thing like a coalition of parties in oppofition to the Union." (r. 16.). "The reiga of Robespierre furnishes no parallel to the execrable barbarities perpetrated by one party, often without any proof of crime, on bare fufpicion of being adverse to afcendency. The Guillotine inflicted a speedy and eafy death; there was no picketing, no roafting, no flow fires, no fcalping, or pitched caps, no whipping with thongs of thick-knotted wire, and, after the back was laid bare, falt, pepper, and vinegar applied to the raw wounds, and whipped into the marrow. Idolatry was guilty of a more pardonable mistake in honouring the creature too much. Could Hell infpire any thing more than rancour and malice against flesh and blood? This barbarous outrage and violation of human nature, these feats of demoniac and frantic atrocity, revelling in luft, murder, and butchery, drunk with blood and cruelty, polluting the eyes of an agonizing public, and the day-light, with fuch unutterable abominations as freeze the blood with horror, and make Hell blush, and cry out fhame." P. 20. In the apt picture of French atrocities exhibited in "The Bloody Buoy," time, place, and names were carefully specified, in order to deprive their advocates of all pretence to incredulity. Mr. Taaffe fupplies none of thofe requifites for the establishment of truth; and, for the beft poffible reafon-becaufe he is the propagator of falsehood; and fearful of affording the means of detection. From general, he defcends to particular, calumny. "At Gorey an English Officer, no foldier, cut out with his pen-knife a man's heart who was hanged for a rebel, (without proof,) and deliberately cutting it open-dreadful to relate-Oh! Heavens!-it were lefs criminal to devour it thanno, the paper, the public eye will not bear it!" (P. zo.) Could we, for a moment fuppofe that Mr. T. was relating a fact, we should remind him, that the man who knows, and yet forbears to hold out to public indignation the perpetrator of fuch a diabolical act, is an enemy to fociety. Our author fhews no fymptoms of diffidence, delicacy, or forbearance, in any part of his writings; and, therefore, the gratification of his inveterate hatred of the English could experience no obftacle from the interpofition of fuch troublesome sensations: if, then, he were ftating a truth, he would certainly not fail to adduce fuch circumftances as might be eafily obtained, and are indifpenfibly neceflary to procure belief. Having endeavoured to ftir up every malignant paffion of the human mind, and to direct them againft England, he calls upon his countrymen of all denominations, Catholics and Prefbyterians, Rebels and Loyalists, to unite for the feparation of the countries; and, after quoting Scripture in fupport of his pious exhortation, he charitably devotes all who refufe to obey his call to eternal damnation. "The Devil and Pitt wish to fight fect against fect, party against party, in order to accomplish their views of subjugating all. The Minifter has fhewn the cloven foot, if we do not profit by the difcovery we deferve to perish here and hereafter (P 22.) In order to complete his picture, he gives what he calls an account of the prefent ftate and profpects of England. The British Conftitution, according to him, cannot laft long, becaufe "The hereditary branch muft finally fwallow up the others; poffeffed of the high power of declaring war, and trufted with the expenditure of the extraordinary ineans for carrying it on, it increafes, at will, its patronage and means of cor. ruption; it preffes the paffions, purfes, and expectations of mankind into its fervice. fervice. The executive cannot take the people's money, without the confent of the Commons: neither can the Commons take it without the aid of the Executive. May not both agree to take and fhare it among themselves? They have done fo! Will not church, ftate, places, penfions, law, army, navy, &c. fwell the Royal bounty, which bears down, as with a deluge, every particle of independence? During the prefent reign, all these refources have been effectually employed to fap the liberties of the people, and erect on the ruins that abfolute power which is the Fft and fervent with of every man who bears the name of King. William the IVth. has left England no alternative between abfolute monarchy and a republic." (PP. 36. 37) After thus deftroying our Constitution, he difplays the fatal effects of our extenfive commerce, reviles every clafs of the community, and then proceeds to delineate, with his delicate pencil, the general character of the British Nation. "The fyftem has reduced them (the bulk I mean) to the level of the brute creation; compelled by the weight of taxes to inceffant toil, with hardly leifure for fleep, or bolting their victuals, (chewing would take up time) and that from their earliest years. They are deprived of the means of human happinels. They can taste no pleasure but of the groffest animal kind, and that too ftinted and fparingly; their cares, toils, and forrows are many, their enjoyments few. A Monied Ariftocracy is created;--it has converted the kingdom into an immenfe Gambling-Houfe, than which a greater plague to morals cannot be well conceived," (B. 42.) And it is an Irishman that draws this picture! The conclufion is natural, that it would be madness in his countrymen to unite with a people who are bankrupts in every thing that conftitutes national dignity, national happinefs, and national wealth. Our readers will conclude from the fpecimen which we have exhibited that Mr. Cooke has met with a moft formidable opponent, and morality with a moft able advocate, in Mr. Dennis Taaffe! ART. XV. An Union neither neceffary or (nor) expedient for Ireland; being an Answer to the Author of "Arguments for and against an Union, &c." By Charles Ball, Esq. 8vo. Pp. 54. Porter, Dublin, 1798. FROM the rude trains of literary barbarifm we turn with plea perufing the first fentence in this tract we were difpofed to clafs it among the numerous publications of the day that are more diftinguish ed for violence of declamation than coolness of difcuffion, and our readers, we think, would feel a fimilar disposition on reading that Mr. Cooke was " an enterprifing adventurer in the trade of politics, who, under the fhield of darknefs and fecrecy, has bafely infulted the people and parliament of Ireland, and has attempted to commit an act of deliberate treason, by difuniting for ever the realm of Ireland from the British Crown," (P. 1); but we had proceeded but little farther when we found that our conclufion would have been been grofsly erroneous. In fact, though we are far from agreeing with Mr. Ball, in the accuracy of all his pofitions, and ftill farther from acceding to the propriety of his inferences, it would be the height of prejudice and injuftice not to acknowledge that his attacks are, in many inftances, fuccefsful; that his language (with the fingle exception which we have noticed) is uniformly the language of a gentle, man, and that he appears to be exclufively actuated by feelings highly honourable to his nature, a manly fpirit of independence, and a laudable fense of national pride; fuch feelings, when not directed to the fupport of fantastic theories, nor to purposes incompatible with that fubordination which is effential to the existence of good government, ennoble and dignify the mind, and at once prepare and qualify it for the most falutary and beneficial exertions. Our Author feems to us to argue on a falfe principle, when he infers, as a neceffary confequence, from the majority of British over Irish fenators, in the event of an Union, that the will of Great Britain could, avowedly and inevitably, become the law of Ireland. (P. 13) He forgets, that, if the two countries were to form integral parts of the fame empire, every individual member of the fenate, whether British or Irish, would be bound, by the most folemn of all obligations, to guard and to promote the interefts of Ireland with the fame vigilance and the fame exertion as the interests of Great Britain. He would not be the reprefentative of this or that part of the kingdom, but of the whole aggregate body of the fubjects of the empire. The profperity and welfare of the Scotch have been as much objects of attention to the parliament of Britain fince the Union, as those of the English; and there can be no reafon to fuppofe, that, under fimilar circumftances, Ireland would be deprived of fimilar advantages. The affertion of Mr. Cooke, that, "the Catholics (by an Union) would lofe the advantage of the argument of numbers, &c. &c." is ftated by Mr. B. to be "a grofs fallacy." (P. 20.) On the contrary we conceive it to be an indifputable fact. If the two Countries were united, all distinction between English and Irish Catholics would neceffarily ceafe, and, in eftimating the relative proportion of Catholics to Proteftants, the whole empire would be taken into the account; and then, instead of the Catholics forming, as they now do in Ireland, a confiderable majority of the kingdom, they would undoubtedly be reduced to a minority. The advantage, therefore, which perfons of that perfuafion have hitherto derived, on queftions of national policy, from their fuperiority of numbers, would, of neceflity, be loft. "I cannot conceive" (fays our Author) "a more accurate barometer to ascertain the ftate of the political atmosphere than the profeffion of the law." (p. 33.) Here we muft again differ from him; and, and without cafting any invidious reflections on a profeffion which we honour, merely recall to his mind that the Revolution in France, and all its attendant horrors, were, in a great measure, brought about by the political wisdom of the French Bar; and that the the most fuccefsful and opulent Barristers were the most active in ducing them. pro Speaking of an Union between weak and powerful states, between Brabant and the German Empire, and America and Great Britain, Mr. B. obferves, that "political injury was, on all occafions, accompanied with perfonal indignity and infult," from the larger to the smaller states. In the two inftances which he here felects, we muft peremptorily deny the affirmation. The inhabitants of Brabant and America were treated with paternal fondness by their respective governments; and the Revolutions in both countries arofe, not from oppreffion but from very different causes. In P. 37 we are told, that fo far from the Union being an advantage to Scotland it "was injurious to her, and prevented her greater and farther improvement" in commerce, wealth, and population: and the author attempts to fupport this pofition by fhewing, that Ireland, without an Union, has improved, in those respects, in a much greater degree, in the fame term of years. But furely it might have occurred to him, that this difference of improvement arifes entirely from the fuperiority of local and internal advantages of various kinds, poffeffed by Ireland over Scotland, and, therefore, proves nothing as to the point in question. * Mr. B. admits the competence of Parliament to confent to an Union, but his admiffion is followed by an obfervation that should not pafs without notice. "An army might dictate-a parliament might vote fuch a law, fo far is phyfically poffible--but no vote of parliament—no military power could ever deprive the people, fo betrayed and conquered, of their right to repel that power and repeal that law, by every means that God and Nature put into their hands." This is the plain language of rebellion, by whomfoever used. The people have no right to repeal a law; and any attempt to overawe the legislature, much more to force them to the adoption of any measure, is an act of rebellion. In the fame page we are told, that the profpect of an Union is a mere fcheme of finance "to relieve Great Britain, by fharing her burdens with Ireland, and to extend to Ireland her proportion of four hundred millions of debt, and her quota of the propofed tax on income." By this time Mr. Ball must be convinced that the Minifter had no fuch object in contemplation. Having thus ftated the principal points on which we differ from the author, it is but justice to declare, that there are many others in which we agree with him. His observations (in P. 17, 18, and 19,) refpecting the confpiracy of the United Irifhmen, which he truly reprefents to have been not a religious but a political confpiracy, and, threrefore, forming no ground of reproach to the Catholics, as fuch, are peculiarly pertinent and proper. The fame may be faid on his remarks on the Irish Judges (P. 32) whofe abilities we know to be great, and whofe integrity we believe to be incorruptible. His Parliamentary Debates_inEngland, on the American war. reflections reflections (in P. 48, 49,) refpecting the danger of particular topics, difplay much temperance, and no fmall portion of wifdom. His concluding addrefs to his adverfary does infinite honour both to his head and heart: "I cannot lay afide my pen without addressing to you a few words in your private capacity as a Gentleman.—I am unacquainted with your perfon-your character I know to be refpectable-your talents are certainly of magnitude-your honour and integrity, in concerns detached from politics, have never been impeached-I have been informed that your manners are polifhed, and that your difpofition is amiable in the extreme. This kingdom owes you obligations as an able and prudent Minifter. Even, on the prefent occafion, I refpect the motive which has brought you forward.-Suffer not, I befeech you, a fentiment of anger to enter your mind against me-Our feelings are congenialThere is between us but a geographical difference-You are the bold champion for England-I am the humble advocate for Ireland." (P. 54.) The ftyle of this tract is correct without tameness; animated without inflation; and impreffive without affectation. It is, upon the whole, highly creditable to the talents and to the principles of the author. ART. XVI. Strictures on a Pamphlet, entitled " Arguments for and against an Union, &c. 8vo. Pp. 24. Price, a British Sixpence. Porter, Dublin, 1798. This proper nor the talents of Mr. Ball. His HIS anonymous champion for the legislative independence of Ire Strictures are fuperficial, deftitute of judgement, and ftrongly marked by prejudice. Two paffages we fhall notice merely to ftigmatize as falfe, in point of fact, and a libel on the British character. "The intrigues of the British cabinet have been calculated to foment thofe difcontents (civil and religious) to excite those jealoufies, to connive at thofe infurrections, and, finally, to amneftize those rebellions, for the purpofe of promoting their favourite, and now avowed, object." (r. 6.) The falfehood of this imputation is only exceeded by its malignity. "As a proof of that liberality which characterizes Great Britain in all tranfactions relating to this country, let me advert to the treatment experienced by those miferable fufferers, who, on a recent occafion, yielded to the imperious neceffity of the times, abandoned their property and habitations, to feek protection from Great Britain. As fellow-men, as fellow-fubjects, and in diftrefs, they had a claim upon the humanity, upon the benevolence, of the British nation; yet in what manner were they received? To fome few, perhaps, a churlish and tem porary relief was extended, while the remainder were fuffered to Tanguifh under the complicated miferics of poverty and exile, aggravated |