But conceiving, as I do, that the House is not free from the influence ever attained over easy tempers by bold and ingenious sophistry, apprehensive that we are in the situation of men who just begin to free themselves, by a collected vigorous effort, from the chains imposed by beauty, or the seductive allurements of an amorous sportive imagination, I must adjure the House not to dispose of a question that is perhaps to decide for ever whether a great and generous nation is to retain its independence, and by implication, to determine whether a set of Representatives chosen by a free People, must vote themselves out of existence, and give up the liberties, the property, the acknowledged constitutional rights of their Constituents, to the domination of a power, that, under the mask of friendship, has introduced among them a force, originally said to be intended solely for their defence against a daring insidious enemy, whom all deprecate, but who is not more to be detested than the pretended friend who assists only that he may acquire confidence enough to delude, and strength enough to destroy.
I must think the House has been hurried along by the Right Hon. Gentleman from one degree of transport to another, until, in the groves of his Elysium, they have been elated with scenes of grandeur, and fatigued with that variety, or enfeebled with that richness of prospect, which is to render enquiry loathsome, and which will inevitably prepare the human mind for the reception of any doctrines, however wild — and any assurance of future advantage, however illusory. I took an opportunity last week of opposing the measure of Legislative Union with Ireland, in the first stage of the discussion, which, as matter of course, was to lead to that question. I did so then, as well from a conviction that measures of such magnitude, and of such novelty, should always be opposed in the infancy of their progress, as in the contemplation of what I naturally anticipated would be the effect of the eloquence of the Right Hon. Gentleman. I then said, what I am at this moment prepared to repeat, after much considering the subject, that under the present circumstances of Ireland, in this crisis of her convulsed and necessarily disordered system of polity and general government, it is not only impolitic but unsafe to urge, nay even to agitate the discussion of topics, in the issues of which are to be seen developing themselves, the poison and the horrors, which are to lay the most hardy and stout of heart prostrate at the feet of a British Minister — that are to intimidate and appal the most heroic spirits. Ireland, in her present temper, must be beat into this measure, and that Minister who shall make the bold experiment of flogging a whole nation into stupid beings, insensible alike to the duty she may owe herself, insensible to the rights of the present generation; and the interests of the race yet unborn, as much as to the arrogance and cupidity of those who shall inflict the blow, or direct the torture — such a Minister have secured his minions, but it may not be altogether unbecoming him, if he be desirous ultimately to prevail, to measure his power by the force of his antagonists’, and in the estimation of his means of victory, to seek an antidote against national pride and local attachments.
Gracious God! Sir, Who would have supposed that a British Minister, wrapped up in the insolence of power, and that odious self-sufficiency, the genuine characteristic of a narrow and impotent understanding, rather than of a manly and vigorous intellect, would dare in the face of the Irish Nation, to spurn the assertion of her rights, to fawn and flatter her guiltless mind, and by seeming to respect her declared unequivocal opinion, to full her into inactivity, the more successfully to enslave her for ever? But let not the Right Hon. Gentleman deceive himself whilst he is exerting his ingenuity to deceive Ireland. Let him remember, Sir, that some plots have been so closely wrought, some measures of surprise and delusion so intricately planned, and attempted to be carried into effect with such novelty of means, that the authors, the actors, even the subordinate characters in the drama, have been themselves entangled in the mazes they have contrived for innocence, and overwhelmed under the ruins of that fabric, which they have erected to overawe the independent.
The Hon. Gentleman set out with saying, he wished the question to be argued coolly and dispassionately, distinctly expressing himself, that he wished to submit it to the unbiassed judgment and independent discussion of the Parliament of Ireland; but, Sir, I pay very little attention to the Hon. Gentleman’s words, I look to his actions; and referring to them, let me ask, Is the question left to the unbiassed judgment and independent discussion of Ireland? Is it not on the contrary apparent, that in order to carry it, corruption is stalking through Ireland with a scourge in one hand and a purse in the other? Is that, I ask, leaving it to the unbiassed judgment and independent discussion of the Country? It is the contrary; it is not only a mockery, but an insult to Parliament. Besides, how can Parliament tell, how soon the Hon. Gentleman may adopt the same line of conduct, with regard to the Parliament collectively, as he has done with respect to individuals? If he has dismissed individuals for expressing sentiments different to his own, may he not, by the same rule, dismiss the Parliament too, if it presumes to oppose him. The inference is fair. Was it just, in the case of a Viceroy consulting his conscience, on a question of all others the most necessary, to act according to its dictates, was it, I say, necessary to tell him, because he did so, he was unfit to be any longer in his Majesty’s service? He says, that time should be given to the people, as well in as out of Parliament, to consider the subject, and for heats and animosities to subside. I believe, that with respect to the Irish Parliament, his intention is, that time should be given to try the effect of further corruption; and what sensation will be produced by dismissing the Servants of the Crown; what the influence of the Crown is; and what are the expectations of those devoted to its services. — Nor was it the Right. Hon. Gentleman alone who attempted to justify these measures. I have heard them also justified by an Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) and never did I hear any thing with more poignant regret; for what sensation but that of sorrow and regret could arise in my mind, when I heard that Hon. Friend plead the cause of bold and barefaced corruption, and thus cloud and contaminate with its foul fog and baneful breath the pure early morning of his political life? Would he now tell us that the Right Hon. Gentleman had given a determined pledge, and could not now recede? Why did he? Who called upon him to speak? Was it to encourage his friends in Ireland by a display of his resolution? — but that was unavailing, as the discussion and decision took place there before that encouragement could reach them; but as to the charge of urging intimidation, neither the Right Hon. Gentlemen, nor his Hon. Friend who answered me on a former occasion, had thought proper to say a word. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning,) from his Parliamentary standing, could not, indeed, have taken any part in the violation of the compact in 1782, and therefore his Right Hon. Friend stepped generously forward and claimed all the shame, guilt, and treachery of it to himself. — Like another Nisus he threw his broad shield over his beloved Euryalus to protect him from the vengeful resentment of the Irish nation, calling out to them — Me, me, I, I am the man; wreak all your vengeance upon me.
Me, me, adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum,
O Rutuli; mea fraus omnis; nihil iste nec ausus,
Nec potuit —
My Hon. Friend’s abilities might, however, prove that potuit; and as to his courage, he was satisfied the House had no reason to call it in question. — The generous ardour of the Right Hon. Gentleman to protect his Hon. Friend, was therefore only the impulse of affection.
Tantum in…licem ninium delexit amicum.
Then, with respect to the rejection of the question by the Parliament of Ireland, the Hon. Gentleman says the measure is necessary to the people of Ireland; and at the conclusion of his observation he adds, that he will wait a more favourable unity. What does he mean? That he will till the Parliament of Ireland is convinced by reasoning? No, he will wait till a day or an hour of additional weakness, when the country shall be still further incapacitated for resisting their enemies, and more intimidated at the consequence of our withdrawing our assistance. What does he mean by s
aying he will wait? Does he mean he will wait till a period, as one which may or may not arrive, when he knows he has it in his power to create it whenever he thinks proper? It seems the Hon. Gentleman has now been fifteen years with this system of an Union rankling in his heart, but has never thought proper to bring it forward till the present moment. — What conclusion will the people of Ireland draw from such conduct? Have they not a right to suppose, if the measure was never proposed in the hour of their strength and prosperity, but is attempted when they are weakened and unable to resist, that it is not intended as a measure of advantage to them? If when a Lord Lieutenant was sent over to heal the differences respecting the Catholics; if when the cup was at their lips, it was dashed away, and that Lord Lieutenant withdrawn; if the hostilities of the Catholics and the Protestants were not necessary for him to attend to, what must they consider of his conduct when he attempts to introduce an alteration at a time when their weakness prevents them from resisting it? Does he think that he will by such a measure, so carried into effect, produce a permanent connexion between the two countries? Does he not consider what will be the feelings of men so provoked? — But is this the real argument of one who wields the power of national will? When we have already pledged ourselves to support that independent legislation which Ireland claimed as its right, what reason have we to suppose that if we attempt to destroy that pledge, we shall not drive that country to the expedient of gaining assistance, and repelling our attacks? The Hon. Gentleman treated the pledge of this House and the Government, at the last Adjustment in 1782, as a circumstance of a silly and trifling nature. Among other terms of scorn and opprobrium he calls it most childish; at the time he made this assertion he was not arrived at his full experience; he had been but a year and an half in office; but I should like to know what the conduct of the Hon. Gentleman’s present collegues had previously been? He reviles the Duke of Portland and the other Ministers who were then in power. There was a Gentleman, now a Noble Lord, I can’t remember all the new Noble Lord’s names, but he was considered the mouth-piece of those who carried that business into execution. He brought up the resolutions, and it will be sound they passed nemine contradicente. Surely, the Hon. Gentleman will plead his tender years at the time, for not remembering this, for it was much about the time when he had the application of Heaven-born Minister bestowed upon him; but he says the resolutions were considered as childish, because there was one tacked to them which stated, that it was necessary to do something further. It is quite enough for me to know that there could not be any fraud intended by this last resolution; that it could not be considered as a caveat against that admission of the independence of Ireland which had been before acknowledged. Ireland says, “We will have an independent Parliament — Right — but to defeat that, we will put in the journals what shall have the effect of defeating the claim. I am persuaded it is impossible such a hard construction can be put upon that resolution. It is libellous to suppose that any one could mean it in that light. But I will tell you, Sir, to what the resolution alluded: — It was meant that with regard to commerce between the two countries, something further should be done; but as to the Constitution of Ireland and its Independance, that was finally adjusted. It was supposed, that on the subject of commerce something might arise which it might be necessary afterwards to refer to the arbitration of Parliament. But why was not the Hon. Gentleman’s opinion followed up? Why did he adhere to this silly pledge? I believe in the very next year, 1783, when this subject was again brought forward by Mr. Flood, the Hon. Gentleman did not think of saying there was something more to be done; though he must be now supposed to have been convinced that something further was necessary, yet he did not intimate that opinion; but now, at the distance of fifteen years, he states there is a necessity for following it up. Why has he so long delayed? Because he never before thought he had a favourable opportunity; because he never before thought Ireland was at his mercy; and now, as the means of carrying his system into effect, he must look forward to those feuds and discords which may weaken Ireland, and lay her still more at his mercy. With his usual lofty tone and carriage he again and again repeats, that an Union is the only remedy that can heal the evils that afflict Ireland, or that can secure the salvation of both countries. He must, therefore, persist in it, and call on Parliament to assist him in the execution of the measure; he is willing, however, to wait for a more favourable opportunity, and until the Irish Parliament is convinced of its necessity, And what is that opportunity he pretends to wait for — is it not the day and hour when Ireland shall be in a greater degree of weakness? Does he wait until he can again reproach her with her inability to defend herself, and threaten her with withdrawing those commercial favours she receives from England, and from which, he contends, are derived all the sources from which her prosperity arises? Alas! it is but too much in his power to create that moment! And here, let me conjure, let me entreat the House to recollect the shameful manner in which Lord Fitzwilliam was recalled from Ireland, at a moment when he was supposed to have been sent over to grant to the Roman Catholics the rights and privileges which they claimed. The cup of concession was just presented to their lips, but instead of permitting them to taste of it, it was dashed in their faces. Was this the proof of a sincere desire to reconcile the Roman Catholic body? And if he is acquainted, as surely he is, with the workings of the human heart, must he not be well aware of what men will do when so provoked? — We all agree, continued Mr. Sheridan, respecting the necessity of a connexion between the two countries, and that nothing could be more fatal to either than that Ireland should be possessed by the French. Should we not then seriously consider how far the enforcing of this measure may tend to favour what the Right Hon. Gentleman calls the favourite object of the enemy, and which I really believe to be their earnest wish, namely, the Invasion of Ireland. Seeing it as I do, in this light, have I not every reason and motive for imploring the House not to give it any further countenance? Indeed in every view I can take of it, it appears to me not only to be dangerous, but as Childish a scheme as that which the Right Hon. Gentleman has chosen to stigmatise so frequently with that epithet.
In the long and laboured calumnies of the Right Hon. Gentleman, my valued, my esteemed friend, Mr. Fox, has not escaped from the indecent accusation of a proud, sullen and domineering arrogance, see with what indecency he taunts my honourable friend with not having followed up the resolution of 1782 — when he knows full well that that uniform friend to the peace, property and independence of Ireland, remained but two months after in office, and therefore could give it no effect — but did the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, when he came afterwards into power, attempt to bring forward the objections which he had this night so triumphantly urged? Had he not now been fifteen years a Minister, without ever endeavouring to do that which from the first he deemed to be indispensably necessary? — He says, that in the House of Lords in Ireland there was a decided majority in favour of the Union; that in the Commons it was nearly equal; and that out of doors the largest party were in favour of it; — but, Sir, look to the qualities of the division; against the Union were all the country Gentlemen, while those in favour of it were persons in office, and men of no reputation for independency of political character. What is the inducement to the measure held out in Cork? it is said that its marine will be strengthened, and that it will have a dock-yard. — In the north of Ireland, it is stated that if the measure is not acceded to, they will lose the advantages of their Linen Trade; thus a bribe is held out to one, and a threat to the other. — The Hon. Gentleman says he must be assured of the continuance of the connexion with Ireland, and then he says that the Union is the only way to continue it. Is this his proposition or not? I say it is so. But I defy him to mention any one advantage which he offers to Ireland for their acceptance of the Union, which he might not give without that condition. For instance, the subject of Tithes has been mentioned; it is said that arrangements are to be made respecting them; but permit me to ask him whether
, if the proposed arrangements are right, they cannot as well be carried into effect without the Union as with it? He has said that every enlightened politician on the continent is convinced what an accession of strength it would be to this country if Ireland was united to it (by the way, I don’t like this quoting the opinions of continental politicians); but notwithstanding their opinions, let me ask whether, in pursuing his favourite subject, he is not more in danger of acting as the Ally of the French, than of assisting Ireland to repel their attempts? If France knows that Ireland is so far subdued that she is unable to resist an attack on her independence, will not that assurance be the means of her taking those measures by which she may be enabled to strike that dreadful blow she has so long aimed, namely the Separation of Ireland from Great-Britain? — The Honourable Gentleman next comes to the question of the advantages to accrue to Ireland by an Union with this country. He skips over the advantages she has acquired since 1782, and proceeds to give an account of Scotland since the Union, and an argument strongly urged in favour of the Union, is the prosperity which Scotland is said to have enjoyed since it has been united with England: — but might not Scotland have attained this increase of wealth and prosperity merely by dint of her own industry? Besides, Scotland cannot well be compared with Ireland: — in Scotland the Gentlemen of property are fond to reside, and to encourage trade, agriculture, &c.; in Ireland it is the very reverse. Whether without the Union, Scotland would not have been in as good a situation as she is now, is more than I can determine; but is it not true that Ireland prospered from the moment when she shook off her ignominious dependence, and insisted on a free and independent legislation? It is argument founded on mere guess and hazard to say, that after the Union Ireland will derive an increase of progressive advantages beyond what she has enjoyed since 1782. — Then he says that the endeavours of our legislature may, in the course of sixteen years, be deseated by the legislature of Ireland. He argues not from what has been, but from what may be. I may say that the two Parliaments have now, for above 100 years, gone on co-operating with each other without exception. With regard to what is called the Declaratory Law, he knows that the terms of that law never created any apprehension, that it was always considered as a dead letter. I assert that there has been a co-operation of 100 years between the two Parliaments, except only in the instance of the Irish Propositions. It is merely an attempt to entrap and impose upon the House, to state, that a case may occur in which the operations of legislation may be defeated by the want of co-operation in one of the Houses of Parliament of the two countries. It may as well be said, if we send a bill to the House of Lords, and they do not approve of it —
Delphi Complete Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan Page 89
