terms, his opinion, but he has not been fo fortunate in his expofition of the motives on which that opinion was founded. We cannot but feel for his fituation; for this dreadful UNION has given his fears fo complete a predominance, that they appear to have wholly ufurped the feat of his judgement. He calls it "a phænomenon, unexpected and of hideous afpect, in its nature fo deftructive that I would wish fondly to believe even the prefent times fo creative of novelty and reproach, could not form, or bring forth, a more frightful moniter;" it is "a meafure pregnant with every mifchief to the realms of England and Ireland." This monfter, we are told, would prove fatal to the English Conftitution, which "must feel the fhock that would be occafioned by the introduction of new vifages, whofe palms being in ufage in the realm of Ireland, might prowl about as men in the dark, until difcovered by the Minifter's wand of furprize, whofe metallic touch reftores the blind to fight, as well as to other rapturous feelings!" (P. 10.)

In order to form a juft opinion upon this momentous fubject," Sir John admits the abfolute neceffity of being "first acquainted with the exact nature of the measure-in fhort, with the precife articles of ftipulation to be finally adjufted between the two countries as the bafis of an Union." (P. 14.) Yet, without any fuch information, he proceeds to give a moft decided opinion; he cannot, therefore, be furprized that we should deem that opinion unjust. The wish of the British Miniftry to promote an Union "could only be with the profpect of unjustly obtaining fupplies, by draining Ireland, without having to call upon England." (P. 22.) "Union can be defired for no other purpofe, than to put the Minifter above the liberality even of the English Commons." (P. 40.) But how is it to produce this effect? Why, by enabling the Minifter" to form any majority he pleased, or by enabling him to exact fubfidies from Ireland which would enable the Crown to render itself independent on the English Commons, in regard to its fupplies." That is, the Crown would be independent, as to fupplies, of that body without the fanction of a majority of which he could not obtain a fingle fupply! He takes it for granted that a majority of the Imperial Parliament "would ever be for leaning hard upon degraded Ireland," though he admits that they must be fhort-fighted indeed who do "not fee it would be against the future intereft of England to monopolize the poor earnings of Irish induftry for the temporary object of faving the British purfe." He deems it equally certain that all the Irish members in fuch a Parliament would betray their truft, by not demurring to "whatever laws urged by whim or intereft, British Legislation chose to frame," though a vigilant discharge of their duty could be the only return in their power to make to their country" for the confidence repofed in them. The Union with Scotland is not a cafe in point, because, "as each differ in time and place, there can be no fimilarity!" Scotland might be juftified fince he had "a powerful neighbour, whofe armies having only to ftep across the Tweed, that country could never deem herfelf fecure from attack." Yet, in the very next page, we are told

66

that

that there is no great danger of the Parliament of England dealing unfairly with Scotland, for the paffage of the Tweed is as free to the now Northern, as to the Southern, Britons!" One fatal confequence of an Union, that can only be adopted after a fair, full, and open, difcuffion, will be, that the Irish will have their laws furreptitiously taken from them.” Another dreadful effect, in the apprehenfion of our author, will be, the right of the Imperial Houfe of Peers to decide cafes on appeal, en dernier refort. The Scotch, he fays, have nothing to fear on this head; for, from the great difference between the Scotch and English Laws, the decifion of thofe cafes is generally left to the Scottish Peers: but there is such a strong fimilarity between the English and Irish Laws, that the British Judges and Peers will have the prefumption to understand them, and "be always deemed competent judges to decide on queftions touching private property in Ireland, and, therefore, the Peers from Ireland become, at leaft, indirect countenancers of injuftice!" So that every British Peer, in deciding on a question which he is competent to understand, and in which he can have no poffible intereft to bias his judgement, muft neceffarily be guilty of injuftice! And all this perverfion of moral feeling is to be produced, forfooth, by the Union; for he quotes a paffage from De Lolme to prove that, as the British Houfe of Peers now ftands, their conduct has univerfally been fuch, in all their civil judicial decifions, as has kept them above the reach of even fufpicion or flander." We begin to think, with Sir John, that this faid Union must be a terrible monster to atchieve fuch horrid metamor phofes. One of her "principal features," and that which feems to excite confiderable alarm in the author, is, what he calls in one place "a draining power," in a fecond," an extenfive power," and in a third, "an unknown power," which is to exempt the Minister from the neceffity of afking fupplies, "as Ireland would (after the Union) be, at all calls, bound to fupply his demands." Sir John gravely obferves, that "feldom fuch an unknown power has been wifely di rected." We might ask him, as this faid power is unknown, how it can have been either wifely or unwifely directed; and how he is able to define its properties, and fpecify its inconveniencies? But were we to indulge ourselves in fuch questions, our review of this pamphlet would be extended to the fize of a volume; and we are difpofed to think it fufficiently extenfive already. We fhall, therefore, haften to conclude our remarks. The advocates for an Union have been feverely cenfured for the unfavourable picture which they have drawn of Irish manners and the general state of fociety in Ireland; we fhall here produce a character delineated by a different hand, by a decided enemy to the Union, and as ftaunch (however miftaken) a friend as Ireland can boaft. In enumerating the inducements to refide in Scotland the author obferves, "Her laws are fi.nple, and ftrictly enforced, and her, people are honeft and well-informed. There are none of thofe inducements in Ireland." (p. 60.) Hence it follows, that the Irish Laws are defective in themfelves and badly executed ;--and that the people' are dishoneft and ignorant! No English pencil has ever traced fo

hideous

hideous a reprefentation of the Sifter Kingdom. Again he tells u (P. 63) that there can be no occafion for feeking to lay the fpirit of religious controverfy, for "it is entirely done away by the introduction of irreligion;-a barefaced conteinpt and difuse of all reli gion whatfoever, fave fome fmall outward appearance-even the fhadow of godlinefs and virtue is fled.-Atheism and profaneness diligently cultivated, have not failed to produce a proftitution of all manners in contempt of all government!" Can a more desperate fituation be conceived? And is not every measure that can afford a rational profpect of fupplying a remedy to thefe dreadful evils to be, not fullenly acquiefced in, but eagerly courted? After thus fhewing that all religion whatever is, in a manner, banished from the country, the author (deprecating an Union) makes the following strange, and, to us, unintelligible, declaration :-"To fupport the Conftitution is the only mode of preferving true religion, the want of which has been the caufe of many mifchiefs."

ART. XXVIII. An Argument for Independence, in Oppofition to an Union, addreffed to all his Countrymen. By an Irish Catholic. 8vo. Pp. 51. Stockdale, Dublin. 1799.

THIS

HIS writer labours to prove that an Union, whatever the terms, ought to be rejected with indignation by the people of Ireland. If the proffered terms were not favourable to the Sifter Kingdom, a proper attention to her intereft fhould influence their rejection; if favourable, a certainty that Great Britain would never fulfil the con tract should induce a fimilar conduct. He carries his hypothefis ftilf farther, and maintains that no Union can ever take place between a lefs and a greater ftate, because the former can never have the means of enforcing from the latter a rigid obfervance of the ftipulated conditions. His obfervations refpecting the good faith, probity, and honour, of this country are evidently the offspring of the moft bigotted prejudice, and the moft malevolent rancour; and they inceffantly betray him into-the most scandalous breaches of decorum, and the most shameless violations of truth. In fhort, the whole pamphlet appears to have been dictated by the ferocious fpirit of an United Irishman.

Almoft every page teems with libels either on the British Nation, or the British Parliament. The latter, it is boldly averred, (P. 17,) only defires an Union for the ufurpation of Irish Freedom. Again,

"Who that has witnessed the encroachments made upon the facred and fundamental principles of the Conftitution, can be the dupe of their fallacious pretences? Was not Magna Charta facred and fundamental; were not the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, the Trial by Jury, facred and fundamental? Is there any thing fundamental against abfolute power, or facred from its ruffian grafp, that it fhall determine to destroy? (P. 13.) Will not thofe English Members of Parliament who applaud the fyftem of torture and maflacre, of houfe-burning, rapine, and Tape, fo indifcriminately and fo extenfively practifed under the late Administration, will they not alfo approve of coercing Irish pockets for the benefit of the Empire?”

We

We might here ask, what reputation is fecure from the "ruffian grafp" of this profligate calumniator, who, in his comprehenfive range of falfehood and of fraud, feeks to rouze the worft paffions of the mind-hatred, malice, and revenge, by employing bafe fabrications to inflame those whom his delufve arguments may fail to feduce? The Government of England efcapes no better than her Parliament from the fyftem of calumny "fo indifcriminately and fo extenfively practifed" by this Catholic champion of Irish Independence, who, after charging it with the most unprincipled efforts to fubjugate the Sifter Kingdom, dares to affirm, that "in its relations with other ftates, the inftances of Punic faith are numberlefs." The people are equally the objects of his reprobation; and even thofe brave troops, that volunteered their fervices in defence of his native foil, are ftigmatized as "alien bands of unrelenting mercenaries." In all her dealings England is reprefented as under the exclufive influence of pride, avarice, and ambition: this fpirit, it is faid, will prevent her from acceding to Ireland, in the event of an Union, the benefits of a fair competition:-" For, if her avarice did not, her exceffive prodigality would require an almoft univerfal monopoly of the means of growing rich, and her defperate Minifter, therefore, prefumes to feize upon Ireland to make up the deficit of her taxes, and supply new re fources to his profligate ambition." P. 21.

The author mentions "men who come in upon protections and are fhot with them in their pockets," but he carefully omits to notice the many thousand Catholics who were fhot, or taken, in the Rebel Ranks with their protections in their pockets, after taking the Oath of Allegiance, from which, in all probability, they had obtained abfolution from fome of the Pricfts who attended them to the field.

His attachment to French principles leads him to exaggerate the atchievements of French prowefs, and to ftate, in direct violation of truth, that the Republic has "proftrated every foe that she could con.. tend with on equal terms;" whereas the fact is, that he has never dared to encounter any foe upon equal terms; the has been solely indebted for her fucceffes to the malignant influence of her intrigues, or the decided fuperiority of her numbers. In the fame fpirit he depreciates the resources of Britain; falsely afferts that the Affeffed Taxes of last year," with all the aid of Voluntary Contributions," only produced two-thirds of the estimate; and tells his countrymen that Ireland is to be "defpoiled for the farcical liberation of Europe." (P. 26.) He draws a comparison between England and France in their conduct to neighbouring ftates, decidedly in favour of the latter, "who only unites countries contiguous to her own territory," (the ifles of the Adriatic for example,)" and does not refuse to all their inhabitants an entire participation in all her advantages, in every shape and degree. The French Republic profcribes no defcription of fubjects." (P. 30.) No Nobles, Priefts, nor Emigrants to be fure! He tells the people of Ireland that if, at a future period, they should wish to obtain any commercial advantages "they must compute the chances of the field, when their Sneaking petitions shall have failed;

or, if not, flink back into filence and fubmiffion." (P. 4.) He is a ftrenuous advocate for a feparation of the two countries, though all the arguments applicable to the fubject "cannot, in the present state of the Irish prefs, be freely urged." He fays, "it is worthy of remark that every argument in favour of an Union is one against the exifting connection, and yet it is for maintaining the inconvenience of this ftate that fo many of the people have been profcribed and but chered." (P. 44.) This language is tolerably plain; but left it fhould not be fufficiently fo for the flow comprehenfion of some of his countrymen, he takes care to lay before them the advantages of fuccessful rebellion. "Behold, then, in the participation communicated to the Americans, of the lucrative trade of the East, the recompenće of fuccessful rebellion." P. 24.

An admonition to the people "to obey the laws" could not fail to rouze the indignation of a man who preaches fuch doctrines as this "Catholic;" hence his abufe of the Bishop of Rochester is natural. An enemy to the existing order of things, his declaration that "religious eftablishments have been always hurtful to the caufe of religion," is confiftent. With equal truth he afferts, that "the established Clergy of Ireland are turned into hunters of their wretched countrymen who enjoy the conflagration of their dwellings, and fcent their lacerated footsteps with the keenness of Ancient Britons ;" and "that the maxims of the Gospel are thofe of natural and civil equality." We are told of "the fplenetic ravings of Mr. Oglethe ribaldry of Dr. Duigenan-(not one of whofe arguments, however, refpecting the Catholics, he has dared to attack,)—and the hypocrify of Mr. Wilberforce." From the pen of fuch a writer an apology for the conduct of the United Irishmen," the very head and front of whofe offending is a wish to withdraw their country, like the United States of America, from the bleffings of British connection, to stand a felf-exifting Republic," comes with peculiar propriety. The argument clofes with an appropriate exhortation to all defcriptions of people, Royalifts and Rebels, Orange-men and United Irifhmen, Catholics and Diffenters, to unite in refifting an Union"The empirical expedient of a defperate and flagitious miniftry, driven, by the progreffive increase of their libertieide and fanguinary acts, to a height of difficulties where they are unable to continue, and from which their guilty and recreant hearts tremble to recede;"a ministry who "difputed with the principles of liberty (i. e. Rebellion) until they rooted them deep in the foil, and moiftened them with the blood of the people." With us, we confefs, the evident alarm which the profpect of an Union excites in the mind of an advo. cate for jeparation is a very strong argument in favour of the measure,

ART.