be Slaves or Freemen, whether or not you will basely stoop to be governed by English Laws and English Men, or stand up nobly and assert that independence and right of Legislature, which the brave Volunteers have transmitted to you, which you now possess, and which is your birth-right. Be steady then, my countrymen, be frm, united and determined. – Call upon the Sherifs of your diferent Counties and Cities, convene your meetings, enter into resolutions, and shew to your Representatives and to the Kingdom, what your sense is of this unnatural measure, shew thus your abhorrence and detestation of it: you have no time to lose; delay is defeat:– silence is your death. Demonstrate then to your Country and to Europe, by an honorable and spirited conduct, that, you are worthy of the blessings of liberty, and ft to be ranked amongst Patriots and heroes. Te metropolis of the kingdom has pointed out to you the path – the bar and the corporations of this city have expressed themselves with loyalty, boldness and frmness. I doubt not but you will do so likewise, for that ardour and patriotism which they have difused through the City, is beginning to shew itself in every corner of the kingdom. Let divisions and discord no longer remain among you, unanimity, my countrymen, can alone save you. Tis is a cause in which every rank, every sect, every description of Irishmen is interested. Our lives, properties, / welfare and happiness are all embarked into it – Let us then, one and all with heart and hand, step boldly forward in defence of our happy Constitution. – Let us rally round the Standard of Independence, and with concordant voice, cry out English Connexion but Irish Independence. – Be jealous of your Constitution, be watchful, put yourselves on your guard against those baits England may hold out to you as the price of Irish Independency, be cautious, my Countrymen, be vigilant of your interests: take care how you trust the professions of a Ministry full of deceit and fnesse. Before enquiring into those great and pretended advantages which are rumoured abroad but to delude and entrap us, I will in the frst place, positively declare it as my opinion,

English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!

215

and so I trust will every honest Irishman; that it is not in the power of the British Cabinet, nor the British Nation with all its wealth, commerce and consequence, nor in the power of any nation under the Sun, to grant to Ireland and to Irishmen any equivalent whatsoever for the surrender of their Independency. What will the consequence of such surrender be? ’tis evident – once you give up your right of Legislature, you give up along with it, your civil, political and religious liberty, and losing such liberty, it necessarily follows, that both your lives and properties are insecure, and dependent on the arbitrary will and caprice of Englishmen. May God in his kind mercy towards us, avert such ruin from this land. / But let us enquire a little into those mighty advantages which are industriously circulated we will enjoy in case of an incorporated Union, What are they? Some say a Mint is to be established in Ireland – A Board of Trade – Docks for building Men of War. – Now granting all this, must advantages thence result to Ireland? for my part, I am inclined to think the very contrary: Te experiment however is to be made. Let us go on a little farther, and allow for sake of argument, that England will grant us every right and privilege with regard to commerce, that she herself enjoys, subject to the same regulations and restrictions; does it not strike the senses of every men, that England from her superior wealth, and having arrived at greater perfection in manufactures than what we have, will always be enabled to undersel us in every market in Europe? Supposing even the English will allow us a free trade to the East Indies (which will not be) and that certain advantages might accrue to us from certain articles of Union. What let me ask, would such paltry advantages avail when put in competition with the blessings of freedom? Or can you, my Countrymen, imagine for an instant, are you so blind as not to perceive that the English Nation would never adhere to any one article of Union, farther than it regarded their own interest and personal aggrandizement? Turn your eyes to Scotland, take warning by the miserable efect an Union had on that Country. – / Many of us have seen, and we have all heard of the ruinous consequences of the Scottish Union – In that particular instance as well as the present the grand principle which actuated the English, was self-interest, jealousy, and ambition. Were the rights and interests of Scotland regarded during the negotiation betwixt their servile and abandoned Parliament and that of England? No – Did that Union meet with the approbation and commerce of the Scots? No, the people opposed the measure; their representatives being bought, basely betrayed the rights of their constituents and sold their own native soil.20 – Now ’tis fair to ask, did the Parliament of Great Britain hold its faith inviolate with the Scots on the Articles of Union? No, they did not, they broke through them according as it served England’s interest, or gratifed their own whim; look to the Malt Tax with many other instances of breach of compact21 – And thus I say, Irishmen, will they act by you, if ever you surrender up your Parliament! – Believe me, Articles of Union and Treaties avail but little when there is no superior power

216

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

to enforce the observance of them – You cannot trust yourselves to the protection of Britain along. ’Tis not customary with her to grant you very many and very kind indulgences – No, no. And when she found it answer her own convenience and safety, she lef you unsafe, unarmed and unprotected – Look to your situation during the American War. / If ever so calamitous an event should happen to Irishmen, as that of an incorporated Union with England, let it be demanded what Patriot then would rise in the British House of Commons, the warm advocate of Irish prosperity and Irish Happiness? Or even granting for an instant, (which by the bye, is granting too much) that every individual Member returned for Ireland, was zealous to espouse the interest and cause of their Country against English Pride and English Avarice, what, I say, could their feeble voices avail when opposed to that corrupt and venal Phalanx,22 an English Minister has always at his command? You will not then, my Countrymen, sufer this Union, for in doing so, you see that you are inevitably undone: All your future hopes of happiness for yourselves and children are irrevocably gone – and the pleasing prospect now presented to you, of peace, plenty, commerce and wealth, is completely blasted. And what light would you appear in to surrounding Nations? reduced to the condition of dependence, you lose your dignity and respect as a Kingdom, and robbed of the means of recovering your lost privileges, you would appear in the low and contemptible character of a cringing humble servant to a haughty and domineering Master. Your Parliament is the watchful guardian of your rights and liberties:– All the benefts you now enjoy, and all the advantages you have acquired / in your civil policy and commerce have been through its virtuous exertions. – You surely then cannot think of giving away or of allowing that power to be taken from you, which is your only resource in times of difculty and danger:– Enter into no treaty of Union with Englishmen – Tey may hold out to you very fair and fattering promises, but trust them not. – Once they induce you to a surrender of your Parliament, you remain unguarded and unprotected. Your situation then is similar to that of the sheep in the fable, when they were prevailed on to dismiss their faithful guardian the dog, except with this diference, that as the sheep were overpowered and destroyed by the wolf, you would be hunted down and devoured by the lion.23 Let us now briefy enquire into those motives which seem most probable, to actuate the Minister to bring forward such a measure, and what inducements he must hold out to the English merchants to make them accede to it – for to pretend to say, he wishes the welfare of Ireland is absurd, he has uniformly in conjunction with the English merchant opposed it; and ’tis very well known what weight and infuence, the commercial part of that Nation has over the Prime Minister. Te British ministry, my Countrymen, have not yet forgotten, nor forgiven the high tone and independent spirit manifested by the Irish Vol-

English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!

217

unteers and the Irish Parliament of 82. Tey declared / your independence, and your Trade free with infnite reluctance:– and have endeavoured ever since to undermine the one, and destroy the good efects of the other – but the spirit and great natural advantages of our Country have bafed all their infamous attempts: Te Minister of the day perceiving the rising generation glowing with true Patriotism and national dignity, and fnding it daily more difcult to infuence and corrupt the Irish Legislature; and still regretting that superiority over Irishmen, England was obliged to renounce in 82 – why he wishes by bringing forward an Union to cut the business short, and by thus taking our Constitution away from us altogether, he knows he may tax, rob, and insult us with impunity. – Now, what say the English merchants, what are their thoughts on the subject? Tey observe that since the freedom of your Trade was declared, we have increased in commerce, wealth and consequence. Tey see with a jealous eye, our Manufactures beginning to fourish; and now fnd very contrary to their interest, and very much against their wishes, that the people of Ireland are not that lazy, flthy, ignorant and barbarous race of Men, which they have ofen represented us to be – No – their voice begins to change – they behold the Irish peasant frugal, laborious and industrious – they see the Manufacturer possess genius, quickness and application – yes, I say, great application where there is any incentive held out to Industry. Tey see you making rapid progress / in every branch of Manufacture, that you outdo them in some, and are beginning to rival them in others. – Tey perceive all this, and then say, let us join with the Minister in ruining the Commerce of Ireland – ’twill be our advantage, the Irish will no longer be able to encourage or pursue their Manufactures from the immense Taxes that will be fxed upon them; and from their Nobility and Gentry leaving the Kingdom, great quantities of wealth will leave them and circulate amongst us. Were we to suppose this question given up to the deliberation and fnal decision of a number of honest, rational, intelligent and liberal Men in no wise interested in the event – Men neither infuenced by prejudice nor carried away by passion, and what would be their mode of reasoning? what would be their decision? – As Men, as friends to the cause of humanity and liberty, I say, that afer having well and fully considered the nature of this measure, its object and consequences – afer an ample statement of facts on the treatment of Englishmen towards Irish for this last past Century, and afer having previously laid down certain maxims; such as that liberty is the birth-right of Man – a right inherent in his Nature, and given him by God – that all civil Government has its origin in the People – that Governors cannot delegate a right to others they possess not themselves, and that when they do not fulfl their / duty they are responsible to the People alone; afer I say, laying down such self-evident Propositions and a few others, which all Men are now fully acquainted with; they would deliver themselves in the following terms:–

218

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

1st. Tat inasmuch as it appeareth from history and tradition, that it has ever been the policy and cunning of the British Legislature to excite religious animosities and cruel hate in his gracious Majesty’s kingdom of Ireland. 2d. Tat inasmuch as, such vile and wicked policy and cunning has had its desired efects, in causing manifold cruelties and unchristian-like persecutions in his said Majesty’s kingdom of Ireland. 3d. Tat inasmuch as, it has ever been the constant, uniform and undeviating practice of the English Ministry, to plunder and oppress his gracious Majesty’s subjects of Ireland. 4th. Tat inasmuch as, such base and unworthy practices have ever met with the indignation and reprobation of his said Majesty’s loyal subjects of Ireland. 5th. Tat inasmuch as it has ever been the custom of the British Legislature, and the wish of the English Merchant, to shackle the commerce of Ireland, to injure the manufactures, / and damp the spirit of his majesty’s loyal, industrious and hardy Irish Manufacturer. 6th. And that inasmuch as, such fetters put on their commerce, such injury done to their Manufactures, and such discouragements, placed in the way of trade, have caused much disafection and much disunion, in his gracious Majesty’s loyal subjects of Ireland. 7th. And that inasmuch as, through and by the kind hand of Providence, through our gracious Majesty’s fond and tender wishes, and through our patriotic and virtuous Parliament of 82, many and most important concessions were made to his Majesty’s faithful subjects of Ireland. 8th. And that inasmuch as such concessions have added much to the dignity, the honour, and the prosperity of his said Majesty’s loyal subjects of Ireland. 9th. And inasmuch as it is evident to the whole nation, and to all Europe that the welfare and happiness of Ireland, depend on its preserving its own independency, and that it must infallibly return to its former wretchedness and degradation in case of a Legislative Union with England. / 10th. And inasmuch as, a legislative Union with England, will be destructive of the liberty and comforts of his Majesty’s loyal subjects of Ireland. 11th. And inasmuch as, a nation without having the power of making its own Laws, and levying its own taxes, is in a state of Slavery. 12th. And inasmuch as, a state of Slavery, is the most abject condition of human nature. 13th. And inasmuch as, his Majesty’s loyal Subjects of Ireland, will be in the same abject condition of Slavery provided this said Legislative Union, should be carried into efect. 14th. And inasmuch as, his said Majesty’s brave Subjects of Ireland never will accept of any ofers from any nation under the Sun, in barter for their national rights and just privileges; and as it is not in the power of England to give them

English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!

219

any real or solid advantages; but on the contrary, will put upon their shoulders many very heavy and grievous burthens and taxes; will saddle upon their backs, a part of her own enormous National Debt, and withal cause an immense drain of wealth by Absentees from his said Majesty’s Kingdom of Ireland. 15th. And whereas, it appeareth to us and to the whole Nation, that such ruinous consequences / will inevitably happen to all his Majesty’s loyal Subjects of Ireland if an Union take place. 16th. And since it appears from history and tradition, that such conduct as hereabove mentioned, has been invariably pursued on the part of the English Legislature, and the English Merchant towards Ireland. We do hereby declare in the presence of God and all mankind, that we do verily and truly believe, such Union will be pregnant with many and very various and complicated Evils and misfortunes to Ireland. And, we likewise do declare, it to be our real opinion, that if such measure should be carried contrary to the wishes and inclinations of his said Majesty’s loyal Subjects of Ireland, the consequences will be, civil war, anarchy and confusion amongst his said Majesty’s loyal Subjects of Ireland, and fnally a schism betwixt the two Countries:– Signed, FRIENDS to Humanity, Peace and Freedom. Before I quit this subject, my Countrymen, permit me once more to warn you against the baits which England may hold out to you. – Let no pretences however plausible – let no arguments / however specious, induce you to sacrifce your Country and yourselves. – You will never accept like the ignorant African, of bawbles in barter for your dearest and most precious interests;24 let me conjure you then in the sacred name of your God and your Country to be unanimous, and unremitting in your opposition to this detestable project. – Te Scottish Parliament basely sold the liberty and independence of their Country:– the Scots have smarted for it; – the Scots yet smart for it. Be watchful then, my Countrymen, you are on the very brink of ruin – you and your posterity are about to be swallowed up in perpetual oblivion; a steady, determined and resolute conduct can alone save you. Call your meetings:– Instruct your Representatives, and deliver your sentiments in manly and frm language:– You will, you must be heard:– the voice of God and Nature calls aloud on you to exert yourselves at this awful Crisis. And, by opposing so infamous and monstrous a measure by every means which God and Nature have put into your hands; you act consonant to the Laws of God, of Nature and of Reason.

FINIS.

THE SPEECH OF HENRY GRATTAN, ESQ. ON THE SUBJECT OF A LEGISLATIVE UNION

Te Speech of Henry Grattan, Esq. on the Subject of a Legislative Union with Great Britain. Te Resolutions of the Roman Catholics of the City of Dublin; the Guild of Merchants; the Freemen and Freeholders of the City of Dublin, at an Aggregate Meeting held on the 16th of January Last; the Celebrated Speech Delivered on that Occasion by John Philpot Curran, Esq. and the Resolutions of the County of Dublin, &c. &c. (Dublin: Printed by J. Stockdale, 1800).

Tis important publication gathers together several of the leading objections to the proposed Union between Great Britain and Ireland. Te frst part gives the well-known speech made by Henry Grattan in the Irish House of Commons in the famous debate on 15–16 January 1800 when the second Union bill was discussed. Grattan was famous for his major role in securing the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament in 1782. He had sat in the Irish Parliament from 1775 to 1797, but had then withdrawn from politics partly due to his failure to persuade the Irish Parliament to carry through moderate political and religious reforms. He was deeply hurt by the eforts to abolish the separate Irish Parliament and consequently came out of self-imposed retirement in a vain efort to obstruct the passage of the Union bill. He was elected in January 1800 for Wicklow borough and this was his frst intervention in the debates on Union. His speech praises the achievement of Irish legislative independence that was meant to be a permanent constitutional settlement between Ireland and Great Britain. Although he does not wish to break the connection with Great Britain and he supports Ireland’s support for the war against revolutionary France, he is adamantly opposed to Union. He believes it will do nothing to promote either parliamentary reform or Catholic emancipation and that the Irish representatives in a United Parliament will always be in a minority and unable to protect the country’s interests. He argues that Britain has ofen passed measures harmful to Irish commerce and that he is not convinced that the commercial concessions now on ofer will be implemented. A Whig himself, Grattan does not trust the motives or policies of Prime Minister William Pitt.1

– 221 –

222

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Te second part of this publication prints the resolutions of the Roman Catholics of Dublin, who express satisfaction with many of the reforms passed by the Irish Parliament since 1782 and pass a resolution opposed to Union. Tere follows the resolutions passed by the Guild of Merchants, the Freemen and Freeholders of Dublin, the freeholders of the county of Dublin, the citizens of Dublin and the corporation of weavers, all in January 1800. All of these resolutions praise the achievements of the Irish Parliament since 1782, insist that the present parliament has no constitutional authority to vote itself out of existence, and thank those MPs who have led the opposition to Union. Tis publication also prints the efective speech delivered at the meeting of the Dublin freemen and freeholders by John Philpot Curran (1750–1817), an eminent lawyer, who had defended many United Irishmen in recent trials. He regards Union as a betrayal of all that has been gained since 1782, insists that the constitution belongs to the people and not just to the Irish Parliament, and urges the Irish people to unite against the corrupt policies of Prime Minster William Pitt. He expresses support for parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation and rejects Union as a solution to the problems facing Ireland. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Notes 1.

For more on Grattan, there are entries in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800, and a useful biography, Grattan: A Life, by R. B. McDowell (Dublin: Lilliput Press, 2001).

The Speech of Henry Grattan, Esq. on the Subject of a Legislative Union with Great Britain (Dublin: Printed by J. Stockdale, 1800).

SPEECH, &c. As no event in the history of our country can dispute precedency of importance with that of Mr. Grattan’s return to Parliament1 in the present critical moment of Irish liberty – so likewise should all considerations be secondary to that of giving fully and speedily, to our country, the eloquent and incontrovertible advocacy of our great and steady defender.

Mr. grattan. – Sir, the gentleman who spoke the last but one2 mentioned the settlement of 1782, adopting the ideas of the Minister of Great Britain;3 that Minister has come forward in two celebrated productions; he declares his intolerance of the Parliamentary Constitution of Ireland – that Constitution which he ordered the several Viceroys to celebrate – in defence of which he recommended the French war, and to which he swore the yeomen4 – that Constitution he now declares to be a miserable imperfection; concurring with the men whom he executed, in thinking the Irish Parliament a grievance, and difering in the remedy only – they proposing to substitute a Republic, and he the yoke of the British Parliament; we have seen him inveigh against their projects – let us hear him in defence of his own; he denies in the face of the two nations, a public fact, registered, and recorded; he disclaims the fnal adjustment of 1782; and he tells you that this fnal adjustment was no more than an incipient train of negociation. Te settlement of which I speak consists of several parts, every part a record, establishing on the whole two grand positions – frst, the admission of Ireland’s claim to be legislated by no other Parliament but that of Ireland – secondly, the fnality imposed upon the two nations, regarding all constitutional projects afecting each other; – on the admission of that claim, the frst tracts of this adjustment are two Messages sent by his Majesty to the Parliament of the diferent countries,5 to come to a fnal adjustment, in order to remove the discontents and jealousies of the Irish – the second, the answer of the Parliament of Ireland to his Majesty’s Message,6 declaring, among other causes of discontent, – 223 –

224

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and jealousy, one great, capital, principal, and fundamental cause, namely, the interposition of the Parliament of Great Britain in the Legislative Regulation of Ireland, accompanied with a solemn protest against that interposition, and with a claim of right on the part of Ireland, not of the Parliament of Ireland only, but of the People of the realm, whose ancient and unalienable inheritance it was stated in that Address to be – a / perpetual exemption against the interference of the Parliament of Great Britain, or that of any other Legislation, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. Te third part of this adjustment was a resolution voted by the two British Houses of Parliament,7 in consequence of said Address, transmitted by his Majesty for their consideration; there were two resolutions transmitted – frst, Tat the sixth of George I.8 containing the claim of interference by the British Parliament should be repealed; – the second, Tat the connexion between the countries should be placed by mutual consent on a solid and permanent foundation.9 Te third part of the covenant was, the Address of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament upon the consideration of these two resolutions – which Address does, among other things, accept of the proposition contained in the frst resolution, and does expressly reject the second – for it says that we conceive the resolution for unqualifed, unconditional repeal of the 6th of George I. to be a measure of consummate wisdom. I drew that Address10 – and I introduced those words expressly to exclude any subsequent qualifcations or limitations, afecting to clog or restrain the operations of that repeal, and the plenitude of the Legislative authority of the Irish Parliament. Te Address adds the clause of fnality for instance – that gratifed in those particulars which it states, “no Constitutional question between the two nations will any longer exist.”11 Te next part was the measure adopted by the English Parliament, upon the consideration of this Address; and in that measure, they accede to that Address entirely, and unequivocally; they embrace our proposition of unconditional and unqualifed repeal, and they accordingly introduced a bill for that purpose12 – and thus they closed the fnal adjustment. Our Address, though no part of their resolutions, becoming part of their covenant – as their bill of repeal, though no part of our acts, became part of our treaty. Another instrument in the transaction is the Address to his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant,13 touching the fnality of this measure, in which are these words – “We have seen this great national arrangement established on a basis, which secures and unites the interests of both kingdoms, the objects we have been labouring for, have been accomplished.”14 Te next is the declaration of the Irish Government, touching the fnality of that arrangement – “Convince the people that every cause of past jealousy and discontent is fnally removed and that both countries have pledged their good faith to each other, and that their best security will be their inviolable adherence

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

225

to this compact.”15 Tere are two other parts, which are material, the resolution of the Irish House of Commons, the 18th of June,16 declaring in substance, that the question / was not now to be opened, and that the business was done, and in these words, that leave to bring in a bill of right was refused, because the right of legislation in the Irish Parliament in all cases had been already asserted by Ireland, and fully, and fnally, and irrevocably acknowledged by Great Britain. Te next instrument was an address to his Majesty, to beseech him to appoint a day of public thanksgiving for the accomplishment of these great objects, as well as for his victories;17 thus it appears, that whatever idea might have been conceived in the second resolution of the 17th of May (82) it was totally and entirely abandoned;18 the Minister of that time19 probably intended to make the best bargain he could for England, and therefore conceived it eligible, to condition and qualify the acknowledgement of the indepedency [sic] of the Irish Parliament, by certain provisions respecting navigation, &c. but fnding that the Irish Parliament would accept of nothing but the unqualifed and unconditional repeal, he dropt the fruitless idea. I cannot presume to state his sentiments; but I can state that the Irish Propositions of unqualifed and unconditional repeal, rejecting the idea of further measures, was adopted in England by her Parliament, which embraced the Irish Propositions of unqualifed and unconditional repeal of the 6th of George the First, and did repeal it accordingly without qualifcation, condition or limitation.20 I beg leave to mention two facts, which, though not recorded, are not forgotten – the one is a declaration by Lord Lansdown;21 then Secretary of State, that the repeal by the 6th of George I. was the only measure he meant to propose: the other was, a declaration by the Representative of the Irish Government in the Irish House of Commons, made afer our address of the 17th of May,22 that no measures were intended to be grounded on the second English resolution of May 17th, I remember the question to be asked and so answered. I think I have now shewn from the records quoted, that the argument of the Minister is against the express letter, the evident meaning and honest sense of this fnal settlement – and I repeat that fnality was not only a part or the settlement, but one of its principal objects – the case is still stronger against him, fnality was the principal object of his country as Legislative Independency was the object of ours. Ireland wished to seize the moment of her strength for the establishment of her liberties – the Court of England wished to conclude the operations of that strength, and bound its progress. – Te one country wished to establish her liberty, the other to check the growth of demand. I say, the growth of demand, it was the expression of the time; the Court of England came therefore to an agreement with this country, viz. to establish for ever a free and independent existence of the Irish Parliament, and to preserve for ever the unity / of the British empire – the former by the above-mentioned adjustment, the

226

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

latter by the clause of fnality to that adjustment annexed, and by precluding then, and at all times to come, the introduction of any further Constitutional questions in either country, afecting the connexion, which was to rest under solemn covenant, unimpregnable, and invincible to the intrigue or ambition of either country, founded on the prudent, the profound, the liberal, and the eternal principle of Unity of Empire and Separation of Parliament. I might, however, wave23 all this, and yet the Minister would get nothing by it – I might allow, contrary to common sense, that fnal adjustment as proposed by his Majesty, means incipient negociation – I will suppose, contrary to truth, to public faith, public honor, and common policy, that the Councils of Great Britain at that time meant to leave the Irish Constitution open to the encroachments of the British Parliament and the British Empire, open to the encroachments of the Irish Volunteer, that is, that she meant to expose the solidity of her empire, in order to cheat the Irish, frst of their opportunity, and aferwards of their Constitution, and yet he has gained nothing by these preposterous concessions, because he must allow, that the arrangement did proceed to certain articles of covenant, and the frst article on the part of England excludes his Union, being the assent of the Parliament of Great Britain to the requisition of the People of Ireland, which was, to be exempted in all times to come from the interference of British Parliaments, and to have established over them no other Legislature whatever save only that of the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland. Admitting then, the ridiculous idea of ulterior measures to follow fnal adjustment, a Union could not be one of them; it is hardly necessary to mention, that he has been Minister ever since that period, that during the whole of that time he never ventured to name Union as one of those further measures – not in 1783 when a bill was brought in by the Ministry – not in 1785, when he introduced his celebrated Propositions,24 and stated the second resolution of the 17th of May, 1782, to comprehend not the Constitution but the Commerce of both countries – not in the Administration of 8525 – not, in short, until he had reduced this country by a train of calamitous measures, and religious divisions, to the condition of a conquest, such as she was when the Parliament of England, at the close of the last century, took away her Trade,26 and in the middle of the present took away her Constitution.27 Te Minister proceeds, he impeaches the Constitution of 1782, from disavowing an arrangement so adjusted at that time, and an adjustment so concluded, he advances and calls that adjustment a miserable imperfection, afer ffeen years panegyric, and when he has a great army in Ireland he has made that discovery, and instead of a Constitution which / established peace in Ireland, he revives a principal which produced war in America, namely that two independent legislatures are incompatible; this was the language of Lord North’s sword in the colonies,28 this is the language of Mr. Pitt’s sword in Ireland,29 and the doctrine of an imperial Legislature which lost Great Britain – America, and which Great Britain surrendered to Ireland, takes

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

227

once more its bloody station in the pages of the Minister, in defance of faith, and in contempt of experience; it seems as a British Parliament is disposed to surrender its liberties to the court, the court is disposed to advance its domination over all the British connections; similarity of Constitution is no longer the bond of connection, all are to be swallowed up according to this doctrine, in one imperial Parliament whose powers are to encrease as the boundaries of the empire contract, and the spirit of her liberties declines. “You abolished,” says he, “one Constitution, but you forgot to form another,”30 – Indeed! – What! does he mean that we should have demolished a usurpation: in order to mangle a Constitution? Does he mean that we should have overset the tyranny of one Parliament to mangle another? In short, does he mean that we should have taken away the usurped and tyrannical powers of the Legislature of England, in order to restore those usurped and tyrannical powers to that very Legislature? – In what branches? His propositions have stated them; Commerce, &c. the very branches in which they had been by that very Legislature most oppressively and egregiously, obstinately and trascendantly [sic] abused. Most certainly the conductors of that settlement on the part of Ireland did not think proper so to restore the grievance of a foreign Legislation, and so to limit the powers of a domestic one. Te Minister has given in his speech the reason – “All the great branches of trade (by which he must mean the linen trade, the plantation trade, the import trade) are to be ascribed to the liberality of England, not to covenant.” 31– I deny it – but as Ministers may deny covenants, it seemed prudent to reserve the powers of Parliament, and accordingly the Irish Legislature retains full and ample resources, under the settlement of that time, to incline the councils of England to remember and observe her compacts with our country, should the British Minister be disposed to forget them – thus the Parliament of Ireland can so regulate her intercourse with other countries for colonial produce, so regulate her right to an East India trade, and so duty her channel trade, as to secure a preference in the English market to her linens, and to secure a direct intercourse with the British plantations: was Ireland to retain those powers with a view to annoy? No; but she was to retain them, and to retain them lest Great Britain, instigated by some Minister, might be induced to exercise once more those very powers of annoyance with which now the Right / Honorable Gentleman threatens Ireland; in short, lest Great Britain should retain all her powers of molestation, and Ireland should surrender all her powers of retaliation. Te classic Minister must know – Tacitus has told him32– that between the powerful and the impotent there can be no peace; the powers I speak of were powers of peace – they were powers of protection – they were the great reserves of the Irish Parliament to secure the trade of Ireland and harmony of empire; the wisdom of the reserve such a Minister as he is was born to establish – strange ideas this Minister entertains of the Constitution of an Irish Parliament. – It

228

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

should be incompetent – it should be omnipotent – incompetent to regulate the commerce of the country – omnipotent to overturn her Constitution: it should be inadequate and almighty – inadequate to protect – almighty to sell the people; its divine powers are to arise from its obsequiousness, and the act of its surrender with him constitutes its omnipotence. Te Minister proceeds – he specifes his objections to this settlement of 82 – the Regency is one, and war another – facts are against him in both – He states, that it was accident alone, meaning the recovery of his Majesty, that preserved the identity of the Executive power at the time of the Regency.33 He mistates that fact, totally and entirely – it was not accident, viz. the recovery of the King, that preserved the identity of the Executive Powers – that identity was preserved amply, carefully, and afectionately, by the determination of the Irish Parliament in choosing for their Regent the Heir apparent of the Crown, already designated and determined upon, though not in form invested by the Parliament of Great Britain. Te Irish Parliament provided in that event not only for the preservation of the Monarchial principle, but for the preservation of connexion likewise, and adhered to his country, though they did not link themselves to his party. Te principle that came under the consideration of the Irish Parliament was threefold – the principle of Monarchy, the principle of Connexion, and the principle of Party. With regard to the two frst, they concurred with the Parliament of England; they chose as Regent the next in succession to the Crown; and they chose him afer, and not before the Parliament of Great Britain had signifed, with the Minister at their head, their determination to appoint him, and in so doing they followed faithfully the spirit of the act of annexation of the Crown, which forms between the two countries their bond and connexion, but a bond and connexion through the medium of Monarchy. I am stating the spirit of that act, without defending or condemning it.34 I say the act of annexation,35 and so the bill of 82, altering and amending the act of Poynings,36 and ordaining that Irish bills shall be sent to the King, looks to the bond and connexion of these islands through / the medium of Monarchy. A British Republic never was in the contemplation of either; but an English Monarchy, and no other form of Government, was present to the conceptions of both, giving thereby the Royal House, who are the Monarchs of Ireland, as well as of Great Britain, a double security, and the Trone upon which they sit a double-root. I say the Parliament of Ireland did adhere to the principles of British connexion, and did unite with them the safe and the prescribed principles of Monarchial Government – they did concur with the Parliament of England, in the choice of a Regent, in the person of his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales,37 and afer his designation by Great Britain; but with regard to the third principle, namely, the principle of Party, they difered, the Parliament of England thinking proper to encumber the Regent with extraordinary limitations, and that of Ireland judging it more eligi-

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

229

ble to leave him in full exercise of all the Executive Powers; it therefore rejected a motion of delay, knowing the object of that motion was to postpone the appointment until the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,38 should have formed a formidable faction confederated against the future Government. In short, the Parliament of Ireland did not think it proper to appoint a Regent with less than Regential power, and to constitute in opposition a Minister with great portions of Regal authority. Hence, perhaps, this Union – hence, perhaps the visitation of calamitous government which has befallen Ireland ever since. One of the Minister’s instruments in this country has confessed it – he has said in one of his speeches published by his authority, that all the misfortunes of this country sprung from that resentful period.39 But who is it reproaches Ireland upon this subject, most injuriously and unjustly, with the crime of availing herself of the opportunity aforded by that most calamitous event that visited the health of our Sovereign? ’Tis that very Minister who published that opportunity in the broadest and most unqualifed resolution – who told the Parliament of both countries, that they were perfectly competent to supply, in that melancholy moment, the defciency in the executive magistrate by any method which they thought proper, that is, who told the British Houses of Parliament they were competent to establish a temporary Republic40 – and told the Irish Houses, of course and by necessary inference, that they were competent to establish a temporary Republic, and to accomplish a temporary Separation. To have declined the opportunity is called the Ambition of our Parliament – to have proclaimed the opportunity is called the Moderation of the Minister. – His partizan in this country, went further – he maintained the power of the British Parliament to bind Ireland – Ille impiger hausit Spumantem pateram et pleno se -------- proluit auro.41 /

According to the two opinions, the two Houses of the British Parliament could overturn the British Monarchy and Irish Constitution. Te Minister proceeds – he states a second instance, namely that of war; here again the fact is against him; the Parliament of Ireland have ever since their Emancipation concurred with England on the subject of war, but they have concurred with this remarkable diference, that before their Emancipation their concurrence was barren, and since their Emancipation it has been productive. Immediately on the settlement of that Emancipation in 1782, they voted a sum for British seamen,42 and on the apprehension of a war with Spain in 1790, they voted another – and in the present war under Lord Fitzwilliam’s Administration43 they voted a third. So much more benefcial are the wild oferings of Liberty, than the squeezings, and eviscerations, and excruciations of power. But all this is lost upon the Minister – fact and bounty make no impression on him;

230

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

he has against both a fallacious argument, and an hungry speculation – he thinks he foresees that the Parliament of Ireland may dissent from that of Great Britain on the subject of war – that peace or war are in the department of the King, not of the Parliament. He knows, that on a proclamation by his Majesty, Ireland is in a state of war – of course without the assent of the Houses of Parliament. He knows that the supply of that war depends not on the Parliament of Ireland, but of Great Britain; therefore, the interference of the Parliament of Ireland on that subject is little more than the declaration of a sentiment. Now the declaration of a sentiment on such a subject is only valuable, as it is the sentiment of a nation; – and the concurrence of Ireland in British wars can only be the sentiment of the nation, as the Constitution of the nation, that is to say, the Rights of Ireland, as claimed by herself, to be exempted from the Legislative authority of a British Parliament – tendered, regarded, and protected by the British Empire. It is not the isle of Ceylon, the Cape of Good Hope, the Mysore country,44 nor the dominions of Tippoo,45 nor yet the feathers of her western wing46 that engage the attention or interests of Ireland – it is her own internal freedom and Constitution – it is her own idea of that internal freedom and Constitution, not such as British Ministers who have invaded that Constitution too ofen shall hold forth, nor such as English and Scotch metaphysicians, who forged chains for America, and called them her Constitution, and are ready now to cast links for Ireland, with the foreign stamp of Irish Liberty – but that Constitution which she herself, Ireland, feels, comprehends, venerates, and claims – such as she herself expressed, both in her Convention at Dungannon,47 and through all her counties and cities, and in every description and association of people, and aferwards in full Parliament claimed, carried, registered, and / recorded – it is for the preservation of this Constitution that she is interested in British wars – she considers the British Empire a great western barrier against invasion from other countries. Invasion on what? Invasion on her liberties, on her rights and privileges, invasion on selflegislation, the parent and protectress of them all. She hears the Ocean protesting against Separation, but she hears the Sea likewise protesting against Union; – she follows, therefore, her physical destination, and obeys the dispensations of Providence – when she protests, like that Sea, against the two situations, both equally unnatural – Separation and Union; but then, she feels her Constitution to be her great stake in the Empire, and she contemplates the Empire as the great security of her Constitution. Our liberty we think is secured by this great western barrier, and we give our strength to this western barrier for the security of our liberty – but if British Ministers should do that very mischief which we apprehend from the foreigner, namely, take away the Parliamentary institutive of the Realm – they take away with that, our interest in the British dominions, and thus withdraw at once a great pillar of Liberty and Empire.

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

231

On these principles I suppose the dissent of Ireland on the subject of war highly improbable, as it is uninstanced – but I should attribute, like the Minister, infallibility to those Councils that engage their country in a war, should I suppose the dissent of Ireland on such a subject at all times to be fatal. Happy had it been for Great Britain – happy had it been for his Majesty – happy had it been for his glory and renown in all times to come, had not the Parliament of Ireland, in the American war, cursed him with her concurrence. What could the Tutelary Angel48 of England have done more? If that Angel had been Minerva,49 and that Minerva sate in Parliament, she would then have held, over the Councils of that time, the shield of her displeasure – or what could the Demon50 of Great Britain have done more, or the Avenging Genius of the Colonies which her cabinet butchered, than to have flled full and overfowing the measure of her malice – in an humble and dutiful address of thanks and concurrence, looking back to the wars in which Great Britain has been engaged – I should therefore suggest, that she is in less danger from the hesitation of Ireland, than from the precipitation of Great Britain. In this part of his argument the Minister is weak; but in his remedy is not only weak, but mischievous; he proposes by taking away our powers of dissent to withdraw our motive of concurrence, and to secure our silence, forfeits our afection – He foresees an improbable event – of that event be greatly exaggerates the danger, and provides a remedy which makes that danger, not only imminent but deadly. I will put this question to my country – I will suppose her at the bar, and I will ask then, will you fght for a Union as you / would for a Constitution? Will you fght for that Lords and Commons, who, in the last century, took away your Trade, and in the present the Constitution, as for that King, Lords, and Commons who have restored both? Well, the Minister has destroyed this Constitution – to destroy is easy – the edifces of the mind, like the fabricks of marble require an age to build – but ask only a Minister to precipitate, and, as the fall is of no time, so neither is it the efect of any strength – a common Labourer and pick-ax, a little Lawyer, a little Pander, and a wicked Minister – so perish the works of men! Tat Constitution, which with more or less violence has been the inheritance of this country for 600 years; that modus tenendi parliamentum,51 which lasted and out-lasted of Plantagenet wars52 – of Tudor53 the violence – and of Stuart54 the systematic falshood – the condition of our connexion – yes, the pillar he destroys is one of the pillars of the British Empire; he may walk round it, and round it, and the more he contemplates, the more he must admire it; such a one as had cost England of money a million, and of blood a deluge – cheaply and nobly expended dear in its violation, dear in its recovery – whose restoration had cost Ireland her noblest eforts, and was the habitation of her loyalty – we are accustomed to behold the Kings of these countries in the keeping of Parliament

232

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

– I say of her loyalty, as well as of her liberty, where she had hung up the sword of the Volunteer; her Temple of Fame, as well as of Freedom. I have done with the pile which the Minister batters – I come to the Babel55 which he builds, and as he throws down without a principle, so does he construct without a foundation. Tis fabric he calls an Union; and to this, his fabric, there are two striking objections. First, it is no Union – it is not an identifcation of people, for it excludes the Catholics – 2dly, it is a consolidation of the Irish Legislatures, that is to say, a merger of the Irish Parliament, and incurs every objection to an Union, without obtaining the only object which a Union professes – it is an extinction of the Constitution, and an exclusion of the people. Well! he has overlooked the people as he overlooked the sea. I say he excludes the Catholics for ever, and for the very reason which he and his advocates hold out as the ground of expectation – that hereafer, in a course of time, (he does not say when) if they behave themselves, (he does not say how) they may see their subject submitted to a course of discussion, (he does not say with what result or determination) – and as the ground for this inane period, in which he promises nothing, in which he can promise nothing, and in which, if he did promise much, at so remote a period he could perform nothing – unless he, like the evil he has accomplished, be immortal. For this inane sentence, in which he can scarcely be said to deceive / the Catholic, or sufer the Catholic to deceive himself, he exhibits no other ground than the physical inanity of the Catholic body accomplished by an Union, which, as it destroys the relative importance of Ireland, so it destroys the relative proportion of its Catholic inhabitants, and thus they become admissible, because they cease to be any thing. Hence, according to him, their brilliant expectation; “you were” say his advocates and so imports his argument, “before the Union, as four to one – you will be by the Union as one to four.”56 Tus he founds their hopes of political power on the extinction of political consequence, and makes the inanity of their body, and the non-entity of their country, the pillars of their future ambition. Let me add, that even though the Catholic were admitted into Parliament, by the articles of Union, it would be of little avail to the body. What signifes to the body whether a Catholic individual be an insignifcant unit in the English Parliament or in the street; in either case he would be nothing – he would belong to nothing – he would have nothing to which he could belong – no country – no Irish people – no Irish nation. Te Catholics of the City of Dublin have come forth in support of the Constitution57 – I rejoice at it – they have answered their enemies by the best possible answer – by services – such answer is more than refutation – it is triumph. Te man who supports and preserves Parliament qualifes – the path of glory leads on to privilege – enjoy with me if you please – without me if you be illiberal – but by me certainly – and at all events enjoy the Parliamentary Constitution of your country. Tis is to defend the Tower – this is to leap upon the wreck – this

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

233

is to sit by the country in her sick bed – if she recover, there is a long and bright order of days before her, and the Catholics will have contributed to that event – if she perish, they will have done their utmost to save her – they will have done as an honest man ought in such a case – they will have a fung out their last setting glories, and sunk, with the country. Te Minister, by his frst plans, as detailed by his advocates, not only banished the Catholics from Parliament, but banished the Protestant poor likewise, for he banished them from a due representation therein – he struck of one half of the county representatives, and preserved the proportion of boroughs as two to one – thus he disposed of the questions of Catholic Emancipation and Parliamentary Reform, by getting rid of both for ever: thus did he build his frst plan of Union upon the abuses both of Church and State, and reformed neither – religious monopoly, and borough monopoly, he continued to exclude the Catholic from Parliament, and he continued to shut out both Protestant and Catholic from a due and efectual Parliamentary Representation – he shut out Protestant Ascendancy, as well as Catholic Participation, and in the place of both, constituted / borough ascendancy in perpetual abuse and dominion – he reformed the British Parliament by nearly sixty Irish Borough Members; he reformed the Irish Parliament by 558 English and Scotch Members – and on this mutual misrepresentation constituted an Imperial Legislature; there was no great efort of ability in all this – much felicity of mischief – no expenditure neither of time nor talent – there was nothing in the scheme which was grand – nothing which was deep – nothing which was comprehensive; he demolished an old institution, at the same time that he preserved old abuses, and put himself at their head, and entailed them on posterity like a common disorder, to be continued through what he calls a parental Parliament. Such a plan was too desperate; as far as relates to the proportion of counties and boroughs. I understood it is in part abandoned, and well it may, because whether these Representatives be in a greater or lesser proportion Borough-Member, they will be the Host of Administration, and not the Representatives of the People. He takes 100 Members, many of whom are removed by the nature of their election from their country, are withdrawn from that of sympathy, from that of opinion. He changes the sphere not only of their action but of their character, and of their sensations. How came the Irish Parliament, with all its Borough Members, in 1779, to demand a free trade – in 1782, to demand a free Constitution? Because it sate in Ireland – because they sate in their own country – and because at that time they had a country – because however infuenced, as many of its members were by places – however uninfuenced as many of its Members were by popular representation, yet were they infuenced by Irish sympathy, and an Irish law of opinion, they did not like to meet every hour faces that look shame upon them; they did not like to stand in the sphere of their own infamy, thus they acted as the Irish Absentee at the very same time did

234

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

not act, they saved the country because they lived in it, as the others abandoned the country because they lived out of it. I will not say that 100 Irish Gentlemen will act ill where any man would act well, but never was there a situation in which they had so much temptation to act ill and so little to act well; great expense and consequent distresses, support from the voice of an Irish public, no check, they will be in situation a sort of gentlemen of the Empire, that is to say, gentlemen at large, unknown by one country and unelected by the other, suspended between both, false to both, and belonging to neither. Te sagacious English Secretary of State has foretold this, “what advantage (says he) will it be to the talents of Ireland, this opportunity in the British Empire thus opened;”58 that is what we dread, the market of St. Stephen59 opened to the individual, and the talents of the country, like its property, draughted from the kingdom of Ireland to be sold in London; these men from / the infuence of representation, all of whom by the removal from their situation, (man is the child of situation) their native honour may struggle; but from their situation they will be adventurers of the most expensive kind, adventurers with pretensions, dressed and sold, as it were, in the shrouds and grave-cloaths of the Irish Parliament, and playing, for hire, their tricks on her tomb – the only repository the Minister will allow to an Irish Constitution, the images of degradation, and the representative of nothing. – Come, he has done much – he destroyed one Constitution, he has corrupted another – and this corrupted Constitution he calls a Parental Parliament. I congratulate the country on the new baptism of what was once called the Representative Body of the Nation; instead of the plain august languages of the Constitution, we are here saluted with the novel and barbaric phraseology of Empire. With this change of name, we perceive a transfer of obligation, converting the duty of the Delegate into the duty of the Constituent, and the inheritance of the people into the inheritance of their Trustees. Tere is not in this plan any one profound, comprehensive, or exalted conception. Well, this Assembly, this Imperial Parliament, what are its elements? Irish Absentees, who have forsaken their country, and a British Parliament that took away the Constitution – does he say that such a Parliament will have no prejudices against Ireland. Let him look to his speeches; a capital understanding, a comprehensive knowledge, and a transcendent eloquence: hear him with all these powers, speak on the subject of Ireland, whether it be the conduct of her Administration, the character of the People, the Commerce, or her Covenants, or the Constitution, and he betrays an ignorance that would dishonour an idiot. Does he wish for further instances? let him look to the speeches of his agents in Ireland – speeches made and published for the palate and prejudices of the English Court. What description of men have they not traduced? what patriot

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

235

atchievement have they not depreciated? what honest character have they not belied? Does he look for further instances? let him turn to his catalogue – what notorious apostate has he not honoured? what impudent defamer of the rights and character of Ireland that he has not advanced? On the other hand, what man that made a stand for her liberties whom he has not dismissed? Mr. Fitzgerald,60 Sir John Parnel61 also, who has supported his Government long, refuses to abandon their country and their honour was immediately told they were no longer ft for the service of Government. Mr. Foster62 who had supported his Administration long, held up his shield for that Parliament of which he is the natural advocate, and was immediately honoured by the enmity of the Court, and a personal attack on his character and consistency. / Lord Fitzwilliam, an Englishman, a friend to the war, a strenuous advocate for order and regular government, with character that is purity itself, entertained for Ireland a fatal afection, and by that one ofence cancelled all his long and splendid catalogue of virtues, and does he disclaim prejudices against Ireland? A Legislature the parent of both countries he talks of; a Legislature, as far as relates to Ireland, free from the infuence of vicinity, of sympathy; – the Isle of Man is all that, free from the infuence of opinion, free from the infuence of duty, directed by prejudices, and unincumbered with knowledge. In order to judge what this parental Legislature would be, let us consider what the British Parliament has been, and let us compare the Parliament for this purpose, with the Legislature of Ireland, and in this comparison I do not mean to approve all the Parliaments that have sat in Ireland. I lef the former, because I condemned its proceedings; but I argue not like the Minister, from the misconduct of one Parliament, against the being of Parliament itself. I value that Parliamentary Constitution by the average of its benefts; and I afrm, that the blessings procured by the Irish Parliament in the last twenty years are greater than all the blessings aforded by British Parliaments to Ireland for the last century, greater even than the mischiefs inficted on the Ireland by British Parliaments, greater than all the blessings procured by these Parliaments for their own country within that period – within that time the Legislatures of England lost an empire, and the Legislature of Ireland recovered a Constitution. Will we have done with this parental Parliament, and now come to the bribes which he holds out? And frst, he begins with the Church; to the Protestant Church he promises perpetual security; to the Catholic Church his advocates promise eventual salary; and both hold out to the former commutation of tythes. With respect to the Protestant Church, whatever may be his wishes in favour of its duration, he takes the strongest measures to accomplish its destruction, for he attempts to disgrace it to all eternity; he is employing, or his agents are employing several of its members to negociate away the Constitution, and to mendicate addresses transferring to another country the Parliament and Legisla-

236

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

tive Power of their own, disfranchising the very people by whom the Church is fed, and deserting the holy mission of God to fulfl this profigate mission of the Minister. Give up your country, says the Minister, give up your Character, and be immortal; so said Charles I.63 to his Church, when he prohibited the Gospel, and regimented the Clergy into battalion against the Constitution, and overturned the Church by its own infamy. At the same time that the Minister endeavours to take away by his measures the authority of the Church; his advocates tell / you that he proposes to bribe the Catholic clergy, if they will betray the Constitution. In whatever form of religion our pious Court contemplates the Almighty, it ever occurs to convert him to some diabolical purpose. Te Catholics had been accused pretty liberally of disloyalty, by those very advocates who now seem to think it is proper to reward their imputed treasons against the King, provided they shall be followed up by real treasons against the people. I do not believe, I never did believe, the general charges made against the Catholics – I do not dispute, I never did dispute, the propriety of giving salaries to their Clergy; but it should be salaries not bribes – salaries, for the exercise of their religious duty, and not wages for the practice of political apostacy. According to this plan, the Catholic religion it would seem, disqualifed its followers to receive the blessings of the Constitution; but his hostilities to that Constitution qualifes him to receive a salary, for the exercise of that very religion which is at once punished by civil disability and encouraged by ecclesiastical provision; as good Catholics they are disqualifed, and as bad citizens they are to be rewarded. I dare say, in general, the Catholic clergy will feel on this occasion, as they have done upon others, a regard for their native land, superior to the threats of a Minister. Te Minister proceeds – he proposes his third bribe, the abolition of tythes. You observe, such a proposal does not seem to form part of this Union, but is an ofce kept back to be regulated, modifed, and qualifed when the Union is past, and the consideration is given. I approve of a modus as a compensation for tythes; but I do not approve of it as a compensation for Parliament; when I proposed that measure, and was opposed by men by whom I could only be opposed, and could not be answered. I was told by the King’s Ministers that commutation of tythes was the overturn of the Church; couple then the project of the Minister now, with the argument of his agents then, and the combined idea amounts to this, that it is prudent to overturn the Church, provided at the same time you overturn the Constitution: but the fact is, that the argument at that time was false, and the proposal at this time was fallacious, and both shew that the argument had for its object personal calumny, and the proposal national extinction. Te Minister has not done with bribes – whatever economy he shews in argument, here he has been generous in the extreme. Parson, Priest, (I think one of his advocates hints the Presbyterians) not forgotten, and now the mercantile body

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

237

are to be all bribed, that all may be ruined. He holds out commercial benefts for political annihilation; he ofers you an abundance of capital, but frst he takes it away; he takes away a great portion of the landed capital of the country by the necessary operation of Union. He will give you, however, commercial / capital in its place, but frst he will give you taxes, it seems ’tis only necessary to break down the barriers of Liberty, and the tides of commerce will fow in of course; take away her rival in landed capital, and then commercial capital advances without fear; commerce only wants weight, it seems, in order to run with new spirit; he not only fnds commerce in the retreat of landed capital, but he fnds corn also – why not wine? If the removal of landed capital shall produce wheat, why not the distance of the sun wine; why any method in his madness, when there is so much madness in his method; his whole speech is a course of surprises; the growth of excision, the resource of incumbrance, and harvests sown and gathered by the absence of the proprietor of the soil and their property: all these things are to come, when; he does not tell you – where he does not tell you; you take his word for all this. I have heard of a banker’s bill of exchange, bank of England’s notes, bank of Ireland’s notes, but a prophet’s promissory note is a new trafc; all he gets from Ireland is solid loss; all he promises; visionary, distant, and prophetic advantages; he sees, I do not, British merchants and British capital, sailing to the provinces of Connaught and Munster, where the Orangeman had sent the Defender;64 there they settle great multitudes, themselves and families. He mentions not what description of manufacturers – who from Birmingham – who from Manchester – no matter – he cares not – he goes on asserting with great ease to himself and without any obligation to fact, upon the subject; Icada65 imagination is the region in which he delights to disport; where he is to take away your Parliament; where he is to take away your frst judicature; where he is to take away your money; where he is to encrease your taxes; where he is to get an Irish tribute – there he is a plain direct matter of fact man; but where he is to pay you for all this; there he is poetic and prophetic – no longer a third-hand fnancier, but an inspired accomptant: Fancy gives him her wand; Amalthea66 takes him by the hand; Ceres67 is in his train. Te English capitalists, he thinks, will settle his family in the midst of those Irish Catholics whom he does not think it safe to admit into Parliament; as subjects, he thinks them dangerous; as a neighbouring multitude, safe; the English manufacturer will make this distinction – he will dread them as individuals, and confde in them as a body, and settle his family and his property in the midst of them; he will, therefore, the Minister supposes, leave his mines, leave his machinery, leave his comforts, leave his habits, conquer his prejudices, and come over to Ireland to meet his taxes and miss his Constitution; they did not do this when the taxes of Ireland were few? we were indeed told they would, as we are now told; they did not do this when there was no Military Government in Ireland; however, as prejudices against the

238

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

country encrease, he supposes / commercial confdence may encrease likewise – Tere is no contradicting all this; because arguments which reason does no suggest, reason cannot remove; besides, the Minister in all this does not argue, but foretell; now you can scarcely answer. Prophet, you can only disbelieve him; his arguments are false, but his inspirations may be true: appearances, however, are against them; for instance, a principal ground of complaint in Ireland is a misapplication of landed capital, or the diversion of it to foreign countries from the cultivation of Ireland, where great tracts remain either totally neglected, or superfcially improved; where the tenantry has not capital, and the land can be reclaimed only by the employment (and a very rational employment it would be) of part of the rent arising therefrom, on the soi1 which produced it, improving however gradually since the establishment of our free Constitution, which contains in itself the powers of checking the evil I speak of, and which, by adding to the consequence of the country, will naturally diminish the number of Absentees,68 aided as it must be by the growth of English taxes, unless by a Union we adopt those taxes in Ireland. How does he remedy this disorder? He fnds a great Absentee draught; he gives you another, and having secured to you two complaints, he engages to cure both. Another principal cause of complaint is another efect arising from the non-residence of Irish Landlords, whose presence on their own estates is necessary for the succour, as well as the improvement of their tenantry – that the peasants may not perish for want of medicine, of cordial, and of cure, which they can only fnd in the administration of the Landlord, who civilizes them, and regulates them in the capacity of a Magistrate, while he husbands and covers them in that of a protector, improving not only them but himself by the exercise of his virtues, as well as the dispensation of his property, drawing together the two orders of society – the rich and poor – until each may administer to the other, and civilize – the one by giving, and the other by receiving – so that Aristocracy and Democracy may have a head and a body; so that the rich may bring on the poor, and the poor may support the rich, and both contributing to the strength, order, and beauty of the State, may form that pillar of society, where all below is strength, and all above is grace. How does his plan accomplish this? he withdraws their landed gentlemen, and then improves Irish manners by English factors. – But I leave his trifing, and come to his threats. As he ofered before a trade which he had not to give, so now he menaces to withdraw a trade which he cannot take away – His threat is founded on a monstrous assertion that our principal branches of commerce are due to the liberality of England. Liberality of England to Irish Commerce! – Where are we to look for it? In what part of this century, for near an hundred / years, it is a long time, the Minister himself, disclaims the illiberal policy of his country – Is it at the close of the century for instance, in his Majesty’s speech from the Trone, in the year 75, where he is advised to signify his intention to maintain the principle of

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

239

American taxation over all his dominions,69 or is it in the embargo of the same period, or is it in the Tea Tax imposed on Ireland by the British Parliament about the period of 79 – or will he say this liberality appears in the mockery of those bills in which England afected to relieve the distresses of Ireland – was it in the English act, giving the Irish a power to catch whale, or in that other bill permitting the Irish to plant tobacco – or was it in 98, that this liberality made its appearance? No; for I remember in that period moving an address for the extension of Irish commerce – and I remember also being opposed and defeated by the immediate interposition of the Crown. It is not then in the period of 78 that we are to look for this liberality – was it in the period of 79 – the time of the short money bill of the non-consumption agreement – of the Irish requisition of free trade. Here is the liberality of England – she was just then – she was liberal never; and she was just to you then, because you were then just to yourself; – she has been faithful since – I shall be satisfed for one, with her fdelity and justice, and on these occasions I acknowledge both. Are there any further instances in which we are to look for English justice in the subject of Irish Trade – Yes, there is another in 93, on the subject of the re-export – an attempt had been made to carry that point for Ireland in 1786, contained in two resolutions, which I moved as an amendment to the Navigation act, which has been charged to Ireland as a favour, but which was in fact jobbed to the British Ministry by him who made the charge, and sold without any clause of equality and reciprocality – but aferwards in 93, a re-export bill passed in Great Britain in favour of Ireland, exactly at the time when the charter of the East India company expired, and an Irish bill was necessary and did pass to secure her monopoly for a limited time; such is the history of British concession. Now look at the tarif, 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 the 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 fnd 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. / Tis is the trade the Minister threatens to alter, and thinks he threatens not Great Britain but Ireland – here he will have some difculty, and frst, the covenant of 79, 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 79, an address passed the Irish Commons, containing a requisition for a Free Trade,70 it was followed by a motion declaring that the Irish Commons would

240

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

not for the present, grant new taxes,71 it was followed by a limitation of the act of supply to the duration of six months only72 – it was considered in England, and attended with resolutions moved by the then Minister,73 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 duty74 – these resolutions were considered in the Parliament of Ireland – [See the resolutions and the law expressing the condition and covenant] – they were voted satisfactory. A long money bill was then passed,75 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, founded on his denial of the three others, in which he desires you to give up your Parliament to secure his faith in time to come by encouraging his disavowal of former covenants. I argue in a diferent 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, recollect how the Irish Parliament could afect the East India Company, by discontinuing the act of 1793, granted but for a limited time? Does he recollect how she could afect the British West India monopoly, by withdrawing her exclusive consumption from the British plantations? Does he recollect how we could afect the navy of England, by regulations regarding our Irish provisions: Does he recollect how we could afect 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 frst most imprudently introduced on his. I say, let not the argument rest on threats – but let it rest quiet 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 afection 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? Tat 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 proposes to rob Ireland of that manufacture, unless Ireland consents to be robbed of her Parliament. Has he no other ground of triumph but the disgrace and dishonor

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

241

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 the interest he afects to reconcile to the honor – He, the Minister (his budget crammed with corruption) proposes to you to give up the ancient inheritance of your country, to proclaim an utter and blank incapacity to make laws for your own people, and to register this proclamation in an act which inficts on this ancient nation an eternal disability – and he accompanies these monstrous proposals by undisguised terror, and unqualifed bribery, and this he calls no attack on the honor and dignity of the kingdom. Te 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 dishonor, but they are built upon nothing else – he tells you, it is his main argument, that you are unft to exercise a free Constitution, and he afects to prove it by the experiment. Jacobinism76 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, bur has been productive – imperially therefore, it has worked well. What then does the Minister in fact object to? Tat you have supported him, that you have concurred his system, therefore he proposes to the people to abolish the Parliament and to continue the Minister – he does more – he 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 foor I should beg to utter my last breath, and to record my dying testimony.

------------

242

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

ROYAL EXCHANGE, DUBLIN77 January 13th, 1800. At a numerous and respectable meeting of the ROMAN CATHOLICS of the city of Dublin, convened pursuant to public notice, AMBROSE MOORE, Esq.78 in the Chair. Resolved, Tat we are of opinion that the proposed incorporate Union of the Legislatures of Great Britain and Ireland, is in fact an extinction of the liberty of this country, which would be reduced to the abject condition of a province, surrendered to the mercy of the Minister and Legislature of another country, to be bound by their absolute will, and taxed at their pleasure, by laws in the making of which this country could have no efcient participation whatsoever. Resolved, Tat we are of opinion that the improvement of Ireland for the last twenty years, so rapid beyond example, is to be ascribed wholly to the independency of our Legislature, so gloriously asserted in the year 1782, by the virtue of our Parliament co-operating with the generous recommendation of our most gracious and benevolent Sovereign, and backed by the spirit of our People; and so solemnly ratifed by both kingdoms, as the only true and permanent foundation of Irish prosperity and British Connexion. Resolved, Tat we are of opinion, that if the Independency should ever be surrendered, we must as rapidly relapse into our former depression and misery; and that Ireland must inevitably lose, with her liberty, all that she has acquired in wealth, and industry, and civilization. Resolved, Tat we are frmly convinced that the supposed advantages of such a surrender, are unreal and delusive, and never can rise in fact: and that even if they should arise, they would be only the bounty of the Master to the Slave, held by his courtesy, and resumable at his pleasure. / Resolved, Tat having heretofore determined not to come forward any more in the distinct character of Catholic, but to consider our claims and our cause not those of a Sect, but as involved in the general fate of our Country, that we now think it right, notwithstanding such determination, to publish the present Resolutions, in order to undeceive our fellow-subjects, who may have been led to believe by a false Representation, that we are capable of giving any concurrence whatsoever to so foul and fatal a project; to assure them that we are incapable of sacrifcing our common Country to either pique or pretension; and that we are of opinion, that this deadly attack upon the Nation is the great call of nature, of Country, and Posterity, upon Irishmen of all descriptions and persuasions, to every constitutional and legal resistance; and that we sacredly pledge ourselves, to persevere in obedience to that call as long as we have life. Signed by Order, JAMES RYAN, Sec.79

------------

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

243

GUILD OF MERCHANTS, DUBLIN. At a full Hall of the Masters, Wardens and Brethren of the Coroporation [sic] of Merchants or Guild of the Holy Trinity, Dublin, held at the Exhibition House in William-street, on Wednesday, the 15th Day of January, 1800, being an Adjournment of the Christmas Quarter Day. Te following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to: Resolved, Tat it is the Opinion of this Corporation, that it is now necessary to make an explicit and unequivocal declaration of our sentiments against the measure of an incorporate Union of Ireland with Great Britain, and to publish them to the kingdom. Resolved, Tat we behold with sorrow and indignation, the revival of a Question already condemned by the Parliament and People of Ireland. Resolved, Tat we deny in the most solemn and decided manner, the competence of Parliament to change our Constitution. We reposed a trust in our Representatives, which they can surrender to none but us; we reposed it for a limited time, and have ever since considered its duties bounded by the Constitution – our Representatives may act within the pale of that Constitution – NO POWER on earth has a right to destroy it. Resolved, Tat the measure of a Legislative Union is fraught with every bad consequence to the Liberties, Peace, and Prosperity of our country; nor are its mischiefs more dreadful in any point of View, than that by which it tends to endanger the happy Connexion, at present subsisting between the countries. / Resolved, that we look with horror and disgust at the arts practised, with unblushing efrontery, to defraud us of a Constitution which was acquired by so much virtue, and maintained with so much glory – we cannot think that a Measure supported by the annihilation of all honourable feeling, and propped up by the most audacious trafck, can be either useful, permanent – ’tis to us equal whether it be result of fraud or force, in either Case it is Tyranny, and Tyranny never had in any country or in any age, a righteous claim to Submission. Resolved, Tat we have seen with joy and satisfaction the manly declaration of our Catholic Fellow Citizens, and we agree with them in thinking that nothing can preserve and support our Constitution but the cordial co-operation of all sects in its defence. Resolved, Tat our sincere and grateful thanks are justly due, and are hereby given to John Claudius Beresford, Esq.80 and the Right Honourable George Ogle,81 our Representatives in Parliament, for their manly and decided Opposition to a Measure so odious to their Constituents. Resolved, Tat our sincere Tanks be returned to our worthy senior Master, Robert Powell, Esq.82 for his ready compliance with the wishes of the Brethren, in calling this Hall, and for his very proper conduct in the Chair. Resolved, Tat the above Resolutions be signed by our Clerk, and Published. Signed by Order of the Corporation, TIM. ALLEN, Clk. of the Guild.83

-------------

244

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

AGGREGATE MEETING.84 16 January, 1800. At a most numerous and respectable Meeting of the FREEMEN and FREEHOLDERS of the City of Dublin, assembled this day by Requisition at the sessions-house. Te HIGH SHERIFFS in the Chair,85 Te following Gentlemen were constituted a Committee, who reported the following Resolution and Address, which were unanimously agreed to by the Meeting; Mr. Hartley,86 Mr. Dease,87 Mr. Rawlins,88 Mr. R. M‘Donnell,89 Mr. Moore,90 and Mr. Alderman Howison.91 1. Tat the Constitution of Ireland, as established at the memorable period of 1782, is the indefeasable and unalienable Right of ourselves, and our Posterity. 2. Tat we do most solemnly and frmly protest against any acts which in destroying that Constitution, exceeds the Powers, / with which out Representatives in Parliament have been invested; and we do assert, that they have no Right to adopt the disgraceful proposal of this our extinction for ever. Teir powers are limited in time and extent, but the rights of the People are unprescriptable and immortal. 3. Tat the re-proposal of the measure of a Legislative Union with Great Britain to the same Parliament, which not a year since rejected even its discussion with indignation, is as insulting, as its consequences may be dreadful. 4. Tat the means resorted to, for the purpose of procuring a Parliamentary concurrence in this measure, and a delusive approbation of the People, are base and unconstitutional; and we call on those who supported the measure, to recollect that while they think they can violate the Constitution with impunity, we remember we have taken a solemn oath to maintain it. 5. Tat we contemplate with horror, the ungenerous language held to us in the hour of our distress – Te manner in which we acquired our glorious Constitution is openly avowed; it remains only for us to say, that a Constitution which we proudly asserted, ought never to be basely surrendered, and we pledge ourselves most solemnly, while we have life, we never will be the willing slaves of dishonorable negotiation. 6. Tat we hail the auspicious moment of internal Unanimity, when the cordial concurrence and co-operation of all sects and persuasions, as common brothers in a common cause, shall render any attempt upon our liberties, from whatever quarter it may proceed, disgraceful and inefectual. 7. Tat the grateful thanks of this meeting be returned to the virtuous minority of the House of Commons, who supported the independence of Ireland, by opposing a Legislative Union with Great Britain.

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

245

8. Tat our worthy Representatives, J. C. BERESFORD, Esq. and the Right Honorable GEORGE OGLE, highly merit, and we do hereby tender them our sincere acknowledgements for their uniform and steady opposition to an attempt to annihilate the independence of Ireland. 9. Tat our warmest thanks and gratitude are due, and are hereby given, to the Right Honorable JOHN FOSTER, Speakee [sic] of the House of Commons, whose virtuous and patriotic conduct, have endeared him to every Irishman, who loves his country; and that we can never despair of the success of a cause, supported by the talents and virtue of a man, who has on all occasions, proved himself the steady friend of Ireland. 10. Tat we feel the most lively satisfaction at the return of our late able and virtuous Representative, H. GRATTAN, Esq. to our Senate, at this alarming crisis of our liberty; and that we derive the most encouraging presage from the addition of such splendid talents, and such well-tried virtue, to the honest friends / of Ireland, who unseduced by corruption, and unawed by power, have continued frm to the trust reposed in them by their country – and that the following Address be presented to Mr. Grattan: Sir, “For your Spirit and Patriotism, accept our most grateful acknowledgments. You have come forward at a time most critical to Irish Liberty, to save the Constitution. Tis attempt of the Minister, the annexation for ever of the kingdom of Ireland to the British Parliament, is hateful to every lover of his country. When you so illustriously distinguished yourself in establishing the independence of the Irish Legislature, the support of the People was not wanting. You will have it on this occasion; and with your virtues and talents, it would be criminal to despair of success.” Resolved, Tat the High Sherifs be requested to present said Resolutions and Address, accompanied by such Freemen and Freeholders as chuse to attend. Resolved, Tat the aforesaid Resolutions, with the Answer the Speaker, our Representatives, and Mr. Grattan, (when received) be printed. Te High Sherif having quit the Chair, it was taken by Mr. Alderman Crothers,92 and the unanimous thanks of the Meeting were returned to the High Sherifs, for their patriotic conduct displayed by their readiness in calling this Meeting, and their highly proper conduct in the Chair. Te High Sherifs were pleased to appoint Saturday, at one o’clock, to meet at the Royal Exchange, to proceed to the several Gentlemen with the Resolutions of Tanks and Address.

------------

246

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Te following is a Sketch of what fell from Mr. Curran93 at the Aggregate Meeting of Freemen and Freeholders of the City of Dublin: He began by speaking in the highest terms of the noble stand Mr. Foster had made for Ireland; it was manly, ardent, and truly disinterested. When it was notorious what others had received for betraying, it was easy to see what he must have refused. He was happy to fnd this sentiment of gratitude and respect so warm and so genial; it had his most cordial concurrence. It was time for us all to learn from the lessons of calamity; to unlearn the fatal follies that had brought Ireland again to the bed of sickness – perhaps to the bed of death. One only road to safety remained, the unanimity of the people. Te capital had nobly set the example. If the country followed the example, Ireland could not be lost. Te projected surrender of Ireland would be defeated. Tis new secret expedition would add just as many laurels to an / unprincipled projector as the last had done. Here Mr. Curran adverted to the projected Union. It was, he said, a base violation of the solemn compact of 1782; a base surrender of the birthright of Ireland, which we were intitled to, independent of any compact, which we had no power to give up; which the Parliament, a mere trustee for the people, can’t give up without the basest perfdy, which the King is bound by his coronation oath to maintain. Te surrender of which is sought for the vilest purposes, by the vilest means, by bribe, by terror, an army in the country, an armed incubus sitting upon the public heart. Upon these topics he dwelt in a pointed manner. But what, said he, are the motives of the Minister,94 that can urge him to so desperate a folly as reduces the obedience to the laws from a principle conscience to a question of prudence? He knows it must hazard the connexion; more necessary now than ever it was – he knows it subverts the constitution of Ireland, of England also; neither country will have laws made solely by their own people. He knows that one hundred needy provincial members in his pocket, and he in theirs, must turn the government of both countries into an absolute despotism. Why then attempt such an atrocity? I answer, said he, for the sake of that very despotism. I answer, said he, in order to bind you by such laws as no Parliament would venture to propose in their own country – it is to have your property at his mercy – to tax you at his will – to levy his taxes with the bayonet. Why does England stand silent and torpid as this hour of common peril? She thinks her Minister despotic as he may be, (and he has brought her to bend under his despotism) will seek popularity by taxing Ireland. A Parliament of Englishmen has an interest in taxing you – at least they will be taught to think so – at least paid for doing so. Such is ever the mixture of folly and cruelty which the province feel, and the principal nation never feels for their calamity. Did Spain feel for the Low Countries?95 Did Rome for Sicily?96 Did England for America?97 No, she sent her tax-gatherers – the Americans refused, and her next messengers were murder and confagration. And England applauded until she forced that unhappy coun-

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

247

try upon Revolution. Yes, I repeat unhappy! Unhappy is that country which is obliged to wade back to Liberty through blood, and to mix the song of triumph with the lamentation of the grave. Unhappy therefore only should I call this country in a similar event, for we could not continue long in slavery; we should have a terrible interval to pass, marked by the suspension of industry and commerce, as well as of liberty; by the fight of the proprietor, and of the capitalist; by the beggary of unlimited taxation, and the government of a foreign soldiery: the robbery of a poor people like us, would not relieve the oppressed and shattered fnances of England, but it would force us back upon our freedom, the very prospect of it had now forced us in to concord. It was only our divisions that exposed us to danger; / in the crucible of common misery, we were molten into a common mass; we felt at last that we have been drinking the bitter dregs of our own malice, and that we were punished as we deserved. He could not express, he said, what his heart felt when he beheld this cordial reconciliation of his countrymen. Our enemies must ever rise and fall together with our dissensions; our dissensions he trusted were gone for ever. If so, he said, and he could not bring himself to doubt it, we had a merit that no other nation has been able to claim. It seems to be the peculiar nature of religious animosities that their folly appeared only to the succeeding age: which age, while it laughed at the past, was itself carried away by some new folly equally furious and frivolous, and providing ample fund of melancholy merriment for the age to come. Here Mr. Curran adverted to the nature of our religious distractions, to the gross barbarism and folly of them, and to their fatal fruits – poverty and wretchedness at home; laughter and contempt abroad. Tis reconciliation, he said, should not be confned to the capital. Te nation ought to hear her own voice, her enemies ought to hear it, and above all, her Parliament ought to hear it: he said, that in the present struggle the Irish Parliament had given a noble proof of the value of popular representation; cut it into a thousand pieces, in every segment of it, you fnd political vitality. It has shown that upon great questions it feels its fate and its fortunes to be in common with the people; the rapid advancement of Ireland for the last twenty years, was an irrefragable proof of this: here he alluded to the various eforts of the Irish Parliament for the last twenty years for Irish trade and Irish independence. So it must ever be, he observed, where a nation has a resident Parliament however imperfect it may be. When the Parliament foats in the great mass of the People, it cannot be so caulked by corruption, as that some seams will not remain open through which it will imbibe the nation; we have, said he, all the virtue and all the talent of Parliament at our side, let us add to that the virtue of all the People, and our success is infallible. If we do not give them that aid our ruin is equally inevitable. Without our own ardent co-operation, what can we hope from our friends in Parliament; with all their virtues and their talents, what barrier can they form without our own assistance; at the best, an

248

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

uncemented wall, destitute of that connexion, which nothing but support can give, it must be soon overwhelmed in the overbearing tide of corruption: and the place where it stood will be covered with sand, upon that sand the child in his sport may write “Liberty,” and that word will be a record, until the frst breath of Heaven shall scatter it, or the frst surge of the deep wash it away – but give to that wall a frm and consolidated embankment behind it, and it will say to the proud wave of Britain, “thus far hast thou come, / but no farther shalt thou advance.” Mr. Curran here adverted to the resolutions proposed, he said, they were wise, loyal, moderate and frm. Without temper and moderation there cannot be frmness. Tey were calculated to awaken, but not to exasperate; to animate, not to infame, to reconcile, not to divide; to unite the nation in a combined and generous efort to preserve its own life; to avert the danger of the empire, which could not survive the connexion with Ireland; to avert the horrors of provincial slavery, of imported laws, and an imported army to enforce them; of a banished or degraded gentry, and of a populace famished and infuriated, withering upon the surface of the soil, which ought to give them nourishment, and to which they ought to give protection. He concluded a number of very interesting observations, which he pressed with much anxiety upon the audience, and of which we are sorry to give so imperfect a detail, by again enforcing the necessity of a cordial oblivion of all resentments. I know, said he, our situation; I know the tempest is strong, and the waves are high, and that every plank is strained. I know the villains have laboured to commit you with one another, to implicate you in your own senseless and fatal malice, to make you enamoured of a common perdition, to make you at once their dupes and their victims. I know at this moment they are preparing to bore those holes in the vessel, and calculating the interval of your sinking and of their escape. I tell you again, that without your own co-operation you must infallibly sink, and that you deserve to sink for ever.

-----------gentlemen, I AM truly thankful for your approbation of my conduct, and the very fattering terms in which it is expressed. My sincere conviction of the ruinous consequence attendant on a Legislative Union, bound me to oppose it. Every day’s refection since has served to encrease that conviction, and to shew me that the great safeguard and the true security of our own liberties, and of what is equally dear to every loyal Irishman, our perpetual connexion with Great Britain, lie in the preservation of a separate independent Parliament within the kingdom, under the Constitution established and ratifed in 1782. Accept my warmest thanks, and believe me to be with the most sincere respect and attachment, your very faithful and obedient servant, JOHN FOSTER.

------------

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

249

gentlemen, YOUR Resolutions does us great honour – we are grateful for it. When we cease to deserve your confdence we hope you will withdraw it from us for ever. J.C. BERESFORD. GEORGE OGLE.

-----------gentlemen, I AGREE with you in thinking the present crisis to be truly alarming. Afer considering the project of a Union fully, fairly, and dispassionately, with every advantage promised and professed, I do really and sincerely think it the worst measure ever proposed in the country. I shall contribute my mite to oppose it. – I have no confdence in the powers of my own broken and shattered exertions; but I have sufcient strength remaining to bear my last testimony against an UNION. HENRY GRATTAN.

-------------Dublin, Jan. 18, 1800. AT a General Assembly of the Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR,98 SHERIFFS, COMMONS, and CITIZENS, of the City of Dublin, held at the Exhibition House in William-street, on Friday the 17th day of January, 1800. Te following Resolutions were agreed to:– Resolved, Tat a RESIDENT LEGISLATURE in this Kingdom, is an essential and vital part of our Constitution, and has always been productive of the most salutary advantages to our country. Resolved, Tat being pledged in the most solemn manner, to support that Constitution, we lament, but feel ourselves called upon to express our abhorrence of the indirect modes which have been adopted to carry into efect the measure of a Legislative Union with Great Britain, a measure so destructive to the independence of a Free Nation, so ruinous to its happiness, and so fraught with fatal consequences to our future connexion with the British Empire. And, we lament, that any recent circumstances should oblige us thus again to express our disapprobation and detestation of a Measure, which has justly excited a serious alarm through the whole kingdom. Ordered, Tat the foregoing Resolutions be published. Signed by Order, ALLEN & GREEN,99 Town Clks.

--------------

250

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

At a Meeting of the FREEHOLDERS of the County of Dublin, convened by the High Sherif, at the County Commission Court-House, on Monday the 27th January, 1800; JOHN GARNETT, Esq.100 High Sherif, in the Chair; Te following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to: Resolved, that we with grief and indignation behold the Minister again agitating this Country with the question of a / Legislative Union – a Measure, already condemned with merited reprobation by the House of Commons and People of Ireland. Resolved, that the despotic and corrupt means which have been used to force it on the country, are such as must excite the resentment of every honest mind, and we have no doubt will call forth the determined opposition of every virtuous man in Ireland. Resolved, Tat by a separate independent Parliament, we do not understand a separate Interest from Great Britain; on the contrary, we are convinced that such a Legislature is absolutely necessary to maintain and preserve inviolate our Connexion with that nation. Resolved, that we congratulate our countrymen on that unanimity which with joy and satisfaction we now see animating the hearts of Irishmen of every Sect and Persuasion; and we agree with them, that nothing can preserve our Liberties and our Constitution but the cordial co-operation of all in their defence. Resolved, Tat we will make our humble Petition to the Representatives of the People in Parliament, and conjure them to shield our Country against the imminent danger with which we are threatened, and that our truly virtuous and upright Representatives be requested to present the same. JOHN GARNETT, High Sherif. Te thanks of this county were unanimously voted to J. GARNETT, Esq. High Sherif, for his readiness in calling this Meeting, and his proper conduct in the Chair.

-----------TO THE KNIGHTS, CITIZENS AND BURGESSES IN PARLIAMENT ASSEMBLED, THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF DUBLIN. sheweth, THAT we sincerely and deeply lament that his Majesty’s Ministers persevere in the project of a Legislative Union; a Measure which has been already rejected by the determined and uninfuenced voice of this honourable House and the People of Ireland.

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

251

Your Petitioners, with pride and gratitude, beg leave to bring to the recollection of this honourable House, that part of it’s memorable Address unanimously voted to his Majesty on the 16th of April 1782, in which are the following words; “Tat the Kingdom of Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a Parliament of her own, the SOLE LEGISLATURE thereof. Tat there is NO BODY OF MEN COMPETENT to make Laws to bind this Nation, except the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland, not any other Parliament which hath any / Authority or Power of any Sort whatsoever 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 exists; a right which, on the Part of all the People of Ireland, do claim as their Birth-right, and which we cannot yield but with our lives.” A Claim of right which was acknowledged by a solemn Act of the Parliament of Great Britain unsolicited, as is well known to this honourable House on the part of the People of Ireland, namely, by the 23d of his present Majesty, chap. 28. which declares, Tat “the right claimed by the People of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by his Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, in all Cases whatever, and to have all actions and suits instituted in that kingdom decided in his Majesty’s Courts therein fnally, and without appeal from thence, shall be, and is hereby declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafer be questioned or questionable.”101 Tat the wisdom and virtue of this honourable House inspired their Countrymen to venerate this right of the People of Ireland as sacred and INALIENABLE, your Petitioners do therefore solemnly conjure this honorable House to reject in the most unequivocal terms the measure of a Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland, a project, the adoption of which would impair the connexion between Great Britain and Ireland, so essentially necessary to the welfare of both, and must immediately extinguish the Constitution of one Country, and in our apprehension may eventually subvert that of the other. In the vindication of the Constitution of Ireland, Parliament may be assured of a support from the Nation equal to that it experienced at the re-assertion of the Constitution in 1782; which Constitution the Commons of Ireland have declared that “THEY COULD NOT YIELD BUT WITH THEIR LIVES.”

and your petitioners will pray. ---------------

252

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

WEAVERS HALL, DUBLIN. At a meeting of the CORPORATION of WEAVERS, pursuant to notice, held the 29th of January 1800, THOMAS ABBOTT, Esq.102 Master, in the Chair. Te following Resolutions were unanimously agreed to: Resolved, Tat before the glorious and memorable period of 1782, this country experienced many of the restrictions and the wrongs, which a more powerful nation could impose on a subject province. Resolved, Tat since the re-establishment of our rights in an independent resident Parliament, and the operations of a free Constitution, those restrictions and wrongs have been removed, political and civil liberty have been place on a wise aad [sic] liberal / basis, and Agriculture, Manufactures and Commerce have fourished beyond any example furnished by the most prosperous nations. Resolved, Tat as a resident Parliament has been the chief source, so it is the only guranty of Irish freedom and prosperity, and if once relinquished, this Country will have no security for the maintenance of her rights, or the promotion of her welfare, but in the afection of a rival, and on that faith which has already been most grossly and dishonorably violated. Resolved, Tat no act can be equitable or obligatory on us, or our posterity, which militates against the existence of that Constitution, which as FREEMEN we have MOST SOLEMNLY SWORN to support with our lives, and to which our FIRST ALLEGIANCE is due. Resolved, Tat the joint co-operation of all the people is essentially necessary to defeat the desperate scheme of a Legislative Union: We therefore behold, with the greatest satisfaction, our Countrymen of every religious description, cordially uniting in vindication of our unalienable rights. Resolved, Tat we adopt the following opinion of Mr. Locke,103 and do most earnestly recommend it to the consideration of our Representatives, and the people of Ireland:– ‘Tat the Legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands; for it being but a delegated power from the people – they who have it cannot pass it over to others: the power of the Legislative being derived from the people, by a voluntary positive grant and instruction, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and NOT TO MAKE LEGISLATORS, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making Laws, and PLACE IT IN OTHER HANDS.’104 Te MASTER having lef the chair, and GEORGE BROWN, Esq.105 being called thereto,

Te Speech of Henry Grattan

253

Resolved, Tat the thanks of this Corporation be given to THOMAS ABBOTT, Esq. for complying with our requisition, and for his proper conduct in the Chair. Resolved, Tat the foregoing resolutions be signed by our Clerk and published. By order, CHARLES WALSH, Clerk Guild.106

the end.

AN ACT FOR THE UNION OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, in Te Statutes at Large, fom the Tirty-Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Tird, to the End of the Fifh and Concluding Session of the Eighteenth and Last Parliament of Great Britain, held in the Forty-First Year of the Reign of King George the Tird. Vol. XVIII (London: Printed by George Eyre and Andrew Strahan, 1800).

Te Act of Union was fnally passed by both the Irish and British Parliaments in 1800, afer considerable difculty in persuading the former legislature to accept it. It created a single imperial legislature at Westminster to act for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Ireland retained a Lord Lieutenant, a Privy Council, Chief Secretary and senior ministers to head the separate administration in Dublin to manage the legal and fnancial systems of the country. Te Church of Ireland was united with the Church of England, with both churches preserving the same doctrine, worship, discipline and government. Te act came into efect on 1 January 1801, the frst day of the nineteenth century. Although it was meant to be a permanent settlement it soon came under attack in Ireland, primarily because it was not accompanied by Catholic emancipation allowing Catholics to sit in the legislature or to hold high executive ofce. Tis failure weakened the Union from the start, a fact recognized by Prime Minister Pitt, Foreign Secretary Grenville, Lord Lieutenant Cornwallis and Chief Secretary Castlereagh, who all resigned ofce. Catholic emancipation was not achieved until 1829, by which time a Home Rule movement was beginning to take shape in Catholic circles. Te Union lasted until 1922, when the Irish Free State was created, leaving only the province of Ulster within the United Kingdom. Ireland was represented in the united House of Lords by four bishops and twenty-eight representative temporal peers. Te four bishops (including one archbishop) were appointed in a fxed rotation and sat for one parliament. Te twenty-eight temporal peers were elected by their fellow Irish peers, but served for life. Irish peers who did not sit in the House of Lords were eligible to be elected to the House of Commons for a British and not an Irish constituency, and some were so elected. Ireland was granted one hundred MPs in the House of – 255 –

256

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Commons. Te representation of the counties, Dublin and Cork remained the same; Trinity College retained a single MP, and the thrity-one largest remaining boroughs were allowed one MP each. Tis removed a large number of the rotten boroughs in Ireland, long before such boroughs were eliminated in England. Te commercial arrangements were particularly complex, but were essential to persuading the Irish Parliament to accept the Union. Te United Kingdom became a complete free trade zone, except where some duties were kept for twenty years to protect some Irish manufactures, such as cotton, from British competition. Te detailed and complex, but temporary, exceptions were set out in Schedule One, A and B, and Schedule Two of the Act of Union (not reproduced below). Te general commercial arrangements are reproduced here, however, as is the agreement that the National Debt and future expenditure of the United kingdom was to be divided into ffeen/seventeenths to be met by Great Britain and two/seventeenths by Ireland for the next twenty years. Te two systems were in fact united in 1817.

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, in The Statutes at Large, from the Thirty-Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Third, to the End of the Fifth and Concluding Session of the Eighteenth and Last Parliament of Great Britain, held in the FortyFirst Year of the Reign of King George the Third. Vol. XVIII (London: Printed by George Eyre and Andrew Strahan, 1800).

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland (2 July 1800) [40 George III, cap. 67] Whereas in pursuance of his Majesty’s most gracious Recommendation to the two Houses of Parliament in Great Britain and Ireland respectively, to consider of such Measures as might best tend to strengthen and consolidate the Connection between the two Kingdoms, the two Houses of the Parliament of Great Britain and the two Houses of the Parliament of Ireland have severally agreed and resolved, that, in order to promote and secure the essential Interests of Great Britain and Ireland, and to consolidate the Strength, Power, and Resources of the British Empire, it will be advisable to concur in such Measures as may best tend to unite the two Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland into one Kingdom, in such Manner, and on such Terms and Conditions, as may be established by the Acts of the respective Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland: And whereas, in furtherance of the said Resolution, both Houses of the said two Parliaments respectively have likewise agreed upon certain Articles for efectuating and establishing the said Purposes, in the Tenor following: Art. I. Tat it be the frst Article of the Union of the Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, that the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland shall, upon the frst Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one,1 and for ever afer,2 be united into one Kingdom, – 257 –

258

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

by the Name of Te United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; and that the Royal Stile and Titles appertaining to the Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its Dependencies, and also the Ensigns, Armorial Flags and Banners thereof,3 shall be such as his Majesty, by his Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint. Art. II. Tat it be the second Article of Union, that the Succession to the Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom, and of the Dominions thereunto belonging, shall continue limited and settled in the same Manner as the Succession to the Imperial Crown of the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland now stands limited and settled, according to the existing Laws, and to the Terms of Union between England and Scotland.4 Art. III. Tat it be the third Article of Union, that the said United Kingdom be represented in one and the same Parliament, to be stiled Te Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Art. IV. Tat it be the fourth Article of Union, that four Lords Spiritual of Ireland by Rotation of Sessions, and twenty-eight Lords Temporal of Ireland, elected for Life by the Peers of Ireland, shall be the Number to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom;5 and one hundred Commoners (two for each County of Ireland, two for the City of Dublin, two for the City of Cork, one for the University of Trinity College, and one for each of the thirty-one most considerable Cities, Towns, and Boroughs),6 be the Number to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: Tat such Act as shall be passed in the Parliament of Ireland previous to the Union, to regulate the Mode by which the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Ireland, shall be summoned and returned to the said Parliament, shall be considered as forming Part of the Treaty of Union, and shall be incorporated in the Acts of the respective Parliaments by which the said Union shall be ratifed and established: Tat all Questions touching the Rotation or Election of Lords Spiritual or Temporal of Ireland to sit in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, shall be decided by the House of Lords thereof; and whenever, by reason of an Equality of Votes in the Election of any such Lords Temporal, a complete Election shall not be made according to the true Intent of this Article, the Names of those Peers for whom such Equality of Votes shall be so given, shall be written on Pieces of Paper of a similar Form, and shall be put into a Glass, by the Clerk of the Parliaments at the Table of the House of Lords, whilst the House is sitting; and the Peer or Peers, whose Name or Names shall be frst drawn out by the Clerk of the Parliaments, shall be deemed the Peer or Peers elected, as the Case may be: / Tat any Person holding any Peerage of Ireland now subsisting, or hereafer to be created, shall not thereby be disqualifed from being elected to serve if he

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

259

shall so think ft, or from serving or continuing to serve, if he shall so think ft, for any County, City, or Borough of Great Britain,7 in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, unless he shall have been previously elected as above, to sit in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom; but that so long as such Peer of Ireland shall so continue to be a Member of the House of Commons, he shall not be entitled to the Privilege of Peerage, nor be capable of being elected to serve as a Peer on the Part of Ireland, or of voting at any such Election; and that he shall be liable to be sued, indicted, proceeded against, and tried as a Commoner, for any Ofence with which he may be charged: Tat it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to create Peers of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, and to make Promotions in the Peerage thereof afer the Union; provided that no new Creation of any such Peers shall take place afer the Union until three of the Peerages of Ireland, which shall have been existing at the Time of the Union, shall have become extinct; and upon such Extinction of three Peerages, that it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to create one Peer of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; and in like Manner so ofen as three Peerages of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland shall become extinct, it shall be lawful for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to create one other Peer of the said Part of the United Kingdom; and if it shall happen that the Peers of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, shall, by Extinction of Peerages or otherwise, be reduced to the Number of One Hundred, exclusive of all such Peers of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, as shall hold any Peerage of Great Britain subsisting at the Time of the Union, or of the United Kingdom created since the Union, by which such Peers shall be entitled to an Hereditary Seat in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, then and in that Case it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to create one Peer of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland as ofen as any one of such One Hundred Peerages shall fail by Extinction, or as ofen as any one Peer of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland shall become entitled, by Descent or Creation, to an Hereditary Seat in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom; it being the true Intent and Meaning of this Article, that at all Times afer the Union it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, to keep up the Peerage of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland to the Number of one hundred, over and above the Number of such of the said Peers as shall be entitled, by Descent or Creation, to an Hereditary Seat in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom: Tat if any Peerage shall at any Time be in Abeyance, such Peerage shall be deemed and taken as an existing Peerage; and no Peerage shall be deemed extinct, unless on Default of Claimants to the Inheritance of such Peerage for the Space of one Year from the Death of the Person who shall have been last

260

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

possessed thereof; and if no Claim shall be made to the Inheritance of such Peerage, in such Form and Manner as may from Time to Time be prescribed by the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, before the Expiration of the said Period of a Year, then and in that Case such Peerage shall be deemed extinct; provided that nothing herein shall exclude any Person from aferwards putting in a Claim to the Peerage so deemed extinct; and if such Claim shall be allowed as valid, by Judgment of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, reported to his Majesty, such Peerage shall be considered as revived; and in case any new Creation of a Peerage of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, shall have taken place in the Interval, in consequence of the supposed Extinction of such Peerage, then no new Right of Creation shall accrue to his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors, in consequence of the next Extinction which shall take place of any Peerage of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland: Tat all Questions touching the Election of Members to sit on the Part of Ireland in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall be heard and decided in the same Manner as Questions touching such Elections in Great Britain now are, or at any Time hereafer shall by Law be heard and decided; subject nevertheless to such particular Regulations in respect of Ireland, as, from local Circumstances, the Parliament of the United Kingdom may from Time to Time deem expedient: Tat the Qualifcations in respect of Property of the Members elected on the Part of Ireland to sit in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, shall be respectively the same as are now provided by Law in the Cases of Elections for Counties and Cities and Boroughs respectively in that Part of Great Britain called England,8 unless any other Provision shall hereafer be made in that respect by Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom: Tat when his Majesty, his Heirs or Successors, shall declare his, her, or their Pleasure for holding the frst or any subsequent Parliament of the United Kingdom, a Proclamation shall issue, under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, to cause the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, who are to serve in the Parliament thereof on the Part of Ireland, to be returned in such Manner as by any Act of this present Session of the Parliament of Ireland shall be provided; and that the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of Great Britain shall, together with the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons so returned as aforesaid on the Part of Ireland, constitute the two Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: / Tat if his Majesty, on or before the frst Day of January one thousand eight hundred and one, on which Day the Union is to take place, shall declare, under the Great Seal of Great Britain, that it is expedient that the Lords and Commons of the present Parliament of Great Britain should be the Members of the respective Houses of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

261

Great Britain; then the said Lords and Commons of the present Parliament of Great Britain shall accordingly be the Members of the respective Houses of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Great Britain; and they, together with the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, so summoned and returned as above on the Part of Ireland, shall be the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom; and such frst Parliament may (in that Case) if not sooner dissolved, continue to sit so long as the present Parliament of Great Britain may now by Law continue to sit, if not sooner dissolved: Provided always, Tat until an Act shall have passed in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, providing in what Cases Persons holding Ofces or Places of Proft under the Crown of Ireland, shall be incapable of being Members of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, no greater Number of Members than twenty, holding such Ofces or Places as aforesaid, shall be capable of sitting in the said House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and if such a Number of Members shall be returned to serve in the said House as to make the whole Number of Members of the said House holding such Ofces or Places as aforesaid more than twenty, then and in such Case the Seats or Places of such Members as shall have last accepted such Ofces or Places shall be vacated, at the Option of such Members, so as to reduce the Number of Members holding such Ofces or Places to the Number of twenty; and no Person holding any such Ofce or Place shall be capable of being elected or of sitting in the said House, while there are twenty Persons holding such Ofces or Places sitting in the said House; and that every one of the Lords of Parliament of the United Kingdom, and every Member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, in the frst and all succeeding Parliaments, shall, until the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the Oaths, and make and subscribe the Declaration, and take and subscribe the Oath now by Law enjoined to be taken, made, and subscribed by the Lords and Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain: Tat the Lords of Parliament on the Part of Ireland, in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, shall at all Times have the same Privileges of Parliament which shall belong to the Lords of Parliament on the Part of Great Britain; and the Lords Spiritual and Temporal respectively on the Part of Ireland shall at all Times have the same Rights in respect of their sitting and voting upon the Trial of Peers, as the Lords Spiritual and Temporal respectively on the Part of Great Britain; and that all Lords Spiritual of Ireland shall have Rank and Precedency next and immediately afer the Lords Spiritual of the same Rank and Degree of Great Britain, and shall enjoy all Privileges as fully as the Lords Spiritual of Great Britain do now or may hereafer enjoy the same (the Right and Privilege of sitting in the House of Lords, and the Privileges depending thereon, and particularly the Right of sitting on the Trial of Peers, excepted); and that the Persons hold-

262

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

ing any temporal Peerages of Ireland, existing at the Time of the Union, shall, from and afer the Union, have Rank and Precedency next and immediately afer all the Persons holding Peerages of the like Orders and Degrees in Great Britain, subsisting at the Time of the Union; and that all Peerages of Ireland created afer the Union shall have Rank and Precedency with the Peerages of the United Kingdom, so created, according to the Dates of their Creations: and that all Peerages both of Great Britain and Ireland, now subsisting or hereafer to be created, shall in all other Respects, from the Date of the Union, be considered as Peerages of the United Kingdom; and that the Peers of Ireland shall, as Peers of the United Kingdom, be sued and tried as Peers, except as aforesaid, and shall enjoy all Privileges of Peers as fully as the Peers of Great Britain; the Right and Privilege of sitting in the House of Lords, and the Privileges depending thereon, and the Right of sitting on the Trial of Peers, only excepted: Art. V. Tat it be the Fifh Article of Union, Tat the Churches of England and Ireland, as now by Law established, be united into one Protestant Episcopal Church, to be called, Te United Church of England and Ireland; and that the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the said United Church shall be, and shall remain in full force for ever, as the same are now by Law established for the Church of England; and that the Continuance and Preservation of the said United Church, as the established Church of England and Ireland, shall be deemed and taken to be an essential and fundamental Part of the Union; and that in like Manner the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government of the Church of Scotland, shall remain and be preserved as the same are now established by Law, and by the Acts for the Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland. Art. VI. Tat it be the Sixth Article of Union, Tat his Majesty’s Subjects of Great Britain and Ireland shall, from and afer the frst Day of January one thousand eight hundred and one, be entitled to the same Privileges, / and be on the same Footing, as to Encouragements and Bounties on the like Articles being the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of either Country respectively, and generally in respect of Trade and Navigation in all Ports and Places in the United Kingdom and its Dependencies; and that in all Treaties made by his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, with any Foreign Power, his Majesty’s Subjects of Ireland shall have the same Privileges, and be on the same Footing as his Majesty’s Subjects of Great Britain: Tat, from the frst Day of January one thousand eight hundred and one, all Prohibitions and Bounties on the Export of Articles, the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of either Country, to the other, shall cease and determine; and that the said Articles shall thenceforth be exported from one Country to the other, without Duty or Bounty on such Export: Tat all Articles, the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of either Country, (not herein-afer enumerated as subject to specifc Duties,) shall from thence-

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

263

forth be imported into each Country from the other, free from Duty, other than such Countervailing Duties on the several Articles enumerated in the Schedule Number One A. and B. hereunto annexed, as are therein specifed, or to such other Countervailing Duties as shall hereafer be imposed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in the Manner herein-afer provided; and that, for the Period of twenty Years from the Union, the Articles enumerated in the Schedule Number Two hereunto annexed, shall be subject, on Importation into each Country from the other, to the Duties specifed in the said Schedule Number Two; and the Woollen Manufactures, known by the Names of Old and New Drapery,9 shall pay, on Importation into each Country from the other, the Duties now payable on Importation into Ireland: Salt and Hops, on Importation into Ireland from Great Britain, Duties not exceeding those which are now paid on Importation into Ireland; and Coals, on Importation into Ireland from Great Britain, shall be subject to Burthens not exceeding those to which they are now subject: Tat Callicoes and Muslins10 shall, on their Importation into either Country from the other, be subject and liable to the Duties now payable on the same on the Importation thereof from Great Britain into Ireland, until the ffh Day of January one thousand eight hundred and eight; and from and afer the said Day, the said Duties shall be annually reduced, by equal Proportions as near as may be in each Year, so as that the said Duties shall stand at ten per Centum from and afer the ffh Day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixteen, until the ffh Day of January one thousand eight hundred and twenty-one: And that Cotton Yarn11 and Cotton Twist12 shall, on their Importation into either Country from the other, be subject and liable to the Duties now payable upon the same on the Importation thereof from Great Britain into Ireland, until the ffh Day of January one thousand eight hundred and eight; and from and afer the said Day the said Duties shall be annually reduced, by equal Proportions as near as may be in each Year, so as that all Duties shall cease on the said Articles from and afer the ffh Day of January one thousand eight hundred and sixteen: Tat any Articles of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of either Country, which are or may be subject to Internal Duty, or to Duty on the Materials of which they are composed, may be made subject, on their Importation into each Country respectively from the other, to such Countervailing Duty13 as shall appear to be just and reasonable in respect of such Internal Duty or Duties on the Materials; and that for the said Purposes the Articles specifed in the said Schedule Number One, A. and B. shall be subject to the Duties set forth therein, liable to be taken of, diminished, or increased, in the Manner herein specifed; and that upon the Export of the said Articles from each Country to the other respectively, a Drawback14 shall be given equal in Amount to the Countervailing Duty payable on such Articles on the Import thereof into the same Country from the other; and that in like Manner in future it shall be competent to the

264

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

United Parliament to impose any new or additional Countervailing Duties, or to take of or diminish such existing Countervailing Duties as may appear, on like Principles, to be just and reasonable in respect of any future or additional Internal Duty on any Article of the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of either Country, or of any new or additional Duty on any Materials of which such Article may be composed, or of any Abatement of Duty on the same; and that when any such new or additional Countervailing Duty shall be so imposed on the Import of any Article into either Country from the other, a Drawback, equal in Amount to such Countervailing Duty, shall be given in like Manner on the Export of every such Article respectively from the same Country to the other: Tat all Articles, the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture of either Country, when exported through the other, shall in all Cases be exported subject to the same Charges as if they had been exported directly from the Country of which they were the Growth, Produce, or Manufacture: / Tat all Duty charged on the Import of Foreign or Colonial Goods into either Country shall, on their Export to the other, be either drawn back, or the Amount, (if any be retained,) shall be placed to the Credit of the Country to which they shall be so exported, so long as the Expenditure of the United Kingdom shall be defrayed by proportional Contributions: Provided always, Tat nothing herein shall extend to take away any Duty, Bounty, or Prohibition, which exists with respect to Corn, Meal, Malt, Flour, or Biscuit; but that all Duties, Bounties, or Prohibitions, on the said Articles, may be regulated, varied, or repealed, from Time to Time, as the United Parliament shall deem expedient. [Te Schedule of Duties has been omitted, pp. 363–70] / Art. VII. Tat it be the seventh Article of Union, that the Charge arising from the Payment of the Interest, and the Sinking Fund15 for the Reduction of the Principal, of the Debt incurred in either Kingdom before the Union, shall continue to be separately defrayed by Great Britain and Ireland respectively, except as hereinafer provided: Tat for the Space of twenty Years afer the Union shall take place, the Contribution of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, towards the Expenditure of the United Kingdom in each Year, shall be defrayed in the Proportion of ffeen Parts for Great Britain and two Parts for Ireland; and that at the Expiration of the said twenty Years, the future Expenditure of the United Kingdom (other than the Interest and Charges of the Debt to which either Country shall be separately liable) shall be defrayed in such Proportion as the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall deem just and reasonable upon a Comparison of the real Value of the Exports and Imports of the respective Countries, upon an Average of the three Years next preceding the Period of Revision: or on a Comparison of the Value of the Quantities of the following Articles consumed within the respective Countries, on a similar Average, videlicet,16 Beer, Spirits, Sugar, Wine, Tea,

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

265

Tobacco, and Malt; or according to the aggregate Proportion resulting from both these Considerations combined; or on a Comparison of the Amount of Income in each Country, estimated from the Produce for the same Period of a general Tax, if such shall have been imposed on the same Descriptions of Income in both Countries; and that the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall aferwards proceed in like Manner to revise and fx the said Proportions according to the same Rules, or any of them, at Periods not more distant than twenty years, nor less than seven Years from each other; unless, previous to any such Period, the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall have declared, as hereinafer provided, that the Expenditure of the United Kingdom shall be defrayed indiscriminately, by equal Taxes imposed on the like Articles in both Countries: Tat, for the defraying the said Expenditure according to the Rules above laid down, the Revenues of Ireland shall hereafer constitute a Consolidated Fund, which shall be charged, in the frst Instance, with the Interest of the Debt of Ireland, and with the Sinking Fund, applicable to the Reduction of the said Debt, and the Remainder shall be applied towards defraying the Proportion of the Expenditure of the United Kingdom, to which Ireland may be liable in each Year: Tat the Proportion of Contribution to which Great Britain and Ireland will be liable, shall be raised by such Taxes in each Country respectively, as the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall from Time to Time deem ft: Provided always, Tat in regulating the Taxes in each Country, by which their respective Proportions shall be levied, no Article in Ireland shall be made liable to any new or additional Duty, by which the whole Amount of Duty payable thereon would exceed the Amount which shall be thereafer payable in England on the like Article: Tat, if at the End of any Year any Surplus shall accrue from the Revenues of Ireland, afer defraying the Interest, Sinking Fund, and proportional Contribution and separate Charges to which the said Country shall then be liable, Taxes shall be taken of to the Amount of such Surplus, or the Surplus shall be applied by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to local Purposes in Ireland, or to make good any Defciency which may arise in the Revenues of Ireland in Time of Peace, or be invested, by the Commissioners of the National Debt of Ireland in the Funds, to accumulate for the Beneft of Ireland at Compound Interest, in ease of the Contribution of Ireland in Time of War; provided that the Surplus so to accumulate shall at no future / Period be sufered to exceed the Sum of fve Millions: Tat all Monies to be raised afer the Union, by Loan, in Peace or War, for the Service of the United Kingdom by the Parliament thereof, shall be considered to be a joint Debt, and the Charges thereof shall be borne by the respective Countries in the Proportion of their respective Contributions; provided that, if at any Time, in raising their respective Contributions hereby fxed for each Country, the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall judge it ft to raise a greater Proportion of such respective Contributions in one Country within the Year than in the other, or to set apart a

266

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

greater Proportion of Sinking Fund for the Liquidation of the Whole or any Part of the Loan raised on account of the one Country than of that raised on account of the other Country, then such Part of the said Loan, for the Liquidation of which diferent Provisions shall have been made for the respective Countries, shall be kept distinct, and shall be borne by each separately, and only that Part of the said Loan be deemed Joint and Common, for the Reduction of which the respective Countries shall have made Provision in the Proportion of their respective Contributions: Tat, if at any future Day the separate Debt of each Country respectively shall have been liquidated, or, if the Values of their respective Debts (estimated according to the Amount of the Interest and Annuities attending the same, and of the Sinking Fund applicable to the Reduction thereof, and to the Period within which the whole Capital of such Debt shall appear to be redeemable by such Sinking Fund) shall be to each other in the same Proportion with the respective Contributions of each Country respectively; or if the Amount by which the Value of the larger of such Debts shall vary from such Proportion, shall not exceed one hundredth Part of the said Value; and if it shall appear to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that the respective Circumstances of the two Countries will thenceforth admit of their contributing indiscriminately, by equal Taxes imposed on the same Articles in each, to the future Expenditure of the United Kingdom, it shall be competent to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to declare, that all future Expence thenceforth to be incurred, together with the Interest and Charges of all Joint Debts contracted previous to such Declaration, shall be so defrayed indiscriminately by equal Taxes imposed on the same Articles in each Country, and thenceforth from Time to Time, as Circumstances may require, to impose and apply such Taxes accordingly, subject only to such particular Exemptions or Abatements in Ireland, and in that Part of Great Britain called Scotland, as Circumstances may appear from Time to Time to demand: Tat, from the Period of such Declaration, it shall no longer be necessary to regulate the Contribution of the two Countries towards the future Expenditure of the United Kingdom, according to any specifck Proportion, or according to any of the Rules herein before prescribed: Provided nevertheless, that the Interest or Charges which may remain on account of any Part of the separate Debt with which either Country shall be chargeable, and which shall not be liquidated or consolidated proportionably as above, shall, until extinguished, continue to be defrayed by separate Taxes in each Country: Tat a Sum, not less than the Sum which has been granted by the Parliament of Ireland on the Average of six Years immediately preceding the frst Day of January in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred, in Premiums for the internal Encouragement of Agriculture or Manufactures, or for the maintaining Institutions for pious and charitable Purposes, shall be applied, for the Period of twenty Years afer the Union, to such local Purposes in Ireland, in such Manner as the Parliament of

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

267

the United Kingdom shall direct: Tat, from and afer the frst Day of January one thousand eight hundred and one, all Publick Revenue arising to the United Kingdom from the territorial Dependencies thereof, and applied to the General Expenditure of the United Kingdom, shall be so applied in the Proportions of the respective Contributions of the two Countries: Art. VIII. Tat it be the eighth Article of Union, Tat all Laws in force at the Time of the Union, and all the Courts of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction within the respective Kingdoms, shall remain as now by Law established within the same; subject only to such Alterations and Regulations from Time to Time as Circumstances may appear to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to require; provided that all Writs of Error and Appeals depending at the Time of the Union or hereafer to be brought, and which might now be fnally decided by the House of Lords of either Kingdom, shall, from and afer the Union, be fnally decided by the House of Lords of the United Kingdom; and provided, that, from and afer the Union, there shall remain in Ireland an Instance Court of Admiralty, for the Determination of Causes, Civil and Maritime only, and that the Appeal from Sentences of the said Court shall be to his Majesty’s Delegates in his Court of Chancery in that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; and that all Laws at present in force in either Kingdom, which shall be contrary to any of the Provisions which may be enacted by any Act for carrying these Articles into Efect, be from and afer the Union repealed. And whereas the said Articles having, by Address of the respective Houses of Parliament in Great Britain and Ireland, been humbly laid before his Majesty, his Majesty has been pleased to approve the same; and to recommend it to his two Houses of Parliament in Great Britain and Ireland to consider of such Measures as may be necessary for giving Efect to the said Articles: In order, therefore to give full Efect and Validity to the same, be it enacted by the King’s most excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, Tat, the said foregoing recited Articles, each and every one of them, according to the true Import and Tenor thereof, be ratifed, confrmed, and approved, and be and they are hereby declared to be, the Articles of the Union of Great Britain and Ireland, and the same shall be in force and have efect for ever, from the First Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one; provided that before that Period an Act shall have been passed by the Parliament of Ireland, for carrying into efect, in the like Manner, the said foregoing recited Articles. II. And whereas an Act, intituled, An Act to regulate the Mode by which the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Ireland, shall be summoned and returned to the said Parliament, has been passed by the Parliament of Ireland;17 the Tenor

268

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

whereof is as follows: An Act to regulate the Mode by which the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons, to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Ireland, shall be summoned and returned to the said Parliament. Whereas it is agreed by the fourth Article of Union, Tat four Lords Spiritual of Ireland, by Rotation of Sessions, and twenty-eight Lords Temporal of Ireland, elected for Life by the Peers of Ireland, shall be the Number to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and one hundred Commoners (two for each county of Ireland, two for the City of Dublin, two for the City of Cork, one for the College of the Holy Trinity of Dublin, and one for each of the thirty-one most considerable Cities, Towns, and Boroughs) be the Number to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; be it enacted by the King’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by Authority of the same, Tat the said four Lords Spiritual shall be taken from among the Lords Spiritual of Ireland in the Manner following; that is to say, Tat one of the four Archbishops of Ireland, and three of the eighteen Bishops of Ireland, shall sit in the House of Lords on the United Kingdom in each Session thereof, the said Right of sitting being regulated as between the said Archbishops respectively by a Rotation among the Archiepiscopal Sees from Session to Session, and in like Manner that of the Bishops by a like Rotation among the Episcopal Sees: Tat the Primate of all Ireland18 for the Time being shall sit in the frst Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Archbishop of Dublin for the Time being in the Second, the Archbishop of Cashel for the Time being in the third, the Archbishop of Tuam for the Time being in the fourth; and so by Rotation of Sessions for ever, such Rotation to proceed regularly and without Interruption from Session to Session, notwithstanding any Dissolution or Expiration of Parliament: Tat three sufragan Bishops19 shall in like Manner sit according to their Rotation of Sees, from Session to Session, in the following Order; the Lord Bishop of Meath, the Lord Bishop of Kildare, the Lord Bishop of Derry, in the frst Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Lord Bishop of Raphoe, the Lord Bishop of Limerick, Ardsert, and Aghadoe, the Lord Bishop of Dromore, in the second Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Lord Bishop of Elphin, the Lord Bishop of Down and Connor, the Lord Bishop of Waterford and Lismore, in the third Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Lord Bishop of Leighlin and Ferns, the Lord Bishop of Cloyne, the Lord Bishop of Cork and Ross, in the fourth Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Lord Bishop of Killaloe and Kilfenora, the Lord Bishop of Kilmore, the Lord Bishop of Clogher, in the ffh Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the Lord Bishop of Ossory, the Lord Bishop of Killala and Achonry, the Lord Bishop of Clonfert and Kil-

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

269

macduagh, in the sixth Session of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; the said Rotation to be nevertheless subject to such Variation therefrom from Time to Time as is hereinafer provided: Tat the said twenty-eight Lords Temporal shall be chosen by all the Temporal Peers of Ireland in the Manner herein-afer provided; that each of the said Lords Temporal so chosen shall be entitled to sit in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom during his Life; and in case of his Death, or Forfeiture of any of the said Lords Temporal, the Temporal Peers of Ireland shall, in the Manner herein-afer provided, choose another Peer out of their own Number to supply the Place so vacant. And be it enacted, Tat of the one hundred Commoners to sit on the Part of Ireland in the United Parliament, sixty-four shall be chosen for the Counties, and thirty-six for the following Cities and Boroughs, videlicet: For each County of Ireland two; for the City of Dublin two; for the City of Cork two; for the College of the Holy Trinity of Dublin one; for the City of Waterford one; for the City of Limerick one; for the Borough of Belfast one; for the County and Town of Drogheda one; for the County and Town of Carrickfergus one; for the Borough of Newry one; for the City of Kilkenny one; for the City of Londonderry one; for the Town of Galway one; for the Borough of Clonmell one; for the Town of Wexford one; for the Town of Youghall one; for the Town of Bandon-Bridge one; for the Borough of Armagh one; for the Borough of Dundalk one; for the Town of Kinsale one; for the Borough of Lisburne one; for the Borough of Sligo one; for the Borough of Catherlough one; for the Borough of Ennis one; for the Borough of Dungarvan one; for the Borough of Downpatrick one; for the Borough of Colraine one; for the Town of Mallow one; for the Borough of Athlone one; for the Town of New Ross one; for the Borough of Tralee one; for the City of Cashel one; for the Borough of Dungannon one; for the Borough of Portarlington one; for the Borough of Enniskillen one. And be it enacted, Tat in case of the summoning of a new Parliament, or if the Seat of any of the said Commoners shall become vacant by Death or otherwise, then the said Counties, Cities, or Boroughs, or any of them, as the Case may be, shall proceed to a new Election; and that all the other Towns, Cities, Corporations, or Boroughs, other than the aforesaid, shall cease to elect Representatives to serve in Parliament; and no Meeting shall at any Time hereafer be summoned, called, convened, or held, for the Purpose of electing any Person or Persons to serve or act, or be considered, as Representative or Representatives of any other Place, Town, City, Corporation, or Borough, other than the aforesaid, or as Representative or Representatives of the / Freemen, Freeholders, Householders, or Inhabitants thereof, either in the Parliament of the United Kingdom or elsewhere, (unless it shall hereafer be otherwise provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom); and every Person summoning, calling, or holding any such Meeting or Assembly, or taking any Part in any such Election or pretended Election, shall, being thereof duly convicted, incur and

270

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

sufer the Pains and Penalties ordained and provided by the Statute of Provision and Praemunire,20 made in the sixteenth Year of the Reign of Richard the Second. For the due Election of the Persons to be chosen to sit in the respective Houses of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Ireland, be it enacted, Tat on the Day following that on which the Act for establishing the Union shall have received the Royal Assent, the Primate of all Ireland, the Lord Bishop of Meath, the Lord Bishop of Kildare, and the Lord Bishop of Derry shall be, and they are hereby declared to be the Representatives of the Lords Spiritual of Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, for the frst Session thereof; and that the Temporal Peers of Ireland shall assemble at Twelve of the Clock on the same Day as aforesaid, in the now accustomed Place of Meeting of the House of Lords of Ireland, and shall then and there proceed to elect twenty-eight Lords Temporal to represent the Peerage of Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in the following Manner; that is to say, the Names of the Peers shall be called over according to their Rank, by the Clerk of the Crown, or his Deputy, who shall then and there attend for that Purpose; and each of the said Peers, who, previous to the said Day, and in the present Parliament, shall have actually taken his Seat in the House of Lords of Ireland, and who shall there have taken the Oaths, and signed the Declaration, which are or shall be by Law required to be taken and signed by the Lords of the Parliament of Ireland before they can sit and vote in the Parliament hereof, shall, when his Name is called, deliver, either by himself or by his Proxy, (the Name of such Proxy having been previously entered in the Books of the House of Lords of Ireland, according to the present Forms and Usages thereof,) to the Clerk of the Crown, or his Deputy, (who shall then and there attend for that Purpose,) a List of twenty-eight of the Temporal Peers of Ireland; and the Clerk of the Crown or his Deputy shall then and there publickly read the said Lists, and shall then and there cast up the said Lists, and publickly declare the Names of the twenty-eight Lords who shall be chosen by the Majority of Votes in the said Lists, and shall make a Return of the said Names to the House of Lords of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom; and the twenty-eight Lords so chosen by the Majority of Votes in the said Lists shall, during their respective Lives, sit as Representatives of the Peers of Ireland in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, and be entitled to receive Writs of Summons to that and every succeeding Parliament; and in case a complete Election shall not be made of the whole Number of twenty-eight Peers, by reason of an Equality of Votes, the Clerk of the Crown shall return such Number in favour of whom a complete Election shall have been made in one List, and in a second List shall return the Names of those Peers who shall have an Equality of Votes, but in favour of whom, by reason of such Equality, a complete Election shall not have been made, and the Names of the Peers in the second List, for whom an equal Number of Votes shall have been so given, shall be written on Pieces of Paper of

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

271

a similar Form, and shall be put into a Glass by the Clerk of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, at the Table of the House of Lords thereof, whilst the House is sitting, and the Peer whose Name shall be frst drawn out by the Clerk of the Parliament, shall be deemed the Peer elected; and so successively as ofen as the Case may require; and whenever the Seat of any of the twenty-eight Lords Temporal so elected shall be vacated by Decease or Forfeiture, the Chancellor, the Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal of the United Kingdom for the Time being, upon receiving a Certifcate under the Hand and Seal of any two Lords Temporal of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, certifying the Decease of such Peer, or on View of the Record of Attainder21 of such Peer, shall direct a Writ to be issued under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, to the Chancellor, the Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal of Ireland for the Time being, directing him or them to cause Writs to be issued, by the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to every Temporal Peer of Ireland, who shall have sat and voted in the House of Lords of Ireland before the Union, or whose Right to sit and vote therein, or to vote at such Elections, shall, on Claim made on his Behalf, have been admitted by the House of Lords of Ireland before the Union, or afer the Union by the House of Lords of the United Kingdom; and Notice shall forthwith be published by the said Clerk of the Crown, in the London and Dublin Gazettes,22 of the issuing of such Writs, and of the Names and Titles of all the Peers to whom the same are directed; and to the said Writs there shall be annexed a Form of Return thereof, in which a Blank shall be lef for the Name of the Peer to be elected, and the said Writs shall enjoin each Peer, within ffy-two Days from the Teste of the Writ,23 to return the same into the Crown Ofce of Ireland with the Blank flled up, by inserting the Name of the Peer for whom he shall vote, as the Peer to succeed to the Vacancy made by Demise or Forfeiture as aforesaid; and the said Writs and Returns shall be bipartite, so as that the Name of the Peer to be chosen shall be written twice, that is, once on each Part of such Writ and Return, and so as that each Part may also be subscribed by the Peer to whom the same shall be directed, and likewise be sealed with his Seal of Arms; and one Part of the said Writs and Returns so flled up, subscribed and sealed as above, shall remain of Record in the Crown Ofce of Ireland, and the other Part shall be certifed by the Clerk of the Crown to the Clerk of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and no Peer of Ireland, except such as shall have been elected as Representative Peers on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom, and shall there have taken the Oaths, and signed the Declaration prescribed by Law, shall, under pain of sufering such Punishment as the House of Lords of the United Kingdom may award and adjudge, make a Return to such Writ, unless he shall, afer the issuing thereof, and before the Day, on which the Writ is returnable, have taken the Oaths and signed the Declaration which are or shall be by Law required to be taken and signed by the Lords of the

272

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

United Kingdom, before they can sit and / vote in the Parliament thereof; which Oaths and Declaration shall be either taken and subscribed in the Court of Chancery of Ireland, or before one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; a Certifcate whereof, signed by such Justices of the Peace, or by the Registrar of the said Court of Chancery, shall be transmitted by such Peer with the Return, and shall be annexed to that Part thereof remaining of Record in the Crown Ofce of Ireland; and the Clerk of the Crown shall forthwith afer the Return Day of the Writs, cause to be published in the London and Dublin Gazettes, a Notice of the Name of the Person chosen by the Majority of Votes; and the Peer so chosen shall, during his Life, be one of the Peers to sit and vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom; and in case the Votes shall be equal, the Names of such Persons who have an equal Number of Votes in their Favour, shall be written on Pieces of Paper of a similar Form, and shall be put into a Glass by the Clerk of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, at the Table of the House of Lords, whilst the House is sitting, and the Peer whose Name shall be frst drawn out by the Clerk of the Parliament shall be deemed the Peer elected. And be it enacted, Tat in case any Lord Spiritual, being a Temporal Peer of the United Kingdom, or being a Temporal Peer of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, shall be chosen by the Lords Temporal to be one of the Representatives of the Lords Temporal, in every such Case, during the Life of such Spiritual Peer being a Temporal Peer of the United Kingdom, or being a Temporal Peer of that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, so chosen to represent the Lords Temporal, the Rotation of Representation of the Spiritual Lords shall proceed to the next Spiritual Lord, without Regard to such Spiritual Lord so chosen a Temporal Peer, that is to say, if such Spiritual Lord shall be an Archbishop, then the Rotation shall proceed to the Archbishop whose See is next in Rotation, and if such Spiritual Lord shall be a sufragan Bishop, then the Rotation shall proceed to the sufragan Bishop whose See is next in Rotation. And whereas by the said fourth Article of Union it is agreed, that, if his Majesty shall, on or before the frst Day of January next, declare, under the Great Seal of Great Britain, that it is expedient that the Lords and Commons of the present Parliament of Great Britain should be the Members of the respective Houses of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Great Britain, then the Lords and Commons of the present Parliament of Great Britain shall accordingly be the Members of the respective Houses of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom on the Part of Great Britain; be it enacted, for and in that Case only, Tat the present Members of the thirty-two Counties of Ireland, and the two Members for the City of Dublin, and the two Members for the City of Cork, shall be, and they are hereby declared to be, by virtue of this Act, Members for the said Counties and Cities in the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom, and that, on

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland

273

a Day and Hour to be appointed by his Majesty under the Great Seal of Ireland, previous to the said frst Day of January one thousand eight hundred and one, the Members then serving for the College of the Holy Trinity of Dublin, and for each of the following Cities or Boroughs, that is to say, the City of Waterford, City of Limerick, Borough of Belfast, County and Town of Drogheda, County and Town of Carrickfergus, Borough of Newry, City of Kilkenny, City of Londonderry, Town of Galway, Borough of Clonmell, Town of Wexford, Town of Youghall, Town of Bandon-Bridge, Borough of Armagh, Borough of Dundalk, Town of Kinsale, Borough of Lisburne, Borough of Sligo, Borough of Catherlough, Borough of Ennis, Borough of Dungarvan, Borough of Downpatrick, Borough of Coleraine, Town of Mallow, Borough of Athlone, Town of New Ross, Borough of Tralee, City of Cashel, Borough of Dungannon, Borough of Portarlington, and Borough of Enniskillen, or any fve or more of them, shall meet in the now usual Place of Meeting of the House of Commons of Ireland, and the Names of the Members then serving for the said Places and Boroughs, shall be written on separate Pieces of Paper, and the said Papers being folded up, shall be placed in a Glass or Glasses, and shall successively be drawn thereout by the Clerk of the Crown, or his Deputy, who shall then and there, attend for that Purpose; and the frst drawn Name of a Member of each of the aforesaid Places or Boroughs shall be taken as the Name of the Member to serve for the said Place or Borough in the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom; and a Return of the said Names shall be made by the Clerk of the Crown, or his Deputy, to the House of Commons of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom; and a Certifcate thereof shall be given respectively by the said Clerk of the Crown, or his Deputy, to each of the Members whose Names shall have been so drawn: Provided always, Tat it may be allowed to any Member of any of the said Places or Boroughs, by personal Application, to be then and there made by him to the Clerk of the Crown or his Deputy, or by Declaration in Writing under his Hand, to be transmitted by him to the Clerk of the Crown previous to the said Day so appointed as above, to withdraw his Name previous to the drawing of the Names by Lot; in which Case, or in that of a Vacancy by Death or otherwise of one of the Members of any of the said Places or Boroughs, at the Time of so drawing the Names, the Name of the other Member shall be returned as aforesaid as the Name of the Member to serve for such Place in the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom; of if both Members for any such Place or Borough shall so withdraw their Names, or if there shall be a Vacancy of both Members at the Time aforesaid, the Clerk of the Crown shall certify the same to the House of Commons of the frst Parliament of the United Kingdom, and shall also express, in such Return, whether any Writ shall then have issued for the Election of a Member or Members to supply such Vacancy; and if a Writ shall so have issued for the Election of one Member only, such Writ shall be superseded, and any Election to be

274

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

thereafer made thereupon shall be null and of no Efect; and if such Writ shall have issued for the Election of two Members, the said two Members shall be chosen accordingly, and their Names being returned by the Clerk of the Crown to the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, one of the said Names shall then be drawn, by Lot, in such Manner and Time as the said House of Commons shall direct; and the Person whose Name shall be so drawn, shall be deemed to be the Member to sit for such Place in the frst Parliament of / the United Kingdom; but if, at the Time aforesaid, no Writ shall have issued to supply such Vacancy, none shall thereafer issue until the same be ordered by Resolution of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, as in the Case of any other Vacancy of a Seat in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. And be it enacted, Tat whenever his Majesty, his Heirs and Successors, shall, by Proclamation under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom, summon a new Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal of Ireland, shall cause Writs to be issued to the several Counties, Cities, the College of the Holy Trinity of Dublin, and Boroughs in that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, specifed in this Act, for the Election of Members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, according to the Number herein-before set forth; and whenever any Vacancy of a Seat in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, for any of the said Counties, Cities, or Boroughs, or for the said College of the Holy Trinity of Dublin, shall arise, by Death or otherwise, the Chancellor, Keeper, or Commissioners of the Great Seal, upon such Vacancy being certifed to them respectively, by the proper Warrant, shall forthwith cause a Writ to issue for the Election of a Person to fll up such Vacancy; and such Writs, and the Returns thereon, respectively being returned into the Crown Ofce in that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, shall from thence be transmitted to the Crown Ofce in that Part of the United Kingdom called England, and be certifed to the House of Commons in the same Manner as the like Returns have been usually or shall hereafer be certifed; and Copies of the said Writs and Returns, attested by the Chancellor, Keeper or Commissioners of the Great Seal of Ireland for the Time being, shall be preserved in the Crown Ofce of Ireland, and shall be Evidence of such Writs and Returns, in case the original Writs and Returns shall be lost; be it enacted, Tat the said Act, so herein recited, be taken as a Part of this Act, and be deemed to all Intents and Purposes incorporated within the same. III. And be it enacted, Tat the Great Seal of Ireland may, if his Majesty shall so think ft, afer the Union, be used in like Manner as before the Union, except where it is otherwise provided by the foregoing Articles, within that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland; and that his Majesty may, so long as he shall think ft, continue the Privy Council of Ireland24 to be his Privy Council for that Part of the United Kingdom called Ireland.

‘THE INDICTMENT OF ROBERT EMMET, HIS REPLY, AND AN ACCOUNT OF HIS INSURRECTION (1803)’

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection (1803)’, in Te Life, Trial and Conversations of Robert Emmet, Leader of the Irish Insurrection of 1803: Also, the Celeberated [sic] Speech Made by Him on the Occassion (London: John Doherty, 1836).

Te text reproduced below, originally published in 1836, is part of a larger work. It does not include material directly on Emmet’s life before his abortive insurrection of 1803 or the evidence presented against him at his trial (there was no doubt as to his guilt and he did not seek to challenge the claim that he had led this insurrection). Te jury found him guilty without even withdrawing to discuss the evidence against him or to consider its verdict. What is reproduced here is the charge against him, his celebrated speech afer his conviction explaining his motives, and a brief account of the inefective insurrection that he vainly hoped would bring down the government in Ireland. His highly emotive speech, despite or perhaps because of the judge’s eforts to silence him, has had a huge impact on subsequent Irish nationalist attitudes. Emmet acknowledges that he sought French help, but he was adamant that he had no intention of compromising Ireland’s independence. He sought liberty and independence, not to serve his own personal ambitions. Te account of the planned insurrection makes it really very clear why it failed. Emmet lacked the numbers, equipment, and fnancial resources to achieve his political ends. Robert Emmet (1778–1803) was the brother of Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1827). Both were United Irishmen. Robert was educated at Trinity College Dublin, but was expelled for his republican sympathies in April 1798, he managed to escape arrest in 1799 and he then spent some time negotiating for French support for another rising and meeting up with the United Irishmen who were released from prison in 1802. He made preparations in March 1803 for a rising designed to capture government buildings in Dublin, including the Castle, seat of the Lord Lieutenant. Te plan was far too ambitious for the

– 275 –

276

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

resources at his disposal and his insurrection soon collapsed. Emmet initially fed the capital, but was subsequently captured there on 25 August 1803. His trial for treason was held on 19 September and he was executed next day. He soon became the epitome of the romantic and tragic hero, and his speech from the dock has passed into Irish nationalist legend. Not surprisingly Robert Emmet has attracted considerable attention from modern historians. See, in particular, R. O’Donnell, Robert Emmet and 1798 Rebellion (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2003); R. O’Donnell, Robert Emmet and the Rising of 1803 (Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 2003); P. M. Geoghegan, Robert Emmet: A Life (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 2002); M. Elliott, Robert Emmet: Te Making of a Legend (London: Profle Books, 2003); and Reinterpreting Emmet: Essays on the Life and Legacy of Robert Emmet, ed. A. Dolan, P. M. Geoghegan and D. Jones (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 2007).

‘The Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection (1803)’, in The Life, Trial and Conversations of Robert Emmet, Leader of the Irish Insurrection of 1803 (London: John Doherty, 1836).

THE TRIAL of

ROBERT EMMET, upon an indictment for high treason, Held, under a Special Commission, at the Sessions House, Green Street, on Monday, 19th of September, 1803. judges present. – lord norbury,1 mr. baron george,2 and mr. baron daly.3 mr. standish o’grady, attorney general.4 To the indictment, charging him with compassing the disposition and death of the king, and conspiring to levy war against the king within the realm, Mr. Emmet pleaded not guilty He was then given in charge. Te indictment was then opened, in substance, to the following efect, by

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, My Lord, and Gentlemen of the Jury: It is my duty to state, as concisely as I can, the nature of the charge which has been / preferred against the prisoner at the bar, and also the nature of the evidence which will be produced to substantiate the charge. It will require on your part the most deliberate consideration; because it is not only the highest

– 277 –

278

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

crime of which at all times the subject can be guilty, but it receives, if possible, additional aggravation when we consider the state of Europe, and the lamentable consequences which revolution has already brought upon it. Perhaps at former periods some allowance might be made for the heated imagination of enthusiasts; perhaps an extravagant love of liberty, might for a moment supersede a rational understanding, and might be induced, for want of sufcient experience or capacity, to look for that liberty in revolution. But it is not the road to liberty. It throws the mass of the people into agitation, only to bring the worst and the most profigate to the surface. It originates in anarchy, proceeds in bloodshed, and ends in cruel and unrelenting despotism. Terefore, Gentlemen, the crime of which the prisoner stands charged, demands the most serious and deep investigation, because it is in its nature a crime of the blackest die, and which, under all existing circumstances, does not admit of a momentary explanation. Gentlemen, the prisoner stands indicted under a very ancient statute – the 25th of Edward III.5 – and the indictment is grounded on three clauses. Te frst relates to compassing and imagining the death of the king 6– the second in adhering to his enemies – and the third / in compassing to levy war against him. Te two later, namely, that of adhering to the king’s enemies, and that of compassing to levy war, are so intelligible in themselves that they do not require any observation upon them. But the frst admits of some technical considerations, and may require on my part a short explanation. In the language of the law, compassing the death of the king, does not mean or imply necessarily, any immediate attack upon his person. But any conspiracy, which has for its object an alteration of the laws, constitution, and government of the country by force, uniformly leads to anarchy and general destruction, and fnally tends to endanger the life of the king. And, therefore, where that design is substantiated, and manifested by overt acts, whenever the party entertaining the design, uses any means to carry his traitorous intentions into execution, the crime of compassing and imagining the death of the king is complete. Accordingly, gentlemen, this indictment particularly states overt acts, by which the prisoner disclosed the traitorous imagination of his heart – and, if it shall be necessary, those particular overt acts, and the applicability of the evidence which will be produced to support them, will be stated at large to you by the the [sic] court, and therefore it will not be necessary for me now to trespass upon the public time, by a minute examination of them. Gentlemen, having heard the charge against the prisoner, you will naturally feel that your / duty will require an investigation into two distinct points: frst, whether there has, or has not existed a traitorous conspiracy and rebellion for the purpose of altering the law, the constitution, and the government of the country by force? – And, secondly, whether the prisoner has in any, and in what degree, participated in that conspiracy and rebellion?

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

279

Gentlemen, I do not wish to undertake to speak in the prophetic:7 but when I consider the vigilance and frmness of his majesty’s government, the spirit and discipline of his majesty’s troops, and that armed valour and loyalty which, from one end of the country to the other, has raised itself for the purpose of crushing domestic treason, and, if necessary, of meeting and repelling a foreign foe, I do not think it unreasonable to indulge a sanguinary hope, that a continuance of the same conduct upon that part of government, and of the same exertions upon the part of the people, will long preserve the nation free, happy and independent. Gentlemen, upon former occasions, persons were brought to the bar of this court, implicated in the rebellion,8 in various, though inferior degrees. But if I am rightly instructed, we have now brought to the bar of justice, not a person who has been seduced by others, but a gentleman to whom the rebellion may be traced as the origin, the life, and soul of it. If I mistake not, it will appear that some time before Christmas last, the prisoner, who had visited foreign countries,9 and who for several months / before had made a continental tour, embracing France, returned to this country,10 full of those mischievous designs which have been so fully exposed. He came from that country, in which he might well have learned the necessary efects of revolution; and therefore, if he be guilty of treason, he embarked in it with his eyes open, and with a previous knowledge of all its inevitable consequences. – But, notwithstanding, I am instructed that he persevered in fomenting a rebellion, which I will be bold to say, is unexampled in any country, ancient or modern. A rebellion which does not complain of any existing grievances, which does not fow from any immediate oppression, and which is not pretended to have been provoked by our mild and gracious king, or by the administration employed by him, to execute his authority. No, gentlemen, it is a rebellion which avows itself to come, not to remove any evil which the people feel, but to recal the memory of grievances, which, if they ever existed, must have long since passed away. You will recollect, gentlemen, that in the large proclamation11 there was a studied endeavour to persuade a large portion of the people that they had no religious feuds to apprehend from the establishment of a new government. But the manifesto12 upon which I am now about animadverting has taken a somewhat diferent course, and has revived religious distinctions at the very moment in which it expresses a desire to extinguish them. “Orangemen, add not to the catalogue of / your follies and crimes, already have you been duped to the ruin of the country, in the legislative union with its tyrant; attempt not an opposition; return from the paths of delusion; return to the arms of your countrymen, who will receive and hail your repentance. Countrymen of all descriptions, let us act with union and concert; all sects, Catholic, Protestant, Presbyterian, are equal and indiscriminately embraced in the benevolence of our object.” I will not apply to this passage all the observations that press upon my mind, because I am sincerely desirous that one feeling and one spirit

280

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

should animate us all. I cannot but lament that there should be so many sectaries in religion, but trust in God there will be found amongst us but one political faith. But this manifesto is equally unfortunate in every instance in which it prescribes moderation. Attend to the advice by which it instigates the citizens of Dublin: “In a city each street becomes a defle and each house a battery; impede the march of your oppressors, charge them with the arms of the brave, the pike, and from the windows and roofs hurl stones, bricks, bottles, and all other convenient implements, on the heads of the satellites of your tyrant, the mercenary, the sanguinary soldiery of England.”13 Having thus roused them, it throws in a few words of composure, “repress, prevent, and discourage excesses, pillage, and intoxication;” and to ensure that calmness of mind which is so necessary to qualify them for the adoption / of this salutary advice, it desires that they will “remember against whom they fght, their oppressor for 600 years: remember their massacres, their tortures; remember your murdered friends, your burned houses, your violated females.”14 Tus afecting to recommend moderation, every expedient is resorted to, which could tend to infame sanguinary men to the commission of sanguinary deeds. Gentlemen, you must by this time be somewhat anxious to know the progress of the general,15 who escaped the memorable action which was to be fought, and the frst place in which I am enabled to introduce him to you, is at the house of one Doyle,16 who resides near the Wicklow mountains. Tere the general and his companions took refuge, at the commencement of the following week; they arrived there at a late hour; the general was still dressed in his full uniform, with suitable lace and epaulets, and a military cocked hat, with a conspicuous feather.17 Two other persons were also decorated in green and gold.18 From thence they proceeded to the house of Mrs. Bagnall,19 and returned to the city of Dublin. What became of the other persons is foreign to the present inquiry, but we trace the prisoner from those mountains to the same house in Harold’s Cross, in which he formerly resided, and assuming the old name of Hewit; he arrived there the Saturday afer the rebellion. Having remained a month in this concealment, information was had, and Major Sirr,20 to whose activity and intrepidity the loyal citizens / of Dublin are under much obligation, did confer an additional, and a greater one, by the zealous discharge of his duty on this occasion. He came by surprise on the house, having sent a countryman to give a single rap, and the door being, opened, the Major rushed in, and caught Mrs. Palmer21 and the prisoner sitting down to dinner; the former withdrew, and the Major immediately asked the prisoner his name, and, as if he found a gratifcation in assuming a variety of titles, he said his name was Cunningham, that he had that day arrived in the house, having been upon a visit with some friends in the neighbourhood; the Major then lef him in charge of another person, and went to inquire of Mrs. Palmer concern-

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

281

ing him; she said he was a very proper young man of the name of Hewit, and that he had been in her house about a month: the Major at this moment heard a noise, and he found that the prisoner was endeavouring to make his escape, and having been struck with a pistol by the person who had the custody of him, he was by that means detained; immediately further assistance was called in from a neighbouring guard-house, and an additional sentry was put upon him. Te Major then again proceeded further to interrogate Mrs. Palmer, when the prisoner made another efort, got into the garden through the parlour window, but was at length overtaken by the Major, who at the peril of his own life, fortunately secured him. When the Major apologized for the roughness with which he was obliged to treat him, the prisoner replied, “all is fair in war.” / Gentlemen, you have the life of a fellow subject in your hands, and by the benignity of our laws, he is presumed to be an innocent man until your verdict shall fnd him guilty. If upon the evidence you shall be so satisfed that this man is guilty, you must discharge your duty to your king, your country, and to your God. If, on the other hand, nothing shall appear sufcient to afect him, we shall acknowledge that we have grievously ofended him, and will heartly participate in the common joy that must result from the acquittal of an honest man.

THE EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES [FOLLOWED]. / [When] the case closed on the part of the crown, and the prisoner having declined to enter into any defence, either by witnesses or his counsel, an argument arose between Mr. McNally22 and Mr. Plunket,23 as to the latter’s right to reply to evidence, when no defence had been made. Lord Norbury said, that the counsel for the prisoner could not by their silence preclude the crown from that right, and, therefore, decided in favour of Mr. Plunket. Mr. Plunket then addressed the court to a considerable length, and spoke to evidence in efect, the same as the Attorney General. Lord Norbury charged the Jury, minutely recapitulating the whole of the evidence, and explained the law. Te Jury, without leaving the box, pronouncced [sic] the Prisoner – Guilty. Te judgment of the court having been prayed upon the prisoner, the Clerk of the Crown, in the usual form, asked him what he had to say why sentence of death and execution should not be awarded against him according to law, Mr. Emmet addressed the court as follows. /

282

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

MR. EMMET’S REPLY. My Lords, – I am asked, what have I to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced on me, according to law? I have nothing to say that can alter your predetermination, nor that it will become me to say, with any view to the mitigation of that sentence which you are to pronounce, and I must abide by. But I have that to say which interests me more than life, and which you have laboured (as was necessarily your ofce in the present circumstances of this oppressed country) to destroy – I have much to say, why my reputaton [sic] should be rescued from the load of false accusation and calumny which has been heaped upon it. I do not imagine that, seated where you are, your minds can be so free from impurity, as to receive the least impression from what I am going to utter. I have no hopes that I can anchor my character in the breasts of a Court constituted and trammelled as this is. I only wish, and it is the utmost I expect, that your Lordships may sufer it to foat down your memories untainted by the foul breath of prejudice, until it fnds some more hospitable harbour to shelter it from the storm by which it is at present bufeted. Were I only to sufer death, afer being adjudged guilty by your tribunal I should bow in silence, and meet the fate that awaits me without a murmur; but the sentence of the law which delivers my body to the executioner, / will, through the ministry of that law, labour in its own vindication, to consign my character to obloquy; for there must be guilt somewhere: whether in the sentence of the Court or in the catastrophe, posterity must determine. A man in my situation, my Lords, has not only to encounter the difculties of fortune, and the force of power over minds which it has corrupted or subjugated, but the difculties of established prejudice; the man dies, but his memory lives; that mine may not perish – that it may live in the respect of my countrymen – I seize upon this opportunity to vindicate myself from some of the charges alleged against me. When my spirit shall be wafed to a more friendly port – when my shade shall have joined the bands of those martyred heroes who have shed their blood on the scafold and in the feld, in defence of their country and of virtue, this is my hope – I wish that my memory and name may animate those who survive me, while I look down with complacency on the destruction of that perfdious government, which upholds its dominion by blasphemy of the Most High; which displays its power over man as over the beasts of the forest; which sets man upon his brother, and lifs his hand in the name of God, against the throat of his fellow, who believes or doubts a little more than the Government standard – a Government steeled to barbarity by the cries of the orphans and the tears of the widows, which it has made. [Here Lord Norbury interrupted Mr. Emmet – saying, that the mean and wicked enthusiasts / who felt as he did, were not equal to the accomplishment of their wild design.]

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

283

I appeal to the immaculate God – I swear by the throne of Heaven, before which I must shortly appear – by the blood of the murdered patriots who have gone before me,24 that my conduct has been, through all this peril and through all my purposes, governed only by the convictions which I have uttered, and by no other view than that of their cure, and the emancipation of my country from the superinhuman oppression under which she has so long and too patiently travailed; and I confdently and assuredly hope that, wild and chimerical as it may appear, there is still union and strength in Ireland to accomplish this noblest enterprize. Of this I speak with the confdence of intimate knowledge, and with the consolation that appertaining to that confdence. Tink not, my Lords, I say this for the petty gratifcation of giving you a transitosy [sic] uneasiness; a man who never yet raised his voice to assert a lie, will not hazard his character with posterity by asserting a falsehood on a subject so important to his country, and on an occasion like this. Yes, my Lords, a man who does not wish to have his epitaph written until his country is liberated, will not leave a weapon in the power of envy, nor a pretence to impeach the probity which he means to preserve even in the grave to which tyranny consigns him. [Here he was again interrupted by the court.] Again I say, that what I have spoken was / not intended for your Lordships, whose situation I commiserate rather than envy – my expressions were for my countrymen – if there is a true Irishmen present, let my last words cheer him in the hour of afiction. [Here he was again interrupted; Lord Norbury said he did not sit there to hear treason.] I have always understood it to be the duty of a judge, when a prisoner has been convicted, to pronounce the sentence of the law; I have also understood that judges sometimes think it their duty to hear with patience, and to speak with humanity; to exhort the victim of the laws, and to ofer, with tender benignity, his opinion of the motives by which he was actuated in the crime of which he was adjudged guilty. Tat a judge has thought it his duty so to have done, I have no doubt; but where is the boasted freedom of your institutions – where is the vaunted impartiality, clemency, and mildness of your courts of justice, if an unfortunate prisoner, whom your policy, and not your justice, is about to deliver into the hands of the executioner, is not sufered to explain his motives sincerely and truly, and to vindicate the principles by which he was actuated. My Lords, it may be a part of the system of angry justice to bow a man’s mind by humiliation to the proposed ignominy of the scafold – but worse to me than the proposed shame, or the scafold’s terrors, would be the shame of such foul and unfounded imputations as have been laid against me in this court. You, my Lord, are a Judge; I am the supposed culprit; / I am a man; you are a man also; by a revolution of power, we might change places, though we never could change

284

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

characters. If I stand at the bar of this court, and dare not vindicate my character, what a farce is your justice! If I stand at this bar, and dare not vindicate my character, how dare you calumniate it? Does the sentence of death, which your unhallowed policy inficts upon my body, also condemn my tongue to silence, and my reputation to reproach? Your executioner may abridge the period of my existence, but whilst I exist I shall not forbear to vindicate my character and my motives from your aspersions; and as a man, to whom fame is dearer than life, I will make the last use of that life in doing justice to that reputation which is to live afer me, and which is the only legacy I can leave to those I honour and love, and for whom I am proud to perish. As men, my Lords, we must appear on the great day at one common tribunal and it will then remain for the Searcher of all hearts25 to show a collective universe, who was engaged in the most virtuous actions or actuated by the purest motive – my country’s oppressors, or – [Here he was again interrupted, and told to listen to the sentence of the law.] My Lords, will a dying man be denied the legal privilege of exculpating himself, in the eyes of the community, of an undeserved reproach thrown upon him during the trial, by charging him with ambition, and attempting to cast away, for a paltry consideration, the liberties / of his country? Why did your Lordships insult me? or rather, why insult justice, in demanding of me why sentence of death should not be pronounced against me? I know, my Lord, that form prescribes that you should ask the question – the form also implies the right of answering. Tis, no doubt, may be dispensed with, and so might the whole ceremony of the trial, since sentence was already pronounced at the Castle,26 before your jury was empanelled. Your Lordships are but the priests of Oracle, and I submit – but I insist on the whole of the forms. [Here Mr. Emmet paused, and the Court desired him to proceed.] I am charged with being an emissary of France. An emissary of France! and for what end? It is alleged that I wished to sell the independence of my country! and for what end? Was this the object of my ambition? and is this the mode by which a tribunal of justice reconciles contradictions? No! I am no emissary; and my ambition was to hold a place among the deliverers of my country – not in power, nor in proft, but in the glory of the achievement. Sell my country’s independence to France! and for what? Was it for a change of masters? No, but for ambition! O, my country! was it personal ambition that could infuence me? Had it been the soul of my actions, could I not, by my education and fortune – by the rank and consideration of my family, have placed myself among the proudest of my country’s oppressors? My country was my idol; to / it I sacrifced every selfsh – every endearing sentiment – and for it I now ofer up my life. O, God! No! my Lord; I acted as an Irishman, determined on delivering my country from the yoke of a foreign and unrelenting tyranny, and the more gall-

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

285

ing yoke of a domestic faction, which is its joint partner and perpetrator in the patricide,27 for the ignominy of existing with an exterior of splendour and a conscious depravity; it was the wish of my heart to extricate my country from this doubly-rivetted despotism. I wished to place her independence beyond the reach of any power on earth – I wished to exalt her to that proud station in the world. Connection with France was, indeed, intended – but only as far as mutual interest would sanction or require. Were they to assume any authority inconsistent with the purest independence, it would be the signal for their destruction; we sought aid, and we sought it as we had assurance we should obtain it – as auxiliaries in war, and allies in peace. Were the French to come as invaders or enemies, uninvited by the wishes of the people, I should oppose them to the utmost of my strength. Yes, my countrymen, I would meet them on the beach, with a sword in one hand and a torch in the other; I would meet them with all the destructive fury of war, and I would animate my countrymen to immolate them in their boats, before they had contaminated the soil of my country. If they succeeded in landing, and if forced to retire before superior discipline, I would dispute every inch / of ground, burn every blade of grass before them, and the last entrenchment of liberty should be my grave. What I could not do myself, if I should fall, I would leave as a last charge to my countrymen to accomplish, because I should feel conscious that life, any more than death, is unproftable when a foreign nation holds my country in subjection. But it was not as an enemy that the succours of France were to land. I looked, indeed, for the assistance of France; but I wished to prove to France and to the world, that Irishmen deserved to be assisted; that they were indignant at slavery, and ready to assert the independence and liberty of their country. I wished to procure for my country the guarantee which Washington28 procured for America. To procure an aid which, by its example, would be as important as its valour – disciplined, gallant, pregnant with science and experience; who would preserve the good, and polish the rough points of our character; they would come to us as strangers and leave us as friends, afer sharing our perils and elevating our destiny. Tese were my objects – not to receive new taskmakers, but to expel old tyrants; these were my views, and these only became Irishmen. It was for these ends I sought aid from France, because France, even as an enemy, could not be more implacable than the enemy already in the bosom of my country. [Here he was interrupted by the Court.] I have been charged with that importance in the eforts to emancipate my country, as to / be considered the keystone of the combination of Irishmen, or as your Lordship expressed it, “the life and blood of the conspiracy.” You do me honour over much; you have given to the subaltern all the credit of a superior. Tere are men engaged in this conspiracy, who are not only superior to me,

286

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

but even to your own conceptions of yourself my Lord, before the splendour of whose genius and virtues I should bow with respectful deference, and who would think themselves dishonoured to be called your friend, and who would not disgrace themselves by shaken [sic] your blood-stained hand. [Here he was again interrupted.] What, my Lord! shall you tell me, on the passage to that scafold, which that tyranny (of which you are only the intermediary executioner) has erected for my murder, that I am accountable for all the blood that has and will be shed in this struggle of the oppressed against the oppressor – shall you tell me this, and shall I be so very a slave as not to repel it? I do not fear to approach the Omnipotent Judge,29 to answer for the conduct of my whole life, and am I to be appalled and falsifed by a mere remnant of mortality here! By you, too, who, if it were possible to collect all the innocent blood that you have caused to be shed, in your unhallowed ministry into one great reservoir, your Lordship might swim in it. [Here the Judge interfered.] Let no man dare, when I am dead, to charge me with dishonour; let no man attaint my memory, by believing that I could engaged in / any cause but of my country’s liberty and independence, or that I became the pliant minion of power, in the oppression or the miseries of my countrymen. Te proclamation of the Provisional Government30 speaks for our views; no inference can be tortured from it to countenance barbarity or debasment [sic] at home, or subjection, humiliation, or treachery from abroad; I would not have submitted to a foreign oppressor for the same reason that I would resist the present domestic oppressor. In the dignity of freedom, I would have fought on the threshold of my country, and its enemy should only enter by passing over my lifeless corpse. And am I, who lived but for my country, and who have subjected myself to the dangers of the jealous and watchful oppressor, and the bondage of the grave, only to give my countrymen their rights and my country her independence – am I to be loaded with calumny, and not sufered to resent or repel it? No, God forbid! [Here Lord Norbury told Mr. Emmet that his sentiments and language disgraced his family and education, but more particularly his father, Dr. Emmet,31 who was a man, if alive, that would not countenance such opinions.] If the spirits of the illustrious dead participate in the concerns and cares of those who are dear to them in this transitory life – O ever dear and venerated shade of my departed Father, look down with scrutiny upon the conduct of your sufering son; and see if I have, even for a moment, deviated from those principles of morality and patriotism which it was / your care to instil into my youthful mind, and for which I am now to ofer up my life. My Lords, you are impatient for the sacrifce – the blood which you seek is not congealed by the artifcal [sic] terrors that surround your victim; it circulates

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

287

warmly and unrufed through the channels which God created for nobler purposes, but which you are bent to destroy, for purposes so grievous, that they cry to Heaven. Be ye patient! I have but a few words more to say. I am going to my cold and silent grave: my lamp of life is nearly extinguished: my race is run: the grave opens to receive me, and I sink into its bosom! I have but one request to ask at my departure from this world; it is the charity of its silence! Let no man write my epitaph; for as no man who knows my motives dare now vindicate them, let not prejudice or ignorance asperse them. Let them and me repose in obscurity and peace, and my tomb remain uninscribed, until other times, and other men, can do justice to my character. When my country takes her place among the nations of the earth – then, and not till then – let my epitaph be written. I have done / account of the late

PLAN OF INSURRECTION IN DUBLIN, and the cause of its failure.* Te plan was comprised under three heads – points of attack, points of check, and lines of defence. Te points of attack were three:– Te Pigeon House, the Castle, and the Artillery Barracks at Island Bridge. Te attack was to begin with the Pigeon House, number of men 200. Te place of assembly, the Strand, between Irishtown and Sandymount. Te time, low water. Te men to divide into two bodies: one to cross by a sand bank, between the Pigeon House and Light House, where they were to mount the wall; the other to cross at Devonshire Wharf; both parties to detach three men with blunderbusses, and three with jointed pikes, concealed, who were to seize the sentries and gates for the rest to rush in. Another plan was formed for high water, by means of pleasure, or fshing boats, going out in the morning, one by / one, and returning in the evening to the dock at the Pigeon House, where they were to land. A rocket from this was to be the signal for the other two, viz.: Te Castle, the number of men 200. Te place of assembly, Patrick-street depot. A house in Ship-street was expected, also one near the gate. A hundred men to be armed with jointed pikes and blunderbusses, the rest to support them, and march openly with long pikes. To begin by the entrance of two job coaches, *

Annexed to the copy from which the above has been transcribed, is the following memorandum, in the handwriting of a gentleman who held a confdential situation under the Irish government.32 – “Te original of this paper was delivered on the morning just before he was brought out to execution, in order to be forwarded to his brother, Tomas Addis Emmet,33 at Paris.” /

288

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

hackney coachmen, two footmen, and six persons, inside, to drive in at the upper gate into the yard, come out of the coaches, turn back and seize the guard, (or instead one of the job34 coaches, a sedan going in at the same time, with two footmen, two chairmen, and one inside;) at the same moment a person was, in case of failure, to knock at Lamprey’s door, seize it and let in others, to come down by a scaling ladder from a window on the top of the guard-house, while attacks were made at a public house in Ship-street, which has three windows commanding the guard-house, a gate in Stephen-street, another at the Aungier-Street, end of Great George’s-street, leading to the ordnance, another at the new houses in George’s-street, leading to the riding yard, and another over a piece of a brick wall near the Palace-street gate. Scaling ladders for all these. Fire-balls, if necessary, for the guard-house of the upper gate. Te Lord Lieutenant35 and principal ofcers of government, together with the bulk of artillery, to be sent of under / an escort to the commander in Wicklow,36 in case of being obliged to retreat. I forgot to mention that the same was to be done with as much of the Pigeon House stores as could be. Another party with some artillery to come into town along the quays, and take post at Carlisle Bridge, to act according to circumstances. Island Bridge, 400 men. P1ace of assembly, Quarry-hole opposite, and Burying ground. – Eight men with pistols and one with a blunderbuss, to seize the sentry walking outside, seize the gates, some to rush in, seize the cannon opposite the gate, the rest to mount on all sides by scaling ladders; on seizing this to send two cannon over the bridge facing the barrack-road. Another detachment to bring cannon down James’s-street, another towards Rathfarnham as before. To each of the fank points, when carried, reinforcements to be sent, with horses, &c. to transport the artillery. Island Bridge only to be maintained; a false attack also thought of, afer the others had been made on the rear of the barracks, and if necessary, to burn the hay stores in the rear. Tree rockets to be the signal that the attack on any part was made, and aferwards a rocket of stars in case of victory, a silent one of repulse. Another point of attack not mentioned: Cork-street Barracks; if the ofcer could surprise it, and set fre to it; if not, to take post in the house (I think in Earl-street, the street at the end of Cork-street, leading to Newmarket, looking down the street with musquetry, / two bodies of pikemen in Earl-street,) to the right and lef of Cork-street, and concealed from troops marching in that street. Another in, I think, Marrowbone-lane, to take them in rear. Place of assembly, felds adjacent, or Fenton felds. Points of Check. – Te old Custom-house, 300 men, the gate to be shut or stopped with a load of straw, to be previously in the street. – Te other small gate to be commanded by musquetry, and the bulk of the 300 men to be distributed in Parliament-street, Crane-lane, and those streets falling into Essex-street, in order to attach them if they forced out. Te jointed pikes and blunderbusses

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

289

lying under great coats, rendered all these surprises unsuspected; fre balls, if necessary and a beam of rockets. An idea also was, if money had been got, to purchase Raferty’s cheese shop, opposite to it, to make a depot and assembly; and to mine under and blow up a part of the Custom-house, and attack them in confusion, as also the Castle. Te miners would have been got also to mine from a cellar into some of the streets through which the army from the barracks must march. Te assembly was at the Coal-quay. Mary-street barracks, sixty men. A house-painter’s house, and one equally removed on the opposite side, (No. 36, I believe,) whose fre commands the iron gate of the barracks without being exposed to the fre from it, to be occupied by twenty-four blunderbusses; the remainder, pikemen, to remain near Cole’s-lane, or to be ready in case of rushing out to attack / them. Assembly, Cole’s-lane market, or else detached from Custom-house body. Te corner house of Capel-street, (it was Killy Kelley’s,) commanding in Ormond-quay, and Dixon, the shoemaker’s (or the house beyond it,) which open suddenly on the fank of the army, without being exposed to their fre, to be occupied by blunderbusses. Assembly detached from Custom-house body. Lines of Defence. – Beresford-street has six issues from Church-street, viz: Coleraine-street, King-street, Stirrup-lane, Mary’s-lane, Pill-lane, and the Quay. Tese to be chained in the frst instance by a body of chainmen; double chains and padlocks were deposited, and the sills of the doors marked. Te blockade to be afer – wards flled up; that on the Quay by bringing up the coaches from the strand, and oversetting them, together with the butchers’ blocks from Ormondmarket. Te houses over the chains to be occupied with hand grenades, pistols and stones. Pikemen to parade in Beresford-street, to attack instantly any person that might penetrate; the number 200. Assembly, Smithfeld depot, where were 800 pikes for reinforcements. Te object was to force the troops to march towards the Castle, by the other side of the water, where the bulk of the preparations and men to receive them were. Merchant’s Quay. In case the army, afer passing the Old Bridge, marched that way, Wogan’s house and a Birmingham warehouse next to it to be occupied with musquetry, grenades, and stones; also, the leather crane at / the other end of the Quay; a beam to be before the crane, lying across the Quay, to be fred at the approach of the enemy’s column. A body of pikemen in Winetavern-street, instantly to rush on them in front; another body in Cook-street to do the same, fve lanes opening on their fank, and by Bride-street in their rear. Another beam in Bridge-street, in case of taking that route, and then the Cook-street body to rush out instantly in front; a beam in Dirty-lane; main body of pikemen in Tomas-street to rush on them instantly on fring the beam. Te body on the Quay to attack on rear; in case of repulse, Catherine’s Church, Market house,

290

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and two houses adjacent, that command that street, occupied with musquetry. Two rocket batteries near the Market house, a beam before it, body of pikemen in Swif’s-alley, and that range, to rush on their fank, afer the beam was fred through Tomas-court, Vicar-street, and three other issues; the corner houses of these issues to be occupied by stones and grenades; the entire of the other side of the street to be occupied with stones, &c. the fank of this side to be protected by a chain at James’s-gate, and Guiness’s drays, &c. the rear of it to be protected from Cook-street, in case the ofcer there failed, by chains across Rainsford-street, Crilly’s-Yard, Meath-street, Ash-street, and Francis-street. Te Quay body to cooperate by the issues before mentioned, (at the other side,) the chains of which would be opened by us immediately. In case of further repulse, the houses at the corner of Cutpurse-row, commanding the lanes at each side of the / Market-house, the two houses in High-street, commanding that open, and the corner houses of Castle-street, commanding Skinner-row, (now Christ Church-place) to be successively occupied. In case of a fnal retreat, the routes to be three: Cork-street, to Templeogue, New-street, Rathfarnham, and Camden-street department. Te bridges of the Lifey to be covered six feet deep with boards full of long nails bound down by two iron bars, with spikes eighteen inches long, driven through them into the pavement to stop a column of cavalry, or even infantry. Te whole of this plan was given up by me for the want of means, except the Castle and lines of defence, for I expected 300 Wexford men, 400 Kildare men, and 200 Wicklow, all of whom had fought before, to begin the surprises at this side of the water, and by the preparations for defence, so as to give time for the town to assemble. Te county of Dublin was also to act at the instant it began – the number of Dublin people acquainted with it I understood to be 4 or 5,000. I expected 2,000 to assemble at Costigan’s Mills, the grand place of assembly. Te evening before, the Wicklow men failed, through their ofcer. Te Kildare men who were to act, (particularly with me,) came in, and at fve o’clock went of again from the Canal-harbour, on a report that Dublin would not act. In Dublin itself, it was given out by some treacherous or cowardly person, that it was postponed till Wednesday. Te time of assembly was from six till nine, instead of 2,000, there was eighty men assembled / when we came to the Market-house they were diminished to eighteen or twenty. Te Wexford men did assemble, I believe, to the amount promised, on the Coal-quay; but 300 men, though they might be sufcient to begin on a sudden, were not so, when government had fve hours’ notice by express from Kildare. Added to this, the preparations were, from an unfortunate series of disappointments in money, unfnished, and scarcely any blunderbusses bought up. Te man who was to turn the fuzes and rammers for the beams forgot them, and went of to Kildare to bring men, and did not return till the very day. Te consequence was, that all the beams were not loaded, nor mounted with wheels, nor the train-bags, of course, fastened on to explode them.

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

291

From the explosion in Patrick-street, I lost the jointed pikes which were deposited there; and the day of action was fxed on before this, and could not be changed. I had no means of making up for their loss but by the hollow beams full of pikes, which struck me three or four days before the 23d. From the delays in getting the materials, they were not able to set about them till the day before; the whole of that day and the next, which ought to have been spent in arrangements, was obliged to be employed in work. Even this, from the confusion occasioned by men crowding into the depot from the country, was almost impossible. Te person who had the management of the depot mixed, by accident, the slow matches that / was prepared, with what was not, and all our labour went for nothing. Te fuzes for the grenades he had also laid by where he forgot them, and could not fnd them in the crowd. Te cramp irons37 could not be got in time from the smiths, to whom we could not communicate the necessity of despatch; and the scaling-ladders were not fnished (but one.) Money came in at fve o’clock, and the trusty men of the depot, who alone knew the town, were obliged to be sent out to buy up blunderbusses, for the people refused to act without some. To change the day was impossible, for I expected the counties to act, and feared to lose the advantage of surprise. Te Kildare men were coming in for three days; and afer that it was impossible to draw back. Had I another week; had I one thousand pounds; had I one thousand men, I would have feared nothing. Tere was redundancy enough in any one part to have made up, if complete, for defciency in the rest; but there was failure in all – plan, preparation, and men. I would have given it the respectability of insurrection, but I did not uselessly wish to spill blood: I gave no signal for the rest, and they all escaped. I arrived time enough in the country to prevent that part of it which had already gone out with one of my men, to disarm the neighbourhood from proceeding. I found that by a mistake of the messenger, Wicklow would not rise that night – I sent of to prevent it from doing so the next, as it intended. It ofered / to rise even afer the defeat, if I wished it, but I refused. Had it risen, Wexford would have done the same. It began to assemble, but its leader kept it back till he knew the fate of Dublin. In the state Kildare was in, it would have done the same. I was repeatedly solicited by some of those who were with me to do so, but I constantly refused. Te more remote counties did not rise, for want of money to send them the signal agreed on. I know how men without candour will pronounce on this failure, without knowing one of the circumstances that occasioned it. Tey will consider only that they predicted it; whether its failure was caused by chance, or by any of the grounds on which they made their prediction, they will not care – they will make no distinction between a prediction fulflled and justifed – they will make

292

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

no compromise of errors – they will not recollect that they predicted also that no system could be formed – that no secrecy nor confdence could be restored – that no preparations could be made – that no plan could be arranged – that no day could be fxed, without being instantly known at the Castle; that government only waited to let the conspiracy ripen, and crush it at their pleasure; and that on these grounds only did they predict it [sic] miscarriage. Te very same men that afer success would have fattered, will now calumniate. Te very same men, that would have made an ofering of unlimited sagacity at the shrine of victory, will not now be content to take back that portion that belongs of right to themselves, but would violate the / sanctuary of misfortune, and strip her of that covering that candour would have lef her. R. E. Te following facts have come to our knowledge, too late to be inserted in their proper place. But we deemed them too interesting to be altogether omitted. Indeed, every incident of his short, but virtuous life, however slight, cannot fail to impart some degree of at least a melancholy pleasure to every generous and patriotic bosom. “One day, previous to his trial, as the governor38 was going his rounds, he entered Emmet’s room rather abruptly, and observing a remarkable expression in his countenance, he apologised for the interruption. He had a fork afxed to his little deal table, and appended to it there was a tress of hair. ‘You see,’ said he to his keeper, ‘how innocently I have been occupied: this little tress has been long dear to me,39 and I am plaiting it to wear in my bosom on the day of my execution.’ On the day of that fatal event, there was found, sketched by his own hand with a pen and ink, upon that very tablet, an admirable likeness of himself, the head severed from the body which lay near it, surrounded by the scafold, the axe and all the paraphernalia of a high treason execution. What a strange union of tenderness, enthusiasm and fortitude, do not the above traits of character exhibit! His fortitude indeed, never forsook him; on the night previous to his death, he slept as soundly as ever; and when the fatal morning dawned, he arose, knelt down and prayed, ordered some milk, which he drank, / wrote two letters, (one to his brother in America,40 and the other to the secretary of state,41 inclosing it,) and then desired the sherifs42 to be informed that he was ready. When they came to his room, he said he had two requests to make: one, that his arms might be lef as loose as possible, which was humanely acceded to. “I make the other,” said he, “not under any idea that it can be granted, but that it may be held in remembrance that I have made it: it is, that I may be permitted to die in my green uniform.” Tis, of course, was not allowed him – and the request seemed to have no other object than to show that he gloried in the cause for which he

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection’

293

was to sufer. A remarkable example of his power, both over himself and others, occured at this melancholy moment. He was passing out, attended by the sherifs and preceded by the executioner;43 in one of the passages stood the turnkey44 who had been personally assigned to him during his imprisonment: this poor fellow loved him in his heart, and the tears were streaming from his eyes in torrents. Emmet paused for a moment; his hands were not at liberty – he kissed his cheek – and the man who had been for years the attendant of a dungeon, habituated to scenes of horror, and hardened against their operation, fell senseless at his feet. Before his eyes had opened again upon this world, those of the youthful suferer had closed forever!

the end.

[McKENNA], AN ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENTS ON THE CATHOLIC QUESTION

[Teobald McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question (London: Printed by Cox, Son, and Baylis, 1805).

Teobald McKenna (d. 1809), a Catholic barrister based in Dublin, spent many years actively campaigning and publishing tracts in support of Roman Catholic emancipation. One of his earlier pamphlets is printed in this volume (see pp. 113–30). He had hoped that the Act of Union of 1800 would be accompanied by a concession to the Irish Catholics and he was bitterly disappointed when the King refused to countenance a measure that would allow Roman Catholics to sit in the legislature or hold ofce in the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Te question of granting Catholic emancipation was repeatedly brought before the United Parliament in the early nineteenth century and several Lords Lieutenant expressed support for such a measure, but it was not achieved until 1829. By then it was probably too late to reconcile the majority of Irish Catholics to the Union. In this pamphlet McKenna rehearses many of the arguments he and others had advanced in support of Catholic emancipation. He insists that it was a dangerously mistaken policy to divide the Irish population along religious lines. Most Irish Catholics had proved their loyalty during the rebellion of 1798, whereas many radical United Irishmen had been Protestants. He argues that the Union will be seriously damaged if the overwhelming majority of Catholics in Ireland cannot be represented by co-religionists in the Westminster Parliament. He posits that Protestantism in England will not be endangered by making political concessions to Catholics in Ireland. Te Union with Scotland had fourished even though Scotland retained its Presbyterian established church that was different from the episcopalian Church of England. He highlights that only in the British Isles is a large part of the people denied equal political rights just because of their religious beliefs, and questions what grounds can there be for granting the vote to Catholics while denying the right of the Catholics to be represented in Parliament by Catholic noblemen and wealthy gentlemen? What threat could

– 295 –

296

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

a small number of propertied Catholic representatives pose to the Protestant majority, which would still dominate the United Parliament? Tere is a short entry on McKenna in the ODNB.

[Theobald McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question (London: Printed by Cox, Son, and Baylis, 1805).

AN ABSTRACT of the

CATHOLIC QUESTION. The case of the Irish Catholics, one of the most comprehensive designations in our Empire, comes before a Tribunal1 and a Public, who have not hitherto been called upon to discuss it, and to whom it may be therefore supposed not to be familiar. Te press of this metropolis presents, indeed, instructors and guides; but they are of that description, who have long misled the Empire, and their eforts are at present so directed, as not to allow an option of passing their arguments in silence. All the clumsy invectives, the hyperbolical conjectures, the fctitious apprehension of the Pope’s overshadowing power; all the legends with which a prejudice, insatiably vindictive, had glutted itself; the gleanings of garrulous anility,2 which for some / years back have abused the patience and insulted the feelings of the Sister Nation; all are ostentatiously brought forth, and sedulously pressed upon the British Public. If these matters at the present day be true, they must continue so to be eternally, and bind the country and the Catholics to the most remote posterity. Te persons whose interference and mode of reasoning have excited some indignation, and rendered necessary a fair exposition of the matter in question, have not restricted themselves to temporary convenience, but launch into what they suppose to be the nature of the case, and allege to be its merits: it remains then for him, who thinks that the means of augmenting the resources, and improving the strength of the Empire, consist in removing irritation, in drawing closer the bonds of harmony, in ofering incentives to exertion, in extinguishing discord, in identifying the people with their government, and enlisting the passions and feelings of the human heart in the cause of established order and the constitution: it remains for him to communicate those observations, which near and local opportunities have enabled him to – 297 –

298

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

make, and thus contribute, so, far as he is able, to procure a judgment favourable to his / country, from legislative bodies, whose claims to the esteem and approbation of mankind seldom have been equalled, and from a people honourable and gallant, ingenuous and intelligent, who may be misled but are incapable of deliberate injustice. Tere certainly exist upon this subject honest and candid prepossessions, which I necessarily must respect, and with which I will reason, because I do respect them. I conceive these conclusions to be founded in misapprehension, and erroneous: I shall, therefore, with every possible deference, lay down in the plainest and most simple form, and in the narrowest compass, the scale of argument which produced my own conviction. Trough all the details and relations of the subject, it is to be held in view, that you legislate not for a sect, but for a people; you act upon nearly fve millions* of your fellow subjects.3 It is their habits you are called upon to direct; it is their manners which are to be modifed and fashioned; / nay, I must proceed farther, and consider the course of policy that may be resolved upon at this occasion, as conclusive upon the entire population, and future fate of Ireland: you consider yourself meting out rules for religionists; but it is no such thing. When you create or perpetuate an unnatural and artifcial superiority of one class of people over another, you are guilty of a double imprudence as to both: you act as the mother who spoils the temper of her child, when she abandons an unfortunate animal to be worried for his pastime. It is not a question, whether clergymen in black gowns shall prevail, or clergymen in white; but, whether you ought to continue a warfare against the ancient prejudices, opinions, and predilections of a great portion of the Empire. Tis is no light concern. Te people of England may value highly their religion: undoubtedly, they ought to do so; but is it necessary to mark this preference, by laying bare to the enemy one of their most extensive frontiers? Tis indeed is sacrifcing largely to the fellowship of opinion. Can you not enjoy and uphold the religion of your preference, without in some measure courting a crown of martyrdom in behalf of it? Te superiority, of one great body of men over another, / is in itself a means of discontent too obvious to be overlooked by Bonaparte;4 if he calculated, as he probably did, when he provoked the present war,5 on turning this circumstance to advantage, then the inhabitants of Great Britain at the present moment are loaded with the income tax,6 in order to preserve what is called Protestant ascendancy in Ireland; a thing which few respectable persons value, and which I shall demonstrate before I dismiss the subject, to mean little more than a right reserved to one part of the rabble of certain corporate towns to scof at and insult their fellow citizens.

*

Mr. Newenham’s judicious and intelligent calculations rate the population at nearly 6 millions, of whom four-ffhs are Catholics. /

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question

299

I do not propose to argue, that it is a matter of moment or of necessity, whether this or that Irish ofcer of state ought to be taken from this or that class or religion. I dismiss that consideration as frivolous and immaterial; it places the matter altogether upon wrong grounds: but, I do insist, that it is preposterous to make the negative of that proposition a part of the constitution of a country so circumstanced as is Ireland. Te Catholics are four ffhs of the people of Ireland. How must the government of that, or any other country, sufer in the means of exciting and rewarding zeal, if it be an ascertained and familiar fact, that fourffhs of / its population, are never, under any circumstances, to direct their pretensions to its principal distinction? Such, however, is the constitution of Ireland; and the practice strains even beyond the letter of that constitution, originating however in it. Essentially the question is, Does it consist with prudence or policy to divide the people of Ireland into two nations, supplying to them the motives of disunion in the partiality of the state to the one, and its disinclination to the other? or does any necessity exist, compelling the British Legislature to adopt a course of proceeding, which deviates from the lights and temper of the age, and from the usual tenor of sound and discreet policy? Doubtless, I repeat again, they are few restrictions, which at this day the letter of the law imposes on Catholics.7 Probably, if that letter were practically enforced, without any special provision or enactment, the sensation would be insignifcant; nay, resentment would not, perhaps, rise very high, even the enactment subsisting, if the spirit did not extend far, very far indeed, beyond the letter; if men were reconciled to privations, which accidental circumstances might render it embarrassing to interfere with; if the middling people were not tantalized, / and made to feel inferiority to those whom they must hold to be equals; if rank and opulence brought with them the same, or nearly the same consideration, to the members of this, as of other branches of the community; it may be asserted, without much hazard, in any of these cases, that a requisition on behalf of the Irish Catholics would scarcely have interrupted the councils of the Empire. Te surviving disabilities would have been permitted to moulder into oblivion, they would have been despised by the Catholics, cast aside by the Protestants, and in a short time, reciprocally forgotten and abandoned. But zealots were not to be satisfed by a silent, inofensive, although substantial superiority. It is not enough for them to hold considerable advantage, but they must exult with ostentations triumph in the enjoyment. Te Catholics are excluded and depressed; but wherefore must they be stunned eternally with the information, that they are not ftted for any other destiny. If the people of Ireland have become (in the judgment of some men unseasonably) impatient, examine the circumstances to which this temper is referable. In one instance, where they fondly hoped to have met a protector, they found, not a stranger desirous to be / instructed, not even an accuser open to conviction, but an inexorable judge, armed with a defnitive sentence of per-

300

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

manent and unrelenting interdict. Te bad passions of Ireland were beginning to subside; its wounds were closing; the Protestants thought little of their ascendant, the Catholics still less of their disabilities; the entire Island, the substance of it at least, was ready to rise as one man, and punish the daring attempt made in 1803 upon the peace of the metropolis.8 Te general tenor of Lord Hardwicke’s administration had been conciliatory,9 and this temper was the reward and the consequence. Te Roman Catholics were, at that moment, far from obtruding themselves upon the state: they naturally must have wished that the system of disabilities were cancelled; but they were willing to expect in silence, the completion of that desirable object, when the sentiments to which I allude, were disclosed from another quarter; sentiments that were calculated to call forth every feeling of indignant pride and every sense of injured character. Te bigot who was disposed to act the tyrant, and the tyrant who wished to protect himself under the veil of bigotry, returned at this signal from the obscurity to which he had been consigned, and again difused irritation and asperities. / Under these circumstances, a discussion has been called forth, which prudent management might with ease have deferred, until a period of most perfect calm and convenience. Te Roman Catholics of Ireland disinclined to England, and therefore to be the objects of vigilance! Never was assertion founded on more direct misapprehension. Tere have been, at diferent times, rebellions in the country generally inhabited by them! True; but you must enter into situation and circumstances, in order to come at the particular causes of these disturbances. And which is the state which has not, in its turn, sustained the calamity of discontent, and been the scene of civil confict? A particular line of policy has produced these contentions in Ireland, and therefore you are to make it perpetual. To the understanding of which country is this form of argument directed? I trust it is not applicable to either. During the America war10 the government of Ireland was feeble; an army of about 5000 men was lef to cover the country. France had, at the time, a powerful navy, and was desirous to invade and / make a diversion in that island. If the Roman Catholic religion instigated to rebellion against the British Government, this was the moment to have tried the experiment. Not only the Catholics manifested no appearance of disafection, but they powerfully assisted to uphold the credit of government, and to preserve the order of things established. Now, one might suppose, this was a favourable occasion to make an efort, if it were any part of their character to refuse submission to the state, or that their religion disseminated a mutinous disinclination to the established authorities. Te rebellion of 1798 was preceded by two or three years of very marked discontent: it broke out when Ireland was full of troops, the French navy destroyed, and the government perfectly vigorous and efcient; then the turbulence of the latter period must have been instigated by some circumstances which did not exist at

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question

301

the former: it did not of course originate in the interests or feelings of religion, which were exactly the same at the one time and the other. No man who compares these facts will hesitate to pronounce that the rebellion of 1798 must have proceeded altogether from causes, / which, 20 years preceding, had no existence, and from persons of a diferent description. Moreover, the French who profered their aid to Ireland in 1779, were Roman Catholics, and fully equipped with Roman Catholic pretexts and pretences. On the late occasion, those with whom a negociation was opened were the Directory,11 who had overturned the Roman Catholic religion, and put the Pope in fetters. Disafection never was so high in Ireland as at the time when Pius VI. the late Pope,12 was perfectly devoted to the English government: then, assuredly, that disafection was not connected with the views or interests of the Papacy, or within the controul of its ministers. In truth, between those who put the rebellion up, and those who put it down, I do not hesitate to afrm, that as many Catholics as Protestants passed through the dreadful ordeal of the year 1798, with unblemished honour. Allowing for the diference of population, the number on the former side was the more considerable. / Addressing myself to the people of England, I must tell them, and I tell it as a ground of sympathy and commiseration, that neither the Scotch, nor the Welch, are so nearly of their own race, as the Catholics of Ireland, and neither have been for so long space of time their fellow subjects. Tere is, probably, not an individual amongst them, who does not, in some degree, derive his descent from England. In the former country you fnd the traces of the names which once were eminent in this: you fnd the Clares, the Mortimers, the Bohuns, the Stafords, the Devereuxs, prevailing among the Irish peasants. – Sirnames [sic] transmitted from England, Burkes, Powers, Butlers, occur as familiarly as those of O’Neil, O’Brien, or O’Connor. Te Irish Catholics may be said to be inveterate royalists: they have not an idea of any other form of government, nor of any other prince than the gracious Sovereign who rules over us. Even of late there was a considerable accession to the popularity of the English character. Te regiments of militia, and the brigade of guards which passed into Ireland in 1798,13 formed a contrast so striking to the violent conduct of the troops who had been previously employed, as to create these favourable impressions. / It is well known, that this circumstance contributed, in a considerable degree, to render the Union acceptable. If these dispositions be neglected; if not only they be neither cultivated nor improved, but forced to take a contrary direction, it is not the fault but the misfortune of the Irish. You expect to draw the Protestants of Ireland into a greater degree of acquiescence in the interests of England, by indulging them with a superiority over their fellow citizens: but a great and respectable proportion of them reject and reprobate that superiority, and those who are tenacious of it, are not therefore more

302

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

tractable. It by no means follows, that because you give a man slaves he will more chearfully receive a master: the contrary is, perhaps, more consonant to practice. Now in Ireland the Protestants were, in general, more refractory, when the Catholics were in a condition the most completely abject. Tey were Protestants who shook of the British supremacy over Ireland, who would not even allow of that external legislation for which Mr. Fox endeavoured to stipulate:14 they were indeed the most anticatholic of the Protestants. I do not mean to institute a comparison between / the persons who acted upon this, and the two subsequent occasions which I shall mention. Tose who contrived the rebellion of 1798, who matured the schemes, and concerted the means of seduction, were, with scarcely an exception, Protestants. Mr. Emmet15 and Mr. Russel,16 the two contrivers of the attempt in 1803, were not only Protestants, but the sons of placemen: that is to say, they were from amongst the most favoured of the favoured people; from amongst those, for whose sake this operose machinery is to be protected. In this sense, false and fraudulent policy appears to be unproftable. But, were it otherwise, is the empire so hardly beset to procure loyalty? are the resources for attachment so very low, that it must abandon one part of its subjects to the dominion of another, perhaps in many instances the better to the worse? Non hœc in fœdera veni.17 Such were not the consequences which were to have resulted from the UNION. It is of little moment to enquire, whether any stipulations were entered into upon occasion of that event. Tere was an implied stipulation, if there were not an express one, to harmonise the country, and render / the Union the basis of a settlement, else it was a perilous and unproftable intrigue, and the vast detail of its expences and compensations, incurred without any adequate beneft.18 Before the revolution19 it was attempted to counteract the national humour, and impose a disagreeable religion20 on the low country of Scotland; the consequence was, an incessant state of open or smothered warfare.21 King William22 sufered national manners to take their course, and gave a fxed condition and settlement to the favorite religion – Te Highlanders were, down to the accession of his present majesty,23 treated as of doubtful fdelity: an high and irritable people not conciliated, a considerable population not directed, broke out into two rebellions.24 Here is the exact prototype of Ireland: consequent upon a change in the tone of the government was a change of temper in the people. Both situations apply to the case we examine; and as the name of King William is a sort of watch-word in the afairs of Ireland,25 it may deserve consideration, whether it were not better to imitate him, where he acted upon his own enlarged views of sound policy,26 than where he / was obliged to abandon to the spleen of their fellow-subjects a people obnoxious, and at that time insignifcant. You have in the UNION, as King William had in the REVOLUTION, an infant establishment, to which you must desire to attach the people. Te means to be employed

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question

303

are similar: let them feel that their free agency and happiness are incorporated and embarked in the same bottom with the institution which is to be adopted. The Test Laws.27 – I do not pretend to be so conversant with England, as to understand the merits and policy of the test laws: but I see an outcry endeavoured to be raised, as if the incapacities against Catholics were involved with somewhat under this name, too sacred and immutable to be interfered with. Te test laws, however, were made for the Empire, not the Empire for the test laws; and if a new relation has arisen out of varying circumstances, which was not foreseen, and could not be provided for when this system was instituted, it would come, if necessary, to be a matter of inquiry, whether this system should not bend to it. Such relation seems to exist under the Union of Great-Britain and Ireland: the / great extent of the Roman Catholic religion in the latter country, the impossibility to extinguish, and the impolicy to oppose it. Here again the analogy of Scotland meets us. Te popular religion in that branch of the Empire difers, as widely as in Ireland, from that practised at the seat of government;28 yet it does not incommode you, neither have you ever thought of fettering it with test laws. Te Scotch difered from you in politics, and you have forgotten it; they difered from you in religion and you do not molest them: why not extend the like indulgence to the Irish and derive from them the like advantages? Te man would not fnd himself on very safe or easy ground, who should endeavour to add a ceremony to, or substract a dogma from, the popular religion of Scotland: yet we do not observe, that the representatives from that part of the United Kingdom bring with them to the Imperial Parliament any part of this religious combination, which you apprehend from admitting Roman Catholics. For centuries you have attacked this people with fre and sword; they have been a party, under that which makes all men partizans, oppression; but / they would, no more than other men, adhere together, if you eface the circumstances that connect them.–You do not apply the test laws to Scotland, because, if ftted for any thing, it is only for the case of a small society, separating capriciously from public example: then wherefore employ this engine against the Irish Catholics? Tey are a people in possession of the faith and forms, which by a long tradition they have received from their ancestors. Tey may address you in the language which Montesquieu29 tells us was employed by a young Jewess to the inquisitors, who required her to abandon her paternal religion: “How can you punish me for believing, that the same religion you allow once to have been that of the chosen people of God is still so; surely I am at liberty to believe that yet to be, which you acknowledge to have been.”30 Te case is here the same: the Catholic believes that religion, under which his ancestors planted their triumphal standards on the walls of Paris, and gained the glorious victories of Agincourt and Cressy,31 to be as consistent with the glory and prosperity of England, as that under which any / other grand national feats

304

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

have been achieved. He feels himself animated with the same love of his country, but excluded from the means of actively displaying it. Hope alone, that his generous countrymen will soon see the impropriety of persisting, renders his situation tolerable: and is now even this hope to be frustrated? Te test laws do not apply to the two Houses of Parliament, they merely refer to ofces: every species of Dissenter may, and actually does sit in either assembly.32 Te tests, again, impose disabilities, as to England alone, and extend neither to Scotland nor to Ireland. Roman Catholics in Ireland may be appointed to the ofces from which the tests exclude in England all Dissenters:33 the test laws, of course, do not constitute the object to which the Roman Catholics of Ireland direct their application, and against which they seek relief. It is altogether by another law34 that Catholics are ineligible to Parliament: it is a disability peculiar to them alone, of all His Majesty’s subjects. Let it be removed, and the Irish Catholic has precisely the same latitude of privilege as the Scotch Presbyterian. If, then, England piques herself / upon, and cherishes her test laws, they still remain unmolested. It is about twenty-six years since the test laws, as to Dissenters, were abrogated in Ireland,35 I never could learn that any civil inconvenience resulted. We see Dissenting gentlemen in Ireland fll the several public situations, without bringing into them any discriminating mark, or any portion of party feeling. Yet the Dissenters acted, more than ever the Catholics did, with unity of zeal and combination; so that here the authority of Dean Swif, which I fnd quoted in this instance, goes for nought. “It is obvious to imagine,” says he, “under such a motley administration of afairs, what a clashing there will be of interests and inclinations; what pullings, and haulings, backwards and forwards; what a zeal and bias in each religionist to advance his own tribe and depress the others.” 36 Tese are apprehensions which are urged to this day on the subject of the Roman Catholics. In both instances you anticipate an evil, under the pretence of remedying it: your fancied precautions are the very thing which ensure the occurrence of the mischief. / To what has the country of literature and philosophy degenerated? Do you sneer at Spain, and ubpraid her bigotry and blindness? but Spain imposes no such inconvenience on her subjects. Enter into yourselves, and you will perceive, that you are matched with Spain in the career of religious jealousy, and that if you listen to the councils that are now presented, you will far outstrip Spain in this competition; for you have greater scope of action and opportunities. Te British Empire is the only country on earth, in which a diference of religion, embracing a large part of the people, is marked by civil penalties. In Saxony the sovereign family are Catholics, and they govern a Protestant people, without diffculty or dissention. Te Royal House of Prussia are Protestants, and there, as in Ireland, considerable territories are inhabited by Roman Catholics. No politi-

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question

305

cal efect ensues, there is no apprehension entertained of their fdelity, and no hesitation to accept their services. In Austria a Roman Catholic sovereign reigns over mixed religions, in which all are indiscriminately trusted. Te commander in chief in Austria, and governor of Vienna, is Prince Ferdinand / of Wirtemburg,37 a Protestant. Te Emperor38 feels not the diference of religion, whilst every night he reposes under his safe-guard. Te military government of Hungary is committed to General Alvintzy,39 a Calvinist. General Mack40 was the son of a Protestant minister in the Dutchy of Bareuth:41 his sovereign,42 who is a Catholic, did not hesitate to commit to him, in 1793 and 1794, the direction of all the military operations of his armies. Tere is, in these countries, no clashing of feelings or interests; for they have not the secret of provoking what they seem to deprecate. When you send persons of the frst name and infuence in Ireland, to seek military preferment in the countries / which have set you this example of comprehensive liberality, you assist them with a contrast, very little advantageous to the British character. Te inferior people enjoy nearly all their civil franchises; as you ascend you fnd the gentry crippled, and the frst rank ousted totally. Trough the entire of this system one remarkable feature prevails: you punish those whom you cannot suspect, and suspect those whom for their number you cannot punish: you charge, no matter whether justly or otherwise, the lower people with delinquency, and you impose the penalty upon the upper classes: you attempt to govern a numerous people by popular forms, but without in the least cultivating or consulting public opinion: you dread the power of the clergy, complain that it is liable to abuse, and likely to become exorbitant, and you crush and crumble the infuence of the gentry who might cope with it. Public feeling is not likely to take your guides and you will not connect yourself with theirs. All this would be severity and hardship in the instance of a petty sect, but it is eccentric impolicy in its application to a numerous people. / Te Earl of Fingal43 and the Earl of Kenmare44 were the only two persons in Ireland, not exactly in a station of public duty, who were distinguished for their conduct during the troubles, by the direct and ofcia1 thanks of government: yet these, and four other, noble persons,45 are the only men in Ireland, who can neither enjoy nor exercise any franchise whatsoever. A commoner may vote for a member of parliament, and serve his country in many other respects; these noblemen cannot in any: and the reasons given are such, as if founded in truth, could not possibly apply to them, but only to the vulgar. To render the matter clear, it is precisely as if you passed an act to disfranchise the Campbells and Mac Donnells,46 and assigned as a reason, that second sight was believed in the Highlands. When the disqualifying system commenced, the Roman Catholics were as two to one to the Protestants. Tey are at present four: and if you persist in the same course for another century, they will probably be eight. Te reason is

306

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

simple and obvious: if you turn all the adventure of a country into one class, and all the industry into another, the / latter will raise a greater number of families. You might justify the inquisition, or such an occasional thinning of the people, as was practised in Sparta upon the Helots,47 by the arguments which have been used by several of those who plead against the Catholics. I like to see an appeal to the wisdom of former times; I like to see the jealousy of our ancestors recalled to us. But who were those ancestors? Were they the Barons of Runnymead;48 the Heroes of Agincourt? – no; they were the turbulent and gloomy fanatics49 of the reigns of Charles50 and James the First:51 they were the men whose objects of discontent were pursued with greater earnestness, in proportion as these were frivolous and fanciful. Tey petitioned, resolved, and remonstrated against Popery: so did they also against Prelacy; so did they act against Monarchy itself: deluged their country with blood, and assassinated their Sovereign. It is, indeed, a bad and forlorn cause which resorts to these precedents. To have incurred the hostility of those times and persons is no disgrace to Catholicism: it is no blemish to have been exposed to injury, amidst the heats and political depravities / of the reign of Charles the Second.52 Te persons I have mentioned were as to England the founders of the Popery Code;53 it originated in Ireland in a contest for property, encroachments on the rights of possession, and interference on the liberty of judgment. Tat interference and these encroachments produced, as they ever must produce, resistance. Te power of England decided the event, and væ victis54 became the motto of the unsuccessful. Te system was projected in the exasperation of civil war, and carried into efect by men, whom contentions had infamed, and power now intoxicated: they were laws vindictive, not precautionary. Wherefore, if civil contentions be inexpiable, are not the faults or follies of a former day visited upon any other race or region? Why do you not annually celebrate in Edinburgh the victories of Killicranky55 or Culloden,56 as you do, in every town in Ireland, the defeats of the Boyne57 and of Aghrim?58 Or rather, why do you not sufer Ireland, like the northern member of the Empire, to become composed by forgetfulness of her misfortunes? With such solemnity as the Emperor of China is said to use in consecrating the plough,59 the state of Ireland goes forth annually, to revive in the recollection of its / subjects, how they fought and how they suffered: and, yet men are surprised, that there should remain an alienated mind in that people; that the ordinary infuences that act on men do not take root here or cement. Where the popular feeling is annually wounded, is it extraordinary to fnd an alienated mind and promptitude to exasperation? It remains to consider this subject under two aspects; the degree of power which the Catholics might take from the concession, and the use to which they are likely to convert it. In 1782, or at least in 1793, 60the former question seems to have been decided. So far as political power consists in parliamentary representa-

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question

307

tion, it belongs to him who owns the soil. Afer the Catholics had been invited to settle, and permitted to acquire property, there was no possibility to prevent them from enjoying an infuence proportioned to their acquisition. More they could not have; and, as to less, there was no occasion to impose a restriction by law, where the nature of things has provided more efectually. It is then a question merely, not whether Catholics shall have some infuence or none; for that is to be decided by the rate of property; but, whether the / infuence, which it is impossible to separate from the situation of certain individuals, shall be circuitous or direct, shall be clandestine or avowed and legitimate. In the one case, the parties act, and think, and feel, as other members of the state, under the same hopes, views, and ambitions; in the other case, they act just as efciently, but with a strong temptation to entertain an hostile, angered, and alienated disposition. If the Catholics of any particular district have power to determine the return of a member of parliament, it matters little whether they be permitted to return one of their own number; for they will indisputably fnd a Protestant who will equally accommodate their inclinations. Probably, I might go further, and assert, that there would be less subserviency in a Roman Catholic gentleman, having an interest of his own, than in a stranger, introduced for special purposes. From the moment on which the rights of property were communicated to the Catholics, the popery laws became efectual only for the purposes of irritation. It would have been better, at once, to / have abandoned the entire system. Upon the basis of property, and upon this alone, the establishment could stand, and it were better committed to this basis altogether. Te franchise of electing could be of no avail, without the previous possession of land; and, whatever may be the qualifcation of electors, the Catholics possessing land must have an infuence, proportioned to the extent of their possession. Tis holds yet more on the present scale of penal statutes; although the Catholics do not sit in parliament, yet will they infuence the legislature and the government in the ratio of their weight and property. Trough this entire business there is a confusion of physical and natural force. Te great principle of our constitution is, that the power of numbers is disciplined by, and subordinate to, the power of property; and a jealousy, on the score of a great and uninformed population, is the point on which turn the objections. If this population came to act, its interference must necessarily be out of the circle of the constitution, and the quantum of franchises is utterly immaterial. A peasant in the feld of battle would not be less stout, because he was disqualifed to be Lord Chancellor. Civil society is supposed, by the persons who urge these arguments, to be a / state of warfare, and what they apply to it belongs to the most open anarchy. Indeed, every where, the adversaries of the Catholics are upon stilts: the laws of human conduct are to be suspended, and the ordinary passions of man are not to animate a person who happens to be born in that communion. It is the usual

308

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

course of things, that one man shall be indiferent, another lukewarm, a third led of by his pride or his interest; but here, that is supposed to be that never has been. Tey conjure up giants and clouds, the creatures of a distempered imagination, that they may appear to beat them down triumphantly; without the least attention to what may pass within his own bosom, it is presumed, that every Roman Catholic shall direct his views to the aggrandisement of his religion: but where has any such combination existed? It is a well known fact, that through their entire annals the Irish Catholics appeared to be proverbially, a divided people. In modern times, neither they, nor their brethren in England, could easily agree upon the means and manner of their own emancipation. In proportion as fewer objects are presented to them as a party, and a greater / number as individuals, in that proportion, the disposition to adhere and act together will gradually decline. It was thus in the famous controversy under the Roman Republic, for what were called curule ofces.61 Te Plebeians, who were ineligible, formed a very powerful party, resenting this exclusion; but in a short time afer the matter was given up, the distinction of parties and of feuds connected with it disappeared, and were utterly extinguished. It was thus, when Ireland claimed against Great-Britain the independance of her legislature. She did not proceed to extravagant lengths, as at the time, with great appearance of probability, were apprehended. And, by the way, let me observe, that every argument, enforcing the equality of subject and subject, which was applied at that time, as between England and the Irish Protestants, refers equally to the present controversy. It was true, that the native of England had no inherent right to assume a dominion over his fellow-subject of Ireland. It is equally true, that the Irish Protestant has no founded claim of superiority over the Irish Catholic. If you talk of conquest, with all its / precarious duties, then unquestionably both must submit together: if you treat of policy, then the question resolves itself into another. Can there be found no better means of attaching a people, equal in number to the inhabitants of many powerful monarchies? Lord Hobart’s act, in 1793,62 did not so much confer new powers upon the Catholics, as furnish a more natural and convenient mode of using those, which each individual already had acquired. Such as it is, applying to the great class and rank of life prevalent amongst the Catholics, and connected with the former relaxing statutes, it gives to them nearly all the privileges which they are competent to bring into action. Tey may enjoy and acquire landed property by the act of 1782:63 in right of their property, they may vote for members of parliament by the act of 1793.64 Tere are, perhaps, in Ireland, about ffy persons, to whom, including the six peers,65 the privilege to represent might be applicable. Of these, some are minors, others men of pleasure, others again men of business, not to be diverted from their pursuits: some are new men, to whom popular choice would not be directed. Tere are / six peers, each of whom, in the occasional power

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question

309

of voting for one of the twenty-eight representatives,66 may be said to possess a sort of centesimal fraction of parliamentary infuence; and perhaps three persons might get into the House of Commons upon the landed, and two, which is saying a great deal, upon the monied, interest. If you supposed that these are to overturn the constitutional establishment, you attribute to them a power of magic, or else you suppose that hierarchy is to fall before them, as of old the walls of Jericho,67 by sound of trumpet. It is to be hoped, that those who liberally imparted the substance, will not fnd themselves, at this day, justifed in making the shadow an object of contention. In one publication upon this subject, it is advanced, that Roman Catholics entertain such strong attachments to those of their communion, that if a Roman Catholic candidate were proposed, the inferior freeholders would desert their landlords to espouse his interest. Te county members, who recommend and support this measure, entertain no such apprehension. In fact, the representation will only excite a smile from any person, who knows / the relations between an Irish landlord and the persons whom he enables to vote as forty shilling freeholders. In 1793, the frst inclination of the Irish government was to confer the franchise of electing upon the Catholics, subject to a certain superior qualifcation of property: but the present Earl of Buckinghamshire,68 who conducted that concession, changed his project, from a conviction, that it was neither so convenient or advantageous to the Protestant interest as the old and familiar qualifcation. It was felt, that in admitting the Roman Catholic tenantry to vote, the infuence would be to their landlords, who thus sustain themselves against any possible combination of middling and independent Catholics. However, completely to set at rest this cause of anxiety, I will venture to afrm, that provided the regulation extend impartially to all sects and descriptions, there will be no objection, on the part of the Catholics, to modify the forty-shilling franchise.69 As an individual, my impressions run against that alteration. Tus the whole line of reasoning upon the subject simply is, you must desolate the land if you deny to Roman Catholics the power of acquisition, / and granting it, you cannot debar them of political infuence. Te attempt only recoils upon those that make it; it serves merely to mark a line of separation between two parties, and to the existence to this line of separation no solid political good, that I know of, has been attributed. It is persisting, with unwarrantable obstinacy to apply the obsolete spirit of other times to a state of things and circumstances altogether diferent. You place the one party in a state of direct opposition to the establishments of the state, and you act against the infuences, from which the cause you cherish with so much zeal might derive assistance. Te Crown is Protestant, so it is to be presumed will be its infuence: then, which is probable, that by letting this infuence act upon the Catholics you will conciliate favour to the establishment; or that you will drive these Catholics, fve millions be it remem-

310

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

bered, to desperation, by with-holding it. You dread that a member of parliament, in the face of the Protestants of the Empire, of the universities, of the bishops, might make a motion, which probably he would not fnd any person to second; but you entertain no alarm, as to the dangerous use to which a man of rank may convert his / grievance, when he is enabled to convince millions around, that he is a suferer by being their fellow-religionist: and all this time you fancy that you are erecting a wall, to render the establishment impregnable. Some persons imagine that there is no mode of making an impression upon things established but by votes in parliament. As I entertain a diferent opinion, I recommend precautions against that which the course of time may evolve; I recommend that which is apt and salutary, and applicable to our situation at the present moment. Is there a power on the continent, be it ever so Catholic, which England would not gladly subsidize at the present moment? Your wealth is at the command of Austria, or of Russia,70 without any inquiry whether the soldiers they would send against France receive instructions from a clergyman in a black gown or a white: yet from your own fellow-subjects of Ireland might you augment your armies, upon the easy terms of afording them a kind countenance. If the individuals whom they respect were put forward, and the feelings that are dear to them were set in motion, there probably / is not one of that martial and hardy race, the peasantry of Ireland, who would not make some campaigns in the service of his Sovereign. I put it then to the plain good sense of the legislature and people of this Empire, can it answer any wise purpose to employ ffy thousand men in keeping Ireland, when twenty thousand might be rendered adequate to the object? I do not impute disafection to the Catholics, or turbulence on account of frivolous objects; but I impute what stands to reason, that they are not likely to be very zealous, where they are not trusted, and that they will not assume the sword so eagerly in case of emergency, when in other times that sword is not freely imparted. Te great political sagacity of Mr. Deputy Birch,71 and Mr. Alderman Le Mesurier,72 will decide for the greater number, in which doubtless they will have the concurrence of another great character, to whom, in the present instance, they act as pioneers, the Emperor Napoleon.

the end.

EDITORIAL NOTES

Spencer, Toughts on an Union 1.

Hibernian Journal: Te Hibernian Journal (also known as the Chronicle of Liberty) was started in Dublin in 1771 and was conducted by a committee for a free press. It was published until 1821. 2. the present disturbed situation of this Country: a reference to the Irish rebellion of 1798. 3. Commercial Liberty: achieved by commercial concessions made by the British Parliament in 1779–80. 4. possessing an independent Legislature: achieved by political concessions made by the British Parliament in 1782–3. 5. De Lolme: Jean Louis De Lolme (1741–1804), a Swiss and English political theorist, who was born in Geneva, but later became a British subject. His most famous work was Te English Constitution, which frst appeared in French in 1771 and was soon translated into English. He admired England’s mixed government and balanced constitution. See ODNB. 6. that the removal of those impolitic commercial restrictions … have been in a great measure imaginary: J. L. De Lolme, An Essay, Containing a Few Strictures on the Union of Scotland with England and on the Present Situation of Ireland (London, 1787), p. 86. 7. Absentees: wealthy Anglo-Irish landlords, who lived much of their time in England and hence drained their income from their Irish estates in order to spend it in England, thus reducing the wealth of Ireland while increasing that of England. 8. Dean Tucker: Josiah Tucker (1713–99), Dean of Gloucester from 1758 and an eminent writer on politics and economics. See ODNB. 9. the inducements of being near the Parliament, the Court, the public Funds … all that would continually centre in England: J. Tucker, A Brief Essay on the Advantages and Disadvantages which Respectively Attend France and Great Britain with Regard to Trade (London, 1750), p. 59. 10. Tat the increase of wealth to Ireland … burthen of the worst and heaviest of her Taxes: Tis quotation is actually just a summary of the argument that Tucker presents in A Brief Essay, pp. 62–3. Te footnote here, added by Spencer as if it was from his An Essay, Containing a Few Strictures, p. 93, is actually a comment on the damage done to the Irish economy by absentee landlords. See note 7 above. 11. like another great man, Mr. Gibbon, he considered Ireland as a remote and petty Province: Miscellaneous, Works of Edward Gibbon, Esq. with Memoirs of his Life and Writings Composed by Himself, ed. John, Lord Shefeld, 3 vols (Dublin, 1796), vol. 2, p. 187. 12. Sir Matthew Decker: Sir Matthew Decker (1679–1749) was an English merchant and a writer supporting free trade. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. – 311 –

312

Notes to pages 5–7

13. Te situation of Scotland, which is said to have fourished since her Union with England: this was achieved in 1707. 14. Scotland not having been prevailed upon to acknowledge the succession in the House of Hanover: Spencer is right about this. Te English Parliament, by the Act of Settlement of 1701, had decided that the childless Queen Anne should be succeeded by the Protestant ruler of the German electorate of Hanover in order to keep the Catholic Jacobite claimant, James Francis Edward, the Old Pretender, from inheriting the throne of his half-sister Anne. In 1704 the Scottish Parliament passed the Act of Security, which decreed that Scotland would not accept that Anne should be succeeded by the same person who inherited the throne of England. Tis would have ended the Union of the crowns of England and Scotland, in existence since 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded Elizabeth I as King James I of England. Te clear suggestion (and danger) was that Scotland would accept the Jacobite claimant to the throne, a decision that could easily lead to a war between England and Scotland, and at a time when England was already at war with France. Tis threat persuaded the English government and Parliament that they must make every efort to end the existence of the separate Scottish Parliament and achieve a fully incorporating union of the two legislatures and governments. Tis was achieved by the treaty and the Act of Union of 1707. 15. in November, 1705,* a Bill was brought into the English House of Lords, impowering the Queen to name commissioners to treat of a full Union of both kingdoms as soon as the Parliament of Scotland should pass an act to the same purpose: the Commissioners were actually appointed to meet in 1706. 16. a new bill: the Alien Act (1705), 3–4 Anne, cap. 7. 17. Duke of Argyle: John Campbell (1680–1743), second Duke of Argyll, did not in the end take part as a commissioner in the negotiations of 1706 because he was a general fghting in Europe at that time in the War of the Spanish Succession. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 18. Lord Provost: Sir Patrick Johnston (1650–1736) was Lord Provost of Edinburgh 1704–5 and 1708–9. 19. No other violent attempt was made afer this, but … great Convulsions: Bishop Gilbert Burnet’s History of His Own Time, 6 vols (London, 1753), vol. 5, p. 323. Burnet was a Scot, but had been made Bishop of Salisbury, and a historian. Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. 20. made the trading part of that kingdom … carrying on the Union: For the latest view on this, see D. Watt, Te Price of Scotland: Darien, Union and the Wealth of Nations (Edinburgh: Luath Press, 2006). 21. no duty should be laid on the malt in Scotland during the war: the Malt Tax of 1713 (12 Anne, session 1, cap.1). 22. they moved for liberty to bring in a bill to dissolve the Union … but it passed in the United Lords: On this efort in 1713 to repeal the Act of Union of 1707, see Burnet’s History of His Own Time, vol. 6, pp. 158–60; W. Cobbett (ed.), Te Parliamentary History of England (hereafer Parl. Hist.), 36 vols (London, 1806–20), vol. 6, cols 1216–20; and G. S. Holmes and C. Jones, ‘Trade, the Scots and the Parliamentary Crisis of 1713’, Parliamentary History, 1:1 (1982), pp. 47–77. 23. the statute of Henry the Eighth in this kingdom, which declares the Union of the crowns to be indissoluble: Te annexation of the crown of Ireland Act, 1542 (33 Henry VIII, cap. 1), passed by the Irish Parliament. 24. ipso facto: a Latin tag meaning ‘by that fact itself ’.

Notes to pages 7–10

313

25. the independence of our judges is now secured by Act of Parliament: Tis Act (21&22 George III, cap. 50) was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1782. It is reproduced in Volume 2 of this collection, pp. 262–3. 26. such is the stamina of the public prosperity, that, like that of England, it has increased during the war: Te war against revolutionary France, which began in 1793 so far as Britain and Ireland were concerned. 27. Ireland is now in possession of that fee trade: that is, since the commercial concessions made by the British Parliament in 1779–80. 28. our illustrious Chief Governor: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis, was Lord Lieutenant of, and Commander-in-Chief in, Ireland 1798–1801. 29. To the Yeomanry of the City of Dublin is the salvation of Dublin … of the country at large: See A. Blackstock, ‘Te Irish Yeomanry and the 1798 Rebellion’, in 1798: A Bicentenary Perspective, ed. T. Bartlett et al. (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2003), pp. 331–44. 30. If able and well informed men … power of Parliament to extend its duration even for a few years: Te maximum duration of the Irish Parliament between general elections was set at eight years by the Octennial Act of 1768. Te maximum duration of the Westminster Parliament was seven years as established by the Septennial Act of 1716. Many English radicals had been arguing for years that the maximum duration should be restored to three years or even that general elections should be annual events. 31. it hath been the opinion of the most respectable Members of Parliament … entitled to the greatest respect: Edmund Burke argued frmly that MPs, once elected, were independent of their constituents and should follow their own judgement and conscience. See E. Burke, A Letter fom Edmund Burke, Esq, one of the Representatives in Parliament for the City of Bristol, to John Farr and John Harris, Esqrs. Sherifs of that City, on the Afairs in America (London, 1777); and L. S. Sutherland, ‘Edmund Burke and the Relations between Members of Parliament and their Constituents’, Studies in Burke and His Time, 10:33 (1968), pp. 1005–21. Most MPs agreed with Burke, but many radical voices, especially outside Parliament, insisted that constituents had the right to instruct their MP on how to vote on a particular issue. See H. T. Dickinson, Liberty and Property: Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1977), pp. 157–8, 188–90, 213–24. Tis is an important constitutional distinction between an MP being a representative rather than a delegate. 32. It may be remembered that during a debate … Parliament had no right to disfanchise men not convicted of any crime: Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland (Dublin, 1796), vol. 13, p. 90. Te debate was on 21 April 1789. 33. an English Act of Parliament: Crewe’s Act (22 George III, cap. 41), passed by the British Parliament in 1782, disfranchised revenue ofcers. 34. Te cessation of courts martial: In May 1798 Lord Lieutenant Camden proclaimed martial law because he feared the imminent outbreak of an Irish rebellion. Tis allowed courts martial to be set up to put suspected civilian rebels on trial, but it was not followed by legislative action until 1799. Meanwhile, many rebels faced courts martial, which were not properly constituted and which did not always follow due procedure as corners were cut to speed up convictions. See W. N. Osborough, ‘Legal Aspects of the 1798 Rising, its Suppression and the Afermath’, in 1798: A Bicentenary Perspective, ed. Bartlett et al., pp. 437–68. 35. it was the consoling prospect of an Union … drooping spirits of the Irish Yeomen: A. Blackstock, An Ascendancy Army: Te Irish Yeomanry 1796–1834 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998).

314

Notes to pages 11–19

36. Corn Laws, our Registry Act: An Act for registering deeds and wills was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1785 (25 George III, cap. 47). 37. the Minister of England: William Pitt (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6, was deeply committed to achieving Union between Great Britain and Ireland. 38. a Minister: William Wyndham Grenville (1759–1834), frst Baron, was Foreign Secretary 1791–1801. Unlike Henry Dundas, he did not believe that France could be defeated by British naval successes and by capturing France’s overseas colonies. He worked hard to create the Second Coalition to fght France in Europe. See Speech of Lord Grenville in the House of Peers, on the Motion of the Duke of Bedford for the Dismissal of Ministers, Tursday March 22, 1798 (London, 1798).

[Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered 1.

the Seven United Provinces: Te seven Dutch provinces of the northern Spanish Netherlands had declared themselves a republic in 1588, but did not fnally achieve their independence from Spain until 1648. 2. the Sabines: Te Sabines were an Italic tribe, living just to the north of the Romans in central Italy, who were incorporated into the Roman republic. 3. seven kingdoms: Te seven kingdoms of the Heptarchy in what became England were Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex. 4. A wise and sagacious prince united these separate kingdoms into one Empire: Athelstan (c. 893–939), King of Wessex, is regarded as the frst king of England from 927 when he conquered Viking controlled Northumbria. 5. there is only one manufacture of great importance: Tis is a reference to the linen industry, which was mainly based in Ulster. 6. its republican faction in England: Tere had been a strong radical movement in England in the early 1790s, but it had been much weakened by government action by the later 1790s. Only a minority of these radicals were ever fully-committed republicans. Te great majority mainly wished for a democratic reform of the electoral system. 7. France well knows the principle and the force of incorporations … part of her empire, one and indivisible: Te written French constitution of 24 June 1793 declared in clause 1: ‘Te French Republic is one and indivisible’. 8. dum singuli pugnant universi vincuntur: Tis Latin phrase can be translated as: ‘so long as they fght separately, the whole are conquered’. It is a quotation from Tacitus, Agricola, c. 12. 9. Te objections to this predicament were so strong in Scotland before that Union, that the Scots brought in a Bill of Settlement: Tis is a reference to the Act of Security, passed by the Scottish Parliament in 1704. It alarmed the English government and Parliament by suggesting that Scotland might call upon James II’s Catholic son, James Francis Edward, the Old Pretender, to succeed Queen Anne when she died, whereas the English Parliament had decided in its Act of Settlement of 1701 that, when Anne died, she would be succeeded by the Protestant ruler of the German electorate of Hanover. 10. the Crown of Ireland is by express statutes of declaration and recognition perpetually annexed to and dependent upon the Crown of England: In 1542 the Irish Parliament had passed an Act (33 Henry VIII, cap. 1) to the efect that the crown of Ireland was inseparably and forever annexed to the crown of England, in an efort to prevent the two kingdoms ever

Notes to pages 19–21

11. 12. 13.

14.

15. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22.

23. 24.

315

having diferent monarchs. Tis was reinforced by the Crown Recognition (Ireland) Act passed by the Irish Parliament in 1692 (4 William and Mary, cap. 1). ipso facto: a Latin tag, meaning ‘by the fact itself ’. Absentees: See note 7 to Spencer, Toughts on an Union above. Such absenteeism had always been a source of complaint in Ireland. Te Irish Parliament is certainly in its institution independent: Cooke is recognizing the extent of legislative independence achieved by the Irish Parliament as a result of the acts passed by the Westminster Parliament in 1782–3. it has actually asserted a Right to chuse a Regent of its own appointment, distinct fom the Regent of Great Britain: Te Irish Parliament passed a Regency Act in 1789, actually ofering the regency to George, Prince of Wales, but this was never actually approved by George III, who recovered his health and his wits before the act reached London. Tis issue is discussed in Volume 3 of this collection, pp. 331–56. the Minister: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. the Commercial Propositions: William Pitt’s Commercial Propositions of 1785 had been opposed in Ireland by the Patriots and at Westminster by the Foxite Whig opposition. See J. Kelly, Prelude to Union: Anglo-Irish Politics in the 1780s (Cork: Cork University Press, 1992), pp. 76–209; and P. Kelly, ‘British and Irish Politics in 1785’, English Historical Review, 90 (1975), pp. 536–63. to support the Character of Irish Rebels, to palliate and to justify Irish Treason, and almost to vindicate Irish Rebellion?: Tis is a reference to the fact that leading members of the Whig opposition at Westminster, including Charles James Fox, Richard Brinsley Sheridan and Tomas Erskine, had given character references for Arthur O’Connor when he was on trial at Maidstone in 1798 and had regularly criticized the recent Irish policies of the British government. See M. J. Powell, ‘Charles James Fox and Ireland’, Irish Historical Studies, 33 (2002), pp. 169–90. It is notorious that, before the Union, Scotland had always a connexion and alliance with France: Te so-called ‘Auld Alliance’ between France and Scotland, which lasted from the late thirteenth century to the late sixteenth century. See E. A. Bonner, ‘Scotland’s “Auld Alliance” with France, 1295–1560’, History, 84 (1999), pp. 15–30. It is equally notorious that a correspondence was kept up with France, by a party: Te Irish Jacobites, who sought the return to the Irish throne of the exiled Catholic Stuarts. See E. O’Ciardha, Ireland and the Jacobite Cause: A Fatal Attachment (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2002). the Pretender: James Francis Edward Stuart (1688–1766), the son of King James II, who claimed his father’s throne in vain, and is known as the Old Pretender in order to distinguish him from his eldest son, Charles Edward Stuart (’Bonnie Prince Charlie’), the Young Pretender (1720–88). imperium in imperio: a Latin tag, meaning ‘a state within a state’. It is this vice of constitution … where each province was a Sovereign: Te constitution of the Dutch United Provinces required all seven provinces to agree before executive action could be taken. Franklin: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90), one of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America. Washington: George Washington (1732–99), Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the American War of Independence and frst President of the United States.

316

Notes to pages 21–4

25. the fault of such a constitution became evident: a reference to the faws in the Articles of Confederation, which initially came into operation in the rebellious American colonies in mid-1776, but were not formally recognized by all thirteen American states until 1781. Tey were replaced by the Federal Constitution, which was drafed in 1787, but not formally adopted until 4 March 1789. 26. and each state being allowed to maintain its ecclesiastical arrangements, all religious struggle and animosity was prevented: a reference to the US Federal Constitution drafed in 1787 (and subsequently ratifed by the various states) and to the religious toleration built into the Bill of Rights of the Federal Constitution and into the constitutions of many individual American states. 27. Mr. Adams: John Adams (1735–1826), second President of the United States 1797– 1801. 28. the Lycian: Lycia was a confederation of ancient cities in what is now Turkey and was allegedly the world’s frst confederation built on democratic principles. 29. “Te former,” says he, “was formed upon … rational deliberation which the world has ever seen.”: J. Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 3 vols (London, 1787–8), vol. 3, p. 505. 30. In all our deliberations … which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable: ‘George Washington’s Letter to the President of the Continental Congress, 17 September 1787’, in Te Constitution of the United States of America, established March 4, 1789 (London, 1794), p. 21. 31. the Act of Settlement: Te Act of Settlement 1662 (14 & 15 Charles II, Session 4, cap. 2) passed by the Irish Parliament. 32. Te established Religion is the Protestant, and the Church is, in Constitution, similar to that of England: Te established Church of Ireland adopted the doctrine, liturgy and ritual of the Church of England. 33. the Revolution: the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9. 34. in the reign of Elizabeth: Elizabeth I reigned from 1588 to 1603. 35. in the reign of Charles the First: Charles I reigned from 1625 to 1649. 36. in the reign of James the Second: James II reigned from 1685 to 1688. 37. Te Protestants feel likewise other causes of distrust, suggested by recent circumstances: a reference to the Irish rebellion of 1798. 38. but such a consummation, though devoutly wished: ‘’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished’ is a part of Hamlet’s famous soliloquy in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, III.i. 39. If then the separate Constitution and Establishments, and Test Laws of Ireland: Many of the penal laws against Catholics in Ireland had been repealed, but the Test Act of 1704 (2 Anne, cap. 6) remained in force and excluded Catholics from sitting in either house of the Irish Parliament or holding high government ofce. Te Catholics now focused on the repeal of this act in their campaign for emancipation. 40. the Act of Supremacy: Te English Parliament passed the Act of Supremacy (1 Elizabeth I, cap. 1) in 1558. A similar act was passed by the Irish Parliament (2 Elizabeth I, cap. 1) in 1559. 41. and of Uniformity: Te English Parliament passed the Act of Uniformity (1 Elizabeth I, cap. 2) in 1558. A similar act (2 Elizabeth I, cap.2) was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1559. 42. Premunire: Praemunire is the ofence of asserting or maintaining papal or foreign jurisdiction over the state.

Notes to pages 26–9

317

43. petitio principia: Tis Latin tag can be translated as: ‘begging the question’ or ‘assuming the initial point’. 44. Dissenters: Tat is, those Protestants in Ireland (mainly Presbyterians in Ulster), who would not conform to (or dissented from) the established Church of Ireland. 45. It is difcult to comprehend the wisdom of their junction with the Catholics: Ulster Presbyterians had been very active in the societies of United Irishmen and in the 1798 rebellion. 46. their staple manufacture: the linen industry. 47. a modus for Tythes: Protestant Dissenters in Ireland, like the Roman Catholic majority, resented the fact that they had to pay tithes and other church dues to the established Episcopalian Church of Ireland. It was a grievance that fred popular protest movements from both religious communities. Tere was a major tithe war in Ireland throughout the 1830s that fnally persuaded the Imperial Parliament at Westminster to pass the Tithe Commutation (Ireland) Act in 1838. 48. if the government of their Church were more assimilated to the Church of Scotland: Te established Church of Scotland was Presbyterian not Episcopalian in its organization. 49. Te Peerage would probably, in any plan of Union, be represented like the Scotch peers: All English Protestant peers had the right to sit in the House of Lords. When the Act of Union between England and Scotland was passed in 1707 the English peers had feared the admittance of so many Scottish noblemen and, hence, it was decided that the Scottish peers would elect sixteen of their number at every general election to represent their interests in the British House of Lords. It is clear that already the British government was unwilling to contemplate admitting all Irish Protestant lay peers and bishops to the combined House of Lords should an Act of Union be passed between Britain and Ireland. 50. Tis arrangement would not afect those nobles who are peers of Great Britain: Te monarch could create peers of England, Scotland or Ireland, or (afer the Union of England and Scotland) of Great Britain. A Scot, who was made a peer of Great Britain, could sit in the House of Lords as of right and did not need to be elected as one of the sixteen representative peers. Te Scottish Duke of Queensberry entered the House of Lords as the British Duke of Dover afer the Union of 1707. Tere was a long dispute, however, over whether the Scottish Duke of Hamilton could sit in the House of Lords as of right because of his British peerage as Duke of Brandon. Tis was eventually conceded, and other peers of Great Britain were created by George III. Te eventual Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland allowed twenty-eight lay and four spiritual representative peers from Ireland to sit in the combined House of Lords. Te monarch was, however, still able to create an Irishman thereafer as a peer of the United Kingdom and he could then also sit in the Lords as of right and in addition to the agreed number of twenty-eight representative peers of Ireland. 51. Te spiritual peers: Te bishops in the established Church of Ireland. 52. Te same reasoning will apply to those who have parliamentary infuence in the House of Commons: Some great Irish landowners had very considerable infuence over who could expect to be elected as MPs from the numerous small boroughs in the country. Tis source of patronage was viewed as a property right. Since there was no wish by the British or Irish governments to allow Ireland to retain 300 constituencies in any future united House of Commons, it was recognized that any reduction in this number would infringe a property right and some form of fnancial compensation might have to be considered. Tis was, in fact, done when Union was agreed. 53. Te chief opposition to the measure must be expected fom the Bar: the legal profession.

318

Notes to pages 29–37

54. It is a general habit in the gentlemen of Ireland to educate their sons at the Temple: Irishmen seriously intending a legal career might study frst at Trinity College Dublin and then go on to one of the Inns of Court in London, traditionally the Inner or Middle Temple, for further training in the law. 55. In England there are few lawyers in the House of Commons: Tis was not strictly true, but lawyers formed a larger phalanx in the smaller Irish House of Commons. 56. cui bono: a Latin tag, meaning ‘to whose beneft or advantage’. 57. Land in England, during times of peace, is sold fom thirty to forty years purchase: Tis means that the selling price of land might be what could be gained in renting that land out for that number of years. 58. Te continual insurrections in diferent parts of the country, of White Boys, Oak Boys, Right Boys, Defenders: Tese were all popular and ofen sectarian protest movements of a kind endemic in Irish society. See, for example, J. S. Donnelly, Jr, ‘Hearts of Oak, Hearts of Steel’, Studia Hibernica, 21 (1981), pp. 7–73; J. S. Donnelly, Jr, ‘Te Rightboy Movement 1785–8’, Studia Hibernica, 17–18 (1977–8), pp. 120–202; B. McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and Defenders in the County Armagh’, Seanchas Ardmhaca: Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society, 12:1 (1986), pp. 122–63 and 12:2 (1987), pp. 60–127. 59. the late naval victories: Te author would have had in mind Admiral Duncan’s victory at Camperdown on 11 October 1797 and, even more, Admiral Nelson’s astonishing victory at the Battle of the Nile on 1–2 August 1798. 60. Philadelphia: In the early years of the United States, the American Congress met in Philadelphia. Its frst meeting in the new capital of Washington DC was not held until 17 November 1800. 61. the Volunteers: Te Irish Volunteers, a volunteer defence force, established frst in Ulster in 1778 to defend the country against a possible French invasion, allied with the Patriot opposition in the Irish Parliament and did much to achieve legislative independence for Parliament in 1782, though it failed to persuade Parliament to pass a measure of parliamentary reform. 62. if we had not been degraded by Legislating Privy Councils: Before the Irish Parliament secured legislative independence in 1782, it could only prepare ‘heads of bills’, which required the approval of both the Irish and the British Privy Councils before they could be passed on for the King’s seal of approval. 63. We shall have Irishmen in the originating Cabinet of Great Britain: Public legislative measures originated with a minister in the Cabinet, whereas private and personal legislative measures could be initiated by a backbench MP or peer. 64. our late misfortunes: the Irish rebellion of 1798. 65. the last war: the War of American independence 1775–83. 66. the Revolution: the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9. 67. we could never have procured the Revolution … the Union of Scotland and England could not have been entertained: it was achieved by the Act of Union of 1707. 68. It is certain, that since the independence of the Irish Legislature … by relaxing the Navigation Laws: especially by the commercial concessions made by acts of the Westminster Parliament in 1779–80. 69. Dr. M‘Nevin: William James MacNeven (1763–1841) was a leading United Irishman, who had sought to enlist French support. Arrested in 1798, he agreed by the Kilmainham Treaty with the Irish government to give general evidence on the activities of the United Irishmen in return for which the lives of their leaders would be spared. He was then imprisoned in Fort George, in Scotland, until the peace of Amiens was agreed in

Notes to pages 37–43

319

1802. On his release, he went to Europe, settled for a time in France and then, in 1805, he sailed for the United States, where he spent the rest of his life. 70. Fas est & ab hoste doceri: Tis Latin phrase can be translated as: ‘It is right to learn even from an enemy’. It is from Ovid [Publius Ovidius Naso (43 bc–ad 17/18], Metamorphoses, bk 4, l. 428.

A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar 1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

Edward Mayne: Edward Charles Mayne qualifed as a barrister in 1781 and was one of the barristers who had prosecuted the United Irishmen, Henry and John Sheares, in 1798. J. W. Bell: James William Bell qualifed as a barrister in 1789. Charles Bushe: Charles Kendal Bushe (1767–1843) qualifed as a barrister in 1793. He was MP for Callan and then Donegal Borough 1796–1800. He wrote Te Union: Cease your Funning, a text printed above and also A Letter to William Smith Esq. in Answer to his Address to the People of Ireland in which his Assertion of an Absolute Despotic Power being Acknowledged by our Constitution is Particularly Examined (Dublin, 1799). See HoIP 1692–1800. William Saurin: William Saurin (1757–1839) was born in Belfast of French Huguenot descent. He qualifed as a barrister in 1793 and was briefy MP for Blessington January to August 1800. In 1800, An Accurate Report of the Speech of William Saurin Esq. in the Irish House of Commons on Friday the 21st of February on the Question of a Legislative Union with Great Britain was published in Dublin. He was later Attorney General for Ireland 1807–22. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. H. Joy: Henry Joy qualifed as a barrister in 1788 and was based in Dublin. He should not be confused with the Belfast printers with the same name. W. C. Plunket: William Conyngham Plunket (1764–1854) qualifed as a barrister in 1787 and became a King’s Counsel and was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1830–5 and 1835–41. He was MP for Charlemont 1798–1800. He was created frst Baron Plunket. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. Charles Hamilton: Charles Hamilton qualifed as a barrister in 1794. He was the brother of John Hamilton, below, and shared a Dublin practice with him. He was a member of the Dublin Society and the Royal Irish Academy, and was Receiver of the rents for St Patrick’s hospital. A. C. M‘Cartney: Arthur Chichester McCartney (or Macartney) qualifed as a barrister in 1778 and was a King’s Counsel, recorder for Dundalk, and counsel to the Chief Remembrancer of the Irish Court of Exchequer Ofce. Redmond Barry: Redmond Barry qualifed as a barrister in 1792. J. Jameson: Joseph Jameson qualifed as a barrister in 1778 and was a King’s Counsel. Richard Jebb: Richard Jebb qualifed as a barrister in 1789. He was the author of A Reply to a Pamphlet, entitled, Arguments For and Against an Union (Dublin, 1798). P. Doyne: Peter Doyne qualifed as a barrister in 1787. Peter Burrowes: Peter Burrowes (1753–1841) qualifed as a barrister in 1785 and was a King’s Counsel. He was an early but brief member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen, but was more of a reforming Whig than a radical. He was a friend of Wolfe Tone, but did not agree with his radical views. He was the author of Plain Arguments in Defence of the People’s Absolute Dominion over the Constitution in which the Question of Roman Catholic Enfanchisement is Fully Considered (Dublin, 1784), printed in Volume 3 of this collection. He was briefy MP for Enniscorthy from January to August 1800. He acted

320

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25. 26.

27.

28. 29.

30.

31.

Notes to pages 43–7 as a counsel for Robert Emmet, when the latter was on trial for his life afer his abortive rising of 1803. Tere is an entry on Burrowes in HoIP 1692–1800. R. Lyster: Tere is no mention of an R. Lyster being a barrister in the lists printed in Wilson’s Dublin Directory for the Year 1798. A John Lyster qualifed as a barrister in 1783. John Lloyd: John Lloyd (1737/9–1822) qualifed as a barrister in 1761. He was MP for King’s County and then Innistiogue 1768–97. See HoIP 1692–1800. Gerald O’Farrel: Gerald O’Farrel (or O’Farrall) qualifed as a barrister in 1781. He was General Counsel to the Barrack Board and Chairman of Sessions for County Longford. William Vavasour: William Vavasour qualifed as a barrister in 1775. W. P. Ruxton: William Parkinson Ruxton (1766–1847) qualifed as a barrister in 1789. He was MP for Ardee 1790–7 and 1799–1800. See HoIP 1692–1800. William Sankey: William Sankey (c. 1745–1813) qualifed as a barrister in 1769 and was MP for Philipstown 1790–7. See HoIP 1692–1800. M. J. O’Dwyer: Morgan John O’Dwyer qualifed as a barrister in 1793. T. O’Driscoll: Timothy Driscoll qualifed as a barrister in 1788. Samuel Pendleton: Samuel Pendleton qualifed as a barrister in1791. Eyre Burton Powell: Eyre Burton Powell qualifed as a barrister in 1775. Joshua Spencer: Joshua Spencer qualifed as a barrister in 1784. He was the author of Toughts on an Union (Dublin, 1798), published above, and also A Letter to the Electors of Ireland on the Projected Measure of an Union, with some Friendly Hints to the Borough Patrons of Ireland (Dublin, 1799), A Second Letter to the Electors of Ireland on the Projected Measure of an Union (Dublin, 1799), and A Short Address to the People of Ireland on the Subject of an Union (Dublin, 1799). Beresford Burston: Beresford Burston qualifed as a barrister in 1768, was a King’s Counsel and a commissioner for bankrupts. John Hamilton: John Hamilton qualifed as a barrister in 1791 and practised in Dublin in partnership with his brother Charles, noted above. He was the author of A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq. the Catholic Advocate; in Reply to the Calumnies against the Orange Institution (Dublin, 1799), reproduced on pp. 151–78 above. Jonah Barrington: Jonah Barrington (c. 1757–1834) qualifed as a barrister in 1787 and was a King’s Counsel. He was a Judge in the High Court of Admiralty 1797–1829 and MP for Tuam and then Clogher 1790–1800. He lef Ireland permanently in 1810/11 and devoted himself to writing. He is best known for Personal Sketches of his Own Times (London, 1827–32) and Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation (Paris, 1833). See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. Smith: Ambrose Smith qualifed as a barrister in 1757 and was regarded as the Father of the Bar because he was the longest serving barrister still practising at the Irish Bar. all the Scotch members of both houses opposed the measure, but it was carried against them by the English part of the United Parliament: See Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 6, cols 1216–20; and Holmes and Jones, ‘Trade, the Scots and the Parliamentary Crisis of 1713’. Mr. Locke wrote his Essay on Civil Government, for the purpose of vindicating the principles of our glorious Revolution: Te work written by John Locke (1632–1704) is his Two Treatises of Civil Government, which were actually composed before the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9, but were published subsequent to that revolution. See P. Laslett, Two Treatise of Government: A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970). Te Legislative is not only the supreme power … Legislative which the public has chosen and appointed: Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ch. 11, para 141.

Notes to pages 47–52

321

32. Te Legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws … have no power to transfer their authority of making laws and place it in other hands: Ibid. 33. that very letter which is quoted by the author of a late pamphlet: Te reference here is to George Washington’s ‘Letter to the President of the Continental Congress, 17 September 1787’, which was published in Te Constitution of the United States of America, established March 4, 1789 (London, 1794), p. 21 and which was quoted in Edward Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union, between Great Britain and Ireland, Considered (Dublin 1798), reproduced in this volume, pp. 15–39. 34. a Convention immediately elected fom the people, … without direct authority fom the people: Afer the American Federal Constitution was drafed in 1787 it was submitted for ratifcation to each of the original thirteen states, which summoned specially constituted conventions to accomplish this. 35. If, notwithstanding our immense military force; if, notwithstanding all the zeal and ardour of the Yeomanry, it required three weeks to subdue one thousand French: Te French invasion force, commanded by General Humbert, which surrendered afer the battle of Ballinamuck on 8 September 1798. 36. the English Minister: William Pitt (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. 37. the incorporating policy of France is recommended, as the model for England to / follow in respect to this country: Edward Cooke made this point in his Arguments For and Against An Union, reproduced in this volume, pp. 15–39. 38. Te Irish Bar has already had the honour and the satisfaction of saving this country … by taking the lead in the Yeomanry institution: Te Irish Bar raised its own yeomanry force to combat the Irish rebellion of 1798. 39. Mr. St. George Daly: St George Daly (1758–1829) qualifed as a barrister in 1783. He was MP for Galway Borough 1797–1800. See HoIP 1692–1800. 40. Te encrease to an enormous extent of the principal evil which, for centuries, aficted this country, namely, our absentees: Many Irish commentators lamented the fact that many rich Irish landowners lived in England and spent the income from their Irish estates in England rather than in Ireland and so weakened the Irish economy. 41. and who seemed to think that the highest character in the land, who should asperse them, should be treated as a rebel, and an outcast: Tis is a reference to Henry Grattan (1746–1820), the Irish Patriot, whom some critics accused of being sympathetic to the Irish rebellion of 1798. He became disillusioned with the way events were developing and withdrew from the Irish House of Commons in May 1797 and did not stand in the general election of that year. He was opposed to Union and returned to Parliament in January 1800. 42. Tere is, however, a middle order … as much to facilitate the present enquiry, the Yeomanry: See Blackstock, An Ascendancy Army. 43. the United Irishmen, and the Reformists: Te speaker here probably has in mind those moderate reformers who agreed with Henry Grattan and the Irish Whigs in supporting Catholic emancipation and moderate parliamentary reform. 44. Te illustrious nobleman: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis, was Lord Lieutenant of and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland 1798–1801. 45. Do we forget that assemblies of the people, are under temporary restraints: Tis was as a result of the unlawful assemblies or Convention Act of 1793 (33 George III, cap. 29) passed by the Irish Parliament.

322

Notes to pages 52–4

46. the Habeas Corpus Act is suspended: Habeas corpus was suspended by the Irish Parliament in 1797 (37 George III, cap. 1) and again in 1798 (38 George III, cap. 14), thus allowing prisoners to be held without trial. 47. that extraordinary powers are vested in magistrates: Tis was as a result of Lord Lieutenant Camden’s proclamation of 17 May 1797. 48. that that undefnable monster Martial Law still exists in parts of Ireland: On 30 March 1798, the Irish Privy Council announced the imposition of martial law in Ireland. 49. Mr. Barnes: Tis could be either Tomas Barnes, who qualifed as a barrister in 1789 or George Barnes, who qualifed in 1795. 50. Father Smith, to use the words of a great man, (Mr. Grattan,) the gentleman who spoke last but one: Joseph Jameson, who mentioned that he was descended from Englishmen. 51. it was carried in direct breach of one of the articles of the Union: See note 29 above. 52. a case was decided by the British Parliament in manifest contravention of one of the leading articles of the Union: Te Scottish peer, James Hamilton (1658–1712), fourth Duke of Hamilton, was granted a British peerage as frst Duke of Brandon, but the House of Lords refused to accept that he could sit in their chamber as of right and did not need to be elected as one of the sixteen Scottish representative peers. Hamilton was killed in a duel in 1712, but his heirs fought for many years to be admitted to the House of Lords as of right. See G. S. Holmes, ‘Te Hamilton Afair of 1711–12: A Crisis in Anglo-Scottish Relations’, English Historical Review, 77 (1962), pp. 257–82. 53. in the year 1708–9, their Lordships resolved, as the Scotch Peers wished, that a Scottish Peer becoming a Peer of Great Britain, ceased to have any interest in the Scottish Peerage: In 1708, the Scottish peer, James Douglas (1662–1711), second Duke of Queensberry, was created a British peer as frst Duke of Dover, as a reward for guiding the Union through the Scottish Parliament. It was decided that as he was going to be allowed to sit in the Westminster House of Lords as of right, he should not be able to vote for the sixteen Scottish representative peers. 54. In 1787, they determined the same point, and thereby turned the opposers of Mr. Pitt out of the representation: For the disputes over the election of Scottish representative peers in 1787 and 1793, see G. M. Ditchfeld, ‘Te Scottish Representative Peers and Parliamentary Politics 1787–1793’, Scottish Historical Review, 60 (1981), pp. 14–31. 55. While we had a Kirwan in the Pulpit: Rev. Walter Blake Kirwan (1754–1805) was born into a Catholic family, but entered the ministry of the Church of Ireland and became Dean of Killala in 1787. He was famed for his speaking abilities. See ODNB. 56. a Saurin: See note 4 above. 57. Arguments for and against an Union: Written by Edward Cooke and reproduced in this volume, pp. 15–39. 58. Colonel Edward Westby: Edward Westby qualifed as a barrister in 1779. He was colonel of the lawyers’ corps of Volunteers in 1782. By 1798 he was Master in Chancery and Recorder of Baltinglass. 59. Resolved, Tat the Members of the House of Commons are the representatives of, and derive their power solely from the people, and that a denial of this proposition by them, would be, to abdicate the representation: Tis is a reference to the eforts of the Irish Volunteers to dictate policy to the Irish Parliament, in support of the Patriot demand for legislative independence, afer their Convention of Ulster Volunteers held at Dungannon on 15 February 1782. 60. Chief Baron Hussey Burgh: Walter Hussey Burgh (1742–83), a barrister, was MP for Athy then Trinity College Dublin 1769–82. He was an active Patriot supporting with

Notes to pages 54–64

61.

62. 63.

64. 65. 66.

67.

68.

69. 70. 71.

72.

73.

323

Henry Grattan the cause of free trade and legislative independence. He was appointed Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer in 1782, but died soon afer. See ODNB. Chief Baron Lord Yelverton: Barry Yelverton (1736–1805), frst Baron (from 1795) and frst Viscount Avonmore (from 1800), was an active Patriot 1779–82 and MP for Donegal Borough and then Carrickfergus 1774–83. He was appointed Attorney General 1782 and Chief Baron of the Irish Exchequer in 1783. See ODNB. Mr. Pitt: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806) was Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. Mr. T. Grady: Tomas Grady graduated as a barrister in 1789 and became a JP in County Limerick. He wrote (anonymously), An Impartial View of the Causes Leading this Country to the Necessity of an Union, in which the Two Leading Characters of the State are Contrasted … A Reply to Cease your Funning and Mr Jebb (Dublin, 1799). See notes 3 and 11 above. It has also been suggested that he wrote, A Few Words in Favour of Ireland by way of a Reply to a Pamphlet called ‘An Impartial View of the Causes Leading this Country to the necessity of an Union’ (Dublin, 1799). Tis would suggest he replied to his own work. Tis is possible as he regarded himself as a wit and he had a very chequered career. special demurrer: a legal term. A special demurrer refers to an attack on the form rather than the substance of a charge. animalcule: from the Latin for ‘a little animal’, or a microscopic form of life, almost invisible to the naked eye. Te Rebellion was called the crusade of Popery … we should not have known where to fnd him: Tis is an invented quotation. In March 1799 Pope Pius VI was deposed as ruler of the Papal States and the French removed him to France. He died a prisoner on 29 August 1799. It was difcult for the Roman Catholic cardinals to meet to choose a successor and it was not until 14 March 1800 that a new pope was elected as Pius VII. I know, and the public knows, that he was ofered one of the frst law ofces of the State, an ofer as honourable to Government as to him: William Saurin was ofered the post of Solicitor General of Ireland, but he declined it because he could not support the government’s plans for Union. See the ODNB entry on Saurin. Mr. John Beresford, Jun: Tis is John Claudius Beresford (1766–1846), son of John Beresford (1738–1805). Te father was a frm supporter of the government whereas the son, MP for Swords and then Dublin City 1790–1800, was fercely opposed to Union. See HoIP 1692–1800. the introducing upon the tapis: Te foor of the chamber (meaning in the debate). as yet, has not been propounded: Te bill was not introduced into Parliament until January 1799. that the Parliament of Ireland has by the Constitution a power to form such a Union independent of, and uncontrouled by, the sense of the people of this kingdom: William Cusack Smith, Letters on the Subject of Union, Addressed to Messrs Saurin and Jebb, in which Mr Jebb’s “Reply” is Considered (Dublin, 1799), p. 113. Mr. Goold: Tomas Goold or Gould (1766–1846) qualifed as a barrister in 1791 and was MP for Kilbeggan from January to August 1800 and the author of Address to the People of Ireland on the Subject of the Proposed Union (Dublin, 1799), Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Ireland never can repay … should in the year 1798 be the frst to surrender that independence?: Tis could well be Barry Yelverton (1736–1800), a very able lawyer, who had campaigned for legislative independence in the past, but who now led the eforts in the

324

74. 75. 76. 77. 78.

79. 80. 81. 82. 83.

84. 85. 86. 87. 88.

89. 90. 91.

92.

Notes to pages 64–82 House of Lords to carry the Union bill into law. He lost his reputation for integrity, but was rewarded by being elevated to Viscount Avonmore in 1800. pari delicto: a legal term in Latin meaning ‘in equal fault’, which indicates that two persons or entities are equally at fault. Timeo Danaos, et dona ferentes: Tis Latin phrase can be translated as: ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifs’. It is a quotation from Virgil, Te Aeneid, bk 2, l. 49. Mr. Wm. Bellew: William Bellew was a Catholic barrister, who qualifed in 1792. He was the brother of Sir William Bellew, a Catholic landowner. Mr. Orr: Robert Orr qualifed as a barrister in 1794. Te political and commercial acquirements of the country, fom the year 1753: Te political disputes about an Irish money bill in 1753 saw the beginnings of an efective Patriot opposition to British control over Irish commerce and the Irish Parliament. See McCracken, ‘Te Confict between the Irish Administration and Parliament, 1753–6’; and D. O’Donovan, ‘Te Money Bill Dispute of 1753’, in Penal Law to Golden Age: Essays in Irish History, 1690–1800, ed. T. Bartlett and D. Hayton (Belfast: Ulster Historical Foundation, 1979), pp. 55–87. Mr. Stokes: John W. Stokes qualifed as a barrister in 1785. He was a commissioner of bankrupts. apoths: presumably this is a misprint for ‘apathy’. the ebullitions: a violent outpouring or boiling up. Mr. Geraghty: James Geraghty (or Gerahty) qualifed as a barrister in 1791. As is proved by the Parliamentary report of the proceedings of the United Irishmen: See Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Commons in Ireland (Dublin, 1798) and Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Lords in Ireland (Dublin, 1798), both of which are reproduced in Volume 5, pp. 163–98. Mr. M‘Cleland: James McClelland (1768–1831) qualifed as a barrister in 1790. He was MP for Randalstown 1798–1800. See HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. Leader: No barrister with this surname is listed in any of the 1790s editions of Wilson’s Dublin Directory. A William Leader was a JP for County Cork in 1798. the Hessian: Mercenary troops from the German state of Hesse, who were ofen hired to serve with British forces. or the Highlander: Scottish Highland troops were rushed to Ireland in 1798 to help suppress the rebellion. my authority, however, is a publication, which is ascribed to a gentleman at the head of the military department: Tis is a reference to Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume, written by Edward Cooke, under-Secretary of State in the military division of the Irish executive. coquetted: to coquette is to dally, trife or toy with. this Minister: possibly a misprint for Measure. the afairs of the country were agitated in the English and Irish Parliaments for some months: For the disputes in both parliaments about Pitt’s commercial propositions of 1785, see Kelly, Prelude to Union, pp. 76–209; and Kelly, ‘British and Irish Politics in 1785’, pp. 536–63. No other Executive Director: Tis is a reference to a dominant political or executive leader, with tyrannical ambitions. It could come from knowledge of the French Directory, which governed France from 1795 to 1799. A recent pamphlet, Te Portrait of an Irish Executive Director, by Himself and his Friends (Dublin, 1799) used the term when condemning the recent political actions of the leading United Irishmen (Arthur

Notes to pages 82–7

325

O’Connor, Tomas Addis Emmet, William James MacNeven, etc.), who had saved their lives by agreeing the Kilmainham treaty with the Irish government. 93. Mr. Plunkett: William Conynham Plunket (1764–1854). See note 6 above. 94. the Castle: Dublin Castle was the seat of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Irish executive. 95. Mr. Lynch: M. F. Lynch qualifed as a barrister in 1792. 96. Mr. Francis Dobbs: Francis Dobbs (1750–1811) qualifed as a barrister in 1775. He was MP for Charlemont 1798–1800. He had been very active in support of the Irish Volunteers and the eforts to secure legislative independence for the Irish Parliament in 1782. His pamphlet, Toughts on the Conduct and Continuation of the Volunteers of Ireland (Dublin, 1783) is reproduced in Volume 3. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 97. Mr. Webber: Daniel Webb Webber qualifed as a barrister in 1788. He was chairman of the sessions for County Sligo. 98. Wm. RIDGEWAY: William Ridgeway (1765–1817) qualifed as a barrister in 1790. He joined the Dublin Society of United Irishmen in 1792, but played no active part in its activities. He was a law reporter and civil lawyer and the author of Reports of Cases upon Appeals and Writs of Error in the High Court of Parliament in Ireland, 3 vols (Dublin, 1795). See ODNB. 99. R. G. Leslie: Robert Grove Leslie qualifed as a barrister in 1792. 100. Tomas Scott: Tomas Purdon Scott qualifed as a barrister in 1779. 101. William Smith: William Cusack Smith (1766–1836) qualifed as a barrister in 1788 and became a King’s Counsel. He was MP for Lanesborough and then Donegal Borough 1794–1800. He spoke and wrote in support of the Union. See note 71 above. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 102. P. F. Henchy: Peter FitzGibbon Hinchy (not Henchy) qualifed as a barrister in 1797. 103. Tomas Monsell: Tomas Monsell qualifed as a barrister in 1788. He was Chairman of Sessions for County Fermanagh. 104. J. Keller: John Keller qualifed as a barrister in 1779. 105. C.K. Garnett: Courtney K. Garnett qualifed as a barrister in 1792. 106. Henry Brook: Henry Brooke qualifed as a barrister in 1796. 107. John White: John White qualifed as a barrister in 1784. He was captain of the Uppercross yeomanry, a magistrate, and had called for Dublin City to be proclaimed in May 1798. 108. Robert Torrens: No man of this name is listed in Wilson’s Dublin Directory as a barrister. 109. William Johnson: William Johnson qualifed as a barrister in 1785. 110. Archibald Redford: Archibald Redford qualifed as a barrister in 1787. 111. F. W. Fortescue: F. William Fortescue qualifed as a barrister in 1796. 112. Richard F. Sharkey: Richard F. Sharkey qualifed as a barrister in 1788. 113. William Turner: William Turner qualifed as a barrister in 1787. 114. J. D. Clarke: John David Clarke qualifed as a barrister in1793. 115. John Schoales: John Scholes (not Schoales) qualifed as a barrister in 1792. 116. Tomas Morgell: Tomas Morgell qualifed as a barrister in 1794. 117. J. Homan: Tis could be Isaac Homan who qualifed as a barrister in 1792 or J. Hogan who qualifed as a barrister in 1791. 118. Wm. Longfeld: William Longfeld qualifed as a barrister in 1794. 119. W. Norcott: William Norcott qualifed as a barrister in1797. 120. Tomas Vickers: Tomas Vickers qualifed as a barrister in 1795. 121. John Ball, Jun: John Ball, Junior, qualifed as a barrister in 1795. 122. Henry Cole: Henry Cole qualifed as a barrister in 1795.

326

Notes to pages 87–92

123. John Dwyer, Jun: John Dwyer, Junior, qualifed as a barrister in 1796. 124. William Roper: William Roper qualifed as a barrister in 1794. 125. John Beresford: John Beresford qualifed as a barrister in 1761. He was MP for County Waterford 1761–1800 and a prominent member of the Irish executive, serving for many years in the revenue and treasury departments. He was a friend of Prime Minister Pitt and, unlike his son, John Claudius Beresford, above, he strongly supported Union. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800.

[Bushe], Te Union. Cease Your Funning 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11.

12.

13.

Oh that mine Enemy would write a Book!: Book of Job 31: 35. Lord Shafesbury: Anthony Ashley Cooper (1671–1713), third Earl of Shafesbury, a philosopher tutored by John Locke. ridicule is the test of truth: Shafesbury, Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, 4 vols (London, 1758), vol. 1, p. 42. See also A. O. Aldridge, ‘Shafesbury and the Test of Truth’, PMLA, 60 (1945), pp. 129–56. a pamphlet entitled Arguments for and against an Union considered: [Edward Cooke], Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. Swif’s: Jonathan Swif (1667–1745), Irish clergyman, political and satirical pamphleteer, and author of Gulliver’s Travels. Alderman George Faulkner: George Faulkner (1703–75) was a Dublin publisher and bookseller. He had a publishing relationship with Swif. He published an infuential newspaper, Faulkner’s Dublin Journal. He became a Dublin alderman in 1771. argumentum ad absurdum: a Latin term, meaning a logical fallacy, disproving an argument by showing that a false result follows from its denial, or reducing an argument to absurdity (like reductio ad absurdum). an English gentleman of considerable talents who is an Irish member of Parliament, and in high ofcial situation in Dublin Castle: Edward Cooke (1755–1820), although an Englishman, was an Irish MP for Liford, then Old Leighlin, 1789–1800. He served as under-Secretary of State in the military and then the civil division of the Irish executive 1789–1801. He actively supported Chief Secretary Castlereagh in promoting Union. Dublin Castle was the seat of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and of the Irish executive. latet anguis in Herbâ: a Latin phrase that can be translated as: ‘a snake in the grass’. in every number of the Press: Te Press was a newspaper established in Dublin by Arthur O’Connor to support the United Irishmen afer the Northern Star of Belfast had been suppressed. and Union Star: Te Union Star was a low circulation, ultra-radical Dublin news-sheet, ofen posted up in public places. It specialized in naming informers and Orangemen. It was published by Walter Cox and infuenced by Arthur O’Connor. Doctor M’Nevin: Dr William James MacNeven (1763–1841) was a prominent member of the Dublin United Irishmen, who had sought French assistance for a rising. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned until 1802 and then banished. He went to Europe, then emigrated to the United States. See ODNB. Arthur O’Connor: Arthur O’Connor (1763–1852) was a prominent member of the Dublin United Irishmen and a member of the supreme executive. He was an Irish MP for Philipstown 1790–5. He sought French assistance for an armed rising. He was arrested in 1798, imprisoned until 1802 and then settled in France and became a French citizen. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. See also C. D. Conner,

Notes to pages 92–5

14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24. 25. 26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

327

Arthur O’Connor: Te Most Important Irish Revolutionary You May Never Have Heard Of (New York: iUniverse, 2009); and J. H. Hames, Arthur O’Connor: United Irishman (Cork: Collins, 2001). his Majesty: George III, king from 1760 to 1820. Lord Cornwallis: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis, was Lord Lieutenant and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland 1798–1801. He crushed the Irish rebellion and defeated the French invading forces, and secured Union. Lord Camden: John Jefreys Pratt (1759–1840), second Earl of Camden, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1795–8. non sequitur: a Latin tag meaning ‘it does not follow’; referring to an illogical statement. these representative delinquents: a criticism of Irish MPs. jesuitically: derived from the Roman Catholic Society of Jesus, it refers to ‘subtle casuistry’. France has not only united to herself … almost all the smaller states which surround her: Tis is a quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. Geneva is incorporated … this side of the Rhine are incorporated, Spain is subject: Ibid. the Great Nation: a term ofen applied to France. one and indivisible. – Vide page 9: another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. Charles Kendal Bushe, however, used an edition of Cooke reprinted in London for J. Wright, in December 1798. Te king of England resides in another kingdom … nor can this inconvenience cease whilst afairs remain as at present: Ibid. Swif’s hospital: On his death in 1745, Jonathan Swif bequeathed money to found a hospital for imbeciles. It was set up as St Patrick’s Hospital in Dublin in 1747. the said parliament counteracted the interests of the empire upon the questions of the Regency, and Commercial Propositions: On the Regency question of 1789 and Pitt’s Commercial Propositions of 1785, see the following texts included in Volume 3 of this collection: [Sheridan], Free Toughts of the Present Crisis (1785), pp. 219–57; A Letter fom the Secretary of State to the Mayor of Cork (1785), pp. 261–79; Toughts on the Kingdom of Ireland (1785), pp. 301–6; An Address to the Independent Members of the House of Commons of Ireland (1789), pp. 331–40; and Common Sense, in Vindication of His Excellency the Marquis of Buckingham (1789), pp. 343–56. the well known author of Hurdy Gurdy, and the Old Lion of England: William Sampson (1764–1836) was a radical United Irishman and a satirist. A Protestant barrister he helped defend many United Irishmen. He was forced into exile in 1798. He was imprisoned in Lisbon, expelled, and travelled to France, Germany, England, and then to New York in 1806. He was the author of A Faithful Report of the Trial of Hurdy-Gurdy, at the Bar of the Court of King’s Bench, Westminster, on the —, of —, 1794 (Belfast, 1794) and Review of the Lion of Old England; or Te Democracy Confounded (Belfast, 1794). Tere is an entry on him in the ODNB. See also, M. H. Tuente, ‘“Te Belfast Laugh”: Te Context and Signifcance of United Irish Satires’, in Revolution, Counter-Revolution and Union: Ireland in the 1790s, ed. J. Smyth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 67–82. my Lord Cornwallis, than by opposing the wisest measure of his government, and by making a travesty and caricature of his Secretary: Cornwallis’s Chief Secretary from 1798 to 1801 was Robert Stewart (1767–1822), who held the courtesy title Viscount Castlereagh. He was MP for County Down 1790–1800. He was later a notable Foreign Secretary. the Seven United Provinces: that is, the Dutch Netherlands. to the Sabines: an Italic tribe of central Italy, which was eventually conquered by and assimilated into the Roman Republic.

328

Notes to pages 95–9

31. If any person has a son, uneducated, unimproved, and injured by bad habits and bad company … of his fnally turning out to his credit and satisfaction. – (Vide page 8.): another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. 32. John Toler (1741–1831) was MP for Tralee, Philipstown and then Gorey 1771–1800. He was Solicitor General 1789–98, Attorney General 1798–1800, then Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas 1800–27. He was created frst Earl of Norbury in 1800. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 33. bagatelle: a short, light piece of verse or music. 34. non tali auxilio: Tis is Latin for ‘not with such allies’. 35. existence of the Irish Parliament constitutes a disunited state … disunion should be closed, then, &c. &c. – (Vide page 9.): Another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. 36. rerum natura : Latin for ‘in the nature of things’. 37. Judas: Judas was the disciple who betrayed Jesus; a betrayal which led to his crucifxion. 38. ipso facto: a Latin tag meaning ‘by the fact itself ’. 39. Tis Man in the Mask: Tis is a reference to a French prisoner (who died in 1703), whose identity was hidden by an iron mask. In 1771, Voltaire claimed that he was the older, illegitimate half-brother of Louis XIV. Te story inspired many later novels and flms. 40. Te Corsican gem dropped out of the British Crown almost as soon as it was set there: During the French Revolution Corsica proclaimed its independence from France in 1794. It became a kingdom in personal union with Great Britain and established a parliament. Sir Gilbert Elliot (1751–1814) served as viceroy. Te island returned to French rule in 1796. 41. Mercia: Mercia was one of the original Anglo-Saxon kingdoms of the Heptarchy. 42. ad infnitum: Tis Latin tag can be translated as: ‘to infnity’, meaning ‘to the end of time’. 43. Q.E.D.: an abbreviation for the Latin tag, Quod erat demonstrandum, which can be translated as: ‘what had to be demonstrated (or proved)’. 44. Washington: George Washington (1732–99), the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the War of American Independence and frst President of the United States 1789–97. 45. Adams: John Adams (1735–1826), the second President of the United States 1797– 1801. 46. Holt: Joseph Holt (1756–1826) was a commander of United Irishmen forces leading the rebellion in County Wicklow in 1798. He was exiled to Australia in 1799. See ODNB. 47. two rebellions: Tis is a reference to the two Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, which were principally based in Scotland. 48. Muir: Tomas Muir (1765–99) was a Scottish radical, who promoted parliamentary reform in the early 1790s. He was convicted of sedition in 1793 and transported to Botany Bay, in Australia. He escaped in 1796 and had amazing adventures before arriving in France, having circumnavigated the globe. He died in France. I wrote the entry on him in the ODNB. 49. Palmer: Tomas Fyshe Palmer (1747–1802) was an Englishman, who engaged in radical activity in Scotland. He was convicted of sedition in 1793 and transported to Botany Bay. He died on his way home, having served his sentence. See ODNB. 50. that it is a consummation devoutly to be wished: Cooke was here quoting from Hamlet’s famous soliloquy, ‘To be or not to be’, in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, III.i. 51. the Constitution is a Gordian Knot: Tis refers to an intractable problem. It is associated with a legend about the famous Macedonian general and king, Alexander the Great

Notes to pages 99–102

52.

53. 54.

55. 56. 57.

58. 59. 60.

61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

68. 69.

70. 71.

72.

329

(356–323 bc). Failing to solve the problem of how to untie the knot of Gordium, Alexander cut it through with his sword. Besides, your True Blue politics: Tis is a reference to staunch loyalism. It derives from a blue cloth made in Coventry in the late middle ages, whose colour would not fade even afer multiple washings. Who will be a guarantee of that system … the kingdoms remain separate: Tese are further quotations from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union. groom porter: A groom porter was originally a court ofcial, whose duties included inspecting the king’s lodgings and also having oversight of gaming halls in London. Te ofce was abolished in 1782 and thereafer it came to mean the owner or operator of a gaming hall. a sharper: a card-sharp or cheat. looking over, and advising one hand: A card-player holding a hand of cards. an Auctionier, setting the blessings of an Union up to a puf auction: An auction in which false bids are made in order to drive up the price that needs to be ofered by someone who genuinely wishes to purchase what is being auctioned. divide & impera: a Latin term meaning ‘divide and rule’. Ave-Maria-lane: a street in the City of London. nine-tenths of the property of Ireland … British assistance for the preservation of their property and existence: Another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union. the Catholics would lose the advantage of the argument of numbers which they at present enjoy: Ibid. Anabaptists: Te Anabaptists were radical Protestants, who rejected infant baptism and wanted adults to choose freely when to be baptized. Every state ought to establish that religious sect which is most numerous: Another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union. the heir apparent to the crown: George, Prince of Wales (1762–1830), who became Prince Regent from 1811 and George IV from 1820. the preceptor: a teacher or instructor. It does not follow, that if an Union were made … administered more impartially: Another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union. Major Sirr: Henry Charles Sirr (1764–1841) was chief of police or town major of Dublin from 1798. He and the others listed here had been very active in arresting Lord Edward Fitzgerald in May 1798. He was also instrumental in arresting Robert Emmet in 1803. He retired to the police magistrates’ bench in 1808. See ODNB. Inspector Shee: George Shee was one of the ofcers working in the Dublin police ofce under Sirr. He was active in arresting Irish rebels in both 1798 and 1803. Mr. Gregg: Tresham Gregg was the senior of the two gaolers of Newgate prison at this time; Richard Cox was the other. He helped arrest Samuel Neilson in 1798. He was suspended for a time in 1801 for refusing to live in the gaol. In 1802, he delivered the wrong prisoner for execution. Newgate: the prison in Dublin, not the one of the same name in London. Mr. Justice Swan: William Bellingham Swan (d. 1837) was deputy town major in Dublin, a JP in several counties, and inspector-general of excise. He had helped arrest the Leinster Directory in 1798 and was also involved in the arrest of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. he who proves too much proves nothing: Tis is a medieval adage (in Latin, ‘quid nimis probat; nihil probat’), which means a logical fallacy.

330

Notes to pages 102–6

73. the encreased numbers of imperial senators: Te increased number of members of the Imperial Parliament at Westminster created as a result of the Act of Union of 1800. 74. de bene esse: a Latin tag meaning ‘to be well done’ (that is, something done for the present, provisionally or conditionally). 75. As to a time of war … we should turn against them their own game, and make use of a time of war, to establish its security: Another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union. 76. the Volunteers: Te Irish Volunteers were a volunteer defence force frst created in Ulster in 1778 to meet the danger of a possible French invasion because Ireland was denuded of regular troops needed to fght abroad in the War of American Independence. Tey spread across Ireland and recruited Catholics as well as Protestants. Tey soon became very active in the campaign for the legislative independence of Ireland which was achieved in 1782. Te more radical corps became interested in achieving Catholic emancipation and parliamentary reform, but failed to achieve these objectives. 77. Lord Chancellor: John FitzGibbon (1748–1802), frst Earl of Clare, was Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. He supported Union. 78. To demonstrate (says he) to the Clergy the advantage of an Union, would be lost labour indeed. (Vide page 37): Another quotation from Cooke’s Arguments For and Against an Union. 79. And yet, (in page 56) he afects to give as the 8th Article of the Union, an arrangement with respect to tythes: Ibid. 80. In one and the same page (32,): Ibid. 81. they will be amply recompenced by the security given to their Diocesan Estates, and to the general interests of the Church: Ibid. 82. like the dog in the manger: Tere are many sources for the story of the dog, which lies in a manger, deciding not to eat the grain there, but preventing the hungry horse from eating it either. 83. this unfortunate Scribe: Tat is, Edward Cooke, author of Arguments For and Against an Union. 84. I remember on the debate of the Irish Propositions in the English House of Commons: Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger tried to negotiate a commercial agreement with Ireland in 1785, but his propositions ran into ferce opposition in both Ireland and Britain. See Kelly, Prelude to Union, pp. 76–209; and Kelly. ‘British and Irish Politics in 1785’, pp. 536–63. 85. Mr. Fox: Charles James Fox (1749–1806), the leading Whig opposition politician and great rival of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger. 86. I would not give the Commerce of England for the Constitution of Ireland: It is not the thing I wish to purchase, nor the price I wish to pay: Fox made this comment on 22 February 1785 when opposing Pitt’s Commercial Propositions. See Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 25, col. 778. 87. is to be the salvation of the country: For the barristers opposing Union, see A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar, on Sunday, the 9th of December 1798, on the Subject of the Union (Dublin, 1799), reproduced in this volume. 88. (ex cathedra): a Latin term, which translates literally as ‘from the chair’, meaning an authoritative statement, such as one issued by a pope or bishop. 89. Of our 300 members: Tere were 300 members in the Irish House of Commons. 90. Mr. Saurin: William Saurin (1757–1839), was a leading barrister, captain of the yeomanry of the Irish Bar from 1796, a staunch Protestant and a leading opponent of Union. He was

Notes to pages 106–8

331

MP for Blessington January to August 1800 and spoke against Union. Despite this, he became Attorney General of Ireland 1807–22. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 91. Mr. Duquery: Henry Duquery (1749–1804) was Irish MP for Armagh City and then Rathcormack 1790–7. He qualifed as a barrister in 1774 and was a King’s Counsel. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 92. Mr. Fletcher: William Fletcher (1750–1823) was Irish MP for Tralee 1795–7. He qualifed as a barrister in 1778 and was a King’s Counsel. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 93. Mr. Plunket: William Conyngham Plunket (1764–1854) was MP for Charlemont 1798–1800. Another able barrister and a King’s Counsel, he became Solicitor General at the end of 1803, Attorney General in 1805 and Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1830. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 94. Lords Kilwarden: Arthur Wolfe (1739–1803), frst Viscount Kilwarden, was an Irish MP for Coleraine, Jamestown and then Dublin City 1783–98. He became Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in Ireland in 1798. He was murdered by a mob in Dublin, during Robert Emmet’s abortive rising of 1803. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 95. and Carleton: Hugh Carleton (1739–1826), frst Baron and then frst Viscount Carleton, was Irish MP for Tuam, Philipstown and then Naas 1772–87 and then Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 96. Judges Downes: William Downes (1751–1826), frst Baron Downes, was Irish MP for Donegal Borough 1790–2 and then a Justice of the King’s Bench in Ireland from 1792. He succeeded Kilwarden as Chief Justice in 1803. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 97. Chamberlaine: [William] Tankerville Chamberlayne (1752–1802) was MP for Clonmines 1791–3. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 98. Smith: Michael Smith (1740–1808) was Irish MP for Randalstown 1783–93, a Baron of the Exchequer 1793–1801, and Master of the Rolls in Ireland 1801–6. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 99. George: Denis George (d. 1821) was a baron (that is, a judge) of the Irish Court of Exchequer from 1794. He served on the trial of the Sheares brothers in 1798 and on the trial of Robert Emmet in 1803. 100. Lord Yelverton: Barry Yelverton (1736–1805) was Irish MP for Donegal Borough and then Carrickfergus 1774–83, when he was active in securing Irish legislative independence. He was appointed Attorney General in 1782–3, then Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer in 1783. He supported Union and was created frst Viscount Avonmore in 1800. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. 101. Nisi Prius: a Latin legal term, ‘unless frst’, referring to all legal actions tried before the judges of the Court of King’s Bench or the court which originally tried the case. 102. Lord Clare: Tat is, John FitzGibbon, frst Earl of Clare, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1789–1802. 103. Te bar must have observed instances of young adventurers fom another nation: a reference to Edward Cooke, himself, who was an Englishman. 104. Bantry Bay: a French force under General Lazare Hoche made a brief landing at Bantry Bay in December 1796. 105. Hinc illæ lacrymæ: Tis Latin phrase can be translated as: ‘Hence these tears’. 106. Tis must multiply foreclosure causes: a procedure by which the holder of a mortgage – an interest in land providing security for the performance of a duty or the payment of a debt – sells the property upon the failure of the debtor to pay the mortgage debt and, thereby, terminates his or her rights in the property.

332

Notes to pages 108–17

107. Rus in Urbe: Latin, meaning ‘a country (or a rural setting) in the city’. 108. Earl of Meath’s liberty: John Chambre Brabazon (1772–1851) succeeded his brother as tenth Earl of Meath in 1797. His ‘liberty’ was property on which he had been granted particular immunities, privileges or rights. 109. Rousseau: Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–78), the great Swiss philosopher. 110. ergo: Latin for ‘therefore’. 111. Oliver Cromwell: Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), a leading general in the English civil wars and Lord Protector 1653–8, during the Republic. 112. the Long Parliament perpetuated itself by a vote: Tis was done by ‘An Act against dissolving Parliament without its own consent, 10 May 1641’ (17 Charles I, cap. 7) – hence not during ‘the reign of Oliver Cromwell’. 113. multo fortiori: a Latin term that can be translated as: ‘by far the stronger reason’. 114. Tat during the successive reigns of various Viceroy’s, no English secretary: Most Lords Lieutenant of Ireland were English noblemen and they very ofen appointed an Englishman as their chief secretaries. 115. amiable young nobleman of our own nation: Tis is a reference to Robert Stewart (1769– 1822), known by his courtesy title of Lord Castlereagh, who was born in Ireland, the son of an Irish peer, and who served as Cornwallis’s Chief Secretary 1798–1801. 116. “Tat his Majesty’s Attorney General, the Rt. Hon. John Toler: See note 32 above. 117. Captain Taylor: Herbert Taylor (1775–1839), who was later private secretary to George III and William IV and to several other members of the royal family. See ODNB.

McKenna, A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1.

2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

Sed mea me fata et tristia oracula Divum His mersere malis: Tis is a made up quotation, but it is largely derived from Virgil, Te Aeneid, bk 6, ll. 511–12 and bk 8, l. 131. Te Latin can be translated as: ‘But me, my fate and the sad oracles of the Gods, have been overwhelmed by these evil deeds’. fduciary: A legal term, ‘fduciary’ means ‘held in trust’. their co-estate the crown: Tis is a reference to Britain’s (and Ireland’s) mixed government and balanced constitution made up of monarch, House of Lords and House of Commons. habeas corpus: Te famous Habeas Corpus Act was passed in England in 1679 (31 Charles II, cap. 2) and a similar act was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1782 (21&22 George III, cap. 11). Both acts required that when a writ of habeas corpus was sought, a sherif or other magistrate must explain why someone had been arrested and on what charge he or she would be brought to trial. It was an essential civil liberty preventing imprisonment without trial. the confederacy: that is, the British Parliament. that Colossus: Te Colossus of Rhodes was a huge statue of the Greek Titan, Helios, which stood astride the entrance to the harbour of Rhodes. It was erected between 292 and 280 bc to celebrate the victory Rhodes had gained over Cyprus. was among the delusions of that credulous and deservedly-unfortunate party: the United Irishmen. the Dublin Journal: Tis is a reference to George Faulkner’s the Dublin Journal, which was sometimes referred to as Faulkner’s Journal.

Notes to pages 117–20 9.

10. 11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

333

it exactly resembles the loyalty of a chained tyger to his keeper!!: Tis is a quotation from a letter written by a barrister in Faulkner’s Journal. See A Letter fom Richard Burke, Esq. to **** ****Esq. of Cork (Dublin, 1792), p. 4. the Minister: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. the Commercial Propositions: Prime Minister Pitt ofered Commercial Propositions to Ireland in 1785, which he believed would improve the commerce of both nations, but majority opinion in both countries ultimately rejected these. See Kelly, Prelude to Union, pp. 76–209; and Kelly, ‘British and Irish Politics in 1785’, pp. 536–63. Scotland had a popular and a fashionable religion: For more than a century afer the Scottish Reformation there was serious confict as to whether the established church should be organized on an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian system. Te crown and the elite tended to favour the former and the majority of the people the latter. Te Presbyterian system fnally triumphed in 1690. the heritable jurisdictions: In the highlands of Scotland clan chiefs exercised jurisdiction on an hereditary basis. Tis system was abolished in 1746 by the Heritable Jurisdictions (Scotland) Act (20 George II, cap. 43). the Rebellions of 1715, and 1745: Tis is a reference to the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1715, most dangerous in Scotland, which sought to restore the Old Pretender, James Francis Stuart (1688–1766), to the thrones of his father, James II and VII, who had lost his crowns by the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Orange Lodges: Te Orange Order (named afer William of Orange, the Protestant hero) was created by militant Protestant Peep O’ Day Boys in late 1795 afer a skirmish with Catholic Defenders in County Armagh. During the troubled later 1790s Orange lodges spread widely, enlisting Protestants anxious to defeat rebellion and oppose radical reform or further concessions to Roman Catholics. See J. Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery: Te Origins of the Orange Order’, History Ireland, 3:3 (1995), pp. 48–53. Te Rules and Regulations of the Orange Societies are printed in Volume 5 of this collection. the University: Trinity College Dublin was the only university in Ireland at this time. Only students who were members of the established Church of Ireland were admitted. Ty great name, Nassau, Who stamp’d the bless’d deed of Liberty and Law: Nassau is a reference to William III (1650–1702), king from 1689, who was both Prince of Orange and Prince of Nassau. Te lines of poetry are from William Haley’s An Essay on History; in Tree Epistles to Edward Gibbon, Esq. (Dublin, 1781), epistle 2, ll. 414–15, on p. 39. John Wesley: John Wesley (1703–91), the founder of the Methodist movement, was widely regarded as a religious fanatic at this time because he ofen preached in the open air and could whip his large congregations into considerable fts of enthusiasm. Lord George Gordon: Lord George Gordon (1751–93) was a militant Scottish Protestant, who whipped up immense hostility to Catholic relief measures favoured by the British Parliament in the late 1770s. He persuaded very large numbers to sign petitions against Catholic relief and to surround Parliament in an efort to intimidate MPs. His actions also provoked the Gordon Riots of June 1780, which were among the worst disorders experienced by London at any time during the eighteenth century. He was imprisoned, converted to Judaism and died insane. With all their faults, the persons, who projected this late wanton insurrection: Tat is, the leaders of the United Irishmen, whom McKenna does not hold responsible for the murderous actions of some rebels in Wexford and Mayo in 1798.

334

Notes to pages 120–5

21. rich men “may fourish and may fade,”: Oliver Goldsmith (c. 1728–74), Te Deserted Village, ll. 52–3. 22. the Gentoo: a word commonly used for the Hindus of India. 23. a wise Prince: George III, king from 1760 to 1820. 24. the Romish communion acted!: Leading members of both the Catholic laity and the Catholic clergy printed their disagreement with the Irish rebellion of 1798 and declared their loyalty to George III and the constitution. See Archbishop Troy’s Pastoral Instruction (1798) and the Proclamation signed by Catholic laymen and clergy in 1798, both printed in Volume 5. 25. a factious band agree / To call it Freedom, if themselves be fee: Tis is a slightly inaccurate quotation from Oliver Goldsmith’s poem, ‘Te Traveller’, which can be found in Te Miscellaneous Works of Dr. Goldsmith (London, 1778), p. 186. 26. Dr. Adam Smith: Adam Smith (1723–90), the great Scottish philosopher and political economist. 27. He attributes the prosperity of England … a good measure by their election privileges: Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 3 vols (Dublin, 1776), vol. 2, p. 174. 28. Here let me add one word, called for by the construction I put on a pamphlet: Tis is a reference to Edward Cooke’s pamphlet, Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. 29. I assert this fact in contradiction to the State Prisoners: Leading United Irishmen, including Arthur O’Connor, Tomas Addis Emmet, William James MacNeven, Samuel Neilson, etc. 30. the Committee of Parliament: See Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Commons in Ireland (21 August 1798) and Report fom the Committee of Secrecy of the House of Lords in Ireland (30 August 1798), both printed in Volume 5 of this collection. 31. Te whole continent of America was in open hostility at the time that liberal terms of accommodation were proposed: Te American War of Independence had broken out in 1775 and the Declaration of Independence had been signed in 1776 before Admiral and General Howe in 1776 and later the Carlisle Commission of 1778 attempted to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Britain and her rebellious American colonies. 32. Deists: Men who believed in a God based on natural religion and on reason and who did not believe in the divinity of Jesus. 33. the principal person in point of dignity of the Catholic party: probably a reference to Arthur James Plunkett (1759–1836), eighth Earl of Fingall from 1793. He led his yeomanry in defeating the rebels at Tara Hill in 1798. 34. about two thousand fve hundred Catholic Priests, who are in Ireland, collected fve and twenty in the diferent rebellions: On the small proportion of Catholic clergy active in the 1798 rebellion, see D. Keogh, ‘Te French Disease’: Te Catholic Church and Irish Radicalism 1790–1800 (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1993). 35. most like what Mr. Bruce relates of Abyssinia: S. Shaw, An Interesting Narrative of the Travels of James Bruce, Esq. into Abyssinia, to Discover the Source of the Nile. Abridged fom the Original Work (London, 1790). 36. Te Gallic Reformer: French revolutionaries. 37. See their Clergy march before them … And calling on to blood and slaughter: a slightly diferent version can be found in ‘Crops, quite exercising pikey’, in Constitutional Songs ([Dublin, 1798]), p. 72. See A Collection of Constitutional Songs, 2 vols (Cork, 1799– 1800), vol. 1, p. 66. 38. these Clubists: Members of the Orange lodges.

Notes to pages 126–35

335

39. Tis world was made for Cesar: An allusion to the advice of Jesus, ‘Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s’, Matthew 22:21. 40. the great William?: William of Orange (1650–1702), King William III from 1689. 41. young men at the Bar: Members of the legal profession admitted to the Bar, that is the professional association of barristers allowed to plead in the law courts. 42. Fielding: Henry Fielding (1707–54), initially a playwright and then more famous as a prolifc novelist. See ODNB. 43. demand such an alteration in the Parliamentary Constitution, as will give their numbers proportionate power: Tis is a quotation from Cooke’s, Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. It can be found on p. 24 of the eighth edition (p. 23 here). 44. any new Parliamentary Test Oath should be formed to admit the jurisdiction of the Pope: Ibid., p. 27. 45. admitting the Catholics to seats in the Legislature, and retaining the present Parliamentary Constitution: Ibid., p. 29. 46. the disposition to Jacobinism: Tis is a reference to those Irish radicals, the United Irishmen, who were infuenced by the French revolutionaries, such as Danton and Robespierre, who belonged to the Jacobin Club in Paris. 47. Pacha, Beys, and Mamelukes: Pashas and Beys were high ofcials or provincial governors in the Ottoman Empire; Mamelukes were originally slave soldiers, but they ruled Egypt in the middle ages and were powerful there until 1811. 48. Cromwell: Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658), the dominant fgure in the English Republic, crushed the Irish rebellion in a ruthless campaign, which he personally led 1649–51.

An Old Friend, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland 1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

I heard with disgust a few days ago … the Catholics were unanimous in favour of an Union: Tomas Grady’s speech in A Report of the Debate of the Irish Bar (Dublin, 1799), printed above. His speech is on pp. 23–30 of the original text. Read the work of the ministerial advocate for an Union: Tis is a reference to Arguments For and Against an Union. Tis pro-Union pamphlet is printed above in this volume. It was published anonymously, but it was soon very widely known that it was the work of Edward Cooke (1755–1820), an Englishmen, who had long held minor ministerial ofce in the Irish government. He was under-Secretary of State for the military department 1789–96 and for the civil department 1796–1801, and a very close ally of Chief Secretary Castlereagh. He resigned with Castlereagh in 1801, when Prime Minister Pitt also resigned over the failure to secure Catholic emancipation. Whilst Ireland continues a separate kingdom … secret ill-wisher to the government: Tis can be found in the eighth edition of Cooke’s pamphlet, the edition printed above, at pp. 26–7. Who will be a guarantee … the policy of this system is much doubted by the people of England: Ibid., pp. 56–7. Lord Cornwallis: Charles Cornwallis (1738–1805), second Earl and frst Marquess Cornwallis, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Commander-in-Chief in Ireland 1798–1801. Lord Fitzwilliam: William Wentworth Fitzwilliam (1748–1833), fourth Earl Fitzwilliam, who was very briefy Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in 1795. He was recalled because he was too sympathetic to Roman Catholic emancipation and had alienated some leading members of the Protestant political elite in the Irish Parliament.

336 7.

Notes to pages 135–42 that they would not accept of Emancipation upon the terms of an Union: Te Roman Catholic Committee met at Francis Street in Dublin on 27 February 1795 and drew up addresses to Henry Grattan and to Fitzwilliam.

Collis, An Address to the People of Ireland, on the Projected Union 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

Henry the Second: Henry II (1133–89) reigned as king of England from 1154. His forces invaded Ireland in 1169 and he himself landed in Ireland in 1171 and established his dominance in the country without achieving absolute control. Elizabeth’s: Elizabeth I (1533–1603) reigned as queen of England from 1558. She had to deal with revolts by Irish noblemen and sought by military conquest to restore her claim to rule Ireland. she made an act of Parliament: Te Wool Act of 1696 (7&8 William III, cap. 28). More damaging was the woollen act of 1698 (11 William III, cap. 3). an act: Te Wool Act passed by the Irish Parliament in 1698 (10 William III, cap. 5) laid a duty on Irish exports. and in the reigns of William and Anne, emigrated to the number of near twelve thousand, establishing the woollen manufacture in that country: See W. Cunningham, ‘Te Repression of the Woollen Manufacture in Ireland’, English Historical Review, 1 (1886), pp. 277–94. by an act of George the First: Te famous Declaratory Act of 1720 (6 George I, cap. 5), which the Irish Patriots fnally succeeded in persuading the Westminster Parliament to repeal in 1782. the following picture of your country at the close of the year 1781: Tat is, before Ireland secured legislative independence in 1782 by compelling the Westminster Parliament to repeal the Declaratory Act of 1720. tabinets: a watered fabric of silk and wool, resembling poplin, chiefy associated with Ireland. armed body of patriots: Te Irish Volunteers. Several pamphlets about them are printed in Volumes 2 and 3 of this collection. a wise system of corn laws was enacted: See these Irish corn laws: 21&22 George III, cap. 36 (1782); 23&24 George III, cap. 19 (1784); 25 George III, cap. 10 (1785) and 25 George III, cap. 40 (1785). the present war: Te war with Revolutionary France began in 1793 and was concluded by a temporary peace in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens. the close of the last war: Te War of American Independence, which ended in 1783 with Britain facing the problem of a huge National Debt. because she was not so overburthened with taxes as she now is: Prime Minister Pitt faced a huge problem in fnancing the war against Revolutionary France. He had to increase a vast range of indirect taxes, introduced a form of income tax in 1798–9, and introduced the use of paper currency. Te greatest evil you at present labour under is, the non-residence of your men of great landed property: A longstanding complaint in Ireland was about the damage done to the economy by the fact that a large number of Irish landowners preferred to live abroad, especially in England. Tese absentee landlords collected their rents in Ireland, but spent this substantial income outside the country, chiefy in England. Mr. Pitt: William Pitt the younger (1759–1806) was Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. He was particularly famed for his fnancial ability.

Notes to pages 142–54

337

16. I think this annual drain has been little less than that sum for these last twenty years: Tis comment was made by Prime Minister Pitt in his ‘Speech for a Tax on Income’, delivered in the Westminster House of Commons on 3 December 1798. John Collis must have had rapid news of this speech. Te remark can be found in Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 34, col. 13. 17. Te great landed proprietors … your Government transferred to England: Some of the greatest landowners in Ireland were not absentee landlords because they benefted from sitting in the Irish Parliament or serving in the Irish government. It was greatly feared by the opponents of Union that such a constitutional change, abolishing the Irish Parliament and reducing the size of the Irish executive in Dublin, would result in even more Irish proprietors becoming absentee landlords because of their preference for living in England and wish to pursue their political ambitions at Westminster. 18. Tey will doubtless receive considerable pensions as a purchase for their boroughs, and a recompence for the loss of their political infuence: Tis indeed was the case. Borough patrons were recompensed fnancially when the total number of Irish constituencies was reduced from 300 to 100, with the reduction being mainly in the small boroughs. Many ofces, pensions and honours were also distributed among those leading men of Ireland, who helped to secure the passage of the Union Bill in 1800. 19. their manufactures have machinery … and established markets: Tis comment was made in Pitt’s speech mentioned in note 16 above. It can be found in Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 34, cols 16–17. 20. Amor Patriæ: Latin for ‘love of one’s country’. 21. the frst classes of Society: that is, the political, social and economic elite. 22. let them indignantly spurn at all those who may attempt to bribe them to sell their own honours and the interest of their country: Signifcant eforts were made to bribe or infuence the members of the Irish Parliament to vote for Union. Hence, John Collis’s fear, expressed here, is understandable, but those in the British and Irish governments pushing for Union had no wish to promote either democracy or anarchy. 23. Esto perpetua!: Latin for ‘Let it be perpetual’.

Hamilton, A Letter to Teobald McKenna 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6.

7.

Divide & impera: Latin for ‘divide and rule’. great domestic cause of irritation: All these references to the pages of McKenna’s pamphlet are correct so far as they apply to the edition of it, which is printed in Volume 5 of this collection. the police: Hamilton here is referring to a ‘policy’ or ’the regulation or control of a community’; not to a civilian force seeking to maintain law and order. the intrigues of a power: Hamilton means revolutionary France. Magna Charta: Te great English medieval charter of liberties agreed by King John under pressure from his barons in 1215. the Habeas Corpus act: Te English Habeas Corpus Act was passed in 1679 (31 Charles II, cap. 2). Te Irish Parliament passed a similar act in 1782 (21 & 22 George III, cap. 11). Tese acts allowed a writ to be issued stating the charge to be levelled against an arrested person and that a trial would take place, and hence preventing unlimited imprisonment without a trial. Before 1782: Te British Parliament conceded legislative independence to the Irish Parliament in 1782.

338 8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21. 22. 23.

Notes to pages 154–62 Had the most eccentric of the French Directory: Revolutionary France was governed by the Directory, from November 1795 to November 1799. the borough proprietor: a powerful landowner, who controlled so many votes in a small borough that he could dictate who would be elected as the borough’s parliamentary representatives or could even sell the seat to a purchaser anxious to sit in the Irish House of Commons. our late unhappy rebellion: a reference to the Irish rebellion of 1798. the suppression of seditious meetings were carried through the legislature in that country: Te Seditious Meetings Act of 1795 (36 George III, cap. 8). the extension of the treason law as confned to Great Britain: Te Treasonable and Seditious Practices Act of 1795 (36 George III, cap. 7). Tis and the above act were known as ‘Te Gagging Acts’. Corfew: that is, a curfew. I saw the gouty honorary members of our yeomanry body: Te Irish yeomanry corps was frst raised in 1796 by legislative action (37 George III, cap. 2) to provide a voluntary, part-time defence force led by propertied men in an efort to defeat any planned rebellion. See Blackstock, An Ascendancy Army. the Superior: the landowner. the absentee: See note 7 to Spencer, Toughts on an Union above. A signifcant number of Anglo-Irish Protestant landowners lived outside Ireland, mainly in England, leaving stewards to manage their estates (sometimes abusing tenants and labourers) and to collect rents, which were then spent outside Ireland, to the detriment of the Irish economy. the Orangemen: Te Orangemen were militant Protestants determined to maintain the Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and to resist any further concessions to the Irish Catholic majority. Tey particularly resisted demands to allow Catholics to sit in the two houses of parliament or to hold high ofce in the government. Te Peep O’Day Boys began erecting Orange lodges or associations in 1795 in Armagh, but these soon spread across Ireland and recruited among various social classes. Te movement was named afer William III, Prince of Orange, the Protestant hero who had defeated James II’s attempts to restore land and political power to Irish Catholics in the late seventeenth century. See Smyth, ‘Te Men of No Popery’, pp. 48–53. political society called Defenders: As indicated above, the Orange Order developed from a series of clashes (sectarian and socio-economic) between the popular militant Protestant Peep O’Day boys and a similar popular militant Catholic organization known as the Defenders. See McEvoy, ‘Te Peep of Day Boys and Defenders in the County Armagh’. King William: Te Dutchman, William of Orange (1650–1702), who became William III in 1689 and defeated James II’s military eforts to regain the throne of Ireland in the war of 1689–92. they have published extracts … they bear no enmity towards him: See, Te Principles of the Orange Association, Stated and Vindicated (Dublin, 1799), reproduced in Volume 5 of this collection. King William’s birthday: William was born on 4 November 1650 (according to the Old Style calendar). John Wesley: John Wesley (1703–91), the Church of England clergyman, who founded the Methodist movement, which eventually seceded from the Church of England. A pamphlet which came fom unquestionable authority: Hamilton is referring to Edward Cooke’s infuential pamphlet, Arguments For and Against an Union. Hamilton quotes

Notes to pages 162–74

24. 25.

26.

27.

28. 29. 30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35. 36. 37.

339

here and several times below from the sixth edition. Te eighth edition is the one printed in this volume above. Tis is a reference to William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783– 1801 and 1804–6. Has he seen repeated eforts to repeal the test acts … does he remember the principles whereon they were refused: During Pitt’s frst ministry there were several failed eforts in the Westminster Parliament to repeal the English Test and Corporation Acts of Charles II’s reign. See G. M. Ditchfeld, ‘Te Parliamentary Struggle over the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, 1787–90’, English Historical Review, 89 (1974), pp. 551–77. I can only repeat the prayer of a celebrated Irish character now no more: Henry Flood (1732–91), the infuential Irish MP and Patriot, who campaigned vigorously, but in vain, for parliamentary reform in Ireland in the early 1780s. See ODNB and HoIP 1602– 1800. See also, J. Kelly, Henry Flood: Patriots and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Ireland (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1998). that the God of Truth and of Justice who has long favoured him … as well as against the machinations of all that are not so: Te Celebrated Speeches of Colonel Henry Flood, on the Repeal of the Declaratory Act of the 6th George 1st. As delivered in the House of Commons of Ireland on the 11th and 14th of June 1782 (Dublin, [1782]), p. 33. Te text of these speeches are printed in Volume 2, from p. 225. It is not to the rapacious agent: Tis is a comment on harsh land agents, especially acting on behalf of absentee landlords (see note 7 to Spencer, Toughts on an Union above). We behold the men of fortune … balancing between a return and an eternal separation: Tis is a reference to absentee Irish landlords. See note 7 to Spencer, Toughts on an Union above. How zealous was the fuitless and lamentable struggle of the Pole to preserve the connexion and independence of his country: Russia, Prussia and Austria partitioned Poland by armed force on three occasions, in 1772, 1793 and 1795, until it disappeared as a separate and independent state. How immensely disproportionate were the numbers of the invading French army to the possible exertions of the valiant Swiss: A revolution in Switzerland, aided by a French invasion, led to the creation of the Helvetic Republic in 1798. What are the disqualifcations fom which the Catholics have been relieved since the year 1778: Many parts of the penal code restricting the rights of Irish Catholics were repealed by a series of relief acts from 1778 to 1793 (these are printed above). Te Catholics, however, were still excluded from both houses of parliament and from high ofce in the state. Look to the report of the Committees of both Houses: Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Commons in Ireland (London, 1798); and Report fom the Committee of Secrecy, of the House of Lords in Ireland (London, 1798). Both of these reports are included in Volume 5. Te opposition of the British merchants to the propositions of 1785, which were of so inconsiderable consequence as to be rejected by this kingdom: On the opposition in Britain and Ireland to Prime Minister Pitt’s commercial propositions of 1785, see Kelly, ‘British and Irish Politics in 1785’; and Kelly, Prelude to Union, pp. 76–209. a profound philosopher: David Hume (1711–76), the eminent Scottish philosopher and historian. that the ages of refnement are both the happiest and most virtuous: D. Hume, Political Discourses (Edinburgh, 1752), Discourse II, p. 24. aforded to France such means of attacking the power of Great Britain, as with a view to it alone, to induce her to break of the negotiations at Lisle: France refused to negotiate seri-

340

38.

39. 40.

41.

42.

43.

44. 45. 46.

Notes to pages 174–82 ously for peace at the discussions her diplomatists held at Lille in the summer of 1797 with Britain’s diplomat, James Harris (1746–1820), frst Baron from 1788 and then frst Earl of Malmesbury from 1800. Mr. Tone’s: Teobald Wolfe Tone (1763–98) had helped found the Belfast and Dublin Societies of United Irishmen, had been driven into exile to the United States then France, and had encouraged the French to attempt invasions of Ireland in 1796 and 1798. He committed suicide afer being captured in 1798, when serving with a French invasion force. See ODNB. See, also, M. Elliott, Wolfe Tone, 2nd edn (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2012). had the constitution remained as it was in 1781: Tat is, before the Irish Parliament had gained the legislative independence conceded by the British Parliament in 1782. gratifed as we were, we did assure his Majesty … so might she rely on our afection: Te Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland (Dublin, 1797), vol. 10, p. 351, 27 May 1782. his Grace the Duke of Portland: William Henry Cavendish Bentinck (1738–1809), third Duke of Portland, who was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1782–3 and Home Secretary in Britain 1794–1804. as soon as the councils of that kingdom were infuenced by the avowed friends of the constitution: Tis is a reference to the Rockingham Whigs and then, afer Rockingham’s death in July 1782, to the Foxite Whigs in the British Parliament; a party to which Portland himself adhered. Such a spirit of constitutional liberty communicating itself fom one kingdom to the other … to re-establish and secure the glory of the whole empire: Te Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, vol. 10, p. 386, 27 July 1782. Chief Governor: Charles Cornwallis, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1798–1801. He did eventually approve of the Act of Union in the King’s name, but not as early as this. wise Senator: that is, the Duke of Portland. Calum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt: Tis quotation is adapted from the Roman poet, Horace’s Epistles, bk 1, epistle 11, l. 27. Te Latin can be translated as: ‘Tose who hurry across the sea, change their climate but not their minds’. See S. Dunster, Horace’s Satires, Epistles, and Art of Poetry, done into English (London, 1719), p. 300.

[O’Connor], An Address to the People of Ireland 1. 2.

3.

4.

Of Comfort, as man speak; let’s talk of Graves, of Worms, and Epitaphs: Richard II in Shakespeare’s Richard II, III.ii. Parliament would oppose the measure of the British Minister: that is, that the Irish Parliament would resist Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger’s determination to push Union through the Irish Parliament. Tat spirit, against which every hand of power was raised … animate the declamation of the opposition: Tis is a reference to the fact that John Foster (1740–1828), MP for Dunleer and then County Louth 1761–1800, Speaker of the Irish House of Commons since 1785, and a regular supporter of government policies, would be resolutely hostile to the executive’s proposal for a Bill of Union. Once the Bill passed, however, Foster supported the Union and served as Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer 1804–6 and 1807–11 and was made frst Baron Oriel. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. Tey adjure you to support the Constitution: Tat is, the constitution as amended by the achievement of legislative independence in 1782.

Notes to pages 182–93 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

341

Is it to preserve your Penal Code: Many parts of the penal code of William III’s and Anne’s reigns, which had imposed a range of restrictions on the Roman Catholic majority of the Irish people, had been repealed since 1778, but Catholics were still debarred from sitting in either house of Parliament or from holding high ofce in the Irish executive. Habeas Corpus Act: Habeas Corpus was suspended by acts of the Irish Parliament in 1797 (37 George III, cap. 1) and 1798 (38 George III, cap. 14). Is it for the Convention: Te unlawful assemblies or Convention Act was passed by the Irish Parliament in 1793 (33 George III, cap 29). the Insurrection: Insurrection acts were passed by the Irish Parliament in 1796 (36 George III, cap. 20) and in 1797 (37 George III, cap. 38). Tese are printed in Volume 4. the Indemnity Acts: Indemnity acts were passed by the Irish Parliament in 1797 (37 George III, cap. 39) and in 1798 (38 George III, cap. 19 and 38 George III, cap. 74). the Minister of England: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783– 1801 and 1804–6, was the prime mover of Union between Ireland and Great Britain. Clerk: Tis is a dig at Edward Cooke, an English-born under-Secretary of State in Ireland, who was widely known to be the author of Arguments For and Against an Union, in this volume. Ancient Britons: Te Irish themselves were in an internecine struggle. foreign troops: Britain had rushed many English and Scottish troops to Ireland in 1798 to subdue the rebellion and deal with the French invasion of that country. Trinity College: Trinity College Dublin was the sole university in Ireland at this time. It was only open to members of the established Protestant Church of Ireland. do justice and love mercy: Tis is a biblical commandment, see Micah 6:8. Insurrection has been one of the favourite measures of that man; he has tried it in France: Te British government made several eforts to encourage royalist revolts in France against the country’s republican government. he has attempted it in Holland: Te British government tried in vain to efect a landing in the Dutch Netherlands to overthrow the republican government established by the French. for ffeen years you have ruled Great Britain: Pitt became Prime Minister in late 1783. You have sent Liberty to the Asiatic and the Indian: Tis is an ironic comment on Britain’s growing power in India, where it was claimed that the British government gave greater freedom to the people than the native governments that were being overthrown had ever done. were marked, with blood: See Exodus 12:13.

Dodd, Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

Rowe: Horatio in Nicholas Rowe’s play, Te Fair Penitent, III.i. During the last thirty years reports have prevailed … they gradually died away: See J. Kelly, ‘Te Origins of the Act of Union: An Examination of Unionist Opinion in Britain and Ireland, 1650–1800’, Irish Historical Studies, 25 (1987), pp. 236–63. 1602: Elizabeth I died on 24 March 1603 according to the Old Style Julian calendar then in operation in Britain and Ireland. If the Old Style Julian calendar is strictly adopted then the New Year begins on 25 March not 1 January. Hence, it is possible to argue that the queen died on the last day of 1602, not in 1603 as is now universally accepted. James I: King James I ruled England (and Ireland) from 1603 to 1625. Te troubles that ensued under the turbulent reigns of his son, and two grand-sons were equally unfavourable: King Charles I ruled 1625–49; Charles II 1660–85; and James II 1685–8.

342 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.

33.

Notes to pages 193–7 When William III. was on the throne, as he was a foreigner: William III, king from 1689 to 1702, was a Dutchman. Lord Wharton: Tomas Wharton (1648–1715), frst Marquess of Wharton, was a leading Whig peer. an act: Tis was the Alien Act of 1705 (3&4 Anne, cap. 7). Tinmouth: Tynemouth. Earl of Mar: John Erskine (1675–1732), sixth Earl of Mar. See ODNB. Duke Hamilton: James Hamilton (1658–1712), fourth Duke of Hamilton and later frst Duke of Brandon in the peerage of Great Britain. See ODNB. Andrew Fetcher, of Saltoun: Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun (c. 1653–1716) was a political theorist and leading Scottish patriot, who opposed an incorporating union. See ODNB. the Cockpit: Originally part of Whitehall Palace, which was destroyed by fre in 1698, the Cockpit housed government ofcials. Te Commissioners on the part of England: Tese can all be found in readily available sources, such as the ODNB, and so I shall just note where additional information or corrections are needed. Tomas, Archbishop of Canterbury: Tomas Tenison (1636–1715). John, Archbishop of York: John Sharp (1644/5–1714). William, Duke of Devonshire, Lord Steward of the Household: William Cavendish (1641–1707), frst Duke of Devonshire, did not actually serve as a commissioner, due probably to ill health. He was replaced by Charles Powlett [or Paulet] (1685–1729), who held the courtesy title, Marquess of Winchester. He succeeded his father as third Duke of Bolton in 1722. John, Lord Powlet: Tis was in fact William, Lord Powlett [or Paulet] (1667–1729), a younger son of the second Duke of Bolton Hugh, Earl of Loudon, Principal Secretaries of State: Hugh Campbell, third Earl of Loudoun. John, Earl of Morton: James Douglas, fourteenth Earl of Morton. David, Earl of Wens: David Wemyss, fourth Earl of Wemyss Archibald, Earl of Roseberry: Archibald Primrose, frst Earl of Rosebery. Adam Cockburne, of Ormistown, Lord Justice Clerk: Adam Cockburn. Francis Montgomery, one of the Commissioners of the Treasury: Francis Montgomerie. Sir James Smollett, of Bonhill: James Smollet of Stainfett and Bonhill. William Seton, of Pit-midden: William Seton of Pitmedden. John Clark, of Pennycook: John Clerk of Penicuik. Hugh Montgomery: Hugh Montgomerie. Daniel Stuart: Tis was in fact Dugald Stewart of Blairhill, MP for Rothesay. Daniel Campbell: Daniel Campbell of Shawfeld, MP for Inveraray. the succession to the united Crown should be according to the settlement of the act of William III: Te Act of Settlement of 1701 (12&13 William III, cap. 2). the Princess Sophia of the house of Brunswick Lunenburgh: Sophia (1630–1714) was the daughter of Frederick V of the Palatinate and granddaughter of King James VI and I of England, Scotland and Ireland. She married Ernst-August of Brunswick-Luneburg, who was Elector of Hanover from 1692. She was the nearest Protestant heir to the thrones of the future Queen Anne. She died very shortly before Queen Anne in 1714 and hence it was her son who succeeded Anne as King George I. Te treaty was concluded July 22d, 1706: See Articles of the Treaty of Union agreed on by the Commissioners of Both Kingdoms on the 22nd of July 1706 (Edinburgh and London, 1706).

Notes to pages 197–209

343

34. the Lord-keeper: William Cowper (1665–1723), frst Baron Cowper from 1706 and frst Earl Cowper from 1718, was Lord Keeper of the Great Seal 1705–7 and Lord Chancellor 1707–10 and again 1714–18. He was the frst Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. 35. the Scottish Afican Company: Te Company of Scotland trading to Africa and the Indies, which is usually known as the Darien Company, whose losses were one of the precipitants of the Union negotiations. See Watt, Te Price of Scotland. 36. the Duke of Queensberry: James Douglas (1662–1711), second Duke of Queensberry and frst Duke of Dover in the Peerage of Great Britain. 37. Te party called Cameronians: Te Cameronians were a section of the Scottish Covenanters, who followed the teaching of Richard Cameron. Tey became a separate church afer 1689 and were dissatisfed with the religious settlement of 1690 in Scotland. Tey wished to return to the religious order, which had prevailed in Scotland 1638–49. 38. Lord Haversham: John Tompson (c. 1648–1710), frst Baron Haversham from 1696. 39. the nobility and gentry of Scotland … the common people were very numerous, very stout, and very poor: Te Lord Haversham’s Speech in the House of Peers on Tursday, November 23d 1704 ([London, 1704]), p. 4. 40. Paisly: Paisley. 41. the iron works at Carron: Te Carron Iron Company was established in 1759 on the banks of the River Carron in Stirlingshire, Scotland.

‘Hibernicus’, English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin! or An Address to the Irish Nation 1.

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes: Tis Latin phrase can be translated as: ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifs’. It is from Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 bc) [i.e., Virgil], Te Aeneid, bk 2, l. 49. 2. by hibernicus: Latin for Irish or the Irish people. 3. British Minister: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. 4. the Castle: Dublin Castle, the seat of the Lord Lieutenant and executive government of Ireland. 5. the Volunteers of Ireland: Te armed Irish Volunteers helped the Irish Patriot politicians to apply enough pressure on the British government to secure the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament in 1782. 6. in defence of which, my countrymen, you yourselves have so lately risqued both your lives and properties: Tat is, in combatting the Irish rebellion of 1798. 7. the noble prize the Swiss fought for and gained, when they found themselves oppressed by Austrian tyranny: Te Swiss cantons secured independence from the Holy Roman Empire by the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which ended the Tirty Years’ War. 8. the Dutch fought and bled for, when they threw of the yoke of wicked Philip: Te Dutch fought a long war of independence, 1568 to 1648, to secure their independence from the Habsburg rulers of Spain. Teir independence was also fnally recognized by the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. Philip II (1527–98) was king of Spain from 1556 and hence the Dutch revolt began in his reign. 9. Moorish: a term applied to medieval Muslims in Spain and North Africa, who were of Arab or North African descent. 10. Look then to the Policy and cunning of the British Cabinet on Irish afairs so far distant as the period of the rebellion and revolution: It is not clear whether this is a reference to the

344

11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20.

21.

22.

Notes to pages 209–16 rebellion of 1641 and the subsequent Cromwellian conquest and land confscations of the early 1650s or the 1689 Jacobite rebellion in support of James II and the subsequent Williamite conquest of 1689–92 and the following land confscations and penal laws. Divide et impera: Latin for ‘divide and rule’. Here is an act: 3 George I, cap. 21 (1717). an Act entitled the better to secure the dependency of Ireland on England: Te famous Declaratory Act of 1720 (6 George I, cap. 5). Several laws as to commerce and manufactures, favourable to the welfare of Britain, but ruinous to Ireland, such as that made with regard to Paper, Glass: 19 George II, cap. 12 (1746). the Volunteers of Ireland were in arms, a set of men as unrivalled in fame, as they are renowned for true Patriotism and public spirit: As the author indicates, the Irish Volunteers were established across Ireland from 1778 because Ireland was being denuded of regular troops, who were required to serve overseas in the War of American Independence. Tis force was required to defend Ireland from a possible invasion threatened by France and Spain. Te Irish Volunteers supported the political aims of the Patriot opposition in the Dublin Parliament. Treatened with a potential armed revolt in Ireland the British government and Parliament granted commercial concessions to Ireland and agreed the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament 1779–83. Tink not you have the voice of this Nation by purchasing the voice and interest of our Borough-mongers: Many Irish parliamentary constituencies were small boroughs with tiny electorates, which were easily controlled by a local landowner. It was relatively easy for the Irish government to infuence the election of signifcant numbers of Irish MPs by granting ofces, pensions, titles, etc., to these borough patrons, who would then ensure that the MPs whom they returned to the Irish House of Commons would support the policies of the Irish executive. the British diadem: the royal crown. the fee-simple: a ‘fee simple’ is a form of freehold ownership. Tey might unite the legislative and executive power in the same hands, and dissolve the constitution by an act of Parliament: Tis quotation is taken from the pseudonymous English political commentator, Junius, in his ‘Dedication to the English Nation’, printed in Junius, 2 vols (London, 1772), vol. 1, pp. v–vi. It can also be found in Te Letters of Junius, ed. J. Cannon (Oxford: Clarendon University Press, 1978), p. 9. Junius, of course, made these remarks about Britain not Ireland. No, the people opposed the measure; their representatives being bought, basely betrayed the rights of their constituents and sold their own native soil : A popular cry by eighteenth-century Scottish critics of the Act of Union of 1707 was that Scotland had been bought and sold for English gold. See, Robert Burns’s poem, ‘Such a Parcel of Rogues in a Nation’ (1791) and C. A. Whatley, ‘Bought and Sold for English Gold?’: Explaining the Union of 1707, 2nd edn (East Linton: Tuckwell Press, 2001). look to the Malt Tax with many other instances of breach of compact: Te British Parliament passed annual malt tax acts from 1713 onwards, contrary to the terms of the Act of Union of 1707. Tis infuriated many Scots. Te Scots also resented the fact that the fourth Duke of Hamilton was not allowed to take his seat in the House of Lords as a matter of right because of his British peerage as frst Duke of Brandon. Te Scots even tried unsuccessfully to repeal the Union in 1713. See G. Holmes and Jones, ‘Trade, the Scots and the Parliamentary Crisis of 1713’. Tere were serious malt tax riots in Edinburgh and Glasgow in 1725. that corrupt and venal Phalanx: a reference to what modern historians refer to as the Court and Treasury party. It means those peers and MPs who possessed places, pensions or honours bestowed by the royal court or the treasury and who, therefore, were likely to support the King’s ministers in the Westminster Parliament. Te opposition in and out

Notes to pages 216–24

345

of Parliament frequently exaggerated the size of the Court and Treasury party. It never constituted a majority of peers or MPs, its members would ofen abstain in a crisis, and, by the late 1790s, it was already in numerical decline. See A. S. Foord, ‘Te Waning of “the Infuence of the Crown”’, English Historical Review, 62 (1947), pp. 484–507; and P. Harling, ‘Rethinking “Old Corruption”’, Past and Present, 147 (1995), pp. 127–58. 23. devoured by the lion: Te lion is a reference to Britain. Te author has Aesop’s fable ‘Te Wolf in Sheep’s clothing’ in mind. 24. You will never accept like the ignorant Afican, of bawbles in barter for your dearest and most precious interests: a reference to the way British (and other European) merchants could infuence Africans and even purchase slaves by ofering in exchange quite cheap British manufactured goods.

Te Speech of Henry Grattan, Esq. on the Subject of a Legislative Union 1.

Mr. Grattan’s return to Parliament: Grattan, out of sympathy with the drif of Irish politics, had withdrawn from the Irish House of Commons in 1797 and had not sought re-election that year. He decided at the beginning of 1800 that he must return to Parliament to save the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament that he had done so much to achieve and to oppose Union. He therefore bought a parliamentary seat in Wicklow Borough and made a dramatic entrance into the House of Commons, dressed in his Volunteer uniform, early on 16 January 1800. Because he had been in ill health for some time, he was allowed to sit while speaking for about two hours. 2. Sir, the gentleman who spoke the last but one: Luke Fox (1757–1819) was MP for Fethard, Clonmines and then Mullingar 1793–1800. See HoIP 1692–1800. 3. the Minister of Great Britain; William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister of Great Britain 1783–1801 and 1804–6. 4. he swore the yeomen: Te Irish Yeomanry, a part-time loyalist defence force, had to swear to uphold the constitution. See Blackstock, An Ascendancy Army. 5. sent by his Majesty to the Parliament of the diferent countries: George III’s message to the British Parliament on 9 April 1782 can be read in Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 22, col. 1264. 6. the second, the answer of the Parliament of Ireland to his Majesty’s Message: Te answers of the Irish House of Commons on 16 April 1782 and of the Irish House of Lords on 17 April 1782 can be found in ibid., vol. 23, cols 17–20. 7. Te third part of this adjustment was a resolution voted by the two British Houses of Parliament: For the British debates on this issue and the resolutions agreed, see ibid., vol. 23, cols 17–35 for the House of Commons and vol. 23, cols 35–48 for the House of Lords. 8. there were two resolutions transmitted – frst, Tat the sixth of George I: the famous Declaratory Act of 1720 (6 George III, cap. 5). 9. the second, Tat the connexion between the countries should be placed by mutual consent on a solid and permanent foundation: Tese two resolutions in the British House of Commons on 17 May 1782 can be found in Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 23, cols 34–5. 10. I drew that Address: On 27 May 1782, Grattan was appointed to head a small committee to draw up an address of thanks from the Irish House of Commons to the King for his message stating that the British Parliament was prepared to remove the causes of Irish discontent. Grattan presented his Address next day and it was approved by the Commons and presented via the Lord Lieutenant to the king. See Te Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, vol. 10, pp. 351, 353. 11. no Constitutional question between the two nations will any longer exist: Ibid., vol. 10, p. 353.

346

Notes to pages 224–6

12. they embrace our proposition of unconditional and unqualifed repeal, and they accordingly introduced a bill for that purpose: Tis bill set out to repeal the Declaratory Act of 1720. It was passed as an ‘Act for the better the securing the Dependency of the Kingdom of Ireland, 1782’ (22 George III, cap. 53). It is printed in Volume 2 of this collection, p. 309. 13. his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant: Te Irish Lord Lieutenant in 1782–3 was William Henry Cavendish Bentinck (1738–1809), third Duke of Portland. 14. We have seen this great national arrangement … the objects we have been labouring for, have been accomplished: Te Address of 23 July 1782, in Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, vol. 10, p. 381. 15. Convince the people that every cause of past jealousy and discontent is fnally removed … and that their best security will be their inviolable adherence to this compact: Ibid., vol. 10, p. 386, 27 July 1782. 16. Tere are two other parts, which are material, the resolution of the Irish House of Commons, the 18th of June: Te Irish House of Commons did not meet between 15 June and 15 July 1782. Tis resolution was actually made on 19 July 1782. See Te Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, vol. 10, p. 373. 17. Te next instrument was an address to his Majesty … as well as for his victories: Ibid., vol. 10, pp. 354, 356, 29–30 May 1782. 18. whatever idea might have been conceived in the second resolution of the 17th of May (82) it was totally and entirely abandoned: Te second resolution in the British House of Commons on 17 May 1782 requested ‘that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to take such measures as his Majesty in his royal wisdom shall think most conducive to the establishing, by mutual consent, the connexion between this kingdom and the kingdom of Ireland upon a solid and permanent basis.’ Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 23, cols 34–5. 19. the Minister of that time: Charles Watson Wentworth (1730–82), second Marquess of Rockingham, was Prime Minister of Great Britain, March–July 1782. 20. adopted in England by her Parliament … without qualifcation, condition or limitation: See note 12 above. 21. Lord Lansdown: William Petty (1737–1805), second Earl of Shelburne, was Secretary of State in Rockingham’s administration and then briefy Prime Minister July 1782 to March 1783. He became the frst Marquess of Lansdowne in 1786. See ODNB. 22. 17th of May: Tis is a misprint. Te Address of the Irish House of Commons was agreed on 27 May 1782. See notes 9 and 10 above. 23. Wave: a misprint for ‘waive’. 24. his celebrated Propositions: Pitt’s Commercial Propositions of 1785, designed to establish a free trade agreement between Great Britain and Ireland, were defeated in both parliaments. See Kelly, Prelude to Union, pp. 76–209; and Kelly, ‘British and Iris Politics in 1785’, pp. 536–63. 25. and stated the second resolution of the 17th of May, 1782 … not in the Administration of 85: When his Commercial Propositions sought much closer trading links with Ireland. 26. took away her Trade: Tis is a reference to the Woollen Act of 1698 (10 & 11 William III, cap. 10) amended the next session (11 William III, cap. 13). 27. and in the middle of the present took away her Constitution: a reference to the Declaratory Act of 1720 and also perhaps to the dispute between the Irish executive and the Irish Parliament about a money bill in 1753–56. See J. L. McCracken, ‘Te Confict between the Irish Administration and Parliament 1753–6’, Irish Historical Studies, 3 (1942), pp. 159–79; and O’Donovan, ‘Te Money Bill Dispute in 1753’, in Penal Law to Golden Age, ed. Bartlett and Hayton, pp. 55–87

Notes to pages 226–9

347

28. this was the language of Lord North’s sword in the colonies: Tis is a reference to the British use of force against the rebellious American colonies during the administration of Frederick North (1732–92), who held the courtesy title of Lord North while Prime Minister of Great Britain 1770–82. He was later second Earl of Guilford. See ODNB. 29. this is the language of Mr. Pitt’s sword in Ireland: Tis is a criticism of the number of British troops still in Ireland, although the 1798 rebellion had been suppressed and the French invasion forces had been defeated. Grattan implies that they are there to overawe Irish opinion in order to persuade the people to accept Union. 30. “You abolished,” says he, “one Constitution, but you forgot to form another,”: Grattan is referring to Pitt here, but the Prime Minister did not use these precise words though they do refect his general attitude. 31. All the great branches of trade … are to be ascribed to the liberality of England, not to covenant: Speech of the Right Honourable William Pitt in the House of Commons, Tursday, January 31, 1799, on Ofering to the House the Resolutions which he Proposed as the Basis of an Union between Great Britain and Ireland, 5th edn (London, 1799), p. 49. 32. Tacitus has told him: Tis reference to Publius Cornelius Tacitus (ad 56–117) is probably to his comments in Agricola, para. 30. 33. Te Minister proceeds … preserved the identity of the Executive power at the time of the Regency: Speech of the Right Honourable William Pitt in the House of Commons, Tursday, January 31, 1799, p. 26. 34. I am stating the spirit of that act, without defending or condemning it: Grattan is sliding over the disagreements between what the Irish Parliament decided about a Regency Act and what Pitt had in mind to achieve in Britain. See Volume 1, pp, lii–liii and the texts printed in Volume 3 of this collection, pp. 329–56. 35. I say the act of annexation: Two acts had been passed annexing the crown of Ireland to that of Britain. See the Annexation of the Crown of Ireland Act, 1542 (33 Henry VIII, cap. 1) and the Act of 1692 (4 William and Mary, cap. 1), making the same claim, both passed by the Irish Parliament. 36. the act of Poynings: Poynings’ Law was initiated by Sir Edward Poynings (1459–1521), Lord Deputy of Ireland, and passed by the parliament of Ireland in 1495 (10 Henry VII, cap. 9). Tis act placed the Irish Parliament under the ultimate authority of the crown and parliament in England. It was annulled when the Irish Parliament gained legislative independence in 1782. 37. his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales: George (1762–1830), the eldest son of George III, was Prince of Wales from 1762, fnally became regent in 1811, and reigned as George 1V from 1820. 38. Lord Lieutenant of Ireland: George Nugent-Temple Grenville (1753–1813), frst Marquess of Buckingham, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1787–9. For his views on the Regency Act passed by the Irish Parliament, see the last two texts printed in Volume 3, pp. 329–56. 39. One of the Minister’s instruments in this country has confessed it … misfortunes of this country sprung fom that resentful period: See, A Report of Two Speeches delivered by the Rt. Hon. Lord Viscount Castlereagh, in the Debate on the Regency Bill, on April 11th, 1799 (Dublin, 1799). In reply, see Speech of the Right Honourable John Foster, Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland, delivered in Committee, on Tursday the 11th Day of April 1799 (Dublin, 1799). 40. who told the British Houses of Parliament they were competent to establish a temporary Republic: Pitt mentioned this in the debate on the Union in the British House of Commons, on 11 April 1799. See Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 34, col. 846. In this debate there was much word-play on ‘republic’.

348

Notes to pages 229–34

41. Ille impiger hausit Spumantem pateram et pleno se-------- proluit auro: Virgil, Te Aeneid, bk 1, ll. 723–56. Te Latin can be translated as: ‘He briskly drained the brimming cup, drenching himself in its golden fullness’. 42. Immediately on the settlement of that Emancipation in 1782, they voted a sum for British seamen: Te Irish Parliament voted money for 20,000 seamen to serve in the Royal Navy during the War of American Independence. 43. Lord Fitzwilliam’s Administration: William Wentworth Fitzwilliam (1748–1833), fourth Earl Fitzwilliam, was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in December 1794, but served only a few weeks in 1795 before being recalled. Grattan supported his eforts at Catholic emancipation, but the British government feared his policies were alienating too many leading Protestant politicians. 44. the Mysore country: a state in southern India ofen at war with the British and their allies. 45. Tippoo: Tippoo Sahib (1749–99) was Sultan of Mysore. He was defeated by Cornwallis in 1792 and had to cede territory. He was defeated and killed by the forces of Lord Wellesley in May 1799. 46. the feathers of her western wing: the British islands in the West Indies. 47. but that Constitution which she herself, Ireland, feels, comprehends, venerates, and claims … both in her Convention at Dungannon: Tis is a reference to the famous convention of Ulster Volunteers held at Dungannon on 15 February 1782. Te representatives there supported Catholic relief and legislative independence. Tey then forged an alliance with Irish patriots in the House of Commons, notably Grattan himself. 48. Tutelary Angel: the national guardian angel of England. 49. If that Angel had been Minerva: Minerva was the Roman goddess of wisdom, and also of arts, trade and defence. She was born from the godhead of Jupiter with weapons. 50. the Demon: the opposite of a national guardian angel. 51. modus tenendi parliamentum: Tis was an early fourteenth-century document on the methods of holding parliaments. 52. Plantagenet wars: the Wars of the Roses between the Yorkist and Lancastrian branches of the Plantagenet royal dynasty, from 1455 to 1485. 53. Tudor: the Tudor dynasty ruled England (and Ireland) from 1485 to 1603. 54. Stuart: Te Stuart dynasty ruled Britain and Ireland 1603–49 and 1660–1714, though critics of the dynasty tend to end their attacks on these rulers in 1688, exempting William III and Queen Anne from their criticisms. 55. Babel: In the Book of Genesis the Tower of Babel was occupied by people of many languages, which produced confusion. It has been associated with the city of Babylon. 56. before the Union, as four to one – you will be by the Union as one to four: It was certainly Pitt’s view that, if Union was achieved and the Catholics were given equal political rights, they would be in a minority in the new United Kingdom, whereas they were a majority in Ireland alone. Tis was stressed by Edward Cooke, an under-Secretary of State in the Irish government, in his pamphlet supporting Union, Arguments For and Against an Union, printed in this volume, but Cooke does not use exactly these same proportions. 57. Te Catholics of the City of Dublin have come forth in support of the Constitution: their resolutions are printed in this pamphlet below. 58. Te sagacious English Secretary of State has foretold this, “what advantage … this opportunity in the British Empire thus opened;”: Tere were two English secretaries of state at this time: William Grenville, the Foreign Secretary and William Portland, the Home Secretary. Both supported Union. Grenville spoke out more in its favour in the British House of Lords. Neither is reported as using these precise words. It is possible that Grattan paraphrases

Notes to pages 234–40

59.

60.

61.

62.

63. 64.

65. 66. 67. 68.

69.

70.

71. 72. 73.

349

what has been said or that the printer puts quotation marks around what was not meant to be an exact quotation by Grattan. Te use of the adjective ‘sagacious’ may be ironic. that is what we dread, the market of St. Stephen: Te debating chamber of the Westminster House of Commons was in St Stephen’s chapel in the Palace of Westminster from 1547 to 1834 (when it was burned down by accident). Mr. Fitzgerald: James Fitzgerald (1742–1835) was MP for Fore, Tulsk and then Kildare Borough 1776–1800. He was Prime Sergeant from 1787, but was dismissed in January 1799 for opposing the Union. He did later serve many years in the United Parliament at Westminster. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. John Parnel: John Parnell (1745–1801) was MP for Bangor 1767–8, and then Innistiogue 1777–83, and Queen’s County 1783–1800. He was Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer from 1785 until he was dismissed in 1799 for opposing the Union. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. Mr. Foster: John Foster (1740–1828) was MP for Dunleer, and then County Louth 1761–1800. He was appointed Speaker in 1785 and supported the government until 1799 when he rebelled because of his opposition to Union. He later, however, served as Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer 1804–6 and 1807–11 and was created frst Baron Oriel. Tere are entries on him in the ODNB and the HoIP 1692–1800. Charles I: Charles Stuart (1600–49), King Charles I from 1625 until executed afer the civil wars. the Orangeman had sent the Defender: Te militant Protestant members of the Orange Order are here being accused of driving the members of the popular Catholic Defenders out of Ulster and into less prosperous provinces of Ireland. Icada: possibly a misprint for Cicada, ofen translated as being a grasshopper. Amalthea: In Greek mythology, Amalthea was the foster-mother of Zeus. Ceres: Ceres was the Roman goddess of crops and fertility. checking the evil I speak of, and which, by adding to the consequence of the country, will naturally diminish the number of Absentees: See note 7 to Spencer, Toughts on an Union above. Many commentators complained about the number of Irish Protestant landowners, who preferred to live outside the country, principally in England, thus using their rental income from Ireland elsewhere, to the disadvantage of the Irish economy. Tese commentators feared Union would increase the number of such Absentees. his Majesty’s speech fom the Trone … to maintain the principle of American taxation over all his dominions: Tis is a reference to George III’s speech at the close of the British parliamentary session, on 26 May 1775. See Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 18, cols 693–4. Tis was followed by an embargo on trade with the rebellious American colonies. in October 79, an address passed the Irish Commons, containing a requisition for a Free Trade: Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, vol. 10, pp. 10–12, 12 October 1779. it was followed by a motion declaring that the Irish Commons would not for the present, grant new taxes: Ibid., vol. 10, p. 34, 24 October 1779. it was followed by a limitation of the act of supply to the duration of six months only: 19 & 20 George III, cap. 2. by the then Minister: Frederick North (1732–92), who held the courtesy title of Lord North while sitting in the British House of Commons, was the British Prime Minister 1770–82. Because of the problems created by the War of American Independence, he felt compelled to make commercial concessions to Ireland in order to reduce widespread discontent there.

350

Notes to pages 240–4

74. purporting to repeal certain restrictive acts … subject to equality of duty: See the ‘Debate in the House of Commons on Lord North’s Propositions for the Relief of the Trade of Ireland’, 13 December 1779, in Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 20, cols 1272–85. 75. these resolutions were considered in the Parliament of Ireland … were voted satisfactory. A long money bill was then passed: Te proposals can be seen in Te Journals of the House of Commons of the Kingdom of Ireland, vol. 10, pp. 38–44. Te act is 19 & 20 George III, cap. 10. 76. Jacobinism: Te members of the Jacobin Club in Paris were among the most radical and violent French Revolutionaries in the early 1790s. Te term was shorthand for those who upheld the more extreme political attitudes in France, even afer the Jacobins had lost power. 77. ROYAL EXCHANGE, DUBLIN: Te Royal Exchange was a large building, in the neoclassical style, which was erected in the later eighteenth century for use by the merchant population of the city. It was later used as the city hall. 78. AMBROSE MOORE, Esq: Ambrose Moore was a rich Catholic goldsmith and watchmaker, who also dealt extensively in house property and in discounting bills. He had been a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen from 1792. He was active as late as 1797, being secretary and then treasurer to the secret committee and was fortunate to escape being arrested in 1798. 79. JAMES RYAN, Sec: Several fairly prominent Dublin citizens bore this name. Tis may be the James Ryan, who, like Moore, was active among the United Irishmen in 1797, but avoided arrest and imprisonment in 1798. 80. John Claudius Beresford, Esq: John Claudius Beresford (1766–1846) was MP for Swords and then Dublin City 1790–1800. Although the son of John Beresford (1738–1805), who held major posts in the Irish revenue service and treasury, and who supported Union, he won a reputation as one of the fercest critics of Union. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. 81. the Right Honourable George Ogle: George Ogle (1742–1814) was MP for County Wexford and then for Dublin City 1769–1800. Although a moderately liberal Whig with regard to politics, he was a strong adherent of the Protestant interest and was strongly opposed to Union. He was elected Grand Master of the Orange Lodge in 1801. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 82. Master, Robert Powell, Esq: Robert Powell was a successful apothecary, who served the prisons of Dublin and St Patrick’s hospital. He served on the Common Council of Dublin and acted as Sherif in 1795. 83. TIM. ALLEN, Clk. of the Guild: Timothy Allen was also one of the town clerks of Dublin City acting for the Common Council. 84. AGGREGATE MEETING: Aggregate Meetings were called on extraordinary occasions to allow the freemen and freeholders of Dublin to debate a subject of great importance to them. 85. Te HIGH SHERIFFS in the Chair: Te High Sherifs appointed in 1799 were Tomas Kinsley and John Cash (1759–1833). Tose appointed for 1800 were Francis Fox and John Ferns. It is likely that the frst two were still in ofce in January 1800. 86. Mr. Hartley: James Hartley, the son of Travers Hartley (1723–96), who was MP for Dublin City 1782–90, was a Director of the Bank of Ireland 1792–1810, a member of the Chamber of Commerce, and a commissioner for preserving and improving the port of Dublin, He opposed Union and subsequently urged its repeal. 87. Mr. Dease: William Dease founded the Irish School of Anatomy and Surgery, wrote several works on medical subjects, and was President of the Royal College of Surgeons in

Notes to pages 244–50

351

Dublin. Tis may, however, be his son Richard, who was a professor at the Royal College of Surgeons. 88. Mr. Rawlins: William Rawlins was also a prominent Dublin businessman, a Director of the Bank of Ireland, a Trustee of the Royal Exchange, and on the council of the Chamber of Commerce. 89. Mr. R. M‘Donnell: Richard McDonnell was a successful Dublin merchant. 90. Mr. Moore: Ambrose Moore, see note 78 above. 91. Mr. Alderman Howison: Henry Howison (d. 1817) had served on the Common Council of Dublin City and had then been a sherif and an alderman. In 1790 he had been chosen as Lord Mayor by the Common Council when the Court of Alderman had wished to have its preferred nominee, Alderman James, confrmed by the Council. Howison was clearly the more popular choice of the corporation as a whole. Te resulting dispute was taken as far as the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Privy Council. Howison’s appointment was confrmed on 5 August 1790. See Reports of the Proceedings and Arguments before the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, on the Petitions of Aldermen James and Howison (Dublin, 1790). 92. Mr. Alderman Crothers: Hugh Crothers was a Dublin merchant, active on the Council of the Chamber of Commerce, Governor of the Hibernian Marine Society, a Trustee of the Royal Exchange, a Director of the Grand Canal Company, a member of the Corporation for preserving and improving the port of Dublin, and a member of the Irish Insurance Company. He served in a yeomanry force from 1796. He was a member of the Common Council of Dublin from 1781 and was subsequently an alderman. 93. Mr. Curran: John Philpot Curran (1750–1817) was MP for Kilbeggin, and then Rathcormack 1783–97 and then for Banagher in 1800. He was a radical lawyer and politician. He had some sympathy for the aims of the United Irishmen and defended several of them in the 1790s, but he opposed revolution and a violent rising. He was appointed Master of the Rolls in Ireland in 1806. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 94. the Minister: William Pitt the Younger (1759–1806), Prime Minister 1783–1801 and 1804–6. 95. Did Spain feel for the Low Countries?: a reference to the Dutch revolt against Habsburg Spain in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. 96. Did Rome for Sicily?: Sicily resisted Roman aggression until 242 bc, when it at last became a Roman province. 97. Did England for America?: a reference to the recent American War of Independence. 98. Right Honourable the LORD MAYOR: John Sutton was Lord Mayor of Dublin 1799– 1800. He was a Dublin merchant, an alderman, and captain of the third company of the Dublin Rotunda yeoman infantry from 1796. He died unexpectedly in February 1800, half-way through his term of ofce as Lord Mayor. He was succeeded by Alderman John Exshaw. 99. ALLEN & GREEN: Molesworth Green was an attorney and town clerk of Dublin. He served as second lieutenant of the second troop of Attorneys yeomanry from 1796. Timothy Green is noted above. 100. JOHN GARNETT, Esq: John Garnett (1747/8–1813) was the King’s representative as High Sherif of County Dublin. He was the son of John Garnett (1707/8–82), former Church of Ireland Bishop of Ferns and then Clogher. Te younger Garnett was a JP for County Dublin and County Meath. He served as captain of the Nethercross yeoman cavalry from 1796. He was a chaplain in ordinary and later Dean of Exeter.

352

Notes to pages 251–60

101. shall be, and is hereby declared to be established and ascertained for ever, and shall at no time hereafer be questioned or questionable: Te famous Renunciation Act of 1783 (23 George III, cap. 28), which Henry Flood had pressed the Irish Parliament to demand of the British Parliament to confrm the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament. It is printed in Volume 2, p. 311. 102. THOMAS ABBOTT, Esq: Tomas Abbott was a wholesale silk manufacturer. He acted as second Lieutenant in Dublin’s second company of Liberty Rangers yeomanry from 1796. He and his men were very active in trying to suppress Robert Emmet’s rising in 1803. 103. Mr. Locke: John Locke (1632–1704), the famous philosopher and Whig political theorist. 104. PLACE IT IN OTHER HANDS: J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ch. 11, para. 141. 105. GEORGE BROWN, Esq: George Brown was a Dublin linen and silk printer 106. CHARLES WALSH, Clerk Guild: Charles Walsh was a silk weaver.

An Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1.

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

the frst Day of January which shall be in the Year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and one: Te United Kingdom and the UK Parliament therefore began on the very frst day of the nineteenth century. and for ever afer: Te United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland did not last forever. In 1922, following a war of independence, the Irish Free State was created. Initially this new state was meant to make all of Ireland a dominion of the British Empire. Te six counties of north-eastern Ireland (mainly the old province of Ulster) quickly broke away from this state, however, and remained an integral part of the United Kingdom (now of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Te rest of the Irish Free State became known as Ireland in 1937 and formally declared itself a republic in 1949. and also the Ensigns, Armorial Flags and Banners thereof: A new Union fag was created combining the individual fags of England, Scotland and Ireland. shall continue limited and settled in the same Manner as the Succession to the Imperial Crown of the said Kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland now stands limited and settled, according to the existing Laws, and to the Terms of Union between England and Scotland: Tis was achieved by both the Treaty of Union and Act of Union of 1707. four Lords Spiritual of Ireland by Rotation of Sessions … vote on the Part of Ireland in the House of Lords of the Parliament of the United Kingdom: Tis gave Ireland twice the number of representative peers as had been granted to Scotland in 1707. Ireland had a much larger population than Scotland. and one hundred Commoners (two for each County of Ireland … and one for each of the thirty-one most considerable Cities, Towns, and Boroughs): Te change in the borough representation was, in efect, a measure of parliamentary reform, since it signifcantly reduced the number of Irish MPs elected to represent small rotten or pocket boroughs. Tat any Person holding any Peerage of Ireland now subsisting, or hereafer … if he shall so think ft, for any County, City, or Borough of Great Britain: Tis privilege, allowing an Irish peer, who was not one of the twenty-eight Irish representative peers sitting in the House of Lords, to be elected to the UK House of Commons for a parliamentary constituency in Great Britain, had not been granted to Scottish peers afer the Union of 1707. in respect of Property of the Members elected on the Part of Ireland to sit … Cases of Elections for Counties and Cities and Boroughs respectively in that Part of Great Britain called England: In general, the franchise was wider in England than it was in Scotland, especially

Notes to pages 260–74

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

16. 17. 18. 19.

20.

21. 22. 23. 24.

353

in the counties, but the borough franchise could still vary considerably in England and Ireland, depending on the terms of the borough’s charter. Old and New Drapery: Old drapery was a coarse woollen cloth and new drapery was a type of fannel. Callicoes and Muslins: Calicoes and muslins were fner cotton cloths. Cotton Yarn: Cotton yarn was a spun fbre for use in weaving, etc. Cotton Twist: Cotton twist was composed of two or more cotton fbres or flaments. Countervailing Duty: a counterbalancing or compensating duty. a Drawback: A drawback is an amount paid back from a charge previously made. the Charge arising fom the Payment of the Interest, and the Sinking Fund: Te size of the (originally English) National Debt, created in 1694, had increased substantially afer every war in which England/Britain was engaged thereafer. Tis was always a cause of considerable concern. In order to reduce the principal amount of the National Debt, and not just pay the interest on it, Prime Minister William Pitt the younger had established in 1786 a Sinking Fund, whereby surplus revenue would be set aside to accumulate at compound interest, and the accumulated sum would then be used to pay of some of the principal of the National Debt. Te scheme worked well in the years of peace between 1786 and 1793 and the size of the National Debt was indeed reduced. In the event, however, the cost of the subsequent French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars proved so great that it became increasingly impossible to accumulate surplus revenue to invest in the Sinking Fund. Lord Liverpool’s government fnally abandoned the Sinking Fund in the 1820s. videlicet: Latin for ‘namely’. an Act, intituled, An Act to regulate … returned to the said Parliament, has been passed by the Parliament of Ireland: Tis statute was 40 George III, cap. 29 (1800). Tat the Primate of all Ireland: Te Archbishop of Armagh was the primate (senior bishop) of the Church of Ireland. Tat three sufragan Bishops: Te other bishops of the Church of Ireland, who were under the authority of one of the four archbishops and who may not have a cathedral of their own. the Statute of Provision and Praemunire: Te Statute of Praemunire of 1392 (16 Richard II, cap. 5) prohibited the assertion or maintenance of papal jurisdiction or any other alien jurisdiction in England against the authority of the monarch. An earlier Statute of Provisors in 1306 (25 Edward III, St.4) maintained that the Pope could not bestow ecclesiastical benefces in England. Sir Edward Coke, the great seventeenth-century English jurist, regarded this as the foundation for all subsequent statutes of praemunire. Attainder: An attainder is an accusation of a serious crime, such as treason, levelled against a peer by an act of parliament. London and Dublin Gazettes: these were both ofcial government newspapers. the Teste of the Writ: A ‘teste of the writ’ is the concluding clause of a legal document, commencing with the word ‘witness’ and therefore usually signed and dated. his Majesty may, so long as he shall think ft, continue the Privy Council of Ireland: It lasted until 1922, when the Irish Free State was created.

354

Notes to pages 277–80

‘Te Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection (1803)’ 1.

2.

3.

4.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19.

lord norbury: John Toler (1745–1831), frst Baron and then frst Earl of Norbury, had been MP for Tralee, Philipstown, and then Gorey 1776–1800.He was Solicitor General 1789–98, Attorney General 1798–1800 and then Chief Justice of the Court of Common Please from 1800. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. mr. baron george: Denis George (c. 1751–1821) was educated at Trinity College Dublin and the Middle Temple. He was called to the Irish Bar in 1776, was Recorder of Dublin in 1785, and was appointed a Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer in 1794. He had served on the trial of the Sheares brothers in 1798. mr. baron daly: St George Daly (c. 1758–1829) was MP for Galway Borough 1799– 1800 and Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. He had a reputation for ignorance. mr. standish o’grady, attorney general: Standish O’Grady (1766–1840), later frst Viscount Guillamore, was a protégé of Lord Chancellor, John FitzGibbon, frst Earl of Clare. He had just been appointed Attorney General in 1803 afer the murder of Arthur Wolfe, Viscount Kilwarden, in Dublin by a mob involved in Emmet’s rising. He became Chief Baron of the Irish Court of Exchequer in 1805. See ODNB. Gentlemen, the prisoner stands indicted under a very ancient statute – the 25th of Edward III: Te Treason Act of 1351 (25 Edward III, St. 5, cap. 2). imagining the death of the king: that is, planning the death of the King. I do not wish to undertake to speak in the prophetic: that is, predicting or prophesying. the rebellion: that is, the Irish rebellion of 1798. some time before Christmas last, the prisoner, who had visited foreign countries: Robert Emmet had recently been to France and Amsterdam. returned to this country: Emmet returned to Ireland in October 1802. in the large proclamation: Te Proclamation of Independence 1803, was issued on 23 July 1803, by ‘Te Provisional Government’ to the People of Ireland. the manifesto: Te manifesto was a diferent document to the Proclamation. It was addressed to the ‘Citizens of Dublin’. Te whole text can be found in A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and other Crimes, ed. T. B. Howell et al., 34 vols (London: T.C. Hansard, 1816–28), vol. 28, cols 1153–4. In a city each street becomes a defle … on the heads of the satellites of your tyrant, the mercenary, the sanguinary soldiery of England: Ibid. remember against whom they fght … remember your murdered fiends, your burned houses, your violated females: Ibid. the general: that is, Robert Emmet himself. Doyle: John Doyle, a captain in the rising, had a farm at Ballynameece. the general was still dressed in his full uniform, with suitable lace and epaulets, and a military cocked hat, with a conspicuous feather: Robert Emmet considered himself a soldier in a war of liberation. He hoped to die in this uniform, but was not allowed to wear it when he was executed. Two other persons were also decorated in green and gold: probably Michael Quigley and Michael Dwyer. Mrs. Bagnall: Rose Bagnall had a farm at the Breaks of Ballanascorney in the Dublin mountains.

Notes to pages 280–91

355

20. Major Sirr: Henry Charles Sirr (1764–1841) was chief of police or town major of Dublin from 1798. He had been active in capturing Lord Edward Fitzgerald in 1798. He retired to the police magistrates’ bench in 1808. See ODNB. 21. He came by surprise on the house, having sent a countryman to give a single rap, and the door being, opened, the Major rushed in, and caught Mrs. Palmer: Mrs Anne Palmer had a house near Harold’s Cross bridge. 22. Mr. McNally: Leonard McNally (1752–1820) was Emmet’s leading defence counsel. He had been a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen in the early 1790s, but he became a government informer in 1798 and ‘sold’ Emmet for £200 on this occasion. See ODNB. Peter Burrowes (1753–1841), also a former United Irishman, was Emmet’s other defence counsel. He had been MP for Enniscorthy January to August 1800 and opposed Union. Tere is an entry on him in the HoIP 1692–1800. Emmet decided to ofer no defence, recognizing that he was certain to be convicted. 23. Mr. Plunket: William Conyngham Plunket (1764–1854) was one of the crown counsels for the prosecution. He was MP for Charlemont 1798–1800 and opposed Union. At the end of 1803 he became Solicitor General and in 1805 Attorney General. Afer some strange vicissitudes he became Lord Chancellor of Ireland in 1830. See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. 24. by the blood of the murdered patriots who have gone before me: Tis is a reference to those executed during and afer the Irish rebellion of 1798. 25. the Searcher of all hearts: God is so described in various parts of the Bible. 26. the Castle: Dublin Castle was the seat of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and of the Irish executive. 27. the patricide: As well as referring to the murder of one’s father, ‘patricide’ can also mean the betrayal of one’s country. 28. Washington: George Washington (1732–99), Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army in the War of American Independence and frst President of the United States of America. 29. the Omnipotent Judge: God. 30. Te proclamation of the Provisional Government: See note 11 above. 31. Dr. Emmet: Dr Robert Emmet (1729–1802) had been a highly respected state physician to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. His family was quite prosperous and well connected to moderate reformers. See ODNB. 32. a gentleman who held a confdential situation under the Irish government: Possibly, Alexander Marsden (1761–1834), who had succeeded Edward Cooke as under-Secretary of State in the civil department of the Irish executive in 1801 and served until 1806. 33. Tomas Addis Emmet: Tomas Addis Emmet (1764–1827) was a lawyer and a member of the Dublin Society of United Irishmen. He had tried to secure French military assistance for the Irish rebellion of 1798. He was arrested in 1798 and imprisoned until 1802 and then banished. He spent some time in the Netherlands and France, before emigrating in 1804 to the United States. See ODNB. 34. one of the job: A ‘job’ is a cartload. 35. Te Lord Lieutenant: Philip Yorke (1757–1834), third Earl of Hardwicke, was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland April 1801 to February 1806. He was sympathetic to Catholic emancipation and made some useful reforms in the Irish Ofce. 36. the commander in Wicklow: Michael Dwyer. Wicklow had been selected as a centre for the rebellion. 37. Te cramp irons: Iron bars used to hold stones or wood together.

356

Notes to pages 292–300

38. the governor: Te governor of Kilmainham gaol, to which Emmet was moved prior to his execution, was John Dunn, an Englishman. He was not very efcient and the efective governor, though nominally the prison physician, was Dr Edward Trevor. 39. he entered Emmet’s room rather abruptly … ‘You see,’ said he to his keeper, ‘how innocently I have been occupied: this little tress has been long dear to me: Emmet had struck up a relationship with and considered himself virtually engaged to Sarah Curran, the daughter of John Philpot Curran (1750–1807), who had been Irish MP for Kilbeggin, Rathcormack and then Banagher 1783–1800 and was a famous defence lawyer, who had acted for several United Irishmen prosecuted in the 1790s. Te father was furious at this relationship and refused to act for Emmet. Sarah was abandoned by her family and later lef Ireland afer marrying a soldier. She died in 1808. 40. his brother in America: Tat is Tomas Addis Emmet, who did not go to America until 1804. 41. the other to the secretary of state: Charles Philip Yorke (1764–1834) was Home Secretary from August 1803 to May 1804. He was a half-brother of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at this time. See ODNB. 42. the sherifs: Te sherifs were George Walsh and Drury Jones; the former appears to have been most involved at Emmet’s execution. 43. the executioner: Te executioner was Tomas Galvin, who had accepted the position some years previously to avoid being transported for a serious ofence. He made a mess of both hanging Emmet and later cutting of his head. He died in 1830. 44. turnkey: George Dunn (not to be confused with the governor of the prison with the same surname). Despite this rather fanciful and probably apocryphal story, he actually betrayed Emmet and handed over some of Emmet’s last letters, including one to Sarah Curran, to the authorities.

[McKenna], An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question 1. 2. 3.

4. 5. 6. 7.

8.

a Tribunal: Te author is referring to the Westminster Parliament. anility: this can mean dotage, foolishness, or ‘old-womanish’. Trough all the details and relations of the subject … you act upon nearly fve millions* of your fellow subjects: Tomas Worth Newenham (1762–1831) had been MP for Clonmel 1797–1800, when he had opposed Union. He was a writer on Irish afairs and a major authority on the Irish economy. He wrote, Essays on the Population of Ireland: and the character of the Irish (London, 1803). See ODNB and HoIP 1692–1800. Bonaparte: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821) made himself Emperor of the French in 1804. the present war: War with France had broken out again in 1803 and lasted until 1815. the income tax: Prime Minister William Pitt the younger had introduced a new form of tax, income tax, in 1799 in an efort to meet the heavy costs of war with France. they are few restrictions, which at this day the letter of the law imposes on Catholics: Many of the penal laws imposed on Irish Catholics in the late seventeenth and earlier eighteenth centuries had been repealed in the later eighteenth century. Catholics with the relevant property qualifcations now had the right to vote in parliamentary elections, but they still could not sit in either house of parliament and could not hold high executive ofce. Tese restrictions remained until 1829. the daring attempt made in 1803 upon the peace of the metropolis: Tis is a reference to Robert Emmet’s abortive rising in Dublin in 1803.

Notes to pages 300–2 9.

10.

11. 12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21.

22. 23. 24. 25.

357

Te general tenor of Lord Hardwicke’s administration had been conciliatory: Philip Yorke (1757–1834) was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland 1801–6. He had become a convert to Catholic emancipation, a position still opposed by the Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. During the America war: Tis is a reference to the American War of Independence 1775– 83. In 1778 France allied with the Americans and threatened the invasion of both Britain and Ireland in 1779. the Directory: Revolutionary France was governed by the Directory between 1795 and 1799. Pius VI. the late Pope: Count Giovanni Angelo Braschi (1717–99) was Pope Pius VI from 1775 to 1799. He was imprisoned by the French afer the invasion of Italy in 1798 and died in France. Te regiments of militia, and the brigade of guards which passed into Ireland in 1798: Militia and regular soldiers from England and Scotland had been rushed to Ireland in 1798 to suppress the alarming rebellion that had broken out. Tese forces were more disciplined than the troops already there. Te new Commander-in-Chief and Lord Lieutenant, Lord Cornwallis, also imposed stricter discipline than his immediate predecessors. Mr. Fox endeavoured to stipulate: Charles James Fox (1749–1806) was Secretary of State in 1782, when the British government and Parliament conceded legislative independence to the Irish Parliament, but he had tried to ensure that the British government and Parliament retained control of foreign policy. See Fox’s comments on 8–9 April and 17 May 1782, in Cobbett (ed.), Parl. Hist., vol. 22, cols 1247–52, 1254–58 and vol. 23, cols 20–9. Mr. Emmet: Robert Emmet (1778–1803), the Irish lawyer and revolutionary who led the abortive rising in Dublin, for which he was executed (see the previous text printed above), was the son of Dr Robert Emmet (1729–1802), the ofcial state physician to the Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Russel: Tomas Russell (1767–1803), who was also a United Irishman executed for his involvement in the abortive rising of 1803, was the son of John Russell, an army ofcer, who became a captain of invalids at the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham. Non hœc in fœdera veni: Virgil, Te Aeneid, bk 4, ll. 338–9. Te Latin can be translated as: ‘It was not this, I promised to do’. It was said by Aeneas to Dido. Tere was an implied stipulation … the vast detail of its expences and compensations, incurred without any adequate beneft: It had been widely expected that the Union would be accompanied by Roman Catholic emancipation. Te failure to agree this concession seriously undermined the chances that the Union would be a constitutional success. the revolution: Te Glorious Revolution of 1688–9. disagreeable religion: Protestant episcopacy. the consequence was, an incessant state of open or smothered warfare: Te more extreme Scottish Presbyterians, especially the Covenanters in south-west Scotland, kept up a bitter struggle against the imposition of episcopacy for many years. King William: William of Orange (1650–1702), who reigned as William III from 1689. the accession of his present majesty: George III came to the throne in 1760. two rebellions: Te reference here is to the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745, which were largely centred on Scotland. the name of King William is a sort of watch-word in the afairs of Ireland: Irish Protestants regarded William of Orange as a hero for rescuing them from a Catholic revival attempted by James II, who had lost his throne of England in 1688, but sought to recover power by invading Ireland. William defeated James at the Battle of the Boyne in July

358

26.

27.

28.

29. 30.

31. 32.

33.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

Notes to pages 302–5 1690, a victory celebrated by Irish Protestants up to the present. His name was also used when the militant Orange Order was established in 1795 (and which still exists). it may deserve consideration, whether it were not better to imitate him, where he acted upon his own enlarged views of sound policy: William III was far more tolerant in matters of religion than were his Irish Protestant subjects. He did not personally approve of the penal laws, which the Irish Parliament began to pass almost immediately afer his forces achieved fnal victory over the Catholic forces of James II in 1692. The Test Laws: Te English Test Acts of 1673 (25 Charles II, cap. 2) and of 1678 (30 Charles II, st. 2) restricted the access of Englishmen to ofce under the crown to those Protestants who were in communion with the Church of England. Tese restrictions were not lifed for Protestant Dissenters until 1828 (9 George IV, cap. 17) and for Roman Catholics until 1829 (10 George IV, cap.7). Both groups were minorities in England, whereas the Catholics were a large majority in Ireland. Te popular religion in that branch of the Empire difers, as widely as in Ireland, that practised at the seat of government: Te established Protestant Church of Scotland had a Presbyterian structure, whereas the established Protestant Church of England had an episcopal structure. Practices and rituals also difered. Te English Test Acts of 1673 and 1678 did not apply to Scotsmen. Tus, Scots Presbyterians, unlike Irish Catholics, could sit in both houses of parliament and could hold high executive ofce. Montesquieu: Charles-Louis de Secondat (1689–1755), Baron de Montesquieu was a great French philosopher, political theorist, and lawyer. How can you punish me for believing … surely I am at liberty to believe that yet to be, which you acknowledge to have been: Te Spirit of the Laws, in Te Complete Works of M. de Montesquieu, 4 vols (London, 1777), vol. 2, p. 199. Agincourt and Cressy: two great English victories in the Hundred Years’ War with France: Crécy on 26 August 1346 and Agincourt on 25 October 1415. Te test laws do not apply to the two Houses of Parliament, they merely refer to ofces: every species of Dissenter may, and actually does sit in either assembly: Te English Test Acts did not apply to those seeking to sit in either house of parliament. Since all Protestant Dissenters, of any kind, had no difculty in taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy required of those sitting in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, they were not excluded. Roman Catholics could not in conscience take these oaths and hence they were excluded. Roman Catholics in Ireland may be appointed to the ofces fom which the tests exclude in England all Dissenters: Catholic Relief Acts of the late eighteenth century in Ireland allowed Irish Catholics to hold a variety of lesser ofces under the crown, whereas the English Test Acts still prevented English Dissenters having access to similar posts in England. It is altogether by another law: Irish Catholics were excluded from parliament (and higher executive posts) because of the Irish Test Act of 1704. It is about twenty-six years since the test laws, as to Dissenters, were abrogated in Ireland: in 1780. Te advantages proposed by repealing the Sacramental Test, impartially considered. By the Rev. Dr Swif, Dean of St Patrick’s ([Dublin], 1732), p. 6. Prince Ferdinand / of Wirtemburg: Ferdinand Augustus Frederick (1763–1834), son of Frederick II Eugene, Duke of Württemberg. Te Emperor: Francis (1768–1835) was Holy Roman Emperor 1792–1806 as Francis II and the frst Emperor of Austria 1804–35 as Francis I. Napoleon destroyed the old Holy Roman Empire.

Notes to pages 305–6

359

39. General Alvintzy: Josef Alvintzy (1735–1810) came from Transylvania. Napoleon made him a Field Marshal and administrator/governor of Hungary. 40. a Calvinist. General Mack: Karl Mack von Leiberich (1752–1828) was an Austrian general, who was forced by Napoleon to surrender at Ulm on 1805. He was a commoner, ennobled for bravery. 41. the Dutchy of Bareuth: Bayreuth, that is, Bavaria. 42. his sovereign: See note 38, above. 43. Te Earl of Fingal: Arthur James Plunkett (1759–1836), eighth Earl of Fingal from 1793, was active in opposing the Irish rebellion of 1798. 44. the Earl of Kenmare: Valentine Browne (1754–1812) was ffh Viscount Kenmare in the Catholic peerage from 1795, but frst Viscount in a new creation from 1798, and frst Earl of Kenmare from 1801. He proved loyal during the Irish Rebellion of 1798, for which he was rewarded. 45. yet these, and four other, noble persons: Te other four Catholic peers were Nicholas Barnewall (1726–1813), fourteenth Baron Trimlestown from 1796; Jenico Preston (1775–1860), twelfh Viscount Gormanston from 1786; Tomas Anthony Southwell (1777–1860), third Viscount Southwell from 1796; and Charles Talbot (1753–1827), ffeenth Earl of Waterford. 46. the Campbells and Mac Donnells: Te Campbells and Macdonalds were leading Scottish clans, but, as Protestants, were not under the same restrictions as prominent Irish Catholics. 47. in Sparta upon the Helots: Te Helots were a subjugated people (virtual slaves) in Laconia and Messenia, ruled by Sparta, a city state in ancient Greece. 48. the Barons of Runnymead: Te English barons, who compelled King John at Runnymede to accept Magna Carta, the great medieval charter of liberties, in 1215. 49. they were the turbulent and gloomy fanatics: Te English Puritans who rejected Protestant episcopacy, as well as Catholicism, fought against Charles I and executed him in 1649. 50. Charles: Charles Stuart (1600–49), who reigned as Charles I from 1625. 51. James the First: James Stewart (or Stuart) (1566–1625), who reigned in Scotland as James VI from 1567 and as James I of England and Ireland from 1603. 52. Charles the Second: Charles Stuart (1630–85) was restored to his father’s throne in 1660. 53. the Popery Code: Te Clarendon Code 1661–5, a series of acts against Catholics and Protestant Dissenters in England, were a model for the later penal code in Ireland. 54. væ victis: Latin for ‘woe to the vanquished’. 55. Why do you not annually celebrate in Edinburgh the victories of Killicranky: James Graham of Claverhouse, frst Viscount Dundee, who supported the Jacobite cause in Scotland against the Glorious Revolution of 1688–9, was killed at the battle of Killiecrankie, in Perthshire, on 27 July 1689. 56. Culloden: Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender, was defeated at the battle of Culloden near Inverness on 16 April 1746, which ended his eforts to restore his father, James Francis Stuart, the Old Pretender, to the thrones which his father, James II, had lost in 1688. 57. Boyne: James II and his Jacobite forces in Ireland were defeated by William III and his army at the battle of the Boyne on 1 July 1690 (according to the Old Style calendar). Tis victory is still celebrated today (on 12 July, according to the New Style calendar) by some Protestants in Northern Ireland. 58. Aghrim: Te Jacobite forces, which were loyal to James II, were defeated by the Protestant Williamite forces at the battle of Aughrim on 12 July 1691 (Old Style calendar).

360

Notes to pages 306–10

59. the Emperor of China is said to use in consecrating the plough: According to Chinese legend, the emperor Shen Nong (2737–2698 bc) is reputed to have invented the plough. Every year the Chinese emperor performed a variety of rites on the 15th day of the frst lunar month of the new year, including ploughing a few furrows. 60. Catholics might take fom the concession, and the use to which they are likely to convert it. In 1782, or at least in 1793: Tis is a reference to the Catholic Relief Acts of 1782 and 1793, which are printed above. 61. It was thus in the famous controversy under the Roman Republic, for what were called curule ofces: In the Roman Republic and Empire the ‘curule seat’ (sella curulis) was the chair upon which senior magistrates were entitled to sit. Hence, curule ofces are senior ofces, with some form of authority attached to them. 62. Lord Hobart’s act, in 1793: Robert Hobart (1760–1816), fourth Earl of Buckinghamshire from 1804, was MP for Portarlington and then Armagh City 1784–97 and Chief Secretary of Ireland 1789–93. He steered the Catholic Relief Act of 1793, which gave Irish Catholics the parliamentary franchise on the same terms as Protestants and the right to hold minor ofces, through the Irish Parliament even though he was not actually in favour of this concession. 63. Tey may enjoy and acquire landed property by the act of 1782: Tis act is printed in Volume 2 of this collection, pp. 255–9. 64. for members of parliament by the act of 1793: Tis act is printed in Volume 4 of this collection, pp. 137–42. 65. the six peers: For the six Catholic peers, see notes 43–5 above. 66. Tere are six peers, each of whom, in the occasional power of voting for one of the twentyeight representatives: Te Act of Union of 1800 had granted the Protestant Irish lay peerage the right to elect twenty-eight of their number to serve during their lifetime as representative peers in the Westminster House of Lords. 67. as of old the walls of Jericho: When the Israelites were seeking to conquer Canaan they fought the battle of Jericho. Te walls of the city fell down afer Joshua’s army marched around them blowing trumpets. See Joshua 6:1–27. 68. Earl of Buckinghamshire: Tat is, Robert Hobart. See note 62 above. 69. I will venture to afrm, that … there will be no objection, on the part of the Catholics, to modify the forty-shilling fanchise: Te suggestion here is that the property qualifcation for exercising the county franchise in Ireland might be increased from the present forty-shilling freeholder qualifcation, thus disfranchising some voters of all religious persuasions. When Catholic emancipation was eventually granted in 1829 the property qualifcation was increased to £10, disfranchising many Catholic voters. 70. Your wealth is at the command of Austria, or of Russia: Britain paid heavy subsidies to her European allies in order to keep them fghting in the war against Napoleon. 71. Mr. Deputy Birch: Samuel Birch made a speech in the Court of the Common Council of the City of London, on 30 April 1805, against the Roman Catholic petition in favour of emancipation. He became an alderman in 1807, sherif in 1811–12, and Lord Mayor 1814. 72. Alderman Le Mesurier: Paul Le Mesurier (1755–1805) had been MP for Southwark 1784–96, and had served as an alderman, sherif and Lord Mayor of London in the 1790s. He died in December 1805.

INDEX

Abercromby, General Ralph, CinC condemns violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii–xxviii, 5.65, 66 ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 resigns, 4.xxvii–xxviii Abingdon, Willoughby Bertie, Earl, 2.311 … Speech … in the English House of Peers, 2.226, 248–52 absentee landlords, 1.xxvi Act for Extending … An Act Confrming All the Statutes made in England, 2.253–4, 260–1 Act for Redress of Erroneous Judgments, Orders, and Decrees, 2.254, 262 Act for Securing the Independency of Judges … 1782, 2.254, 262–3 Act for the Advancement of the Trade of this Kingdom, 2.111, 113–18 Act for the Better Securing the Dependency of the Kingdom of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain (1782), repeal, 2.307, 309 Act for the Further Relief of His Majesty’s Subjects of this Kingdom Professing the Popish Religion, 2.253, 255–9 Act for the Partial Repeal of the Irish Test Act, 2.127, 129 Act for the Relief of His Majesty’s Subjects of this Kingdom Professing the Popish Religion, 1.285, 287–90 Act for the Relief of His Majesty’s Popish, or Roman Catholic Subjects of Ireland 1793, 4.135, 137–42 Act for the Removing and Preventing All Doubt … concerning the Exclusive Rights

of the Parliament and Courts of Ireland 1783, 3.1, 3–4 Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland 1800, 6.255–6, 257–74 Burrowes and, 3.139 see also Union Act More Efectually to Suppress Insurrections … 1796, 4.285, 287–96 Act explaining 1797, 4.343, 345–7 Act of Limiting the Duration of Parliaments (1768), 1.115, 117 Act to Allow Ireland to Trade with British Colonies and Plantations, 2.119, 121–5 Act to Enable His Majesty’s Subjects of Whatever Persuasion to Testify their Allegiance to Him, 1.267, 269–70 Act to Explain Act More Efectually to Suppress Insurrections … 1797, 4.343, 345–7 Act to Prevent and Punish Tumultuous Risings … 1796, 4.297, 299–300 Act to Prevent the Election or Appointment of Unlawful Assemblies 1793, 4.143, 145–6 Act to Prevent Tumultuous Risings and Assemblies 1787, 3.307, 309–13 Act to Regulate the Manner of Passing Bills, and to Prevent Delays in Summoning of Parliaments, 2.253, 260 Addington, Henry, on Catholic emancipation, 4.xliii Address fom the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin, 1794, 4.155–6, 157–64 Address of the Association of the Friends of the Constitution…, 4.75, 77–81

– 361 –

362

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Address of the Poor People of Munster … with their Bill of Grievances Annexed, 4.147, 149–54 Address of … Armagh … to Roman Catholic Brethren … Late Persecution, 4.339, 341 Address to the Dungannon and Leinster Volunteer Delegates on … Parliamentary Reform, 3.39, 41–6 Address … on the Question of Establishing a Regency in this Kingdom, 3.315–16, 317–26 Aggregate Assembly, 3.276 agrarian discontent, 1.xxvii, 4.xii aspects, Irish rebellion, 4.xxxi–xxxiii harvests, bad, 4.xii protest movements, 1787 Act to control, 3.307, 309–13 secret societies, post-Union, 4.xliv see also land/ landowners All’s Well: A Reply to the Author of Te Alarm, 3.121, 123–32 Allan, Tomas, 1.249n American colonies confederate empire with, proposed, 1.341, 343–50 status contrasted with Ireland, 2.217 states, constitutions, 3.13 American colonies dispute, 1.291, 299–301 constitutional rights, 1.xxxii–xxxiii, 71 Ireland and, 1.319, 324–6, 328 loss of liberty, Lucas on, 1.119, 128, 136 trade sanctions, 2.119, 121–5 American revolution contemporary Irish politics, 1.xxv–lvii failure to avert, 2.37–46 Crombie on, 2.4–7 American revolutionary war and Irish legislative independence, Dobbs on, 2.101, 106–7 as warning to Irish opposition, 2.31, 36–46 Britain and, Grattan on, 2.57, 60, 63–4 Catholic loyalty during, McKenna on, 6.300 Ireland and export concessions, 2.111, 113–18 Flood on, 2.235 North’s concessions, 2.89, 94–100, 4.ix

opposition, 1.xxxii–xxxvi unprincipled, Dickson on, 2.17, 26 Commons debate, 2.165, 167–83 Irish Patriots and, 2.165, 167–73 Anglo-Irish settlers, elite, 1.x–xi and rotten boroughs, 4.xx dominate Parliament, 4.xx politicians, Lords Lieutenant and, 1.xv–xvi see also Church of Ireland; land; Protestants Anne Queen of England, Crombie on, 2.13 Annesley, Francis, 1.179 Antrim 1.x electors, O’Connor’s letter, 4.319, 321–8 Steelboys (Protestant) protests, 1.xxvii apothecaries, Lucas and, 1.49 Appeal of the People of Ulster…, 4.333, 335–8 Appeal to the Understanding of the Electors of Ireland, 1.271, 273–84 Arguments to Prove the Interposition of the People to be Constitutional and Strictly Legal, 3.61, 63–80, 81–2 Armagh address promising help for dispossessed Catholics, 4.339, 341 Armagh Orange Lodge, resolution, 5.1, 3–4 becomes Loyal Orange Institution, 5.313 sectarian attacks, 4.xxvi 1780s, 1.xlvi–xlviii Armagh Volunteers, 1.xxxviii army, Irish, controlled by Britain, Sheridan on, 3.227n Army Augmentation bill, Townshend and, 1.228–9, 230 Association of the Friends of the Constitution…, Address, 4.75, 77–81 asylum, Irish law and, 1.205–6 Auckland, Lord see Eden, William augmentation bill, 1.xxx, xxxi Bacon, Sir Francis, 2.85, 212 Bagenal, Sir Beauchamp, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.77 Bagnall, Rose, 6.280 Banishment Act 1697, 1.xii Bantry Bay, French invasion attempt 1796, 4.xxvi–xxvii

Index Baratariana: … Fugitive Political Pieces, 1.xxx, 237–8, 239–65 Barnes, Tomas or George, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.53–5 Barrington, D., cited, 3.93n Bartlett, Tomas ‘Opposition in Late Eighteenth-Century Ireland…’, 1.153 T., Te Fall and Rise of the Irish Nation, 4.2, 84 Batley, Jeremiah, 3.186 battle of the Diamond 1795, 4.xiv, 5.1, 313 Beauchamp, Francis Charles Seymour Conway, Lord, in Irish debate 1 May, 2.294 Beckett, J. C., on Irish Rebellion 1798, 4.xxxi Bedford, Duke of, Lord Lt 1760, 1.xxv Belfast, 1.x French Revolution celebration, 4.203–5 Town Meeting 1792, 4.224 Belfast News-Letter, 3.5, 4.191 Belfast Politics: or A Collection of the Debates…, excerpts, 4.191, 193–227 Belfast United Irishmen, 4.xxi–xxxv Declarations 1792, 4.210–16 Belfast Volunteers, 1.xxxvii, 2.3 Address on liberty, 4.206–7 proclamations 1792, 4.221–4 resolutions, 4.208–10, 216–18 see also Ulster Volunteers Bellamont, Charles Coote, Earl ‘Candid Inquirer’ dedication to, 3.327, 329–30 on Moira’s motion, 5.64 Bellew, Christopher, and petition to George III, 4.83 Bellew, William, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.69–71 Beresford, John, 1.xlix and Union, 4.xxxviii dismissed by Fitzwilliam, 4.xviii Beresford, John Jun., in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.58–60 Bernard, Sir Frances, 1.249n Bew, John, Castlereagh: Enlightenment, War and Tyranny, 5.199 Bill of Rights, 3.66 Grattan on, 2.208, 212

363

Binns, John, and United Irishmen, 4.xxviii Blackstock, Allan, An Ascendancy Army…, 5.206 Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1.xxix, 255, 2.181, 185, 212, 214, 223, 3.15, 98, 306 Blaquiere, Sir John in Declaratory Act debate, 2.86 on American War, 2.172–3 Bolingbroke, Henry St John, cited, 3.87n, 91 Bond, Oliver, 4.xxiv and House of Lords Committee of Secrecy, 4.179–82, 5.183 and United Irishmen, 4.xxviii Castlereagh and, 5.135 boroughs see electoral system; rotten boroughs Boston Tea Party, 2.38 Boulter, Hugh Archbp., 1.xvi, xx ‘undertaker’, 1.xxix Boyle, Henry see Shannon, Henry Boyle, Earl of Boyne commemoration Orange marches, 4.xiv Boyne Society Orangemen, Declaration, 5.272–3 Boyne Volunteers, resolutions, 2.147–8 Bradstreet, Sir Samuel (Dublin Recorder), on American War, 2.168, 194 Brady, Robert, on political history, 3.39, 3.42 Braughal, Tomas, and Catholic Committee, 4.xvi–xvii Brehon law, 1.205 Brewster, Sir Francis, 1.180 bribery, and Union proposals acceptance, 4.xl bribery/ corruption, electoral, 3.77, 78 Bristol, George William Hervey, Earl, 1.248 Britain and American war, Grattan on, 2.57, 60, 63–4 cause of Ireland’s economic problems, 2.89, 91–100 needed by Ireland, 2.31, 47, 50–6 oppression, Irish Volunteers and, Dobbs on, 2.131, 135–9 right to rule seas, Abingdon on, 2.248–52

364

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

tyranny dispute, Hibernian Journal, 1.319, 321–32, 333–5, 335–6, 337–40 union with see Union weakened by overseas problems, Grattan on, 2.57, 63–4 British Act 1778, 1.xxxiv British armed forces Catholics and, 1.xxxv disadvantages over militia, 1.105–7, 112 English militia, conduct, Dobbs on, 3.30–1 British government and Ireland, in general and Catholic Committee petition to George III, 4.83–4 and Union, 4.xli–xlii constitution and parliamentary elections, 3.65–80 applies to Ireland, 1.157–8, 171, 196 Irish Parliament, constitutional relationship, 1.xvii–xx, 2.266, 267–305 opposition, Grattan on, 2.62 statutes purporting to bind Ireland, Grattan on, 2.207–10 not explicitly repealed remain in force, 2.253–4, 260–1 weak administrations 1760s & 1780s, 1.xxviii Parliament Irish Debates of 1782, 2.265–6, 267–305 Irish parliament subject to, 1.271, 274 House of Commons and constitutional relationship, 2.266, 267–305 and Declaratory Act 1720, Flood on, 2.229–38 Debate on George III message on Ireland. May 1 1782, 2.284–96 Debate on the Afairs of Ireland, April 8 1782, 2.267–82 House of Lords Debate on the Afairs of Ireland, May 17 1782, 2.296–305 Moira on harsh measures , 5.5–6, 7–11

Shelburne, William Petty, Earl, on Ireland 11 April, 2.282–3 Imperial Parliament, 4.xlii, 6.255–6, 258–62 House of Commons, 6.255–6, 260 House of Lords, 6.255, 258–60, 261–2 right to Catholic MPs/ Lords denied, McKenna on, 6.295, 306–7 Irish bills, British power over ‘Free Citizen’ on, 1.79, 81–5 Lucas on, 1.67, 70–7 Privy Council and Irish legislation, 1.xviii–xix rejecting ‘heads of bills’, 1.xxv–xxvi see also Imperial Parliament; Irish government; Lords Lieutenant Brodrick, Alan see Midleton, Alan Brodrick, Viscount Brooke, Henry Farmer’s Letters, 1.1, 3, 6 Te Case of the Roman-Catholics of Ireland…, 1.1, 3–9 Brooke, Sir Robert, 2.213 Browne, Hon. James or George, 2.198 Brownlow, William in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75 on American War, 2.168 on legislative independence, 2.175, 189, 194 Bruce, William, and Henry Joy (ed.), Belfast Politics, 4.191, 193–227 Buckingham, George Nugent-Temple-Grenville, Marquess, Lord Lt., 1.xlii, 1.lii–liii and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315, 326, 329, 336, 341–2 ‘Candid Inquirer’ vindication, 3.327, 329–42 Buckinghamshire, John Hobart Earl Lord Lt., 1.xxxvi administration, 2.234–8, 247 Candid Display dedication to, 2.33–4 Burgh, Tomas [?], in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75, 78–9, 79–80 Burgh, Walter Hussey, 2.274 and Mutiny Act, 1.xxxviii on American war, 1.xxxiii on legislative independence, 2.175–6, 190

Index Burgoyne, General John, in Irish debate 1 May, 2.294 Burgundy, Margaret Plantagenet Duchess of, 1.205–6 Burke, Edmund, 1.lii, 4.xviii and American colonies, Abingdon on, 2.226 in Irish debate 8 April, 2.277 Burke, Richard, and Catholic Society of Dublin, 4.29, 37 Burlamaqui, Jean-Jacques, 2.215, 3.88n Burnell, Sir John, 1.74 Burrowes, Peter and Emmet trial, 6.281 in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.49–53 life, 3.139 Plain Arguments in Defence of the People’s Absolute Dominion over the Constitution, 3.139–40, 143–63 Bushe, Charles Kendal, Te Union. Cease Your Funning, 6.89, 91–109 Bushe, Gervase Parker, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.76 Bute, John Stuart, Earl, 1.240 Butler, Archbishop, and Catholic priests code of conduct, 1.xlvii Butler, Simon and Dublin United Irishmen, 4.xxii, xxiv, 109, 112, 114–17, 118, 121 and House of Lords Committee of Secrecy, 4.179–82 Byrne, Edward and Catholic Committee, 4.xv, xvii and Catholic Society of Dublin, 4.1, 39 and petition to George III, 4.83 Cairnes, David, 1.180 Caldwell, Sir James, A Brief Examination … Act to Enable Papists to take Real Securities…, 1.51–2, 53–65 Camden, Charles Pratt, Earl in Irish debate 17 May, 2.303–4 Lord President, 2.249, 303 Camden, John Jefreys Pratt, Earl, Lord Lt., 4.xix and Defenders, 4.xxvi and violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii– xxviii, 5.65

365

Moira’s proposed address, Irish Lords debate, 5.31–2, 33–64 Candid Display of the Reciprocal Conduct of Great Britain and her Colonies…, 2.31–2, 33–56 Candid Enquiry … Roman Catholics of Ireland … Rights of Subjects, 4.61, 63–73 Candid Enquiry into … the Late Riots in … Munster … White-boys or Levellers, 1.87, 89–97 ‘Candid Inquirer’ Common Sense, in Vindication of … the Marquis of Buckingham, 3.327, 329–42 Care, H., 3.92 Carey, William, Rights of Irishmen, or National Evening Star, 4.xxiii Carhampton, Henry Lawes Luttrell, Earl and Connacht suspects, 4.xxvi and Defenders, 4.xxvi supports harsh measures, 5.65 Carlisle, Frederick Howard, Earl, Lord Lt, 2.190, 245, 265, 274, 277 and Irish free trade, 1.xxxix Fitzwilliam’s letters, 4.261–2 Grattan and, 2.205 in Irish debate 17 May, 2.298 Carrickfergus electorate, 1.xiv invasion 1758, 1.105 Carteret, Lord Lt, 1.xx Cartwright, Major John, 1.xliv, 3.185 Cashel, Charles Agar Archbishop, 2.321 Castlereagh, Robert Stewart, Viscount and Union, 4.xxxviii–xl, xliii and United Irish Prisoners 1798, 5.135, 137–40, 141, 143–59 ‘Communications … Government and the State Prisoners’, 5.141, 143–59 Cooke and, 6.14 Irish Commons, Committee of Secrecy, Report … August 21 , 1798, 5.161, 163–81 life, 5.199 McKenna and, 6.111 Memoirs and Correspondence, 5.135, 137–40, 143–59, 199, 201–4, 277–311 O’Connor’s letter to, 5.211, 213–37

366

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

on political aspects, Irish rebellion, 4.xxxv resigns over Catholic emancipation bill failure, 6.255 Catholic clergy and 1798 rebellion, 5.111 bishops and Catholic Sub-Committee, 4.29 conciliatory policy, 4.xix–xx Catholic Relief acts 1782, 1.xli code of conduct, 1.xlvii guidance from, Candid Enquiry on, 4.61, 69–70 legislation against, 1.xi–xiii minority, and Wexford rebellion, 4.xxxiii Catholic Committee, 1.xii, xxxv, 1, 4.1–2 and franchise, 1.xliv and reform, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79–80 Catholic Sub-Committee, 4.29, 31–6, 91–2, 93–100 Declaration 1792, 4.58–60 Dublin debate on, 4.37, 39–60 Defence of the Sub-Committee, 4.91–2, 93–100 discreet lobbying, 4.xv, 29 Dublin Convention, 4.xvi–xvii, 169 franchise campaign, 4.xvi–xvii guidance from, Candid Enquiry on, 4.61, 69–70 Keogh and, 3.133 McKenna and, 5.239, 6.111 petition to George III, 4.29, 83–4, 85–9 reassembled, delegation to George III, 4.xix wound up by Convention Act 1793, 4.xvii Catholic emancipation/ relief, 1.xliii–xliv, 4.xi, xv–xx abandoned by UK 1801, 4.xliii Burrowes on, 3.139, 152–62 campaign for, 1.xi–xiii, 4.x, xx franchise dangerous, 3.47, 56–7 petition rejected 1792, 4.xvi radicals and, 4.xxi Candid Enquiry on, 4.61, 63–73 Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 201 Dickson and, 2.17 failure to achieve 1800, 6.255

franchise, partial 1793, 3.17, 4.xiii, xvii, 2 Jebb on, 3.179, 183, 185, 189–91 and estates question, 3.267, 276–8 loan securities bill, Caldwell on, 1.51, 53–65 Lewis on, 2.311, 313–25 McKenna and, 6.111–12, 6.295–6, 297–310 ‘Orangeman’ on, 5.239–40, 241–58 penal laws reforms incomplete 1780s, 2.127, 129, 4.x relaxation, Volunteers support, 2.145, 153, 155 repeal urged, 1.291, 293–317 relief acts Catholic Relief Act 1774, 1.267, 269–70, 285, 287–90 Catholic Relief Act 1778, 1.xxxv–xxxvi Catholic relief act 1782, 1.xli, 2.253, 255–9 Catholic relief bill 1792, 4.xvi, 4 Catholic Relief Act 1793, 4.xvii, 135, 137–42 Keogh and, 3.133 Catholic relief bill 1795 Fitzwilliam and, 4.261–2, 263–73 Grattan’s proposals, 4.229–10, 231–9 O’Connor’s speech on, 4.241–2, 243–59 defeated, 4.xviii–xix Russell on, 4.301 Test Acts, 1.xi, xii partial repeal for dissenters 1780, 1.xi, 2.127, 129 McKenna on, 6.303–4 Union and Grattan on, 6.221, 232–3 Pitt promises, 4.xxxvii–xliii Imperial Parliament and, 4.xlii right to Catholic MPs/ Lords denied, McKenna on, 6.295, 306–7 Union promoted to, 4.xl–xli Catholic Society of Dublin Declaration, 4.1–2, 3–7 demands penal code complete repeal, 4.xvi Strictures on, 4.9, 11–27 wound up by Convention Act 1793, 4.xvii

Index Catholics and British armed forces, 1.xxxv and Irish rebellion Catholic rising aspects, 4.xxxiii–xxxv remonstration to rebels, 5.130–1 Troy and, 5.111–12, 113–20 and volunteer militia and arms, 4.xiii–xiv Dickson on, 2.17, 27–8 support, ‘Country Gentleman’ on, 1.99, 110 and Protestants, united in Volunteers, 3.32 and Rightboys, 1.xlvii–xlviii dispossessed, help for, 4.339, 341 forfeited lands restoration urged, 1.291, 312–17 reconciliation, Brooke on, 1.1, 3–9 Protestant distrust as threat, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 dangers of and need for subjection, Caldwell on, 1.51–2, 53–65 loyalty cannot be guaranteed, 3.293, 299–300 majority proved loyalty 1798, McKenna on, 6.295, 300–1 not threat, All’s Well on, 3.121, 123–32 rebellion fears 1778, 1.xxxiii, xxxvi–xl see also Orange Order tracts for, against Defenders, 4.101, 103–6, 275, 277–83 Cattle Act 1663, 1.xviii Caulfeld, James, Catholic Bishop of Ferns, on priests and rebels, 4.xxxiii Cavan, Richard Ford William Lambert, Earl, on Moira’s motion, 5.46–7 Charlemont, James Caulfeild, Earl, 2.57, 274 and electoral reform, 1.xliv, xlv and Irish Whigs, 4.xxi and legislative independence, 1.xxxviii–xl and Volunteers, 1.xxxvii Burrowes on, 3.140, 153–4, 157 Dobbs’ dedication to, 2.133 Ulster Volunteers on, 2.160 Charles II King of England, statutes, 1.xviii Chatham, William Pitt (the elder), Earl, 3.30, 171

367

Chesterfeld, Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl, 2.49 Church of Ireland, 4.xi and Imperial Parliament, 4.xlii and Irish constitution, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 failure to engage with Catholic poor, 1.xiii ministers, and United Irishmen, 4.xxxiii post-Union, 6.255, 262 Primates, 1.xvi settlers, 1.x–xi see also tithes civil disobedience, ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205 Clare, John FitzGibbon, Earl, Lord Chancellor, 3.283, 337 and Union proposals, 4.xxxviii, 4.xli, xliii in Declaratory Act debate, 2.77–8, 80 Irish Lords, Committee of Secrecy, Report … August 30 1798, 5.183, 185–98 on Moira’s motion, 5.31, 47–56 on legislative independence, 2.176, 190–1, 197 class divisions, 4.xi Clement, William, 1.250 Clinch, Sir Henry, 2.85 Clogher, Bishop of, 3.9 Cobbett, William (ed.), Te Parliamentary History of England, 2.165, 265, 267–305 Earl of Moira’s Speech 1797, 5.5–6, 7–11 Coigley, James, and United Irishmen, 4.xxviii Coke, Sir Edward, 2.85, 212, 213, 214, 223, 240 on union with Scotland, 3.304 Colclough, Sir Vesey, 2.156 Collis, John Address to the People of Ireland, on the Projected Union, 6.137, 139–48 and Dublin Society of United Irishmen, 6.137 commerce British Navigation acts, and Irish ships, 1.xxxiv Britain’s right to rule seas, Abingdon on, 2.248–52

368

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

commercial war with Britain feared, 3.267 East India trade Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.255, 258 Irish merchants and, 2.221 restrictions, Sheridan on, 3.239–41 efect of conscription on, 3.27–8 foreign trade development, 1.xxvi laws, oppressive or not, 1.319, 321, 327–8, 329–32, 334–5 leather trade, and British bark, 3.219 linen industry expansion, 1.xxvi, 4.xiii and British capital, 3.217–18 manufacturers and economic problems, 1.xlviii, 2.48, 55–6 criticism, 1.319, 327, 330 principles vs. reality, Sheridan on, 3.224–9 reliance on British capital/ materials, Sheridan on, 3.217–224 sugar trade, 2.59, 61, 66, 122, 174, 201, 236–7, 246 sugar bill, 2.174 tarif disputes, 1.xlviii–l wool trade, 2.55–6, 59–60, 61, 63, 66, 81, 89, 93, 113–18, 213 Wool Act 1698, 2.89, 93 Wool Act 1699, 1.xviii woollens, British infux, 3.195, 198 commercial arrangements/ concessions, 2.89, 95–100 Act for the Advancement of the Trade of this Kingdom, 2.111, 113–18 Act to Allow Ireland to Trade with British Colonies and Plantations, 2.119, 121–5 and American Revolution, 4.ix colonial trade 1785, Sheridan on, 3.231–44 Dobbs on, 2.101, 104, 109 Grattan on, 2.57, 59–64 exports American war efect, 1.xxxiii–xl Grattan on, 2.59 Exportation of Grain prevention bill, UK interference, 1.67, 70–7, 81–5, 132

to Britain, 3.222–3, 241–2 to colonies, 2.111, 113–18 free trade, Volunteer movement and, 1.xxxviii–xl Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.256–65 imports American war efect, 1.xxxiii–xl duties, disputes, 1.xlviii–l from colonies, 2.119, 121–5 maintenance, Eden on, 2.268 praised, 2.31, 53–4 negotiations, 1.xlviii–li post-Union, 6.256, 262–7 Grattan on, 6.221, 226–7, 236–41 propositions 1785, 3.285, 287–9, 305 Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.245–6, 249–65 Sheridan on, 3.205–6, 213, 215–44 wording confused, Sheridan on, 3.229–31, 233–4, 243–4 see also economic issues Common Sense, in Vindication of … the Marquis of Buckingham, 3.327, 329–42 community, sovreignty of, Burrowes and, 3.143–63 Confans, Hubert de Brienne comte de, Scottish planned invasion, 1.105 Connacht Catholic population, 1.x Defender suspects pressed into Royal Navy, 4.xxvi Conolly, Tomas, 1.li in Declaratory Act debate, 2.80 on constitutional rights, 1.xxxiii on American War, 2.171 Conolly, William, Speaker, 1.xvi, xx constitution Church of Ireland and, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 principles, Seward on, 3.83, 87–104 reform, 1.xxix Burrowes on, 3.139–40, 143–63 Doria on, 3.167–76 French on, 1.203–20 Lucas on, 1.46–8, 153, 155–98 Protestant constitution wanted, 3.285, 287 Volunteers and, 1.xxxviii–xli relationship, 1.xvii–xx, 2.266, 267–305

Index English constitution applies, 1.157–8, 171, 196 rights, and Britain’s American policies, 1.xxxiii Convention Act 1793, 4.xvii ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 United Irishmen illegal, 4.xxiv Conway, General Henry Seymour, in Irish debate 8 April, 2.276–7, 277 Cooke, Edward Arguments For and Against an Union, 4.xxxviii–xxxix, 6.13–14, 15–39 Bushe’s refutation, 6.89, 91–109 dismissed by Fitzwilliam, 4.xviii life, 6.14 on Union proposals, 4.xl Cork Boyne Volunteers, resolutions, 2.147–8 electorate, 1.xiv Grand Jury, Volunteer resolutions, 2.152–4 population, 1.x Cornwall, Charles Wolfram (Speaker), in Irish debate 8 April, 2.271 Cornwallis, Charles, Lord Lt./ CinC and Union, 4.xxxviii, xl, xliii and United Irish Prisoners 1798, 5.135 Lake and, 4.329 on political aspects, Irish rebellion, 4.xxxv pardons surrendered rebels, 4.xxx resigns over Catholic emancipation bill failure, 6.255 Union discussions with Portland, 5.275–6, 277–311 Yorktown capitulation, 2.172 Corporation Acts, 1.xi Corry, Isaac, and Union, 4.xxxviii counties electorate, 1.xiii–xiv more MPs wanted, 3.61, 68–9, 76–80 under-represented, 3.9–10 ‘Country Gentleman’, Essay on the Use and Necessity of Establishing a Militia in Ireland, 1.99, 101–13 Courtney, John, in Irish debate 8 April, 2.271, 278–80 courts of appeal, 1.xviii

369

Cox, Watty, Union Star, 4.xxiii Crewe, John, 2.274 Crombie, Rev. James life/ publications, 2.1 Te Expedience and Utility of Volunteer Associations…, 2.1, 3–15 Cromwellian conquest, 1.x, xvii, 2.85 Cronin, Denis A., A Galway Gentleman … Robert French…, 1.201 Crookshank, Alexander, on American War, 2.169 crown patronage reduction, Irish Whigs and, 4.xxi Cuninghame, Colonel Robert, 1.241 Cupples, Snowden life, 5.260 Te Principles of the Orange Association, 5.259–60, 261–73 Curran, John Philpot, speech against Union, 6.222, 246–8 Dallas, Sir George Defence of the Conduct of … Ministers, and … Army in Ireland, 5.15–16, 17–29 life/ publications, 5.16 Daly, Denis, 1.xxxiv on legislative independence, 2.182 Daly, St George and Emmet trial, 6.277 in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.48 Darcy, Patrick, 2.181 debates, publication, 1.xxvi Debates in the House of Commons of Ireland, 19 April 1780, 2.69, 71–87 Declaration of the Catholic Society of Dublin, 4.1–2, 3–7 Strictures on, 4.9, 11–27 ‘Declarations, Resolutions and Constitution of the United Irishmen’, 4.349, 351–63 Declaratory Act 1720, 1.xviii, xxviii–xxix amendment (Declaration of Right), Grattan moves, 2.57, 59–67, 69, 71–4, 86, 218 Eden on, 2.269–70 Irish Patriots and, 2.165, 173–204 objections, 1.xxxix–xl repeal, 1.xl, xli

370

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and constitutional relationship, 2.266, 267–305 confrmatory act 1783, 2.307, 309, 3.1, 3–4 Dobbs on, 2.101–2, 103–9 Flood on, 2.225, 227, 229–38, 239–47 Grattan on, 2.205–6, 207–17 no efect on legal principle, 2.230–8, 239–47 Declaratory Act 1766 (American colonies), 1.xxviii–xxix Abingdon on, 2.226, 252 defence/ security costs, augmentation bill, 1.xxx, xxxi Irish volunteers best solution, 3.27–38 policies, Pitt and, 1.xlix Defence of Great Britain Against a Charge of Tyranny … by an Irishman, 1.319, 321–32 Defence of the Sub-Committee of the Catholics of Ireland…, 4.91–2, 93–100 Defenders (Catholics), 1.xlvii, 3.307, 5.1, 313 and agrarian issues, 4.xxxii–xxxiii and reform, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 and United Irishmen, 4.xxv-ii Catholic bishops abandon, 4.xx Catholic Committee accused of abetting, 4.91 Connacht suspects pressed into Royal Navy, 4.xxvi diferent objectives for rebellion, 4.xxxv steal Protestant arms, 4.xiv tracts against, 4.101, 103–6, 275, 277–83 violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii– xxviii democratic franchise, Burrowes and, 3.140 Dennis, Dr William, 1.241 Derry, John W., Te Regency Crisis and the Whigs, 3.315 Devereaux, James Edward, and petition to George III, 4.83 Dialogue on the actual State of Parliament (pamphlet) cited, 3.74–5 Diamond, battle of 1795, 4.xiv, 5.1, 313 Dickson, Rev. William Steel A Sermon on the … Knowledge and Use of Arms, 2.17–18, 19–29 life/ publications, 2.17

Dillon, Robert, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75, 81–2 Disarming Act 1695, 1.xii Dissenters and Catholic Relief Act, 1.xxxv–xxxvi, xlvi as threat, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 not threat, All’s Well on, 3.121, 123–32 Test Act 1704 partial repeal 1780, 2.127, 129, 6.304 political exclusion, 1.xi–xii disturbances, Act against 1796, 4.285, 287–96, 343, 345–7 Dobbs, Francis in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.83–4 Letter to … Lord North, on his Propositions in Favour of Ireland, 1.xxxviii, 2.101–2, 103–9 life/ publications, 2.101 Toughts on the Conduct and Continuation of the Volunteers of Ireland, 3.21, 23–38 Toughts on Volunteers, 2.131, 133, 135–9 Dodd, James Solas, life/ publications, 6.189–90 Dodd, James Solas [?], Calm Considerations on the Probable Consequences of an Union…, 6.189–90, 191–204 Dolan, A. et al. (eds), Reinterpreting Emmet…, 6.276 Domville, Sir William, 1.175 Donnelly, James S. Jr, on the Rightboy movement, 1.87 Doria, Andrew, A Letter to the Volunteers … Parliamentary Reform, 3.165, 167–77 Dorset, Lionel Cranfeld Sackville, Duke, 1.xx, 75 Down Orange Order sectarian attacks, 4.xxvi population, 1.x Steelboys (Protestant) protests, 1.xxvii Down, Patrick McMullan Bp., on Moira’s motion, 5.56–7 Downshire, Marquess of, 4.xl Drennan, William and Dublin United Irishmen, 4.124, 129, 130, 133 and electoral reform, 1.xlvi and United Irishmen, 4.xxi, xxiv

Index Driscoll, Timothy, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.61–3 Drogheda electorate, 1.xiv parliament laws, 1.205, 206–9 population, 1.x Dublin, 1.x ‘Aggregate’ meeting 1784, 1.xlv–xlvi and Union, 4.xxxix candidates test, Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 197 city and county, Act against disturbances 1796, 4.297, 299–300 corporation reform campaign, 1.xx electorate, 1.xiv mayor, public notice on 1798 rebellion, 5.128 Dublin area, arrests/ disarming, 4.xxvii Dublin Catholics debate on Catholic Committee Declaration, 4.37, 39–60 Resolution against Union, 6.222, 242 Dublin Citizens, Resolution against Union, 6.222, 249 Dublin Club of Free Citizens, opposes American war, 1.xxxiii Dublin Convention (Catholic Committee), 4.xvi–xvii Dublin Corporation of Weavers, Resolution against Union, 6.222, 252–3 Dublin Evening Post, on legislative independence, 1.l Dublin Freeholders of the county, Resolution against Union, 6.222, 250–1 Dublin Freemen and Freeholders, Resolution against Union, 6.222, 244–5 Dublin Guild of Merchants opposes American war, 1.xxxiii Resolution against Union, 6.222, 243 Dublin Magazine, White-boys/ Levellers appendix, 1.87, 89–97 Dublin Mercury, 1.241 Dublin Orangemen, Declaration, 5.270 Dublin, Sherif and Commons, opposes American war, 1.xxxiii Dublin United Irishmen, 4.xxii–xxxv addresses to Belfast United Irishmen, 4.167–8

371

Catholic Countrymen 1793, 4.185–8 Friends of the People, 4.121–4 Irish Nation 1793, 4.170–6 nation, 4.118–20 people 1794, 4.155–6, 157–64 Scotland delegates, 4.124–9 Volunteers of Ireland, 4.130–3 and House of Lords Committee of Secrecy, 4.179–82 Circular, 4.114–17 Collis and, 6.137 constitution, 4.188–90 Declaration, 4.110–11 founding, 4.107–8 on French war and local arms, 4.176–8 Proceedings 1791–2, 4.107–8, 109–34 Dublin Volunteers, 1.xxxvii, xxxviii address to Grattan, 2.158–9 Dugdale, William, on political history, 3.39, 3.42 Duigenan, Dr Patrick life/ publications, 3.105 on Rightboys, 1.xlvii Te Alarm: or, An Address … Church of Ireland, 3.105–6, 107–19 reply to, 3.121, 123–32 Dundas, Henry and Catholic Committee petition to George III, 4.83–4 and Union, 4.xxxviii, xliii Dungannon and Leinster Volunteer Delegates, parliamentary reform address to, 3.39, 41–6 Dungannon Convention, 1.xliv–xlv, 2.184 and legislative independence, 1.xxxix, xli and penal laws, 1.xliii Dobbs and, 2.101 resolutions, 2.143–7, 154–5, 4.209–10 alarm at, 3.47, 49–59 Flood’s electoral reform bill 1783–4, 3.165 Seward on, 3.87, 92, 93, 95, 99 Dunn, Colonel James, Lucas on, 1.48 Dunsany, Randall Plunkett, Baron, on Moira’s motion, 5.57–8 Dyson, Jeremiah, 1.250, 253

372

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Earlsfort, John Scott, Baron, 3.283 East India trade Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.255, 258 Irish merchants and, 2.221 restrictions, Sheridan on, 3.239–41 Echlin, Charles, 2.17 Echlinville Volunteers, 2.17, 19 economic issues crisis 1784–5, 1.xlviii Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 197–204 Sheridan on, 3.205–6, 213–44 Irish solution needed, 2.48, 51–6 post-Union, no improvement, 4.xliv problems caused by Britain, 2.89, 91–100 prosperity claims, 1770s, 1.319, 324, 326 prosperity promoting, Lucas on, 1.48 war efects American war, 1.xxxiii–xxxvi, xxxvii–xl French war, 4.xii–xiii see also commerce; commercial arrangements/ concessions Eden, William, Chief Secretary, 1.xl, 3.72 and Pitt’s 10 propositions, 1.xlix, li in Irish debates, 2.267–71, 276, 277, 294–5 parliamentary debates reports, 2.265 Education Act 1695, 1.xii educational provision, Munster poor on, 4.147, 149–54 electoral system, 1.xiii–xiv Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 197, 199–204 boroughs, 1.xiii–xiv, 3.5, 9–10 small/ rotten see rotten boroughs abolition, 3.39, 44–6 defended, 3.54, 57 Keogh on, 3.133, 136 corruption, 1.271, 278–82 elections, 1.xiii–xv 1760, Lucas and, 1.11–12, 13–42, 43, 45–9 forthcoming [1768], Lucas on, 1.119, 122–9, 138–51 1776, appeal to voters, 1.271, 273–84 British constitution and, 3.65–80 candidates, Lucas on, 1.26–36 infrequent, 1.xv

electorate, 1.xiii–xv, 3.5, 9–10, 12–13 corruption attempts, Lucas on, 1.119, 122, 125–8, 147–9 duties, 1.271, 274, 278–84 Lucas on, 1.122–9, 138–51 property qualifcation increase proposed to reduce Catholics, 3.47, 54–5, 58, 4.xxi freeholders, Keogh on, 3.133, 136, 137–8 resident voters, 3.5, 7–19, 3.39, 44–6 elitism remains in 1780s, 4.x franchise democratic franchise, Burrowes and, 3.140 male sufrage call, 3.5, 7–19 Munster poor on, 4.147, 149–54 proposals to widen, 3.61, 65–80 see also Catholic emancipation/ relief Lucas on, 1.34–5 reform, 3.5, 7–19 address to Volunteer Delegates on, 3.39, 41–6 as threat, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 Burrowes on, 3.140, 152–63 Doria on, 3.165, 169–76 Flood’s bill 1783–4, 3.165 historical, 3.8, 10–12, 39, 41–3 Jebb on, 3.179, 181–93 Keogh on, 3.133, 135–8 not threat, All’s Well on, 3.121, 123–32 proposals, 1.xliii–xlviii, 3.61, 65–80, 81–2 Seward on, 3.83, 88–104 secret ballot, United Irishmen and, 4.xxiii–xxiv Elizabeth 11, cap. 1 & 7 Lucas on, 1.161–2 French on, 1.209, 210–11 Elizabethan conquest, 1.x, xvii Elliott, M., Robert Emmet: Te Making of a Legend, 6.276 Emmet, Robert, 6.302 abortive insurrection 1803 his account of, 6.287–92 trial, 6.275–6, 277–87 and revolution, 4.xliv

Index anecdotes of his last days, 6.292–3 Burrowes and, 3.139 death sentence speech, 6.275, 281–7 life, 6.275–6 Russell and, 4.301 Emmet, Dr Robert (father of RE), 6.286 Emmet, Tomas Addis, 6.275, 287 and United Irishmen, 4.xxii, xxv, xxviii, xxx–xxxi Burrowes and, 3.139 Castlereagh and, 5.135, 141, 143–59 Lords Committee of Secrecy and, 5.183 enclosures, White-boys/ Levellers riots against, 1.87, 92–4 English see British Essay on the Character and Conduct of … Visc. Townshend, 1.221, 223–36 Essay on the Use and Necessity of Establishing a Militia in Ireland, 1.99, 101–13 exports American war efect, 1.xxxiii–xl Exportation of Grain prevention bill, UK interference, 1.67, 70–7, 81–5, 132 Grattan on, 2.59 to colonies Act for the Advancement of the Trade of this Kingdom, 2.111, 113–18 Act to Allow Ireland to Trade with British Colonies and Plantations, 2.119, 121–5 to Britain, 3.222–3, 241–2 see also commerce; commercial arrangements/ concessions Fair Statement of the Administration of Earl Fitzwilliam, 4.261–2, 263–73 famine prevention measures, Lucas on, 1.67, 70, 76 fnancial crisis 1797, 4.xii–xiii Finch, Sir Heneage, 3.90 Fingal, Arthur James Plunkett, Earl, 6.305 Fitzgerald, James in Declaratory Act debate, 2.80 on Union proposals, 4.xl Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, and United Irishmen, 4.xxv, xxviii FitzGibbon, John see Clare, John FitzGibbon, Earl

373

Fitzwilliam, William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, Earl, Lord Lt, 4.xviii–xix and Grattan, 4.xlv conduct in Ireland, 4.261–2 Fair Statement’s attack on, 4.262, 263–73 his defence, 4.261–2 ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 recall 1795, 4.xviii Fleming, Sir Tomas, Dublin mayor, 2.212 public notice on 1798 rebellion, 5.128 Flood, Henry, 2.274 and electoral reform, 1.xliv, xlv electoral reform bill 1783–4, 3.165 and legislative independence, 1.xxxix, 1.xli–xlii, 2.177–8, 178–9, 194–5, 197, 198–204 and parliamentary reform, 4.xx 1784 situation, 3.267, 272, 273 annual Parliament proposls, 1.xxix Baratariana author, 1.237 Celebrated Speeches … Repeal of the Declaratory Act, 2.225, 227–38, 239–47 in Declaratory Act debate, 2.84–6 Letter to Henry Flood Esq. on the Present State of Representation in Ireland, 3.5, 7–19 life/ publications, 2.225 proposed Westminster Renunciation Act, 2.165, 194–5, 198–204 Flood, Sir Frederick, on legislative independence, 2.180 Forbes, John and Irish Whigs, 4.xxi in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75 on American War, 2.171–2 Fortescue, James, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75 Foster, John, 1.xlix, 3.135, 136 and Union proposals, 4.xl, xli compensated & pensioned, 4.xliv–xlv on Union, 6.248 victim of envy, 3.270, 282 Fox, Charles James, 3.192n and Declaratory Act repeal, 2.233–4, 240 and legislative independence, 1.xl, xlviii, lii, 2.196

374

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and legislative union fears, 3.316, 319, 326 and Pitt’s 10 propositions, 1.xlix and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315, 319 in Irish debate 8 April, 2.271–6, 280–2 1 May, 2.286–92, 295–6 papers to Commons re George III message, 2.284–6 Secretary of State in Commons, 2.265 France and American war, as threat to UK, 2.31, 43, 52 and Scottish rebellion, 1.5 commercial treaty 1786, 1.li feet of Ireland 1779, Crombie on, 2.1, 4–5, 12–13 invasion attempts attempt 1796, 4.xxvi–xxvii Catholic loyalty during, McKenna on, 6.300–1 Ballinamuck defeat, Lake and, 4.329 Carrickfergus invasion 1758, 1.105 Humbert’s Address to French Troops and Irish Nation 1798, 5.199, 201–4 fears 1778, 1.xxxiii, xxxvi–xl Scotland, Confans’ planned invasion 1759, 1.105 undefended harbours, 1.99, 105 military successes, and Irish/ British relations, 4.x–xi Napoleonic, war with, 4.xliv Revolutionary and Irish/ British relations, 4.x–xi and Irish Rebellion 1798, 4.xxx and Irish situation 1790s, 4.x–xi Assembly President, reply to Shefeld and Belfast addresses, 4.220–1 dangerous example, Candid Enquiry on, 4.61, 67 economic efects, 4.xii–xiii efect on parliamentary reform movement, 4.xv, xx–xxii war fears 1787, 3.293, 300–1 franchise see electoral system; see also Catholic emancipation/ relief

‘Free Citizen’, [Counter Address To the Lord Mayor of Dublin], 1.79, 81–5 Free Trade see commerce; commercial arrangements/ concessions Freeman’s Journal (Dublin), 1.xxix, xxx, 237 Brooke and, 1.1 Lucas and, 1.12 French, Robert, 1.201 Te Constitution of Ireland, and Poyning’s Laws Explained…, 1.201, 203–20 Lucas on, 1.198–200 French, Sir Tomas, and petition to George III, 4.83 Friends of the Constitution, Irish Whigs and, 4.xxi Froude, J. A., on Irish Rebellion 1798, 4.xxxi Galway electorate, 1.xiv Grand Jury, Volunteer resolutions, 2.148–52 population, 1.x Gardiner, Luke and Catholic Relief bill 1778, 1.xxxv– xxxvi in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75 Gavelkind Act 1704, 1.xii, xxxv–xxxvi General Chamber of Manufacturers (UK), 1.xlix General Committee of Roman Catholics, 4.29, 31–6 Geoghegan, P. M., Robert Emmet: A Life, 6.276 George, Denis, and Emmet trial, 6.277 George II King of England, administration, Lucas on, 1.13–17 George III King of England accession, 1.240 Lucas on, 1.11, 17–26, 123–4 and Lords Lieutenant residence, 1.xxx Catholic Committee petition to, 4.29, 83–4, 85–9 Declaration, Lucas on, 1.18–26 Doria proposed address to, 3.165, 176–7 message on Ireland 9 April 1782, 2.280, 282 on Catholic emancipation, 4.xliii

Index Regency crisis 1788–9, 1.lii–liii, 3.205 address on, 3.315–16, 317–26 Buckingham and, 3.315, 326, 329, 336, 341–2 regency as betrayal, 3.315–16, 322–3 patronage fears, 3.315, 319, 320, 324 Whigs and, 3.315–16, 317–26 George Prince of Wales Irish royal court suggestion, 3.285, 289–92 patronage fears, 3.315, 319, 320, 324 Geraghty, James, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.78–80 Glentworth, Edmond Henry Pery, on Moira’s motion, 5.42–6 glorious Revolution, 2.12–13, 107 Grattan on, 2.212, 219 Goold, Tomas, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.63–9 Gore, Sir William, 1.180 government see British government; Irish executive; Irish government; Lords Lieutenant Grady, Tomas, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.55–8 Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, 5.314 Grattan, Henry, 1.xxxiv, 2.270, 274, 3.186 and Declaratory Act 1720, 2.165, 173–204 and Irish executive, 1.xliii and Irish Whigs, 4.xxi and parliamentary reform, 4.xx 1784 situation, 3.267, 270, 272–4, 281–2 and Pitt’s 10 propositions, 1.xlix and Portland Whigs, 4.xvii and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315 and Volunteers, 1.xxxvii–xxxvii, xxxviii– xl Dublin Volunteers address to, 2.158–9 Baratariana author, 1.237, 242–3, 244–6 Catholic emancipation bill 1795, 4.xviii– xix Flood’s diferences, 2.239–47 life/ publications, 2.57 MP for Malton in Imperial Parliament, 4.xlv on American War, 2.169–70, 174, 186

375

on free trade, 1.xxxviii on legislative independence, 1.xxxviii–xli, xliv, l–liii, 2.165, 173–5, 178, 182, 183–9, 192–4, 196–7 on Mutiny Bill, 2.174, 187 on Union proposals, 4.xxxviii, xli speech on Union 15–16 January 1800, 6.221, 223–41 post-rebellion, 4.xxxvii ‘Proposal for a Bill for the Relief of His Majesty’s Roman Catholic Subjects, 1795’, 4.229–10, 231–9 speeches in Parliament 19 April 1780, 2.57, 59–67, 69 19 February 1782, 2.205–6, 207–17 16 April 1782, 2.205–6, 219–24 Ulster Volunteers on, 2.160–1 victim of envy, 3.270, 282 Grattan, James, 1.43, 2.57 Lucas on, 1.34–5 Great Britain see Britain Grégoire, Citizen Henri, 4.220–1 Grenville, William Wyndham, Baron, 1.xlii, 3.342 and Union, 4.xxxviii, xliii defends forceful suppression 1797, 5.5, 11–13 resigns over Catholic emancipation bill failure, 6.255 Grifth, Richard, 4.81 Guatimozin’s question, 2.107 Gunpowder Act 1793, 4.xvii ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 Habeas Corpus Act bill, 1.xxix, xxx, xxxix Eden on, 2.270 Grattan on, 2.65, 211–12 Lucas on, 1.14–15, 132 suspended 1797, 4.xxviii Hale, Sir Matthew, 3.98 Hamilton, John A Letter to Teobald McKenna, Esq., 6.149–50, 151–78 life, 6.150 Hamilton, Sackville, dismissed by Fitzwilliam, 4.xviii Hansard, T. C., Hansard’s Debates, 2.265

376

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

harbours, undefended, 1.99, 105 Harcourt, Simon, Earl, Lord Lt., 1.xxxii, xxxiv, 262 administration 1772–76, Volunteers efect on, Dobbs on, 3.25–6, 33 Hartington, Marquess, Lord Lt, 1.xx Hartstonge, Sir Henry, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75 Harvey, Beauchamp Bagenal, 4.182 Heads of Bills, alteration in UK, Lucas on, 1.67, 70–7 Heart of Oak Boys, 3.307 hearth tax, 4.xii Buckingham and, 3.327, 339–40 Hely-Hutchinson, John (undertaker), 1.xxx, 3.105 in Declaratory Act debate, 2.82 Letter fom the Secretary of State to the Mayor of Cork…, 3.245–6, 247–65 life/ publications, 3.245 on legislative independence, 2.182–3 Henry II King of England, and Ireland, 1.xvii–xviii, 204–5 Henry VII 10 cap. 9 & cap. 39 see Poynings Laws and Poynings Laws origins, 1.205–6 Herbert, Henry Arthur, in Irish debate 8 April, 2.278 hereditary revenue grant proposal Buckingham and, 3.338 objections to, 3.245–6, 254 Orde’s compromise bill, 3.245–6 Herman, Neil, ‘Henry Grattan, the Regency Crisis and the Emergence of a Whig Party in Ireland…’, 3.316 Hervey, Frederick, Earl of Bristol, 1.xliv Hibernian Journal, 6.1 ‘Defence of Great Britain … dispute’, 1.319, 321–32 ‘Hibernicus’, English Union, is Ireland’s Ruin!…, 6.205–6, 207–19 Hillsborough: Wills Hill Earl of, 1.250, 2.47, 61 Hobart, John, Lord Lt., 2.81 Hobart, Robert, Chief Secretary and Catholic Committee, 4.1, 29, 83 and Catholic Relief Act 1793, 4.xvii and Catholic Society demands, 4.xvi

Hoche, General Lazare, 4.xxvii Hooker, Richard, 1.241 Horan, Alderman James, wool cargo, 2.62n, 2.240–1 Hughes, John, Lords Committee of Secrecy and, 5.183 Humbert, General Jean-Joseph Amable Address to French Troops and Irish Nation 1798, 5.199, 201–4 Ballinamuck surrender, 4.xxx, 329 Humble Remonstrance for the Repeal of the Laws Against the Roman Catholics, 1.291, 293–317 Hume, David, 3.11n, 12 Hussey, Sir William, 2.81, 213 Hutcheson, F. cited, 3.89, 90, 103 Hutchinson, Sir Francis, 3.280 Imperial Parliament, 4.xlii, 6.255–6, 258–62 House of Commons, 6.255–6, 260 House of Lords, 6.255, 258–60, 261–2 right to Catholic MPs/ Lords denied, McKenna on, 6.295, 306–7 imports duties, disputes, 1.xlviii–l from colonies, Act to Allow Ireland to Trade with British Colonies and Plantations, 2.119, 121–5 see also commerce; commercial concessions ‘Indictment of Robert Emmet, his Reply, and an Account of his Insurrection 1803’, 6.275–6, 277–92 informers/ spies, Irish government, 4.xxvi, xxviii Insurrection Act, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 intrusion and quarterage bill, Lucas on, 1.132 invasion attempts attempt 1796, 4.xxvi–xxvii Catholic loyalty during, McKenna on, 6.300–1 Ballinamuck defeat, Lake and, 4.329 Carrickfergus invasion 1758, 1.105 Humbert’s Address to French Troops and Irish Nation 1798, 5.199, 201–4 fears 1778, 1.xxxiii, xxxvi–xl

Index

377

Grattan on, 2.59–67, 205–6, 207–17, Scotland, Confans’ planned invasion 219–24, 6.221, 223–41 1759, 1.105 Hely-Hutchinson and, 3.245 undefended harbours, 1.99, 105 Irish bills, British power over Irish Bar, Report of the Debate … on Union…, ‘Free Citizen’ on, 1.79, 81–5 6.41, 43–87 Lucas on, 1.67, 70–7 Irish Declaratory Act 1720 see Declaratory Irish Patriots and, 2.165, 173–204 Act 1720 Lucas on, 1.34–5, 119, 126–128, ‘Irish Emigrant’, Te Causes of the Rebellion 129–32, 133–6, 187–90 in Ireland Disclosed…, 5.79–80, 81–109 not working, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 Irish executive Rockingham administration and, and Irish Parliament, tensions, 4.x 2.265–6, 267–305 Grattan and, 1.xliii Spencer on, 6.1, 3–12 functions, 1.xiv–xxi Ulster Volunteers on, 2.159–61 post-Union, 4.xlii, 6.255 Volunteers and, 1.xxxviii–xli proposals decline, 1.xxv Parliament see Parliament public notice on 1798 rebellion, 5.124–7 parliamentary reform see parliamentary reform hopes, Lucas on, 1.11, 18–26 reform supersede by UK Privy Council ‘Free Citizen’ on, 1.79, 81–5 and money bills, 1.xxv Lucas on, 1.67, 70–7 and violent suppression 1797–8, Irish government 4.xxvii–xxviii constitution Grattan on, 2.223–4 Church of Ireland and, Duigenan on, see also Irish executive; Lords Lieutenant 3.105–6, 107–19 [Irish Patriot], Te Usurpations of England, principles, Seward on, 3.83, 87–104 2.89, 91–100 reform, 1.xxix Irish Patriots Burrowes on, 3.139–40, 143–63 and 1780s changes, 4.ix Doria on, 3.167–76 and American War, 1.xxviii–xxix, 2.165, French on, 1.203–20 167–73 Lucas on, 1.46–8, 153, 155–98 and Catholic question, 4.xv Protestant constitution wanted, and Declaratory Act 1720, 2.165, 3.285, 287 173–204 Volunteers and, 1.xxxviii–xli repeal, confrmatory act 1783, 3.1, 3–4 relationship, 1.xvii–xx, 2.266, 267–305 English constitution applies, 1.157–8, and legislative independence, 1.xxx171, 196 viii–xli, xlviii, l–lii, xli–xlii, 2.165, rights, and Britain’s American policies, 173–204 1.xxxiii and Poynings’ Law, 2.165, 173–204 electoral system see electoral system and Portland, 3.267 legislative independence, struggle for, as cause of disafection, 1.319, 323–32 Baratariana authors, 1.237–8 1.xxxviii–xlii, l–liv demands 1775, 1.xxxiii, xxxvii–xxxviii ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205, 213–15 Grattan on, 2.205–6, 219–24 Sheridan on, 3.205, 213–15 Hely-Hutchinson and, 3.245 and American Revolution, 4.ix Lucas and, 1.12 debate 19 April 1780, 2.69, 71–87 moderation urged, 2.31, 35–7, 47–55 Dobbs on, 2.101–2, 103–9, 131, 135–9 opposition MPs Eden on, 2.267–71 and Declaration of Right, 2.69, 71–87 Flood on, 2.225, 227, 229–38, 239–47

378

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

and Irish volunteers, 1.xxxvii–xxxviii, 3.21, 25–6, 33 legislation attempts, Lucas on, 1.119, 129–32 Sheridan on, 3.211–13 resolutions, 2.141, 143–63 Seward extols, 3.83, 85–6 Irish peers, and Imperial Parliament, 4.xlii, 6.255, 258–60, 261–2 deprived of judicature, Grattan on, 2.221 disadvantaged by union with Britain, 3.301–2, 303 Irish Rebellion see rebellions Irish volunteers see Volunteers; see also Belfast Volunteers; Dublin Volunteers; Ulster Volunteers Irish Whigs, 1.liii and crown patronage reduction, 4.xxi and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315, 317–26 Northern Whig Club, resolutions, 4.218–19 post-rebellion, 4.xxxvii Irish yeomanry, Lindsay and, 5.205–6 Irishman’s Letter to the People called Defenders, 4.101, 103–6 Irishman’s Second Letter to the People called Defenders, 4.275, 277–83 Irvine, Col. William, 2.143, 144

(ed.), Belfast Politics, 4.191, 193–227 Judges Act 1782, 1.xxix, xxx, 131–2, 2.174, 241, 254, 262–3 Grattan on, 2.65 Townshend and, 1.227 Kearns, Mogus, 4.xxxiii Kelly, James, Henry Flood…, 2.225 Kenmare, Tomas Browne, Viscount and Catholic Committee, 4.xv, xvi, 1, 29, 37 McKenna and, 5.239 Kenmare, Valentine Browne, Earl, 6.305 Keogh, John and Catholic Committee, 4.xv, xvi–xvii and Catholic Society of Dublin, 4.1, 29, 37, 39–42 and petition to George III, 4.83 Toughts on Equal Representation, 3.133, 135–8 Kildare, Lord, and Weavers Memorial, 1.232–4 Kildare rebellion, 4.xxix Kilkenny, 1.x, xiv Kilmainham treaty, 4.xxx–xxxi, xxxv Castlereagh’s negotiations, 5.135, 137–40, 141, 143–59 King, Sir Robert, 1.179 Kingship Act 1541, 1.xviii Koebner, Richard, ‘Te Early Speeches of Henry Grattan’, 2.57, 206

Jackson, Reverend William, French agent, 4.xxiv Lake, Lt-Gen Gerard Jameson, Joseph, in Irish Bar Union debate, and Wexford rebels, 4.xxix 6.48–9 French defeat, Ballinamuck, 4.xxx, 4.329 Jebb, John, 1.xliv Proclamation to the People of the Province Letters Addressed to the Volunteers of of Ulster, 4.329, 331–2 Ireland…, 3.179, 181–93 response to, 4.333, 335–8 life, 3.179 public notice on 1798 rebellion, 5.127 jobbing/ corruption, reduction, Buckingham Ulster violent suppression 1797–8, and, 3.333 4.xxvii–xxviii, 5.65 Johnston, Sir Richard, 2.197 land/ landowners Jones, William Todd, and parliamentary management changes, 1.xxvi reform, 1.xlv–xlvi ownership, 1.x Journals of the House of Commons of the dispersal, Roman Catholics, 1.xii Kingdom of Ireland, 4.349, 351–63 forfeiture, Caldwell on, 1.55 Joy family, 3.5 Catholic Relief acts 1782, 1.xli Joy, Henry, 3.181 and electoral reform, 1.xlvi tenure

Index insecure/ costly, 4.xi, xii Munster poor on, 4.147, 149–54 rack-renting, 1.xxvi tenants by elegit, 1.57–8, 61 Nullum Tempus Bill (land tenure), Grattan on, 2.65 landowners absentee Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 200 and Catholic tenants, 4.xi and militia support, ‘Country Gentleman’ on, 1.99, 110 control of Parliament unafected 1780s, 4.x oppressive, 1.319, 326–7 White-boys/ Levellers riots against, 1.87, 94–6 see also agrarian unrest Langford, Sir Arthur, 1.179 Langrishe, Sir Hercules Baratariana author, 1.237 and Catholic relief bill 1792, 4.xvi on American War, 2.173 on legislative independence, 2.180–1 Leader, William, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.80–3 leather trade, and British bark, 3.219 Lecky, William, on Irish Rebellion 1798, 4.xxxi, xxxiii legislative independence, struggle for, 1.xxxviii–xlii, l–liv ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205, 213–15 Sheridan on, 3.205, 213–15 and American Revolution, 4.ix debate 19 April 1780, 2.69, 71–87 Dobbs on, 2.101–2, 103–9, 131, 135–9 Eden on, 2.267–71 Flood on, 2.225, 227, 229–38, 239–47 Grattan on, 2.59–67, 205–6, 207–17, 219–24, 6.221, 223–41 Hely-Hutchinson and, 3.245 Irish bills, British power over ‘Free Citizen’ on, 1.79, 81–5 Lucas on, 1.67, 70–7 Irish Patriots and, 2.165, 173–204 Lucas on, 1.34–5, 119, 126–128, 129–32, 133–6, 187–90 not working, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79

379

Rockingham administration and, 2.265–6, 267–305 Spencer on, 6.1, 3–12 Ulster Volunteers on, 2.159–61 Volunteers and, 1.xxxviii–xli Leicester, Simon de Montfort, Earl, 3.42, 43 Leinster arrests/ disarming, 4.xxvii Catholic population, 1.x Directory, United Irishmen, 4.xxviii Volunteer Delegates, parliamentary reform address to, 3.39, 41–6 Leinster, Duke of and Dublin Volunteers, 1.xxxvii and regency address, 1.lii–liii Letter to Henry Flood Esq. on the Present State of Representation in Ireland, 3.5, 7–19 Levellers (English), 2.81 Lewines, Edward Joseph, 4.183 Lewis, Richard Common Sense and Common Humanity, 2.311, 313–25 life/ publications, 2.311 Liberty of Printing Bill, Doria on, 3.171 Life, Trial and Conversations of Robert Emmet…, 6.275–6 Liford, Lord Chancellor, and Volunteers, 1.xxxvii Limerick, population, 1.x, xiv Lindsay, Waterhouse Crymble A Letter to His Grace the Lord Primate of Ireland, 5.205–6, 207–10 life, 5.205 linen industry expansion, 1.xxvi, 4.xiii and British capital, 3.217–18 Lisburn Orange Order, 5.259 Volunteers meeting 1783, 1.xliv Lloyd, John, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.60–1 Locke, John, 1.241, 2.215, 3.91 Burrowes and, 3.139, 146, 149 London Friends of the People, Dublin United Irishmen and, 4.121–4 Londonderry, Charles Vane, Marquess of, 5.199 Londonderry, population, 1.x

380

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Long, Tomas, 3.92 Lords Lieutenant and Parliament, 1.xv–xvii as British ministers, 4.ix–x bills forwarding, 1.xlii–xliii British interests and, 1.xvi–xviii frustrating good legislation attempts, Lucas on, 1.119, 128–9 invariably attacked unfairly, 1.221, 223–5, 227 Lucas on, 1.16, 119, 128–9 powers French on, 1.205–6, 210–20 Lucas on, 1.153, 155–98 residence in Ireland, 1.xxx–xxxii, 229 Royal Prerogative, 1.xxxiv French on, 1.204–6, 210–20 kings, legislative role, 1.xlii–xliii Lucas on, 1.153, 155–98 Townshend and, 1.228–30 Loughborough, Alexander Wedderburn, Baron, in Irish debate 17 May, 2.298, 299–302, 302–3, 304–5 Lucas, Charles, 1.1, 11–12, 250 An Address to the Free Electors of the City of Dublin, 1.43, 45–9 An Essay on Waters. In Tree Parts, 1.16n and constitutional issues, 1.xxix Appeal to the Commons and Citizens …, 1.36 Dublin corporation reform campaign, 1.xx exile, 1.12, 36–8 manifesto proposals 1760, 1.38–42 on parliaments duration, 1.115 Seasonable Advice to the Electors … General Election [1760], 1.11–12, 13–42 Seasonable Advice to the Electors … at the Ensuing General Election, pt 2, 1.119, 121–51 Te Great Charter of the Liberties of the City of Dublin…, 1.25n Te Political Constitution of Great Britain and Ireland, 1.11, 25, 26 Te Rights and Privileges of Parlements Asserted upon Consititutional Principles, 1.153, 155–200

To the … Lord-Mayor … and Freeholders of Dublin, 1.67, 69–77 ‘Free Citizen’ Counter Address, 1.79, 81–5 ‘Lucius Hibernicus’, response to `Defence of Great Britain…’, 1.319, 335–6 Luttrell, Colonel Henry Lawes, in Irish debate 8 April, 2.267, 271, 276 Lynch, M. F., in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.83 Lyttelton, George, Lord, 3.42 M. S. Esq., Candid Enquiry into … Whiteboys or Levellers, 1.87, 89–97 Mac-Carty, Justin, 1.57 Macartney, George, 1.245 McClelland, James, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.80 McCracken, Henry Joy, 3.5 and United Irishmen, 4.xxiv McDowell, R. B. ‘Te Fitzwilliam Episode’, 4.262 Grattan: A Life, 2.57 on Irish Rebellion 1798, 4.xxxi, xxxii McKenna, Teobald A Memoire on Some Questions Refecting the Projected Union…, 6.111–12, 113–30 Hamilton’s objections to, 6.149–50, 151–78 An Abstract of the Arguments on the Catholic Question, 6.295–6, 297–310 and Catholic emancipation, 4.xliv Constitutional Objections…, 6.150 Declaration of the Catholic Society of Dublin, 4.1–2, 3–7, 29 life/ publications, 5.239, 6.111, 295 ‘Orangeman’ letter to, 5.239–40, 241–58 Strictures on, 4.9, 11–27 McNally, Leonard, and Emmet trial, 6.281 MacNeven, William James and United Irishmen, 4.xxv, xxviii, xxx– xxxi Castlereagh and, 5.135, 141, 143–59 Lords Committee of Secrecy and, 5.183 Macpherson, J., A Short History of the Opposition…, 2.36 Magill, Sir John, 1.180

Index Magna Charta, 1.335, 2.107, 241, 3.66–7, 169, 341 Grattan on, 2.61, 64, 74, 210–11, 212–13 French on, 1.205, 207, 209, 219 Ireland and, 1.xviii, 104 Lucas on, 1.171, 198 Mahon, Charles Stanhope Baron, 2.186 Mansfeld code, 1.240 Mansfeld, William Murray Earl, 1.240 manufacturers and economic problems, 1.xlviii, 2.48, 55–6 criticism, 1.319, 327, 330 see also commerce martial law proclaimed 1797, 4.xxviii Martin, Richard, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75–6 Maryland, constitution, 3.189 Mason, John Monck, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75 Maurice, Sir John Frederick ed., Te Diary of Sir John Moore, 5.65–6, 67–78 Mawbey, Joseph, 3.41 Maxwell, John James Barry, 2.176 Maynooth Catholic seminary, establishment, 4.xix Mayo, French landing, 4.xxx Melville, Viscount see Dundas, Henry Metge, Sir Peter in Declaratory Act debate, 2.86–7 on American War, 2.169 Midleton, Alan Brodrick, Viscount, 1.xvi, xx, xxxiv, 182 military establishment augmentation bill, 1.xxx, xxxi expensive, Lucas on, 1.137–8, 139–40 non-payment, 1.180 militia and Catholics access to arms, 4.xiii and violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii– xxviii arguments in favour, ‘Country Gentleman’ on, 1.99, 101–13 biblical analogies, 2.3–4, 17, 19–21 defence force bill 1778, 1.xxxvi–xxxviii lost, Lucas on, 1.132, 187 Militia Act, Volunteers disbanded, 4.xxiv

381

Militia Bill 1793, 4.xvii Russell on, 4.301–2 taxation for, 4.xii see also volunteer militia movement; Volunteers Miller, Rev. James, cited, 3.99 ministers see government moderate reformists, Association of the Friends of the Constitution…, Address, 4.75, 77–81 Moira, Francis Edward Rawdon-Hastings, Earl Dallas’s Letter to the Earl of Moira…, 5.15–16, 17–29 life, 5.5–6 ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 protests violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii, 5.5–6, 7–11 motion on conciliatory measures, 5.33–42, 58–63 Irish Lords debate, 5.31–2, 33–64 Molyneux, Capel A Warm Appeal to the Freemen of Ireland, 3.195, 197–204 life, 3.195 Molyneux, Sir Tomas, 3.204 Molyneux, William, 1.xx, 2.181, 219, 223, 246, 3.195 Te Case of Ireland being bound by Acts of Parliament in England…, 1.xviii, 3.100–1 Monaghan militia, wreck Northern Star, 4.xxii Montesquieu, Charles-Louis de Secondat, 3.42, 91 Montgomery, Alexander, 1.250 Moore, Sir John ‘Behaviour of the Armed Forces Prior to the Rebellion’, 5.65–6, 67–78 life, 5.65 opposed harsh measures, 5.65 Morgan, Sir Anthony, 1.174–5 Morres, Richard, on constitutional rights, 1.xxxiii Morrison, James Mayor of Cork, HelyHutchinson’s letter to, 3.245–6, 247–65 Mountjoy, Luke Gardiner, Baron, 4.179

382

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

money bills, 1.xx, xxv, xxxi–xxxii, xxxiv, xxxviii, 153, 160–200, 201, 203–20, 221, 228–31, 242, 252–3, 254–8, 263–5, 271, 275–9 contemporary, French on, 1.217 historical, French on, 1.203–4, 211–17 1692, 1.164–72 1753, 1.xx–xxi Lucas on, 1.153, 160–98 Townshend, defended, 1.221, 229–31 Members of Parliament see electoral system Munster Catholic poor, Bill of Grievances, 4.147, 149–54 Catholic population, 1.x Rightboys, fscal grievances, 1.xlvii tithes collection protests, 1.xxvii White-boys/ Levellers, 1.87, 89–97 Murphy of Boolavogue, Father John, and United Irishmen, 4.xxix, xxxiii Musgrave, Sir Richard, Memoirs of the Diferent Rebellions in Ireland, 4.xxxvi mutiny acts Mutiny Bill/ Act, 1.xxxviii, xl, xli Eden on, 2.269, 270 Flood on, 2.200, 234, 241, 245–6 Grattan on, 2.61, 174, 187, 221–4 perpetual, Grattan’s Observations on the Mutiny Bills, 2.135 Volunteers on, 2.144, 147, 151, 152, 153 national defence, Crombie on, 2.7–15 National Convention on electoral reform 1783, 1.xlv National Debt arrangements, post-Union, 6.256, 264 National Evening Star, 4.xxiii navigation acts, 1.xviii Pitt and, 1.xlix 1660 & 1663, repeal, 2.119, 121–5 1786, 1.li–lii navy, Irish, controlled by Britain, Sheridan on, 3.227n Nehemiah, and defence of Jerusalem, 2.19–21 Neilson, Samuel and United Irishmen, 4.xxi, xxiv, xxviii, xxix

Lords Committee of Secrecy and, 5.183 Northern Star, 4.xxii Nevill, Richard, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.77 Newcome, William, Archbishop of Armagh, 5.205–6 Newenham, Sir Edward, 3.86n and Catholic emancipation, 1.xliv and Dissenters, sacramental test, 1.xxxvi in Declaratory Act debate, 2.86 Newfoundland, proposed Irish colony, 1.291, 315 Newhaven, Sir William Mayne in Irish debate 8 April, 2.271, 276, 280 in Irish debate 1 May, 2.295 Newry population, 1.x Volunteers, 1.xxxviii newspapers, increase, 1.xxvi Norbury, John Toler Lord and Emmet trial, 6.277, 281 Emmet speech, interruptions, 6.282, 283, 285, 286 North, Frederick Lord, 1.xxviii, 3.171, 182, 3.192n administration, 1.xxxiv, xxxviii, xxxix, xl Abingdon on, 2.226 Grattan and, 2.205 commercial concessions, 2.89, 95–100, 265 Dobbs on, 2.101, 104, 109 Flood on, 2.225, 234–8, 240–1, 242 Grattan on, 2.57, 59–64 Dobbs’ pamphlet to, 2.101–2, 103–9 and Pitt’s 10 propositions, 1.xlix Northern Star, 4.xxii, 301 Northern Whig Club, resolutions, 4.218–19 Nugent, Robert Craggs-Nugent, Earl, 3.135 and Irish exports/ imports, 1.xxxiv Nullum Tempus Bill (land tenure), Grattan on, 2.65 O’Brien, Sir Lucius Henry, 2.198 in Declaratory Act debate, 2.84 O’Connell, Daniel, Burrowes and, 3.139 O’Connor, Arthur, 6.179 A Letter to the Electors of Antrim, 4.319, 321–8

Index and United Irishmen, 4.xxv, xxviii, xxx– xxxi Castlereagh and, 5.135, 141, 143–59 Letter to Lord Castlereagh, 5.211, 213–37 life, 4.319 Lords Committee of Secrecy and, 5.183 Press, 4.xxiii speech on Catholic Bill 1795, 4.241–2, 243–59 O’Connor, Feargus, 6.179 O’Connor, Roger …People of Ireland … Why they Ought to Submit to an Union, 6.179, 181–8 life, 6.179 O’Donnell, R. Robert Emmet and 1798 Rebellion, 6.276 Robert Emmet and the Rising of 1803, 6.276 O’Grady, Standish, Attorney General and Emmet trial, 6.277–81 O’Neil, Shane, 1.212 O’Neill, John, 3.276 Oakboys (Protestant) protests, 1.xxvii Oaths of Abjuration and Allegiance, Caldwell on, 1.55 Occasional Conformity Act, repeal attempt, 2.13 Octennial Act, Act of Limiting the Duration of Parliaments (1768), 1.xv, xxvi, 1.115, 117, 2.200 Lucas on, 1.12, 1.119, 121–2, 133–6 bill, 1.xxx Townshend and, 1.227–8, 245 Ogle, George, 2.156, 157–8, 3.284 and Catholic Relief bill 1778, 1.xxxvi and Union proposals, 4.xli in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75, 76–7 on Rightboys, 1.xlvii on American War, 2.169 ‘Old Friend’, An Address to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, 6.131, 133–5 Oldcastle, cited, 3.91n Orange Institution, Rules and Regulations, 5.313–14, 315–24 Orange Lodges [of ] the Province of Ulster, held in the Town of Armagh … 1797, 5.1, 3–4

383

Orange Order, 5.1 Armagh, resolution, 5.1, 3–4 becomes Orange Institution 1800, 5.314 Cupples on, 5.259–60, 261–73 ‘defensive’, growth, 4.xiv Grand Lodge of Ireland, Declaration, 5.271–2 ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 Irish yeomanry, Lindsay and, 5.205 McKenna on, 6.112, 124–7 ‘Orangeman’ on, 5.239–40, 241–58 origins, 5.313–14 sectarian attacks, 4.xxvi, xxxi, xxxiii Wicklow, 4.xiii ‘Orangeman’, A Letter to Teobald M’Kenna, Esq. … in Reply to the Calumnies Against the Orange Institution, 5.239–40, 241–58 Orde, Tomas and legislative independence, 1.xlix, l–li Chief Secretary to Rutland Lord Lt, 3.245–6 commercial propositions 1785, compromise bill, 3.245–6 Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.245–6, 249–65 Ordination pro Statu Hiberniae, 17th Edw. 1st, Grattan on, 2.207, 208 Ormond, Duke of, 1.176 Orr, Robert, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.71–2 Orr, William, and United Irishmen, 4.xxviii Osborne, Francis, 1.182 Osborne, Sir William, in Declaratory Act debate, 2.83 Overy [messenger], 1.205 Page, Anthony, John Jebb and the EighteenthCentury Origins of British Radicalism, 3.179 Paine, Tomas Burrowes and, 3.139 Te Rights of Man, 3.89, 4.xxiii, xxiv, 155 Pakenham, Tomas, Te Year of Liberty, 4.xxxi–xxxii Palmer, Anne, 6.280–1 Paris, Matthew, 3.43 Parliament 1780s activity and annual meetings, 4.ix

384

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

abolished 1800, 1.xlii and English statutes, Grattan on, 2.210–16 and Union, sofening up process, 6.13 Anglo-Irish dominance, 4.xx committees of secrecy and 1798 rebels, 4.xxxi report on United Irishmen, 4.349, 351–63 reports, 5.141, 161, 163–81, 183, 185–98 composition/ functions, 1.xi, xiii–xxi legislative progress, 1.xxv duration annual meetings proposed, 1.xlii Lucas on, 1.115, 119, 121–2, 133–6, 140–5 pre-Octennial Act, 1.115 Octennial Act bill, 1.xxx Act of Limiting the Duration of Parliaments (1768), 1.xv, xxvi, 1.115, 117, 2.200 Lucas on, 1.12, 1.119, 121–2, 133–6 Townshend and, 1.227–8, 245 Grattan’s return, 6.221, 223 landowners’ control of unafected 1780s, 4.x legislation against Catholics, 1.xi–xiii ministers and power, Lucas on, 1.119, 126–7, 138, 145–9 Sheridan on, 3.209–11, 213 money bills, 1.xx, xxv, xxxi–xxxii, xxxiv, xxxviii, 153, 160–200, 201, 203–20, 221, 228–31, 242, 252–3, 254–8, 263–5, 271, 275–9 contemporary, French on, 1.217 historical, French on, 1.203–4, 211–17 1692, 1.164–72 1753, 1.xx–xxi Lucas on, 1.153, 160–98 Townshend, defended, 1.221, 229–31 opposition activity post–1761, 1.xxix–xli party politics, 3.335 prorogations, 1.xl, 242–3 historical, 1.140, 141 Townshend’s, 1.xxxi, 221, 228, 230–1

defended, 1.221, 228–35 French on, 1.201, 215–20 Lucas on, 1.153, 160–98 Sidney’s, 1.xix Selected Acts of 1782, 2.253–4, 255–9 House of Commons and Union proposals, 4.xxxix Committee of Secrecy, Report … August 21 1798, 5.161, 163–81 debate 19 April 1780, 2.69, 71–87 right of bills rejection, 1.242–3, 252–3, 259–62 resolution on George III message, 2.285–6 Members of Parliament assessing, 1.271, 274, 278–84 duty to consult constituents, Lucas on, 1.67, 69–70, 76–7 growing importance, 1.xxvi right to Catholic MPs/ Lords denied, McKenna on, 6.295, 306–7 Parliamentary Register: … House of Commons of Ireland of 1781–2, 2.165, 167–204 House of Lords Committee of Secrecy Dublin United Irishmen and, 4.179–82 Report … August 30 1798, 5.183, 185–98 debate on Moira’s motion on conciliatory measures, 5.31–2, 33–64 fnal court of appeal 1782, 2.254, 262 1783 Act, 3.1, 3–4 resolution on George III message, 2.284–5 Parliament, British see British government parliamentary reform 1784 situation danger of extremists and coercion, 3.269–71, 274–8 Flood and, 3.267, 272, 273 Grattan and, 3.267, 270, 272–4, 281–2 Act to Prevent Tumultuous Risings and Assemblies 1787, 3.307, 309–13 Act to regulate Irish representatives in UK Parliament, 6.267–74

Index authority Act for Extending … An Act Confrming All the Statutes made in England, 2.253–4, 260–1 Act to Regulate the Manner of Passing Bills…, 2.253, 260 address to Volunteer Delegates on, 3.39, 41–6 and fear of Catholic domination, 4.xx as threat, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 197, 199–204 Dungannon resolutions, alarm at, 3.47, 49–59 hopes, Lucas on, 1.11, 18–26 Irish Volunteers and, Jebb on, 3.179, 181–93 movement, French Revolution efect on, 4.xx–xxii not achieved 1780s, 4.x not threat, All’s Well on, 3.121, 123–32 oppositions, Sheridan on, 3.211–13 power abuse O’Connor on, 4.319, 321–8 Russell on, 4.301 radical, Roger O’Connor on, 6.179, 181–8 Russell on, 4.301 United Irishmen and, 4.xx–xxviii Dublin United Irishmen, Address to people 1794, 4.155–6, 157–64 Parnell, Sir John on Union proposals, 4.xl on American War, 2.172 Parsons, Lawrence, 4.xlv Patriot opposition see Irish Patriots patriotism Crombie on, 2.7–15 Dickson on, 2.21–9 Patriots see Irish Patriots Peep O’ Day Boys (Protestant), 1.xlvi–xlviii, 4.xiii, xiv, 91, 5.1, 313 Pelham, Tomas, Chief Secretary, and Maynooth Catholic seminary bill, 4.xix penal laws as protection from Catholics, Caldwell on, 1.51–2, 53–65 Catholic relief, Lewis on, 2.311, 313–25

385

reforms incomplete 1780s, 4.x pensioners see placemen and pensioners Perceval, Charles George, in Irish debate 1 May, 2.293–4 perpetual revenue bill proposal Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.254–5 Sheridan on, 3.243 Pery, Edmund Sexton (Speaker), 1.xxxi, xxxvi, 101, 2.194 Petition of the Catholics of Ireland, to the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, 4.83–4, 85–9 Philip and Mary: 3 & 4 cap. 4 (1556), 1.153, 158, 160, 170–1, 177–82, 189, 196, 210–12, 230 physic regulation bill, Lucas on, 1.49, 132 Pilkington, Sir John, 2.213 Pitt, Tomas, in Irish debate 1 May, 2.292–3 Pitt, William the Younger administration and legislative independence, 1.l–liii commercial propositions 1785, 3.285, 287–9, 305 10 propositions, 1.xlix 20 resolutions, 1.xlix–l Hely-Hutchinson on, 3.245–6, 249–65 Sheridan on, 3.205–6, 213, 229–44 and Catholic Committee petition to George III, 4.83–4 and Fitzwilliam, 4.xviii and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315 Curran on, 6.222, 246–8 Grattan mistrusts, 6.221, 223–41 ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205, 211–12 not trusted, 6.41, 221, 223–41 on American taxation, 2.37, 47 on county MPs increase, 3.76 proposes Union, 4.xxxvii–xlii resigns over Catholic emancipation bill failure, 6.255 placemen & pensioners and militia support, ‘Country Gentleman’ on, 1.99, 110 English, Capel Molyneux on, 3.195, 197–8 ‘Free Citizen’ on, 1.84–5 Irish pensions list, criticized, 1.xxix

386

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Lucas on, 1.31–3, 119, 137–9, 142, 145 need to limit, 1.271, 279, 281–2 Buckingham and, 3.327, 337–8 Plantagenet pretenders, and Poynings Laws, 1.205–6 Plunket, William Conyngham and Emmet trial, 6.281 Attorney General 1805, 4.xlv police, city, abolition, Buckingham and, 3.340 politics overview, 1.ix–xxi aspects, Irish rebellion, 4.xxxv associations development, 1.xxvi corruption, Seward on, 3.83, 87–93 elite, and 1780s changes, 4.ix principles vs. reality, Sheridan on, 3.224–9 reform, United Irishmen and, 4.xx–xxviii Dublin United Irishmen, Address to people 1794, 4.155–6, 157–64 unrest, post 1760, 1.xxviii–xxix future, Volunteers not to be involved, Dobbs on, 3.21, 23–4, 34–8 see also British government; Irish government; and specifc parties/ movements Ponsonby, George, 2.183, 190, 4.xviii and Irish Whigs, 4.xxi Lord Chancellor of Ireland 1806, 4.xlv on American War, 2.172 Ponsonby, John (undertaker), 1.xvi, xx, xxx, xxxi Ponsonby, William, and regency address, 1.lii–liii poor people Catholic poor, 4.xi–xiii Russell on, 4.301 labour as property qualifcation, 4.155 Popish Regency fears, Brooke on, 1.4–6 population, ethnic/ religious divide, 1.ix–x Portland, William Henry Cavendish Bentinck, Duke, Lord Lt., 1.l, lii, 2.182, 191, 265, 277, 284, 3.192n and legislative independence, 1.xl, 2.191–2 Home Secretary, and Irish Whigs, 4.xvii– xviii Union discussions with Cornwallis, 5.275–6, 277–311

Portland Whigs, coalition with Pitt, 4.xvii– xviii Posthumus see Grattan, Henry potwallopping boroughs, 3.9, 12–13, 78 Poulteney, John, 1.180 Poynings, Drogheda parliament laws, 1.205, 206–9 Poynings, Edward, 1.158 Poynings Laws, 1.xvii, xix, xxviii, xxxi, xxxvi, xl, 230, 242, 3.13 French on, 1.205–12 Irish Patriots and, 2.165, 173–204 Lucas on, 1.11, 70–7, 153, 158–60, 167, 170–1, 177–82, 189, 193–4, 196 modifcation, Grattan on, 2.57, 61, 65 origins and Plantagenet pretenders, 1.205–6 repeal, Grattan on, 2.205–6 suspensions, 1.209 Yelverton’s act modifes, 1.xl, xlii Presbyterians, 1.x Bangor petition for Catholics, 2.219 ministers, 1.xi and United Irishmen, 4.xxxiii Scots-Irish, 1.x, 4.xi Test Act 1704, partial repeal 1780, 2.127, 129 under-represented in Parliament, 4.xx press freedom, 1.239–40 on Townshend, 1.240–1 Press, 4.xxiii Price, Richard, 1.xliv On Civil Liberty, 3.88n, 93, 94n, 99, 103 Proceedings of the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin, 4.107–8, 109–34 Protecting Duty Bill, Doria on, 3.171 Protestants activists, Dublin United Irishmen, Proceedings 1791–2, 4.107–8, 109–34 and Catholics, united in Volunteers, 1.xxxvii, 3.32 bands, disarm Catholics, 4.xiii–xiv control, public afairs 1801, 4.xliv landlords, dominate Parliament, 1.xiii–xiv lower-class, and United Irishmen, 4.xxvi more refractory than Catholics, McKenna on, 6.301–2

Index Protestant constitution wanted, 3.285 reaction to Rightboys, 1.xlvii–xlviii see also Church of Ireland; Dissenters; Presbyterians provision trade, and British salt, 3.219 Prynne, William, 2.85 ‘Public Notices on the Irish Rebellion of 1798’, 5.121, 123–34 publishing development, 1.xxvi Pufendorf, Samuel Freiherr von, 3.15 Pym, John, 2.215 Quakers, and militia support, ‘Country Gentleman’ on, 1.99, 110 Quinn, James, ‘Te Kilmainham treaty of 1798’, 5.141 Radclife, Sir George, 1.74 radical movement, Britain, 4.xvii Rawdon, Sir Arthur, 1.179, 182 ‘Real Irishman’, ‘Defence of Great Britain…’, 1.319, 321–32, 337–40 rebellions historical, causes, M. S. Esq. on, 1.91–2 Kilmainham treaty, 4.xxx–xxxi, xxxv Castlereagh’s negotiations, 5.135, 137–40, 141, 143–59 rebellion 1798, 4.xxviii–xxxv public notices on, 5.121, 123–34 Troy on, 5.111–12, 113–20 army and, Moore on, 5.65–6, 67–78 causes, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79–80, 81–109 rebels former, and Treaty of Limerick, 1.xix potential, Act to disarm 1796, 4.285, 287–96, 343, 345–7 surrendering, Cornwallis pardon ofer, 4.xxx, 5.129 suspects, violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii–xxviii Ulster rebellion Lake’s proclamation to, 4.329, 331–2 response to, 4.333, 335–8 mainly Presbyterian rising, 4.xxix, xxxiii–xxxiv violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii– xxviii

387

United Irishmen and rebellion 23 May rising plans, 4.xxix arrests/ executions, 4.xxviii–xxix blame others, 4.xxxi never in full control, 4.xxxv prisoners 1798, Castlereagh and, 5.135, 137–40, 141, 143–59 leaders trade pre-rebellion information for lives, 4.xxx–xxxi violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxiv, xxvii–xxviii Wexford rebellion, 4.xxix, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv Moore and, 5.65 rebels, Lake and, 4.329 referendum on Union, Spencer on, 6.1 Reform of the Irish House of Commons, Considered, 3.47, 49–59 Regency crisis 1788–9, 1.lii–liii, 3.205 address on, 3.315–16, 317–26 Buckingham and, 3.315, 326, 329, 336, 341–2 regency as betrayal, 3.315–16, 322–3 patronage fears, 3.315, 319, 320, 324 Whigs and, 3.315–16, 317–26 Registration Act 1704, 1.xii Relief Act of 1793, Keogh and, 3.133 religious aspects, Irish rebellion, 4.xxxiii– xxxv Renovation Without Violence Yet Possible, 1.341, 343–50 Renunciation Act, 1.xli–xlii Buckingham and, 3.333 Report of the Debate on Lord Moira’s Motion … Recommending Conciliatory Measures…, 5.31–2, 33–64 Report of the Debate [on] Adopting the Declaration of the General Committee of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, 4.37, 39–60 republicanism threat accusations, 3.47, 53, 54 Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 117 revenue board, Townshend and, 1.xxxi–xxxii revenue ofcers, disfranchisement, Buckingham and, 3.327, 340–1 Reynolds, Tomas, informer, 4.xxviii Richard Duke of York, 2.81 Richelieu, Armand Jean du Plessis, 3.193n

388

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Richmond, Charles Lennox, Duke, 1.xliv, 3.185 electoral reform proposals, 3.81–2 in Irish debate 17 May, 2.305 Rightboys, 3.307 fscal grievances, 1.xlvii–xlviii Rights of Irishmen, or National Evening Star, 4.xxiii Riot Act 1715 (Britain), 3.307 Roche, Philip, 4.xxxiii Rockingham administration, 1.xl and legislative independence, 2.265–6, 267–305 Roman Catholics see Catholics Rossmore, Robert Cunningham, CinC, on Moira’s motion, 5.63 rotten boroughs, 1.xliii, xliv, 3.9–10, 12, 279–80, 4.xx abolition, 3.39, 44–6 defended, 3.54, 57 Doria on, 3.170–2 Keogh on, 3.133, 136 patrons compensated for Union, 4.xl sale of, 3.78 Seward on, 3.83, 93 Rowan, Archibald Hamilton and Dublin United Irishmen, 4.xxii, xxiv, 112, 124, 130, 133–4 seditious libel charge, 4.133–4 Royal Navy and Irish defences, 1.99, 105 harbours, undefended, 1.99, 105 Irish navy controlled by Britain, Sheridan on, 3.227n maintenance contribution, 1.xlix supplies to, 1.xxvi Royal Prerogative, Lords Lieutenant and, 1.xxxiv French on, 1.204–6, 210–20 kings, legislative role, 1.xlii–xliii Lucas on, 1.153, 155–98 Townshend and, 1.228–30 Rules and Regulations for the Use of all Orange Societies 1800, 5.313–14, 315–24 Russell, Tomas, 4.182, 6.302 A Letter to the People of Ireland…, 4.301–2, 303–17

and United Irishmen, 4.xxi, xxiv, xxviii life/ publications, 4.301 Rutland, Charles Manners, Duke, Lord Lt., 1.xlix, 2.311, 3.245, 246 Sackville, Lord George, 1.75 ‘Sarsfeld’, response to ‘Defence of Great Britain…’, 1.319, 333–5 Saurin, William, delaying resolution, Irish Bar Union debate, 6.85, 86 protest against, 6.86–7 Savile, Sir George, 3.188 Schism Act, repeal attempt, 2.13 schools, Catholic Relief acts 1782, 1.xli Scotland Confans’ planned invasion 1759, 1.105 Delegates for Parliamentary Reform, United Irishmen address to, 4.225–7 Delegates for Promoting a Reform in, Dublin United Irishmen and, 4.124–9 Union, 6.1 and Presbyterian established church, McKenna on, 6.295, 303 Dodd on, 6.189, 192–200 ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205, 215–16, 219 Highlanders’ rebellions, 6.302–3 rebellion, 1.4 Scott, Sir John (Attorney General) in Declaratory Act debate, 2.75, 79, 84, 86 on legislative independence, 2.175–7, 178, 179 secret ballot, United Irishmen and, 4.xxiii– xxiv sectarian tensions, 4.x–xiv, xxxvi–xxxvii protests movements, 1787 Act to control, 3.307, 309–13 seditious literature, Act against 1796, 4.285, 287–96, 343, 345–7 Septennial Act 1716 (England), 1.115 Septennial bill, 1.xxix, xxx Series of Letters Addressed to the Volunteers of Ireland, 3.267, 269–84 sermons Crombie, Rev. James, Te Expedience and Utility of Volunteer Associations…, 2.1, 3–15

Index Dickson, Rev. William Steel, A Sermon on the … Knowledge and Use of Arms, 2.17–18, 19–29 Seven Years’ War, 1.xxx Seward, William Wenman publications, 3.83 Te Rights of the People Asserted, 3.83, 85–104 Seymour-Conway, Francis, Marquess of Hertford, Lord Lt, 1.74, 245 Shafesbury, Anthony Ashley Cooper 3rd Earl, 1.241 Shannon, Richard Boyle, Earl (undertaker), 1.xv, xvi, xx, xxix–xxxii and regency address, 1.lii–liii Sharman, Colonel William, 1.xliv, 3.181, 4.203 Shears, John, and United Irishmen, 4.xxix Shears, Henry, 4.183 and United Irishmen, 4.xxix Shelburne, William Petty, Earl, 2.274 and legislative independence, 1.xlviii electoral reform pamphlet dedication to, 3.63–4 in Irish debate 17 May, 2.296–8, 299, 302 on Ireland 11 April, 2.282–3 Secretary of State in Lords, 2.265 Sheridan, Charles Francis, 1.xxix Free Toughts upon the Present Crisis, 3.205–6, 207–44 life/ publications, 3.205, 207–10 Sheridan, Richard, 1.l, lii and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315 Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 3.205 Shrewsbury, Duke of, 1.216 Sidney, Henry, Earl of Romney, 1.158, 159, 160, 162–4, 179–84, 192, 197, 215–17 and 1692 money bills, 1.164–72 Sidney, Henry Viscount, 1.xix Sidney, Sir Henry (1529–86) and money bills, 1.212 and Poynings Laws suspension, 1.209, 210 Simnel, Lambert, 1.205–6 Sirr, Major Henry Charles, 6.101 capture of Emmet, 6.280–1 slave trade, Russell on, 4.301 slaves, corrupted electors as, 1.126, 127 Sloane, James, 1.180

389

Smith, Ambrose, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.44–6 Smith, E. A., Whig Principles and Party Politics…, 4.262 Smith, John, Irish Attorney General, 1.xxxvii society, luxurious/ corrupt Crombie on, 2.1, 4–7 Dickson on, 2.17–18, 22–5 Society for Constitutional Information, Jebb and, 3.179, 185 Society of United Irishmen of Dublin, selection 1792–4, 4.165, 167–90 socio-economic developments, 1.xxvi–xxviii socioeconomic problems 1780s, 4.x, xi–xiii sovreignty Irish royal court suggestion, 3.285, 289–92 of the people Burrowes and, 3.139, 143–63 Doria on, 3.165, 167–76 union with Britain, 1787 suggestion, 3.293, 295–306 see also government; Union Spanish armada, 2.12–13 Speakers, Irish Parliament, 1.xv Speech of Arthur O’Connor … May 4th, 1795, on the Catholic Bill, 4.241–2, 243–59 Speech of Henry Grattan, Esq. on the Subject of a Legislative Union…, 6.221–2, 223–53 Speeches of the Right Honourable Henry Grattan…, 4.229–10, 231–9 Spelman, Henry, on political history, 3.39, 42 Spencer, Joshua in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.46–8 life, 6.1 Toughts on an Union, 6.1, 3–12 St Aubyn, Sir John, cited, 3.90n St Patrick, Order of, Buckingham and, 3.334 St Patrick’s College, establishment, 4.xix Staford, Edmond, 1.180 Stag frigate, 2.241 Stamp Act 1765, 2.243 Statutum Hiberniae, Grattan on, 2.207–8 Steelboys (Protestant) protests, 1.xxvii Sterne, Laurence, 2.319 Stewart, James, 1.245n Stewart, William, 1.180

390

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

Stewart, [Annesley or James], seconds Declaratory Act, 2.74 Stock, Bishop, narrative of rebellion, 4.xxxvi Stokes, John W., in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.72–8 Stone, George Archbp., 1.xvi, xx, 75 Straford, Tomas Wentworth Earl, 2.81, 85, 197, 200, 215, 216 strangers, asylum, Irish law and, 1.205–6 Strictures on the Declaration of the [Catholic] Society…, 4.9, 11–27, 37 Stuarts, Lucas on, 1.71, 73, 141–2 sugar trade, 2.59, 61, 66, 122, 174, 201, 236–7, 246 sugar bill, 2.174 Sullivan, John, 2.39 Sully, Maximilien de Béthune, 3.193n Swan, Edward, 1.250 Sweetman, John, Refutation of the Charges … of Abetting the Defenders, 4.91 Swif, Jonathan, 1.xx, 2.215, 219, 3.100–1, 282 on Dissenters, 6.304 Synod of Ulster, 1.xi Tandy, James Napper, 1.xxxiii and Dublin United Irishmen, 4.111, 112–14, 117, 130–4 and French landing, 4.xxx and parliamentary reform, 1.xlv–xlvi and United Irishmen, 4.xxii seditious libel charge, 4.133–4 taxation and American rebellion, 2.37, 39–40, 43–5 direct, by Westminster, 1.271, 1.275–7 indirect, Catholic poor and, 4.xii Temple, Earl see Buckingham, George Nugent-Temple-Grenville… Test Acts, 1.xi, xii Test Act 1704, partial repeal for dissenters 1780, 1.xi, 2.127, 129 Test and Corporation Acts (England), 1.xxxvi Test Laws, McKenna on, 6.303–4 textile manufacturers, economic difculties 1780s, 1.xlviii

Toughts on the Kingdom of Ireland, Written in the Year 1785, 3.285, 287–92 Turot, Francois, Carrickfergus invasion 1758, 1.105 Ticker, Josiah, 3.81 tithes attacks on, Buckingham and, 3.327, 338–9 collection protests, 1.xxvii, , 87, 89–97 dispute, Lindsay and, 5.205–6, 207–10 grievances, 1.xlvii–xlviii increase, 4.xii Munster poor on, 4.147, 149–54 White-boys/ Levellers riots against, 1.87, 96 see also Church of Ireland Toler, John and Union, 4.xxxviii dismissed by Fitzwilliam, 4.xviii in Declaratory Act debate, 2.80–1 on legislative independence, 2.198 Toleration Act 1719, 1.xi Tone, Teobald Wolfe An Argument on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland, 4.xv–xvi, xxi and Catholic Committee, 4.xvi–xvii, 1 and Defence of the Sub-Committee, 4.91 and Dublin United Irishmen, 4.xxi, xxiv, xxvi, xxviii, 112, 114 Burrowes and, 3.139 rebel force defeated, 4.xxx towns, new constituencies proposed, 3.12–13 Townshend, Charles, 1.249 Townshend, George, Viscount, Lord Lt., 1.104 and money bill, defended, 1.221, 229–31 and residence, 1.xxx–xxxii, 229 and undertakers, 1.xxx–xxxi and Weavers Memorial, 1.221, 231–5 Baratariana on, 1.237–8, 239–65 conduct defended, 1.221, 223–36 Flood on, 2.241 Lucas and, 1.12 power abuse French on, 1.201, 217 Lucas on, 1.153, 155–98 military career, 1.225–7

Index prorogation, 1.xxxi, 221, 228, 230–1 defended, 1.221, 228, 230–1 French on, 1.201, 215–20 Lucas on, 1.153, 160–98 Townshend, Tomas, in Irish debate 8 April, 2.278 Trade see commerce; economic issues Treaty of Limerick, 1.xi, xix Triennial Act 1694 (England), 1.115 Trinity College Dublin, MPs, 1.xiii–xiv troops free rein with suspects, 4.xxvii–xxxi United Irishmen try to suborn, 5.65 Troy, Archbishop John Tomas, Archbp. and Catholic Committee, 4.xv conciliatory policy, 4.xix–xx life, 5.111–12 Pastoral Instruction to the Roman Catholics of the Archdiocese of Dublin, 5.111–12, 113–20 Ulster, 1.x migrants to America, 1.xxxii Ulster Oakboys (Protestant) protests, 1.xxvii–xxviii Ulster Orangemen, Declaration, 5.271 Ulster rebellion Lake’s proclamation to, 4.329, 331–2 response to, 4.333, 335–8 mainly Presbyterian rising, 4.xxix, xxxiii– xxxiv violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxvii–xxviii Ulster Volunteers, 1.xxxvii address to George III, 2.162–3 and emancipation 1.xliv and religious toleration, 3.185 Dungannon Convention, 1.xxxix, xli, 2.184 Dungannon resolutions, 2.141, 143–7, 154–5, 3.187–9 alarm at, 3.47, 49–59 ofcers listed, 2.144 on legislative independence, 2.159–61 undertakers parliamentary, 1.xvi, xix–xxi Townshend and, 1.xxx–xxxi, 245 Union with Britain 1787 suggestion, 3.293, 295–306

391

afermath, 4.xliii–xlv and full emancipation, McKenna on, 6.295, 297–310 Collis on, 6.137, 139–48 confederate empire proposed, 1.341, 343–50 Cooke (under-secretary) on, 6.13–14, 15–39 Bushe’s refutation, 6.89, 91–109 Cornwallis and Portland discussions, 5.275–6, 277–311 Curran on, 6.222, 246–8 dangers of ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205–6, 207–19 disadvantageous, Spencer on, 6.1, 3–12 Dodd on, 6.189, 191–204 Dublin Resolutions against, 6.222, 242–53 Foster on, 6.248 Grattan on (1800), 6.221–2, 223–41 Hamilton on, 6.149–50, 151–78 Imperial Parliament, 4.xlii, 6.255–6, 258–62 House of Commons, 6.255–6, 260 House of Lords, 6.255, 258–60, 261–2 right to Catholic MPs/ Lords denied, McKenna on, 6.295, 306–7 Irish Bar debate on, 6.41, 43–87 McKenna on, 5.239, 6.111–12, 113–30, 150–1 ‘Old Friend’ on, 6.131, 133–5 Portland and Cornwallis discussions, 5.275–6, 277–311 reap advantages from, Sheridan on, 3.224–9 referendum on, Spencer on, 6.1 road to, 4.xxxvi–xlii see also government Union Star, 4.xxiii United Irishmen, 1.xlvii, 3.5 Address to Delegates for Parliamentary Reform, Scotland, 4.225–7 Address to more wealthy [members], 4.356–8 and French invasion, 4.xxvi–xxvii and political reform, 4.xx–xxviii ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79–80 and rebellion

392

Ireland in the Age of Revolution, 1760–1805: Volume 6

23 May rising plans, 4.xxix arrests/ executions, 4.xxviii–xxix blame others, 4.xxxi never in full control, 4.xxxv prisoners 1798, Castlereagh and, 5.135, 137–40, 141, 143–59 leaders trade pre-rebellion information for lives, 4.xxx–xxxi violent suppression 1797–8, 4.xxiv, xxvii–xxviii as secret revolutionary organization, 4.xxv–xxxv Burrowes and, 3.139 Catholic bishops abandon, 4.xx Committees of Secrecy report on, 4.349, 351–63 constitution, 4.351–6 Dickson and, 2.17 early moderation, 4.xxiii–xxiv Roger O’Connor and, 6.179, 181–8 Strictures on, 4.9, 26–7 see also Belfast United Irishmen; Dublin United Irishmen universal manhood sufrage opposed, 4.xx United Irishmen and, 4.xxiii–xxiv Unlawful Assemblies Acts 1793, 4.143, 145–6 1796, 4.285, 287–96, 343, 345–7 Usurpations of England, 2.89, 91–100 Utility of an Union between Great Britain and Ireland, 3.293, 295–306 Vatel, Emerich de, 2.215 Vaughan, Sir John, 2.209, 214 volunteer militia movement, 1.xxxvii–xli Catholics and access to arms, 4.xiii Dickson on, 2.17, 27–8 Crombie on, 2.1, 3, 7–15 Dickson on, 2.17–18, 22–9 moral force/ efects, 3.30–3 to limit itself to defence against French, 2.31, 50 see also militia; Volunteers Volunteer Evening Post, 3.278 Letters Addressed to the Volunteers of Ireland, 3.267, 269–84

Volunteers, 2.78, 83, 174 and electoral reform, 1.xliii–xlviii and legislative independence, 1.xxxviii–xli ‘Hibernicus’ on, 6.205, 213–15 conventions dictating to parliament, 3.24 Dublin United Irishmen address, 4.130–3 Eden on, 2.268–9 disbanded, 4.xxiv during Harcourt administration, Dobbs on, 3.25–6, 33 not to be involved in politics, Dobbs on, 3.21, 23–4, 34–8 past achievements, Dobbs on, 3.21, 23, 25–6, 33 Patriot opposition and, 3.21, 25–6, 33 saving cost of militias, 3.27–9 and British oppression, Dobbs on, 2.131, 135–9 and Catholic question, 4.xv and Flood’s electoral reform bill 1783–4, 3.165 and North concessions, 2.89, 94–100 and parliamentary reform, Jebb on, 3.179, 181–93 as threat, Duigenan on, 3.105–6, 107–19 as voice of people, Burrowes on, 3.143–4, 146–63 Dobbs on, 2.101, 131, 133, 135–9 Doria’s appeal to, 3.165, 167–77 English manipulation accusation, 3.50–1, 53, 58–9 Flood and, 2.225, 227 Grattan and, 2.57 Grattan on, 2.205–6, 219–24 National Convention, Rotunda, 3.136 Burrowes on, 3.139, 143–4, 146–63 not threat, All’s Well on, 3.121, 123–32 resolutions, 2.141, 143–63 republicanism accusations, 3.47, 54 Seward on, 3.83, 85–6, 87n Volunteer Evening Post, Series of Letters to…, 3.267, 269–84 warned about extremist manipulation, 3.267, 269–71, 274–8 Volunteers Journal, 3.276

Index Wagstafe’s Essays, 1.241 Waller, Sir Robert, 1.250 Walpole, Sir Robert, 1.xx Walsh, David, on legislative independence, 2.195–6, 198 Wandesworth, Christopher, 1.163, 170, 179 Warbeck, Perkin, 1.205, 360n6 Waterford, population, 1.x, xiv Weavers Memorial, Townshend and, 1.xxvii, xlvi, 221, 231–5 Webb, William Levingston, 4.185 Webber, Daniel Webb, in Irish Bar Union debate, 6.84–5 Wentworth, Tomas, Earl of Straford, 1.162, 170, 179, 199 Westminster Association, Subcommittee, 3.186 Westminster see British Parliament Westmorland, Fane, John, Earl, Lord Lt. and Catholic Relief Act 1793, 4.xvii and Catholic Society demands, 4.xvi and Catholic Committee, 4.1, 29, 83, 84 Wexford Grand Jury, Volunteer resolutions, 2.155–8 sectarian tensions, 4.xiii rebellion, 4.xxix, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv Moore and, 5.65 rebels, Lake and, 4.329 Whig Club, and reform, ‘Irish Emigrant’ on, 5.79 Whigs (British) and legislative independence, 1.l, lii and Regency crisis 1788–9, 3.315–16, 317–26 see also British Parliament; Fox Whiteboys/ Levellers, 3.307 Munster riots, causes, 1.87, 89–97 Caldwell on, 1.55–6 ‘Levellers’ protests, 1.xxvii Whitlocke, B., cited, 3.93 Wickham, William, 5.135 Wicklow rebellion, 4.xxix sectarian tensions, 4.xiii

393

Wilkes, John, 1.239 Wilkinson, D., ‘Te Fitzwilliam Episode, 1795…’, 4.262 Williamite conquest, 1.x, xi, xvii Wilson, Charles Henry A Compleat Collection of the Resolutions of the Volunteers…, 2.141, 143–63 life/ publications, 2.141 Wolfe, Arthur, dismissed by Fitzwilliam, 4.xviii Wood, William, minting patent, 1.xix–xx Woodward, Richard, on Rightboys, 1.xlvii– xlviii wool trade, 2.55–6, 59–60, 61, 63, 66, 81, 89, 93, 113–18, 213 Wool Act 1699, 1.xviii Wool Act 1698, 2.89, 93 woollen manufacture, 2.59 woollens, British infux, 3.195, 198 working people, franchise dangerous, 3.47, 55–6 Wright, Tomas, and Dublin United Irishmen, 4.120, 124 Wyvill, Christopher, 1.xliv electoral proposals, 3.179, 184–5, 186 Yelverton, Barry, 2.269, 3.71, 186, 278 and Dissenters, sacramental test, 1.xxxvi and Union, 4.xxxviii in Declaratory Act debate, 2.83 on American war, 1.xxxiii, xxxiv, 2.167–8, 170–1 on legislative independence, 1.xl, 2.179, 180, 194–5, 197 on royal prerogative, 1.xxxiv victim of envy, 3.270, 282–3 Yonge, Sir George, in Irish debate 1 May, 2.294 York, Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke, 1.205–6 Yorkshire Association, 3.179 Yorktown, American victory, 1.xxxix, 2.172