gravated by the stupid and impertinent curiofity, or the infulting pity of the felfth and unfeeling! Such, my countrymen, is the liberality of Great Britain-Such the nation in whofe honour and whofe juftice we are implicitly to confide!" (p. 19.) We shall not infult our countrymen by any attempt to vindicate the national character, which, in all the duties of humanity, fhines pre-eminently confpicuous among the nations of Europe, from afperfions fo foul and unmerited. The writer who can have recourfe to fuch a pitiful fabrication cannot expect much credit, either for his arguments or his principles. In P. 16, there is a pretty plain invitation to the people to rife and overawe the deliberations of the Parliament; and in P. 22, ingratitude is fuperadded to falfehood, in the affertion that the British Troops, fent over to act against the Rebels, were fent " to answer fome fecret purpofe, and without any benefit to Ireland,"

ART. XVII. An Union to be Subjection, proved from Mr. C's own words, in his Arguments for and against; in two Parts. Part the Firft. By an Irish Logician. 8vo. Pp. 40. Rice, Dublin. 1799.

THIS

"HIS foi-difant Logician, is the most obfcure and inconclufive reafoner that we have yet met with in the course of the prefent controverfy. He objects most strongly to a petitio principii in his adverfary, when the whole train of his own reafoning is founded on the affumption that the independence of Ireland will be destroyed by an Union with Great Britain, a fact which he does not even think it neceffary to prove.

Mr. C. having reprefented "the ftate of Europe, and especially of France" as a motive to adopt the project of an Union, the Logician exclaims "we cannot be furprized at any thing at the prefent day, when we behold the virtuous Minister of Great Britain metamorphofed into an advocate for French plundering fyftems, and French plans of Incorporations!” (P. 23.) We mean not to compliment his penetration at the expence of his integrity, by admitting that he comprehended the force and tendency of Mr. C's obfervation, and wilfully mifrepresented it; for we really believe that his comprehenfion was not fo extenfive. Certain it is, that the means which France has employed to extend her Empire and to increafe her powers of annoyance, must render it highly neceffary for thofe ftates which are the more immediate objects of her implacable enmity, to adopt every measure that can tend to confolidate their ftrength, and to multiply their means of refiftance. If the Union be calculated to produce fuch an effect, it is undoubtedly a ftrong argument in its favour. But how the mere act of advancing fuch an argument can be conftrued into an approbation of the deteftable conduct of France, in annihi. lating the independence of other states, it is not poffible for any English logician to conceive.

NO, VIII, VOL. II,

Ꮓ

" An

"An Union may be compared to a partnership in trade,” said Mr. Cooke. No, replies our Logician, " there may be an agreement between the two nations. They may confent to an Union; but who will guarantee the performance of the contract? Where is the controuling power? There is none." He is not aware that this argument, if it prove any thing, proves too much; for it proves the impoffibility of an Union between any two countries which are not equal in power, even though formed with the unanimous confent of all the inhabitants, and univerfally acknowledged to be essential to the fafety, and even to the exiftence, of both parties.

We could eafily adduce many other inftances of logical precifion from this pamphlet ; but our readers, we imagine, will be fatisfied with the fpecimens already exhibited. The ftyle is as incorrect as the arguments are inconclufive.

ART. XVIII. Obfervations on a Pamphlet, fuppofed to be written by an Englishman, entitled, Arguments for and against an Union. By a Student at Trinity College. Sra. Pp 32. Milliken, Dublin. 1799.

UCH empty declamation, but little argument, and lefs reafon, are to be found in these flimfy obfervations of a Student, who goes over the fame ground with the "logician." He, like fome other champions of the fame cause, gravely maintains, that the intervention of the fea between the two countries is an infurmountable bar to an Union. They never, he fays, can become one Empire till the Atlantic, by the force of its waters, shakes Ireland from its foun dation, and, like an unwieldly flotilla, lafhes it to the English fhore." We confefs our inability to give any anfwer to fuch arguments as this. We only take leave to remark, that if this doctrine be true, every Iland muft, of neceffity, be an independent ftate. Our author confiders the wish of the British Minister to promote the Union as an irrefragable proof, that it must be prejudicial to Ireland; becaufe "England would not be willing to incorporate with us, unless the was fure of gaining confiderably by it." This reafoning is certainly conclufive. He feems to think it à peculiar hardship that the ftewards of abfentees fhould "compel poor tenants to remit their rents." In page 23, there is a paragraph of a doubtful nature, which the student thought, and reasonably enough, might not be very clearly understood by his readers, and, therefore, he has kindly fubjoined a laconic note, to tell them 'tis "an irony." If he had condefcended to be equally communicative, in refpect to feveral other paffages, we should have been happy to acknowledge the obligation.

ART.

171

ART. XIX. An Anfwer to the Pamphlet, entitled, Arguments for and against an Union, &c. in a Letter addreffed to Edward Cooke, Efg. Secretary at War. By Pemberton Rudd, Efq. Barrifter at Law. 8vo. Pp. 35. Milliken, Dublin. 1799.

ART. XX. An Anfwer, &c. Letter the Second. Pp. 33.

MR

R. Rudd profeffes to difcufs this momentous queftion with temperance and candour, deplores the violence of many of his auxiliaries, and declares his refolution rather to use "the fhafts of correction than the bludgeon of abufe." To one part of this declaration he certainly adheres, for he does not wield "the bludgeon of abufe.""The fhaft of correction," however, we have not been able to defcry. He denies the poftulatum of his opponent, contained in this abit ract propofition-"two independent ftates, finding their feparate exiftence mutually inconvenient, propofe to form themfelves into one ftate, for their mutual benefit." Mr. R. obferves, that he never heard one fingle gentleman repine at his feparate 'existence, deprecate his mutual inconveniencies, or pray to unite his fate through life, with fuch a dower-lefs termagant confort as poor Ireland." The queftion might certainly have been put in a lefs exceptionable form without injury to the argument; as the exiftence of mutual inconveniencies (which might eafily be proved) whether acknowledged or not, was a fufficient ground on which to proceed with the difcuffion. He next attacks the inftance adduced, injudiciously, we think, of the Union of the Sabines with the Romans, the two cafes being certainly diffimilar; but ftill the reasoning of Mr. R. on the fubject is inconclufive. Mr. C. obferves, that by fuch an Union, the Sabines laid the foundation of Roman greatnefs. Granted, fay his adverfaries, fo would the Irish lay the foundation of British greatness, but they would lose their own; for the very name of Sabine was loft. True, the name was loft, but the indivi duals compofing the nation continued to exift, and, from their Union, not only derived a participation in the fuperior privileges and advan tages of the more powerful and flourishing Romans, but an increase of every thing that conduces to the prosperity and happiness of a people. We here confider only the confequences of the Union between these nations, and not the circumftances which precedel, and led to it. Now, in the cafe to which the argument is applied, it is evi dent the objection is frivolous; for Ireland would no more lose her name than Scotland has loft hers; and we cannot conceive how, if the two countries were united, the greatness of England could be increased without a proportionable augmentation of the greatness of Ireland.

The infular fituation of Ireland is a ftanding argument with all the Anti-Unionists, (as they have been denominated,) who feem to regard it as decifive, Mr. Cooke's comparifon of a partnership

22

draws

draws the following remarks from his adverfary, which are alike frivolous and abfurd.

"I fee no mighty comfort or refpectability attached to the fituation, at leaft of the poor copartner. Muft he not travel every fitting to the counting-house of his more wealthy ally, who takes care to keep the books and the coffers in his own parlour and when at laft the profits of the firm are to be diftributed, he receives, not a fhare, but a ftipend, and difcontentedly departs, not with the honourable dividend of a partner, but the galling wages of a clerk." (P. 12.)

This is idle declamation.

The author urges the objection advanced by other writers, that the Union will not be rendered Veneficial to Ireland, because such conduct on the part of England would be "unnaturally generous.” But this argument can only be founded on the fuppofition that the two countries are wholly unconnected, and that neither has any concern in the profperity of the other. Mr. Rudd will, no doubt, reject fuch fuppofition; yet, if he will carefully re-examine his argument, he will find it untenable without it. He, too, attacks his opponent with great feverity, for recommending the conduct of France" as a model for imitation." We have before fhewn the fallacy of this objection. There muft, indeed, be a ftrange wrong-headedness in thefe literary champions, fo unaccountably to mifconceive an author's meaning; for, on this point, Mr. Cooke is fo explicit, that we did not conceive that there exifted a poffibility of mifconception. The inference, and the only inference, which he exprefsly draws, from the conquefts, and forced incorporations of the French republic, is this:

In proportion as the power of France is increafed, fo ought the ftrength of the British empire to be augmented." If an Union would produce fuch augmentation of ftrength, then would an union be defirable. But this is a matter for feparate difcuffion; while that is, a propofition from which no friend either to Ireland or Great Britain can poffibly diffent.

Mr. R. fuppofes a ftrange metamorphofis to be effected in the character and difpofition of an Irishman, by paffing his winter in London instead of Dublin; when in Ireland, it feems, the man of property devotes his fortune to "the relief of want, the encouragement of arts, or the consumption of luxuries;" but in England it will " be eaten at a feast, drank with a mistress, or loft on a die!!!" (p. 25.) This is the most potent objection we have yet heard against an Union : if it would really have the effect of transforming a nation of moralifts into a race of profligates, the Irifh ought undoubtedly to reject it with indignation and fcorn. The obfervation in P. 27, respecting two fupreme powers, is juft. There can be but one, and that cannot exift without the KING.

The fecond Letter is more vague and defultory than the first. The author makes the ftrange affertion, (in P. 10,) that if a dock-yard were to be formed at Cork, " trade would fly, and commerce spread her fail-cloth wings." And he thinks he establishes his pofition, by fhewing that Plymouth and Portsmouth are not trading towns!

Surely, he might have been aware that these examples could prove

nothing,

nothing, unless the fact were afcertained, that the towns in question actually enjoyed a trade before the establishment of the dock-yards. To fuppofe that trade muft diminish as the means of protection increafe, is ridiculous. But, admitting that trade and commerce would be extended by the regulations refulting from an Union, ftill he contends, that this is no argument in its favour; for, if the Irish trade is fufceptible of extenfion, it is ungenerous and unjust, on the part of England, to reftrain it, and to make that appear as relative conceffion, which is a pofitive right. In the firft place, he feems to forget, that increase of capital is neceffary to the extension of trade, and that Englishmen of property will not be difpofed to risk their fortunes in Irish concerns, until the interefts of the two countries are more firmly confolidated, and tranquillity permanently fecured, by more falutary regulations than any which exift, or which can exift, in the prefent relative fituation of the two countries. In the next

place, when it fuits his argument, he confiders England as a nation of foreigners, who can have no intereft in the welfare of Ireland; and yet he virtually denies their right to make fuch laws as shall secure a fuperiority to their own commerce, and prevent the interference of other nations with their trade!

Our author boldly denies the competence of Parliament to concur in an Union; the competence to diffent without the competence to affent, is certainly a curious kind of competence for a free Parliament. He maintains that, for this purpose," the expreffed and almost univerfal confent of their constituents" must be obtained. By what law, or by what principle of the conftitution this neceffity is established, we are yet to learn. Nor are we told by what fcale the proportion of a confent, which is to be lefs than univerfal, and yet the confent of more than a numerical majority, is to be regulated. Befides, if the Parliament be not competent to fuch a decifion, their conftituents cannot be competent, nor even the majority of the great mafs of the people; but the confent of each individual must be procured and how this is to be done, we leave to Mr. Rudd to settle. Speaking of the English revolution, in 1688, he fays, "imperious neceffity authorized, and the general voice of the people required, it." The first part of the ftatement is accurate, but the latter grofsly incorrect; the Revolution was folely the work of neceffity; the voice of the people had nothing to do with it; they were never confulted on the bufinefs, which was entirely fettled by Parliament. The author is not more correct in his affertion, that "the Scotch borough members have been the unvarying fupporters, to a man, of every Ministry,

at every time."

.Thefe Letters are neither remarkable for purity of style, nor grammatical accuracy. We have remarked many vulgarifms, and fome expreffions that are not English. Ex. Gr." commercial advantages lapped up in companies" vomitaries of national abundance.”

ART.