tive; if the former be not carried, the latter is inevitable. He is, therefore, alike earneft and confiftent, as a friend to both countries, in fupporting the measure.

He draws a lamentable, but a true, picture, of the prefent ftate of Ireland, both as to the difpofition of the people, and the fyftem of government, the latter of which he reprefents as radically, yet necefjarily, vicious; that is, its vices are fo interwoven with the bonds which unite the two countries, that deftroy the one, and the diffo. lution of the other muft follow. For the train of reafoning by which the author explains and upholds this doctrine, we must refer the reader to the book itself.

That the conceffions made to Ireland in 1782, on the Independence of her Parliament, have contributed to increase the difficulties which are opposed to an Union, will not be denied; into the policy, wif dom, or juftice, of thefe conceffions it is now needlefs to enquire; but the danger of acceding to any demand preferred by an armed force is fo evident as to require no argument to enforce. The author's obfervations on the tranfactions of that period are particularly juft :

"The extent and multiplied demands of the war in which Britain was then engaged had much reduced the military eftablishment in Ireland; and her coaft having been more than once infulted by the enemy, the Government could not but applaud the voluntary exertions of those who came forward in the public service. Nothing, however, can fhew more the want of itrength, or the want of wifdoin of the Government at that time, in fuffering a large military force to rife in the country, totally independent of its authority. Long experience has fhewn, that the belt inftitutions of human wisdom are fubject to abule, and that good and evil are fo intimately compounded, and fo infenfibly diftributed in all the allotments of human life, that nothing can be faid to be abfolutely good which may not partake of evil; and no meature to be fo convenient, from which mischief may not refult. Had the volunteers of Ireland adhered to their first principles, and kept in view the object of their affociation, their conduct would have been beyond ll praife. Whenever the neceflities of our country oblige us to affume a military character, it should be well underflood, and never for a moment forgotten, that the exercife of civil rights is fufpended; it is for their final prefervation that the foldier is created, who may be called the great executive of the itate, while it is the citizen who legiflate; and as thefe two great powers of will and action, of command and performance, cannot combine in the state without defpotism, neither can they concentrate in the individual without producing anarchy. No principle of the British conftitution can be fo clearly proved, none is more fuitable to its wildom, and certainly none, in its application, contributes more to the tranquillity, to the liberties, and to the happinefs of the state.

The volunteers of Ireland, from foldiers became politicians, and formed a military convention, in perfect mimicry of the forms of Parliament, at the very moment when the lawful government was in the exercife of its functions. Such was the fate of public affairs: the intended effect was produced, and the British Parliament renounced all dominion and authority within the kingdom of Ireland." Pp. 69-71.

The author next traces the confequence of this conceffion, and fhews what effect it had in encouraging that difpofition to feparation which, he maintains, has ever exifted, in a greater or lefs degree. He thus briefly fums up his argument, and concludes an able and difpaffionate differtation, by recommending an Union, as the only means of preferving Ireland to the British Empire!

"After the review which has been taken of the hiftory of Ireland, and the particular

particular facts which have been adduced, the fupplement of evidence which is furnished by the late rebellion, eftablifhes, beyond all doubt, that a great degree of reftleffnels and dilquiet has long prevailed in Ireland; that her lower claffes of people have been uniformly turbulent and untractable, qualities which indifpofed them to the dominion of England, from the peaceful habits and fubordination it would produce; that religious difference and the jealoufies of property forfeited by rebellion, and transferred to English fettlers, have promoted and inflamed their prejudices; and that they are ignorant, perfidious, and credulous. It appears, allo, that the American war, and the revolution in France, have produced a trong difpofition for change, and for new-modelling eftablished governments; that this fpirit has had extenfive influence in Ireland; that the American war feparated Ireland from the English Legiflature; that the conduct of the Irish Parliament in 1789 endangered the only connection which remained, that of the executive; and that, in the prefent war, the dependency of Ireland on the English Crown has been preferved by force of arms only Pp. 78, 79.

ART. XV. The Confequences of the propofed Union with respect to Ireland, confidered, in a Second Letter to the Marquis CornBy James Gerahty, Efq. Barrifter at Law. 8vo. Pp. 60. Price Is. 6d. Stockdale, London. 1799.

IN

wallis.

N this letter Mr. Gerahty purfues his enquiry into the beneficial confequences of the Union to Ireland, and fhews, in a more particular manner, how its political power and commercial profperity will be affected by it. He alfo confutes fome of the objections advanced against the measure by its opponents. In fhewing the fallacy of thofe arguments which tend to prove the incompetency of Parlia ment to confent to an Union, he falls into an error fo grofs, that we cannot conceive how a man of his found principles and legal knowledge could be fo egregioufly mistaken on fuch a point. The two Houfes of Parliament," he fays, "in notion of law, and on the genuine and pure principles of the English conftitution, ftand in place of the whole nation, and are confidered as that very nation, with complete inveftiture of every right, and devolution of every power, which the people, in their original capacity, if individually collected, could poffefs and exercife." Moft certainly the two Haufes poffefs no fuch power as is here afcribed to them; that power is only vefted in the Parliament, confifting of the King and the three eftates of the Realm, the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons. The mistake, however, does not affect the argument, and, indeed, it evidently arofe from the converfion of an infulated cafe into a general principle. The author had juft adverted to the Revolution in 1688, but he had neglected to obferve that the first step of the two Houfes, after the arrival of William, was to have their actions legalized by the neceffary fanction of the Royal fiat. Befides, this is a cafe that should never be quoted as a prece dent; it was an extreme cafe, and could only be defended on the paramount principle of felf-prefervation. Of the power and of the duties of Parliament, properly fo called, Mr. G. entertains very juft notions. This fubject is difcuffed in P. 56. and the three following pages,

ART.

292

ART. XVI. Neceffity of an Incorporate Union between Great Bri tain and Ireland, proved from the Situation of both Kingdoms; with a Sketch of the Principles upon which it ought to be formed, 8vo. Pp. 132. Price 2s. 6d, Wright, London, 1799.

THIS HIS writer has evidently paid the closest attention to the important fubject which he undertakes to difcufs; and, unwarped by prejudice, unbiaffed by paffion, he confiders the question in all its bearings and tendencies, with an earnest defire for the discovery of truth. He fets out, indeed, with an affirmation that is incorrect, but its incorrectness has no effect upon his argument. He afferts, that the idea of an Union originated, not with the Government, but with the public. The reverfe of this is the fact; but it is a matter of no moment, nor fhould we have noticed it, but that it feems to imply a preference of political arrangements which originate with the people over fuch as originate with the Government; whereas it is the peculiar duty of the Government to watch over the interefts of the State, and to devife fchemes to remedy any defects that may arife, (and fome defects must arise in all human institutions,) and to fecure and extend the profperity and happiness of the nation.

It is the object of this publication to prove, that the prefent connection between England and Ireland is infufficient to promote the profperity, and enfure the tranquillity, of the Empire; and, that an incorporating Union, forming the two nations into one kingdom, fubject to the fame laws, and governed by the fame legislature, is the only means to accomplish thefe falutary effects.

In his able attempt to demonftrate the infufficiency of the fubfifting connection, he alludes to a probable difference of opinion, between the two Parliaments, on questions of primary importance, a diffe rence which has once occurred, and which may occur more frequently hereafter :

"The fpirit which appeared at the regency may ftart up and haunt us in ten thoufand thapes. That example will proclaim, to a reflecting mind, the danger of feparate Legislatures, as ftrongly as ten thousand inftances.

"Another may be put more likely to occur, and not lefs likely to agitate the paffions of party, than the choice of a Regent, namely, the choice of a Minifter. When Mr. Pitt was placed at the head of Adminiftration, the Houfe of Commons addreffed the Crown to remove the Miniftry, as not poffeffing the confidence of Parliament. The Monarch appealed from this judgement to that of his people. The people fanctioned his choice, and returned reprefentatives, who have favoured that Cabinet with their confidence to the fulleft extent. An independent Parliament in Ireland had the fame right to addrefs this language to their Sovereign, as a British Houfe of Commons had to their's: No man fhould prefide in the councils of an Irish Sovereign, unless he poffeffes the confidence of the Irish Parlia ment.' Had this taken place, and, after a fimilar appeal, the Parliament of Ireland continued to refufe their confidence to Mr. Pitt, the Crown and the Empire must have been confufed and diftracted between two Cabinets, or the kingdoms have been committed in the choice of a Minifter. Need we be referred to the conteft, comparatively trifling, between the English Lords and Commons, in the time of Charles II. to eftimate the confequences? To render fuch mifchiefs even poffible, is to place a new and heavy fetter upon the will of a Sovereign, in the choice of his Minifters." Pp. 19, 20.

Our

Our readers must have feen, by the extracts which we gave, in our last number, from many of the tracts which have been written against the Union, that there is, undoubtedly, a party in Ireland who wish for the feparation of the two countries; and, indeed, the existence of fuch a wifh was proved by the evidence delivered before the Committee of the Irish Houfe of Lords, laft year. To this description of men the author undertakes to demonstrate that a feparation, were it practicable, would not only be prejudicial to the interefts of Ireland, but abfolutely deftructive of her independence. His reafoning on this head is able, and, we think, conclufive; it occupies ten pages, from 35 to 45.

The advantages that would refult from an Union are placed in a ftrong point of view, and, we have no doubt, will have their proper effect on the minds of the Irish, as foon as the heat of party fhall have fubfided, and the mifts of prejudice be difpelled. On the principle on which an Union between the countries should be conducted we fully agree with the author :

"Countries like Ireland and Great Britain cannot conduct this arrangement upon a narrow principle of chaffer, and a petty truckle of paltry equivalents. They must come to negociate, not in the fpirit of demand, but in that of selfdenial; not asking what they may be allowed to retain, but how much they are to furrender for the common intereft. Difarming fufpicion, by a noble competition in liberality, and giving a fure pledge of fincerity in the unbounded exchange of reciprocal confidence." r. 129.

We do not, however, concur with him entirely as to the conduct that Great Britain fhould obferve refpecting the Catholics, either in the event of an Union, or in the cafe of its rejection. We neither think that "the entry of the Roman Catholics into the entire franchifes of a British Subject might follow as a direct confequence of the Union; nor that, if an Union fhould not take place, Great Britain would "ftand excufed for taking part with" the Catholics against the Proteftants. The first point deferves much ferious confideration, and is, indeed, more difficult to decide than any of the subjects which the author has difcuffed: and, on the fecond point, we differ from him toto cælo, being firmly convinced that fuch a line of conduct would neither be fanctioned by wifdom_nor juftice. The following obfervation on the proceedings of the Irish Volunteers in the laft war, is, to fay the leaft of it, injudicious. "Ireland armed in defence of the Empire, and wifely demanded her freedom as a recompence."

With thefe qualifications, and fome draw-backs on the style, which is frequently harsh and turgid, we can recommend this tract as one of the most able, in point of reasoning and information, that has yet appeared on the fubject.

au

ART. XVII. Thoughts on an Union. By Joshua Spencer, Efq. Barrister at Law. 8vo. Pp. 31. Price is. Stockdale, London, 1798.

IN

N our last number, (P. 191,) we reviewed an Anfwer to this pamphlet, which we had not then feen. Mr. Spencer is decidedly adverse to an Union, but he contents himself with itating his opinion

on

on the fabject, and with advancing affertions, without taking the trouble of fupporting the one by argument, or the other by proof. He affumes as a fact, that an Union" whilft Ireland groaned under the restrictions on her commerce, would have been rejected by her best and wifeft ftatefimen;" on what he founds this affumption we cannot conjecture; for all the recorded opinions of Irish Statesmen which have fallen under our obfervation exprefsly contradict him. Did he ever read Molineux? Or has he heard of the fentiments of Forfter, even after thofe reftrictions were removed?

Mr. S. argues upon falfe grounds, in fuppofing that the Union is confidered as exclufively advantageous to England, and that fome recompence is due to Ireland for the facrifice of her Independence. Inafmuch as it will tend to increase the profperity and ftrength of the Empire, it will certainly be beneficial to England; but, moft affuredly, it will be productive of infinitely greater advantages to Ireland; and this, we can affure the author, is the general conviction in this country. Mr. S. denies the competency of Parliament to confent to an Union; but this, and all his other pofitions, have been completely overthrown by the advocates for the meafure, whose works we have before reviewed.

ART. XVII. Letters on the Subject of Union, addressed to Meffrs. Saurin and Jebb, in which Mr. Jebb's "Reply" is confidered. By a Barrister. 8vo. Pp. 79. Milliken, Dublin. 1799.

THE

“HE two Gentlemen whofe opinions on the subject of the Union are here controverted, are Barrifters of eminence at the Irish Bar, of confiderable talents, and moft refpectable characters. They are accordingly treated by the author with due deference and decorum, but at the fame time with that freedom and occafional severity, which, in political controverfy, are not only allowable, but, moftly, unavoidable. The Letters are feven in number, three of which are addreffed to Mr. Saurin, and four to Mr. Jebb. The author regards the idea of confidering the queftion of an Union in the abstract as ridiculous." I do confefs, that I can feel no more extacy or abhorrence, in contemplating the abstract idea of an Union, than I could do in contemplating the abftract idea of a fquare or a triangle." Here he is led to confider an Union as eligible or objectionable, according to the terms and ftipulations which the plan may contain; of course, he waits to fee the plan before he will fpeak with decifion on the fubject. His arguments, therefore, are chiefly confined to the confutation of the objections which have been advanced, and to certain pofitions. which have been brought forward in fupport of thofe objections. On the unfitness of the times for the difcuffion of the question, he obferves, "when we have juft emerged from a cruel and defolating rebellion, into which long-gathering animofities and discontents at length burit forth, it is deemed moft untimely, and imprudent to

propofe