網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

commodities from the home market, or even to give a decided preference to those of a rival staple.'

Sister kingdoms, being portions of the same empire, he insists, must admit of some common supremacy to regulate their mutual intercourse, and to improve and apply their physical strength to their joint advantage.' If the present system supplies such an authority, he adds, it must be, that a principle of empire sufficient to regulate the conduct of these islands to their mutual advantage is created by the unity of the executive government, or that it exists somewhere else. After having shewn that the prerogatives of the crown do not furnish power adequate to this purpose, he demands, where else, then, can this imperial principle be said to exist? Surely not in two legislatures, by their constitution wholly distinct and independHent; possessing neither means nor forms, nor even a painted chamber to communicate or hold a conference with each other.'

It must be obvious that a principle, sufficiently powerful to direct the affairs of Ireland according to the views of the executive government of this country, has existed, notwithstanding the recent instance of the legislature of that kingdom rejecting the proposed plan of an union; which is only to be regarded as an exception to a rule, otherwise almost without exception. The writer allows that the. Irish Parliament, notwithstanding the giddy wishes of the people, have wisely avoided all subjects of contest with this country, and prudently submitted to such regulations as her laws prescribe to the empire: but (adds he) a new malady, dangerous to the connection of the countries, has arisen out of this very practice, by which it has been hitherto preserved. Artful, innovating men, have ascribed this acquiescence to servile and shameless corruption. They have painted the Parliament of Ireland as more attentive to the nod of a British Minister, than to the interests or the will of that people by whom they are chosen.'

The author asserts, (we hope, erroneously,) that many many well-affected Irishmen are of opinion that a separation of the two countries would produce no ill consequences to Ireland. Many of the probable evils, which Ireland would have to sustain in consequence of a separation, are pointed out, and by no means exaggerated :—indeed, we are of opinion that it is scarcely possible to exaggerate the description of the mischiefs which a separation would bring on both countries; and that it would be to each an event more fatal than any which has befallen either, since the Norman conquest. As a separate country, the author justly remarks, the very limited strength of Ireland must keep her in a state of relative insignificance, when compared with those empires which predominate in Europe.'

Diminutive states have neither means nor power to command the tranquillity, or ensure the prosperity of their people. They exist rather by the sufferance and jealousy of more powerful neighbours, than by their own inherent vigour.

Many such have been created, and all those which have existed since the time of the Emperor Charles V. have been favoured and protected by the balance of power in Europe. Their destruction was the first consequence of its fall. Those rough republican storms,

which shook little more than leafy and deciduous honours from the great monarchies of Europe, have torn the lesser states from their foundations, and laid them prostrate.'

Ireland may share greatness with others, but, by herself, she cannot hope even for that tranquillity which is essential to happiness.

The author has happily described the temper and abilities necessary for the examination of a question so important as a scheme of perpetual union:

Those who consider an object which extends infinitely beyond our petty space of time upon the earth, should cautiously purge the mind of such little anxieties for aggrandisement as center in ourselves, and must terminate with us. We must disencumber and lighten the understanding of these selfish passions, which cannot flutter above the narrow spot on which they are used to grovel, if we would rise to that degree of elevation from whence, as from the true point of perspective, the mind's eye may wander over the entire plan; survey its proportions; examine its ends; compare its beauty with its use; and contrast its durability with both. To frame or judge of the plans of a statesman, with the wisdom of a statesman, requires a statistical knowledge of the country upon which they are to operate; profound views of human nature; a laborious and patient comparison of all that the wise and the disinterested have accomplished, and all in which they have failed, to assuage the evils and augment the happiness of human life.'

Having remarked on the inconveniences of the different kinds of federal union, and on the advantages of an incorporate union, as the only one suited to the present occasion, the writer states the following objections, which are most likely to be urged:

1. That it would destroy the very name of Ireland as a nation. 2. It would annihilate her Government and her independence. 3. It would greatly increase the preponderance of English influence: every place, worth having, would be conferred on Englishmen; the retainers of ministers, peers, or persons otherwise of great English in terest. 4. The number of absentees would be greatly augmented, 5. Dublin, the capital and present seat of the legislature, would be reduced to the state of an inconsiderable village. 6. It would bring that country into partnership as to the debts, as well as the prosperity of England, and her taxes would be increased to an enormous

extent.'

Of these, the 2d and last are perhaps the most important. The establishment of a new government necessarily annihilates the old; the only question worth consideration is, whether the new be preferable to that which it has superseded. Independence, likewise, cannot belong to any separate portion of a state; and this will apply to both countries. The share of political importance which Ireland would enjoy, if she were fairly represented in an united parliament, would probably be more than she at present possesses; and we are willing to believe, with the writer, that the objection built upon the supposition that a narrow principle of rivalship and jealousy must continue to exist between the two countries, although an union should take place,' is void of foundation; and that an united legislaturé would

3

[ocr errors]

1

would be actuated by a more liberal spirit. Another ground of which Ireland may hesitate, notwithstanding that she has no pretensions to superiority in that respect, is the present state of our representation.

The latter pages are occupied with schemes of financial adjustment. The following is the outline of what the author pro

poses:

6

The debt of that kingdom which is the least may be easily consolidated with a portion of that which is the greater; calculated in a proportionate ratio to the number of Representatives which each returns to the Legislature. But as the excess of debt will still remain considerable on the side of Great Britain, she has two ways of providing for it, without injury to Ireland. By the first, it may be im posed upon the two countries indifferently; this kingdom, paying an equivalent in money to Ireland, proportioned to the burthen which would thus fall upon her to sustain; the equivalent to be laid out exclusively for her advantage and improvement. By the second, she may take it entirely upon herself, and raise the means upon her own people to defray the interest, and discharge the principal.'

The late decision in Ireland, on the question of an Union, had not taken place when this publication first made its appearance. The author is an able advocate for the cause which he has undertaken: but some may think that he is not free from partiality to this country; and perhaps it may be said, on the other side of the water, at least, that he rates too highly the obligations which she has conferred on Ireland. His reasonings, however, are clear; and it must be acknowleged that many of his arguments, in favour of an Incorporate Union with Ireland, have great weight.

Capt. B...

Art. 22. Arguments for and against the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, considered. 8vo. pp. 58. 1s. 6d. Printed at Dublin; reprinted in London, for Wright.

The title prefixed to this pamphlet led us to expect an impartial statement of both sides of the question; instead of which, the aim of the writer is wholly directed to prove the benefit of the proposed union. No arguments on the other side are advanced by him, except with the design of refutation;-and his ideas of political expedience he endeavours to maintain with too little respect for right. His leading position is the preservation of the protestant ascendancy; and loss of power is treated as loss of right.

That justice shall in any case be superseded by motives of expediency can be excusable on no other plea than that of self-defence. Ireland, ever since it has been subject to the crown of Great Britain, has, in fact, been united to this country. Whether, by incorporating the legislatures, the union will be stronger, will most probably depend on the principles on which such a measure shall be carried into effect; but it is, no doubt, in the power of this country, by acting with justice towards Ireland, to make such an union palatable to every honest man on both sides of the water.With respect to the pam phlet before us, it may be said to contain more of information than of sound argument.

ᎠᎵ

Art.

Art. 23. Cease your Funning. 8vo. 1s. 6d. Dublin printed; Debrett, London. 1799.

The proposed scheme of union between Great Britain and Ireland has naturally called forth the exercise of considerable abilities on both sides of the queftion. The writer of this pamphlet is a warm opposer of the measure. He attacks the author of Arguments for and against an Union considered in a strain of severe irony, which is continued throughout :-but his language is frequently too strong; and there is not a sufficient portion of that light and relief which are the soul of irony, and without which the author's real meaning sometimes appears ambiguous.

A measure involving so many complicated and contradictory interests as an union between two kingdoms, and which would certainly be productive of so many advantages and disadvantages, must afford an inexhaustible fund for disputation. The misfortune is, that there are so few who enter the lists for the purpose of fair investigation.

*

Art. 24. Letters on the Subject of Union. In which Mr. Jebb's Reply is considered; and the Competence of Parliament to bind Ireland to an Union is asserted. By a Barrister and Member of Parliament. 8vo. 2S. Printed at Dublin: Reprinted in London, for Wright. 1799.

Some of these letters are addressed to William Saurin, Esq. an eminent barrister in Dublin, and Captain of the Lawyers' Corps; and others to Richard Jebb, Esq. The concluding letter is addressed to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. Though the author writes in a lively and rather eccentric manner, he is a good arguer, and, with a semblance of simplicity, makes many shrewd remarks. His reasoning in favour of encouraging doubts, in the discussion of important questions, is entertaining and uncommon.

• Men are not zealous (still less are they violent) in supporting an opinion the truth of which they doubt. We do not venture to stamp and rant, where we are not sure that we are standing on firm ground. Now, as a violent support of either side of the present question does not seem calculated to promote the happiness or tranquillity of our country, that man is perhaps something more than justified, who would excite doubts, for the purpose of appeasing violence.'

He who chooses to weigh the arguments before he decides the question, is not a weaker man than him who decides without examination; yet the period of examination will be a period of doubt, and the duration of this period will bear some proportion to the complication of the question, and to the number of the arguments which it supplies. But this interval of uncertainty it has been my lot to find scorned by the promptitude and sublimity of many of those geniuses with whom I have conversed on the subject of

Union.'

The writer combats the propriety of a premature and unqualified rejection of the abstract question of Union, as being excuseable

Mr. Jebb's Reply is not yet before us.

Capt. B....y.

REV. FEB. 1799..

Only

1

only in those who are prepared to assert that no scheme of Union can be devised, which will not be injurious to Ireland.' If (says he) I were asked whether an Union would be advantageous to Ireland, I should answer c'est selon that Union in the abstract is a thing indifferent, and becomes good or bad according to the kind of Union that it is, and to the circumstances under which it is obtained.' Instead of the question whether there be any thing that by an Union can be obtained from Great Britain, which she might not grant without an Union,' he observes, another question might be substituted, i. e. whether Great Britain will be, or, in sound policy, ought to be as liberal, in a connection under circumstances tending to promote a jealous and reserved policy, as in an Union?

In answer to the hackneyed objection against reform or alteration, that "this is not the proper time," the writer asks; if Ireland had been peaceably advancing in industry, and had now attained that prosperity, which I trust still awaits her, would this be the proper period for proposing an Union-Could the Minister gravely tell the Parliament, or the People, that their situation being manifestly prosperous and happy in a high degree, he thought they could not do better than immediately alter and correct that Constitution, under which their prosperity and happiness had grown.'

In the two concluding letters, the question of the competency of parliament is argued, and opinions of great lawyers are quoted on the absolute and uncontrollable authority of parliaments. If we should venture an opinion on this subject, it would be that, when a parliament or legislature is so constituted as to express the real sense and wishes of the people for whom it legislates, such a parliament will not claim absolute supremacy, unless it is willingly conceded to them by its Capt. B...y.

constituents.

Art. 25. An Examination into the Discontents in Ireland; with Re marks on the Writings and Interference, ex officio, of Arthur Young, Esq. Being a faithful Narrative of the Sufferings of the Roman Catholic Peasantry, from the Operation of Tithes, the Payment and Exactions of Surplice Fees, &c. Shewing, by a very easy Method, a Plan for the Tranquillization of that King dem. By William Bingley, fourteen Years a Resident in Ireland. 4to. 2s. 6d. Sold by the Editor, at No. 2, Red-Lion-Passage, Fleet-Street. 1799.

The public-spirited writer of this tract, who is well known on account of some former productions of a political nature, has incidentally been furnished with singular opportunities of judging, from a personal acquaintance with facts, of the real state of the country and country-people of Ireland, and of the actual nature and consequence of the grievances to which the late insurrections and fatal occurrences in the sister kingdom have been, or may be, ascribed. These he here points out, for the particular consideration of his English readers; and he has done this with every appearance of candour, temperance, -and-sagacity of observation. Indeed, these details have afforded us more satisfactory information on the subject, than we have found in all the swarm of speeches, pamphlets, and newspaper-essays, which have lately been circulated on this side of

the

« 上一頁繼續 »