« AnteriorContinuar »
gravated hy the stupid and impertinent curiosity, or the infulting pity of the felich and unfeeling! Such, my countrymen, is the liberality of Great Britain-Such the nation in whose honour and whole juftice we are implicitly to confide!" (P. 19.) We shall not insult our countrymen by any attempt to vindicate the national character, which, in all the duties of humanity, shines pre-eminently conspicuous among the nations of Europe, from aspersions so foul and unmerited. The writer who can have recourse to such a pitiful fabri.' cation cannot expect much credit, either for his arguments or his principles. In p. 16, there is a pretty plain invitation to the people to rise and overawe the deliberations of the Parlianent; and in P. 22, ingratitude is fuperadded to falsehood, in the affertion that the British Troops, fent over to act against the Rebels, were sent “ to answer some fecret purpose, 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 First. By an Irish Logician. 8vo. Pp. 40. Rice, Dublin. 1799.
'HIS soi-disant Logician, is the most obscure and inconclusive
reasoner that we have yet met with in the course of the present controversy. He objects most strongly to a petitio principii in his adversary, when the whole train of his own reasoning is founded on the allumption 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 represented “the state of Europe, and especially of France" as a motive to adopt the project of an Union, the Logician erelaims “ we cannot be surprized at any thing at the prefent day, when we behold the virtuous Minister of Great Britain metamor. phofed into an advocate for French plundering systems, 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 observation, and wilfully misrepresented it; for we really believe that his comprehenfion was not so extensive. Certain it is, that the means which France has employed to extend her Empire and to increase her powers of annoyance, must render it highly necessary for those states which are the more immediate objects of her implacable eninity, to adopt every measure that can tend to consolidate their strength, and to multiply their means of resistance. If the Union be calculated to produce such an effect, it is undoubtedly a strong argument in its favour. But how the mere act of advancing such an arguinent can be construed into an approbation of the detestable conduct of France, in annihi. Jating the independence of other states, it is not possible for any English logician to conceive, NA, VIII, VOL, Il,
" 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 consent to an Union; but who will guaraniee the performance of the contract ? Where is the controuling power? There is none."
He is not aware that this argu. ment, if it prove any thing, proves too much; for it proves the im. pəltibility of an Union between any two countries which are not e ual in power, even tho formed with the unanimous consent of all the inhabitants, and universally acknowledged to be effential to tie safety, and even to the existence, of both parties.
We could easily adduce many other instances of logical precision from this pamphlet ; but our readers, we imagine, will be satisfied with the specimens already exhibited. The style is as incorrect as the arguments are inconclusive.
Art. XVIII. Obfervations on a Pamphlet, supposed to be
written by an Englishman, entitled, Arguments for and against an Union. By a Student at Trinity College. Sro, Pp 32. Milliken, Dublin. 1799.
UCH empty declamation, but little argument, and less reason, , goes over the same ground with the " logician.” He, like some other champions of the fame cause, gravely maintains, that the intervention of the sea between the two countries is an insurmountable bar to an Union. They never, he says, can become one Empire "till the Atlantic, by the force of its waters, shakes Ireland from its foun. dation, and, like an unwieldly flotilla, lashes it to the English shore.” We confess our inability to give any answer to such argunents as this. We only take leave to remark, that if this doctrine be true, every Island must, of necesiity, be an independent state. Our author considers the with of the British Miniiter to promote the Union as an irrefragable proof, that it must be prejudicial to Ireland ; because “ England would not be willing to incorporate with us, unless the was sure of gaining considerably by it." This reasoning is cer. tainly conclusive. He seems to think it a peculiar hardship that the ftewards of absentees hould “ compel poor tenants to remit their rents.” In page 23, there is a paragraph of a doubtful nature, which the Itudent thought, and reasonably enough, might not be very clearly underitood by his readers, and, therefore, he has kindly subjoined a laconic note, to tell them 'tis “ an irony.” If he had condescended to be equally communicative, in respect to several other passages, we should have been happy to acknowledge the obligation,
Art. XIX. An Answer to the Pamphlet, entitled, Argaments for
and against an Union, &c. in a Letter addressed to Edward Cooke, Esq. Secretary at War. By Pemberton Rudd, Esq. Barrister at Law. 8vo. Pp. 35. Milliken, Dub
Art. XX. An Answer, &c. Letter the Second. Pp. 33.
temperance and candour, deplores the violence of many of his auxiliaries, and declares his resolution rather to use “ the shafts of correction than the bludgeon of abuse." To one part of this declaration he certainly adheres, for he does not wield “ the bludgeon of abuse.” “The shaft of correction,” however, we have not been able to descry. He denies the postulatum of his opponent, contained in this abit ract propofition-"two independent ftates, finding their separate existence mutually inconvenient, propose. to form themselves into one ftate, for their mutual benefit." Mr. R. observes, that he never heard one single gentleman repine at his feparate existence, deprecate his mutual inconveniencies, or pray to unite his fate through life, with such a dower-less termagant consort as poor Ireland." The question might certainly have been put in a less exceptionable form without injury to the argument; as the exift. ence of mutual inconveniencies (which might easily be proved) whether acknowledged or not, was a fufficient ground on which to proceed with the discussion. He next attacks the instance adduced, injudiciously, we think, of the Union of the Sabines with the Romans, the two cases being certainly diffimilar ; but fill the reasoning of Mr. R. on the subject is inconclufive. Mr. C. obferves, that by such an Union, the Sabines laid the foundation of Roman greatness. Granted, say his adversaries, so 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 lost, but the indivi. duals composing the nation continued to exist, and, from their Union, not only derived a participation in the superior 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 consider only the consequences of the Union between these nations, and not the circumstances which precedel, and led t it. Now, in the case 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 lost 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 insular Gtuation of Ireland is a standing arguinent with all the Anti-Unionifts, (as they have been denominated,) who seem to regard it as decisive, Mr. Cooke's comparison of a partnership
draws the following remarks from his adversary, which are alike frivolous and absurd.
" I see no mighty comfort or respectability attached to the situation, at leaft of the poor copartner. Must 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 last the profits of the firm are to be distributed, he re. ceives, not a share, but a ftipend, and discontentcdly 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 supposition that the two countries are wholly unconnected, and that neither has any concern in the prosperity of the other. Mr. Rudd will, no doubt, reject such supposition ; yet, if he will carefully re-examine his argument, he will find it untenable without it. He, too, attacks his opponent with great severity, for recommending the conduct of Frances as a model for imitation.” We have before shewn the fallacy of this objection. There muft, indeed, be a strange wrong-headedness in these literary champions, fo unaccountably to misconceive an author's meaning ; for, on this point, Mr. Cooke is so explicit, that we did not conceive that there exifted a poflibility of misconception. The inference, and the only inference, which he expressly draws, from the conquests, and forced incorporations of the French republic, is this:
-" In proportion as the power of France is increased, so ought the strength of the British empire to be augmented.” If an Union would produce such augmentation of strength, then would an union be desirable. But this is a matter for separate discussion; while that is, a proposition from which no friend either to Ireland or Great Britain can possibly diffent.
Mr. R. fupposes a strange metamorphosis to be effected in the character and disposition of an Irishman, by passing his winter in London inttead of Dublin ; when in Ireland, it seems, 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 moralists into a race of profligates, the Irish ought undoubtedly to reject it with indignation and scorn. The observation in p. 27, respecting two supreme powers, is juft. There can be but one, and that cannot exist without the King.
The second Letter is more vague and desultory than the first. The author makes the strange 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 lie thinks he establishes his pofition, by shewing that Plymouth and Portsmouth are not trading towns ! Surely, he inight have been aware that these examples could prove
nothing, unless the fact were ascertained, that the towns in question actually enjoyed a trade before the establishment of the dock-yards. To suppose that trade must diminish as the means of protection in. crease, is ridiculous. But, admitting that trade and commerce would be extended by the regulations resulting from an Union, still he contends, that this is no argument in its favour ; for, if the Irish trade is susceptible of extension, it is ungenerous and unjust, on the part of England, to restrain it, and to make that appear as relative conceslion, which is a positive right. In the first place, he seems to forget, that increase of capital is necessary to the extension of trade, and that Englishmen of property will not be disposed to rik their fortunes in Irish concerns, until the interefts of the two countries are more firmly consolidated, and tranquillity permanently secured, by more falutary regulations than any which exist, or which can exist, in the present relative situation of the two countries. In the next place, when it suits his argument, he considers England as a nation of foreigners, who can have no interest in the welfare of Ireland ; and vet he virtually denies their right to make such laws as shall secure a superiority 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 effent, is certainly a curious kind of competence for a free Parlia
He maintains that, for this purpose, “the exprened and almost universal consent of their conitituents" must be obtained. By what law, or by what principle of the constitution this neceffity is established, we are yet to learn. Nor are we told by what scale the proportion of a consent, which is to be less than univerfal, and yet the consent of more than a numerical majority, is to be regulated. Besides, if the Parliament be not competent to such a decision, their constituents cannot be competent, nor even the majority of the grcat mafs of the people ; but the consent of each individual must be procured : and how this is to be done, we leare to Mr. Rudd to fetele. Speaking of the English revolution, in 1688, he says, “imperious neceßlity authorized, and the general voice of the people required, it.” The first part of the ftatement is accurate, but the latter grossly incorrect; the Revolution was folely the work of necessity; the voice of the prople had nothing to do with it ; they were never consulted on the business, which was entirely settled by Parliament. The author is not more correct in his allertion, that s the Scotch borough.members have been the unvarying fupporters, to a man, of every Ministry, at every time.” · These Letters are neither remarkable for purity of style, nor grammatical accuracy. We have remarked many vulgarisms, and some expreffions that are not English. Ex. Gr.--" commercial advantages lapped up in companies'i vomitaries of national abundance.”