UNION. 



and navigation impofed by the Britifh parliament on BritiHi 

 fubjefts in carrying on the fame trade. This interference 

 with the independence of Ireland defeated the meafure of 

 the Britifti minifter, though he was aflifted on this occafion 

 by the talents ond knowledge of Mr. Fofter, then chan- 

 cellor of the iriih exchequer. On this occafion, lord 

 Sackville, better known perhaps as lord George Germamc, 

 the title he bore when in office, earneftly recommended a 

 legidative union as the only mode of fettling the jarring in- 

 terefts of the two countries ; and it is thought that from that 

 time the meafure became a favourite objeft of the Britifli 

 miniftry. Several pohtical writers had indeed warmly re- 

 commended it. Dean Tucker obferved, that " to incorpo- 

 rate both the Britidi ifles together, and make one kingdom, 

 in all refpefts, as to parliament, trade, and taxes, had long 

 been the wifh of every generous difmterefted patriot of both 

 kingdoms :" and in 1785, after the rejeftion of the com- 

 mercial propofitions, he faid, " refpefting Ireland, one or 

 other of the fame confequences (union or feparation) muit 

 inevitably follow. For after tropes and figures have been 

 let off without number, after torrents of eloquence have 

 been poured forth, much paper blotted, and much ink 

 fpilled, — recourfe mud be had, at lail, either to 3. feparation, 

 or to a union ; for plainly there is no other alternative ; no 

 other medium to be difcovered, or cement which can laft for 

 any length of time." The refult of Arthur Young's ex- 

 amination into the ftate of Ireland, feems to have been a 

 fimilar conviction ; and the diftinguiftied author of the 

 Inquiry into the Nature and Caufes of the Wealth of 

 Nations, book v. chap. 3, after fpeaking of the commercial 

 advantages refulting from a union, fays, that Ireland would 

 gain other advantages much more important. " The greater 

 part of the people of all ranks would gain a complete deli- 

 verance fi-om an ariftocracy, not founded in the natural and 

 refpeftable diftmftions of birth and fortune, but in thofe of 

 rehgious and pohtical prejudices : diftinftions which, more 

 than any other, animate both the infolence of theopprclTors, 

 and the hatred and indignation of the opprefled ; and which 

 commonly render the inhabitants of the fame country more 

 hoftile to one another, than thofe of different countries ever 

 are. — The fpirit of party prevails lefs in Scotland than in 

 England. In the cafe of a union, it would probably pre- 

 vail lefs in Ireland than in Scotland. Without a union with 

 Great Britain, the inhabitants of Ireland are not likely for 

 many ages to confider themfelves as one people." From an 

 anecdote recorded by fir Jolin Dalrymple, and quoted by 

 Mr. Goold, one of the many writers againlt the union, it 

 appears that in 1776, the earl of Rochford being offered the 

 lord lieutenancy of Ireland, was willing to accept the office 

 if he could do fome great good there, and get fome great 

 fame, and that two objetts occurred to him, the one to pro- 

 cure a repeal of the penal laws againft Roman Catholics, 

 and the other to bring about a union with England. He 

 fent to confult lord Harcourt, then lord heutenant, and his 

 intimate friend, about thefe meafures ; and though lord 

 Rochford had at firft deemed them vlfionary, and lord 

 Harcourt pointed out fuch difficulties as prevented his 

 friend from undertaking them, ftill it is evident that both 

 noblemen regarded them as meafures calculated to promote 

 the general welfare. The oppofition to a union, which 

 lord Harcourt apprehended in 1776, would have been 

 greater in 1785. " To carry this into effeft," fays Mr. 

 Newcnham, " was an achievement which required much 

 time ; much addrefs ; much vigilance, with I'egard to op- 

 pertunities ; much difcernment, with regard to feleflion ; 

 much promptitude, and much energy d^iring the feafon of 



eftion ; for the parliament of Ireland had become attaclied 

 to its ariftocracy ; and the people of Ireland had been ren- 

 dered enthufiartic in behalf of national independence, and 

 exemption from the paralyfing controul of Britain. Indeed, 

 as the writer well remembers, it was confidered as almofl. 

 amounting to treafon againft the nation, to utter a fyllablc 

 in favour of a union. The parliament was iludious to pre- 

 ferve independence, chiefly on account of its tendency to 

 enhance the fervices of individual members. The people 

 were ftudious to preferve it, becaufe it afforded them a 

 better profpeft of patriotic meafures than they had before. 

 But they were alfo anxious to reform the parliament, in 

 order to infure the adoption of thofe meafures which the 

 priv.ite interefts of a majority of the members induced them 

 to oppofe." 



In 1785, then, all parties would have joined in rejeiEling a 

 union with abhorrence ; and the minifter found it necefTary 

 to give up his commercial fvftem, though beneficial to Ire- 

 land, becaufe it involved a partial funender of legiflative in- 

 dependence. Circumftances however occurred, which 

 rendered fome means of ftrengthening the connexion be- 

 tween the two countries abfolutely neceffary. 



In 1788 it pleafed God to afflitt our good and beloved 

 king with a malady which difabled him from exercifing his 

 royal functions. The parliament of Great Britain deter- 

 mined, after long deliberations, to appoint the prince of 

 Wales regent, with reftriftions ; and whilft their deliber- 

 ations depended, the parhament of Ireland met, and almoft 

 inftantaneoufly refolved that an addrefs fhould be prefented 

 to the prince, requefting him to take upon himfelf the go- 

 vernment during his majefty's indifpofition, under the ftyle 

 and title of prince regent of Ireland. There was here a 

 choice of a regent before the Britifh parliament had come to 

 a decifion, and though the choice fell on the fame perfon- 

 agc, yet that perfonage would have had different powers in 

 the two kingdoms. It was a proof indeed of independ- 

 ence, but it was inconfiftent with the connexion ; for if 

 Ireland could choofe her regent, her choice might fall on a 

 different individual from the regent of Great Britain. The 

 convalefcencc of the king prevented any evil ; but the con- 

 duft of the Iriffi parhament fupplied the advocates of union 

 with a powerful argument : and if Mr. Pitt had been before 

 undecided, this would probably determine him to take the 

 firft opportunity of carrying it into effeft. In the meau 

 time many circumftances prepared the way. The dif- 

 turbances refpefting tithes contributed to religious diffen- 

 tions ; the Proteftants became alaimcd at the idea of a Popifh 

 parliament ; and the Catholics were irritated at what tiiey 

 conceived their juft rights being withheld. In 1792 the 

 Catholics prefented two petitions to the houfe of commons, 

 the firft of which was withdrawn, and the fecond was re- 

 jefted on a divifion of 228 to 25 ; and it was complained 

 that the Cathohcs of Ireland had not influence to induce 

 any one member of parhament to patronize their petition, fo 

 faint was the fupport given to it, even by thofe who voted 

 for receiving it. Yet in the next feffion of parliament, 

 without any change of circumftances in the country, the 

 fame houfe of commons, which had refufed to allow the 

 petition of three-fourths of their countrymen to lie on their 

 table, on the recommendation of the crown pafled a bill, 

 granting every privilege for which the Catholics had peti- 

 tioned, and even without the reftriftions on the right of 

 voting, which they had themfelves propofed. Could any 

 proceeding have tended more to deitroy the confidence of 

 the people in their reprefentatives ? 



In 1795, during the viceroyalty of lord Fitzwilliam, the 



Catholics 



