an independent Irish Legiflature is not fully competent to provide; that in the furrender of our distinct existence, we gain little, and give all; that the commercial advantage which may refult, is extremely problemetical, and if certain, that the barter of conftitution for money is a bafe and fordid traffic; that the little we may gain, there can be no fecurity to preferve; and that for national independence there can be no earthly recompence. We profefs at prefent only to hint our doubts, whether a Legiflative Affembly, deputed to enact laws, is competent to erase the conftituent franchise, and by preventing the existence of any future diftinct Legislative Body, to fubvert the Constitution. Warmly, but with becoming warmth, feeling as we do on this novel fubje&, it would be grofs and culpable negligence, or defpicable timidity, to refrain from publishing and propagating our opinions. Whilft the prefent neceffity exifts, we shall be indefatigable. When the government of this country fhall have announced to the people, that the measure of an incorporated Union with England was never in contemplation, or is abandoned, our public labours fhall ceafe, and we shall chearfully return to our private amufements and occupations, When the Emperor Galba was about to refign into the hands of Pifo, the abfolute dominion of the profligate and degraded Romans, his oration, which was the only folemnity of transferring the right of empire, concluded with thefe memorable words" Imperaturus es hominibus qui nec totam fervitutem pati poffunt, 1. The Ordnance was fet on fire by the Rebels. 2. The Cuftom-houfe was blown up, 3. The Orangemen attacked the Catholics in Clarendon-street Chapel, on Christmas-day. 4. There was a bloody battle at Maynooth. 5. There was to be a general massacre the night before Christmas-day. N. B. This laft lie was fo well concerted as to impofe upon government, who in consequence thereof, doubled all the guards, and placed centinels on Effex-bridge. PRICE 2d. IF any of you know cause or just impediment why these two may not be lawfully joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace;—this is the laft « time of afking." Prayer Book. "For be ye well affured, that fo many as are coupled together, otherwife than as God's "word doth allow, are not joined together by God, neither is their matrimony lawful.”, Ibid. TO THE PEOPLE MUST UST it not be the height of folly to part with the management of our own concerns FOR EVER? This is a difficulty upon the question of an Union, suggested by your new friend, and difinterestest adviser, the English under-fecretary, in his celebrated pamphlet upon that fubje&t. Liften, my countrymen; liften with patience, if you can, to the English fecretary's folution of this difficulty. After an Union fhall pafs, he tells you," we shall have Irishmen in the originating Cabinet of Great Britain, we shall have a number of Irish representatives, in proportion to our relative confequence, in the Parliament of the empire. Our affairs will be then difcuffed by our own members, in the prefence of the wifeft and freest assembly, which ever exifted, where our intereft is their intereft, our prosperity their profperity, our power their aggrandizement, and where, of courfe, the anxiety for our welfare must be as great in the British as in the Irish part of the Legiflature." Are you not convinced, my countrymen, do you hesitate to execute the deed, which, while it configns you and your posterity to the condition of eternal infancy or eternal dotage, at the fame time fecures to you, in perpetuity fecures to you, guardians and trustees, OF IRELAND. so pure, fo difinterested, and so vigilant, that you may for ever fleep in fecurity, and enjoy thefe golden dreams, which the fimple English, who tranfa&t their own affairs, will be toiling to realize? With Irish advocates to plead our caufe, and having for our Judges the wifeft and freeft affembly which ever exifted, where our intereft is their intereft, our profperity their profperity, and our power their aggrandizement, must we not become the envy of all nations? Surely it must be faction, or fpleen, or disaffection, or narrow-minded prejudice, that can raise any objection to this new mode of adminif tering the conftitution. But may it not be fuggefted with deference to the patriot fecretary, that there is a profufion of kindness to this country in the meditated arrangement? The lifh members, however their zeal for Ireland may be quickened by refidence in England, and their intercourfe with the originating cabinet, never can carry any Legislative measure, and as mere advocates, I doubt whether a few English barrifters, as occafion might require, fee'd for the purpose, might not, with as much effect, and more economy, promote the Interests of Ireland, at the Bar of either Houfe of Parliament, particularly as they would have to address them felves to men interested and prejudiced in favour of their clients. I am ashamed, my countrymen, of this puny fophiftry-Is it not known, that national infult is highly mifchievous, and that to treat the understanding with contempt is the most galling of all infults? But we are called upon to difcufs this question with temper, and however difficult a compliance may be to Irifh feelings upon fuch a fubject, we fhould comply. To the objection, that our reprefentatives cannot carry any meafure in the united Legiflature, from their comparative inferiority of numbers, it is answered, "that Yorkshire may equally complain." Though I do not admit the reasoning, I adopt the cafe as fairly illuftrative of the queftion. I readily admit, that from the neceffary fubjection of each part to the whole of a hation, fuch a complaint from Yorkshire would be highly abfurd, and that it would be equally abfurd from Ireland, after a Legislative Union. I go further-I do affert, that there are numerous claffes of men in England, totally unreprefented in Parliament, who yet fuftain no real grievance, and who have no fubftantial ground of complaint; the proprietor of terms for years, the copy-holder, the owner of chattle interefts of every kind, and various other claffes of non-ele&tors might be enumerated. I do not fay, that the elective franchise ought not to be extended to fuch men; but if it ought, it is upon the ground of general policy, and not that they require it for their fafety or protection. Why is Yorkshire secure, though its reprefentatives be merged in the general Parliament, and why is the non-elector of England safe, though he be totally unreprefented? Because the English Legislature cannot have any temptation or motive to injure Yorkshire, or the non-elector of England, whofe profperity and fecurity muft depend upon the condition of the nation at large. This appears to me to be fo plain, that I am of opinion, that a county of England might be totally disfranchised with little or no detriment, except what it might A fuffer in common with the reft of the nation, from the dangerous precedent, and the poffible future abridgement of the reprefentation of England, to a degree inconfiftent with the li berties of the nation, and the principles of the British conftitution. But when it is admitted, that each companent part of an incorporated nation muft fubmit to the uncontroulable fupremacy of the whole, and that any given county of England would be fafe under fuch fupremacy, even though it were totally unreprefented, does it follow that-Ireland ought voluntarily to form a connection, to which fuch fubjection and dependence must be necessarily incident? Or, (which must determine the former question) have we, from a fair review of past events, and a candid examination of our prefent state, reasonable. ground, independent of the patriot fecretary's affurance, to conclude that the British parliament would feel towards us, as towards an English, fhire, and confider our intereft as their intereft, our profperity as their profperity, our power as their aggrandizement? if we have not, it must, indeed, be the height of folly, to part with the management of management of our own concerns for ever. The advocates for an Union, are fo- fenfible of this, that they contend, that it neceffarily flows from the nature of a Legislative Union, and is a political axiom not requir ing proof (they certainly have not as yet offer. ed any) that after fuch an Union Ireland being identified in interest and Constitution with Great Britain, muft be equally attended to, and equally cherished, by the common Legislature. I confefs I am fo dull, and fo unenlightened, by Castle logic, that I cannot perceive, either intuitively or demonstratively, the truth of this propofition. It certainly is not univerfally true, 'that all countries Legislatively United, or incorporated, must have a common interest; and that the common Legiflature must equally confult the prosperity of every part. I fhall put a cafe :-Would the Legislative incorporation of America with Great Britain, by admitting deputies from the former into the British Parliament, produce the alledged effe&t? America thought other wife, and received the project (for it was projected,) with derifion. Would a Legislative, or an incorporate Union (the world is much given to metaphor, which often leads to error) between France and England, fo identify their interefts, that equal culture and protection would certainly follow? Certainly not; the habits and fentiments which prevailed for centuries, would not vanish before the magic of a name; and the greater country would be every thing, and the leffer country nothing. Identity of intereft, mutually and clearly felt and understood, fhould be the antecedent caufe, the bafis and foundation of every fuch Union, and not chimerically purfued as its fruit and confequence. The best writer in fupport of an Union, has told you, that the generofity of nations is the dream of fools. Perhaps the fame opinion might be pronounced of their unfunctioned justice. Whatever in found policy and enlightened wisdom might be the truth of the cafe, if the fuperior country conceived it to be her intereft to opprefs or impoverish the inferior, the latter would be oppreffed and impoverished. No human precaution could prevent it, and nothing but revolution could redrefs it. But we are told, that after an Union the laws enacted will be univerfal, equally affecting the three united nations, and confequently equally benefitting them. Here again you are attempted to be impofed upon by a found. Who will guarantee that all future laws will be univerfal? But fuppofe it fufficiently fecured, does it follow that a commercial regulation, which will benefit England, muft benefit Ireland equally-or that Ireland cannot be injured by a tax or a reftriation upon any branch of manufacture or commerce, by which England will not be equally wounded? Would it be impoffible, for inftance, to enact a law, or impofe a tax, which fhould purport equally to bind any manufacturer of linen, or of woollen, or of cotton, in the united nations, without producing the fame effect in each country? As long as from climate, foil, accident, or habit, different manufa&tures, shall be in a different state of culture in each country that is as long as the world will lastit will be easily practicable for the dulleft Chancellor of the Exchequer to crush the commerce of our nation, without affe&ing Great Britain, except as far as she will be interefted in our general profperity, by laws and regulations which will be nominally and apparently equal and universal.-Illustrations are obvious, and would be endless. These principles are derived from the immutable nature of man. Weigh them well, my countrymen-confult your history, and examine your profpe&ts calmly, and firmly, and then decide whether you ought, in an hour affliction, in a paroxifm of defpair, to renounce all your boafted and fruitful acquifi'tions in commerce and conftitution, and confign your pofterity for ever to the guardianship of Great Britain-to rely implicitly upon her good faith, her fifterly affection, her fympathy, or her felf-love. Is it my countrymen, really and in truth the cafe, that the identity of intereft after an Union must be fo clearly felt and understood by Great Britain, that she never can conceive it poffible that he could be exalted, while you are degraded? You are not con- / fined to delufive theory, or fableifh conje&ure, upon that fubje&t. You have long lived under the foftering protection of a fupreme Legislature over both countries; and you have furvived it. During that difmal period, that more than polar night, even while the Legislative fupremacy of Great Britain was controuled by a National Senate-more controuled than under any modification of an Union it can poffibly be in future-what was your condition? Did you really grow with the growth, and flourish with the profperity of Great Britain? If I answer this question; if I enter into a detail of your fituation for centuries, under a more fecure arrangement than that propofed, the Patriot Secertary will fay I am intemperate; I am fa&tious; I am inflaming the people to fedition; I am infi-' nuating ideas dangerous to the connection with Great Britain. To the prefent fafe and honourable connection, I am perfuaded the virtue, talents and property of the nation, with very little exception, are devotedly attached. But I am equally convinced that a recurrence of the ftate of fordid dependence, from which we fo lately emerged, or of a fimilar, ftate, even under the most plaufible guife, would alienate the affections of this country for ever; and that the projectors of an Union, while they are impofing ideal bonds of connection, are fowing the feeds of lafting difguft and alienation. The dullest man muft foon fee, if he has not already feen it, that a Legislative Union will leave us in a more dependent and unprotected state, than we were in before the Volunteers of Ireland (as the Patriot Secretary states it) took advantage of the diftreffes of the Empire, to affert the independence of our Parliament. The comparison is fimple and easy. There is fomething common, and fomething peculiar in each ftate. By the latter, their relative value must of course be eftimated. The British Parliament, confifting of five hundred British Senators, may be truly con- : fidered in each fyftem, as the common fountain of power. In each state there is a peculiar corrective to this power. In our former dependent ftate, three hundred Irithmen, exercising what may be called a concurrent jurifdiction within the heart of this kingdom, reftrained the exceffes of that power, and finally thook off its fupremacy, without a convulfion. In onr new connection, at the utmost one hundred probably of the fame three hundred will be blended with the five hundred British fenators; and if they are fo difpofed, will have an opportunity of trying their powers of perfuafion in favour of Ireland. I cannot hefitate to prefer the former corrective to the latter; and rather than fubmit to an Union, I would implore the Legiflature to re-enact the 6th Geo. I. and leave us in poffeffion at leaft of our former Conftitution. What a fad alternative has the rafhnefs of a few political projectors, impofed upon every loyal and feeling fubject of this realm, who' fincerely loves British connection and Irish liberty, and knows and feels that they are compatible, and who fhrinks from the dreadful neceffity of making an election between them? If we are compelled to fpeculate, upon what the conduct of Great Britain, and the condition of Ireland probably will be, after our independent Legiflature fhall be abolished, muft we not enquire how thefe things were, before it was established? And if we do enquire (may God avert the neceffity)-shail we not enquire with freedom, as long as we are freemen? I fhall fo far at prefent fub mit to the Patriot Secretary, as to poftpone this enquiry. The defperate project may be relinquished. It may become the duty, as it is the wish, of every loyal Irishman, to bury in oblivion paft melancholy details. The memory of our misfortunes may, no doubt, become a fhield to protect us against their recurrence; but like the obfolete armour of our ancestors, it should be left to the ruft of time, and not brought into ufe, but upon the last neceflity. X. A QUERY FOR CASUISTS. Doctor M'Kenna's pamphlet argues, that an Union is necessary, to protect the Catholics from the Orangemen. The pamphlet, Union or not, by an Orange man, argues, that an Union is neceffary to prote&t the Orangemen from the Catholics. The pamphlet afcribed to the Secretary, argues, that an Union is neceffary for both the above purposes. Quere-which of the three arguments is true? A. B.'s fong is too perfonal; the M. S. S. will be left wherever the author directs. DUBLIN: PRINTED BY J. MOORE, No. 45, COLLEGE-GREEN. |