Speech of Richard Brinsley Sheridan: Esq. in the House of Commons of Great Britain, on Thursday, January 31st, 1799, in reply to Mr. Pitt's speech on the union with Ireland.

Table of contents

- [titlepage]

SPEECH, &c.

NO common question arrests the serious attention of this House.—I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with more than usual attention to the Speech of the Rt. Hon. Gentleman—and much as I am disposed to admire, much as I believe the House may be induced to approve of, the very eloquent harangue which has been just now delivered, yet I trust that I need not remind it, that there are some questions of a nature so serious and delicate, which strike home so immediately to our dearest interests, that it is peculiarly important that we should be particularly suspicious of the more than ordinary display of mental exertion, and jealous of that unworthily directed eloquence, that would surprise our approbation to a measure replete with injury and insult to Ireland, and, in my opinion, with ruin to the British empire. We have long stood in the most trying and difficult situation, but that crisis, I think, has now arrived, when it becomes every Gentleman seriously to catechise his heart, before he is led by the eloquence and abilities of the Hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, to do that which he might in his sober judgment reflect upon with pain, and perhaps have reason to repent the rest of his life. I consider the House, at this moment, in that situation in which it becomes my duty to apprise them of the danger of listening to the specious arguments by which their minds are attempted to be influenced. I took the liberty, last week, of stating to the House, that whether Government thought an Union was essential to the prosperity of Ireland, or necessary to the salvation of both countries, whether the plan by which the Union was to be effected was approved or disapproved, yet that in the present crisis of the affairs of that Country, and under all circumstances as applicable to both, the measure was one which was by no means advisable. It happened the majority of the House differed from my sentiments; yet I may venture to assert, that excepting the Right Hon. Gentleman, and one or two more whose opinions usually coincide with his, there is not one Gentleman, now in the House, who does not from his heart regret that such a measure was ever brought forward in Ireland. The manner in which it has been met in that kingdom, is in my mind an additional reason of regret that such a measure should still be obstinately persevered in in this. It is to be regretted that the Right Hon. Gentleman should, when the question was last week before the House, have expressed himself in so decided a manner. He, unfortunately, and most unwisely, pledged himself that he would make the measure of an Union between this country and Ireland a favourite object; he distinctly stated that it was a measure from which no opposition in this House, or in the House of Commons in Ireland, no loss of popularity, no consideration of the offence which he might give those friends he valued most, should deter him from endeavouring to carry into execution. He has this day, though not quite in such unqualified terms, repeated that pledge;—but though he has repeated it, the House has not repeated it; and I conjure every Gentleman in the House, that he will not only refuse by his vote this night to sanction such a pledge, but that he will give his vote in such way as to preclude the hope of its being brought forward on any future time. The Right Hon. Gentleman, by this proposed measure of an Union, has placed Ireland and England in a very awkward and perilous situation. The two countries are in that peculiar situation, that it must appear evident to every one the Independance of Ireland, and the power of the Right Hon. Gentleman to destroy it, are incapable of existing together. He has shewn that one or the other must be annihilated; that they cannot co-exist, unless indeed the House in its wisdom shall interpose, and convince him that it will not suffer him to use his power to the destruction of that Country. He has, by this measure, promoted discord and dissension between the two countries, at a time when union and co-operation were above all things necessary; he has been the means of planting the seeds of discord and dissension between the Houses of Lords and Commons in Ireland; he has traduced the Parliament, as an assembly convicted of being the dupes of an English faction. There remains but one thing more for him to do, which is to raise the British House of Commons against the House of Commons in Ireland. This, however, he has not, and I trust he never will be able to effect; and I hope, sincerely hope, that the British Nation would rather that that Gentleman was plunged in the abyss of public odium, national execration and unrelenting hatred, than that by any wild, desparate, daring and impolitic measure, he should be permitted to alienate the affection of one country from the other, or strike at the political consequence or commercial prosperity of our dear, valued, faithful, brave and generous sister kingdom. Oh God! Sir, why is it that I interpose between the system of that Right Hon. Gentleman, and the adoption of it on the part of this House? because, Sir, it is a system which is calculated to promote discord, and an inveterate alternation of disgust and antipathy, when union and affection should be conciliated and confirmed: it is because it is a system which must as sure as effect follows cause, promote disgust and resentment; it is because it is a system which traduces one of the contracting parties as so low, so desperate, and so degraded; as in energy incapable to retrieve the Country from the calamities under which it has laboured; and in mind so weak, so pusillanimous, so unenlightened; such a shame and scandal to the nation over which it presides, as to be the continual dupe of every paltry, despicable British faction; a system, in one word, which is now endeavouring to array the British House of Commons against the Representative Assembly, of our dear and justly valued sister kingdom.

I frankly and honestly declare, that by far the greatest part of that Right Hon. Gentleman's speech was in no shape connected with the question which he was pleased to introduce. For near an hour of the time which he occupied the House, I was inclined to suppose, (if such a supposition was allowable) either that a stranger had got into the House, and the Hon. Gentleman was replying to some speech which he had delivered in some other assembly, or that the Right Hon. Gentleman in the warmth of his imagination, had fancied himself in the Irish House of Commons, and was warmly engaged to (what by the bye I did not conceive him, adequate on the present occasion) a reply to Mr. Foster, on a subject which was deeply connected with the vital interests of that much injured, but rapidly advancing young Country. Not one part of his argument relates to the question—he is proposing a measure by which the rights of an independant nation are to be destroyed and trampled upon; and he thinks he triumphs by endeavouring to shew that the arguments of Mr. Foster are unfounded. The whole of his argument is, that Mr. Foster thought the propositions in 1785 necessary to prevent future jealousy and suspicion between the two countries; and the Hon Gentleman thought if the propositions failed, he would be considered a useless Minister. What is to be collected from this, but that both Mr. Foster and the Hon. Gentleman sustained foolish opinions? for it turned out, that although the propositions did fail, the failure was not the means of introducing jealousy and suspicion between the two countries, nor of producing the resignation of the Honourable Gentleman. If, indeed, he can shew that the failure of the propositions had produced all those disasters which have since happened; all those scenes of distraction and rebellion which the kingdom of Ireland has witnessed; then I admit the argument would be against Mr. Foster; but has he shewn that to have been the case? On the contrary, the argument relative to Mr. Foster stands simply thus: Mr. Foster said, the failure of the Commercial Propositions would be the ground of future jealousy and suspicion on the part of Ireland. Well! what is the consequence? He now says, "though I did say so, I find I was mistaken; for it appears to have been the best means of preserving its independance." Sir, there does not strike me the slightest inconsistency in the present sentiments of Mr. Foster on the question, with reference to those he formerly entertained; and the arguments of the Right Hon. Gentleman seem to me to consist in a sort of repartee unworthy his good sense and abilities.

But though the Right Hon. Gentleman may not have succeeded in fixing the charge of inconsistency on Mr. Foster, yet the tendency of his speech has fully developed the system of foul and rank corruption and intimidation by which it seems the measure is or was to be carried: Does it not throw out an ignominious threat of withdrawing such commercial advantages as Ireland may derive from her connexion with Great Britain, unless she basely consents to strengthen that connexion, by the plausible and specious mode, which is now so cruelly suggested,—the surrender of her independence,—and proclaims to an astonished world,—her disposition to become a province; though from the earliest aera of modern Europe to this day, she has had the strength, capability, and power, to retain the characcter and consequence of a distinct and separate kingdom from Great Britain. Are not the expressions which we have heard this night an insinuated threat to those who look upon a Legislative independance of Ireland necessary to the continuance of her present prosperity? for what end could such scandalous and disgraceful threats be resorted to, but as the means of intimidation? this is fully corroborated by what follows the taunting observations of the Right Hon. Gentleman;—observations that evince little respect—nay an utter contempt—either for the Parliament, or the People of Ireland:—Ireland, he says, ought at this moment to spurn the nature of her present situation, and be particularly desirous of embracing the offer of closer Union:—And why?—Because such forsooth is her weakness, that she is incapable of defending herself, and must therefore rely on the protection of her powerful neighbour to defend her. What was this but calling on a wretched, distressed, impoverished Irishman, to surrender every thing dear, and valued, and worth defending, for the privilege of being defended, and when defence would be an object of trifling estimation? What is this but to state that our protection is to be withdrawn, if she refuses to accede to what is proposed? (No, no, exclaimed several Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench). I repeat that it is the fair and natural inference—he says, that Ireland is incapable of defending herself without our connexion, and that our connexion cannot exist without an Union—can any other inference be drawn from such a mode of reasoning, than that if Ireland refuses the Union, she will be deprived of the protection of this country? But is this language sit and proper to be held out? If two countries stand in that relation to each other, that with respect to the one it has no trade, no commerce, no manufactures, no advantage of its own, nothing in fact but what it derives from the other, that it is in a situation in which it is incapable of defending itself without the assistance of its powerful neighbour, is it not natural to ask, How it came into that situation? and may I not ask, How Ireland is in the situation described by the Honourable Gentleman? a country blessed with all the advantages which God and Nature ever bestowed, a healthy climate, commodious ports, and a fruitful soil. Is it, let me ask, wise in the Hon. Gentleman to press such a discussion; and to afford Ireland the opportunity of inquiring how it has happened she is not in possession of those advantages which naturally belong to her; and by the enquiry to learn, that it has been owing to the oppressive, unwise, injurious policy of Great Britain, for a period of near three hundred years? The Hon. Gentleman says he considers the connexion between the two countries necessary to each other, and that England is little qualified to do without Ireland; yet he brings forward a discussion which leads to that hostility, that may destroy the existence of both. With regard to the question of the power of Ireland to resist her enemies, let me ask the Hon. Gentleman, what inducement he could have for offering the insult he has to that country? When Ireland had her Volunteers in arms, had she not the means of repelling her foes foreign and domestic? What assistance did she not afford this country during the American war? Cannot Ireland say to you, before she suffers you to reproach her with her inability to defend herself, before she suffers you to reproach her with your 40,000 militia in the heart of the kingdom (for which you have my thanks), could she not say, give me back the 100,000 Irishmen who have lost their lives in fighting your battles? Above 10,000 of her sons have perished in the West Indies alone, in supporting your contests, yet you now say to her, you have weakened yourself, you are at our mercy, and therefore we insist upon your coalescing with us. But now the Hon. Gentleman contends that her weakness not only leaves her exposed to hostile invasion, but he also seems to feel that the same weakness leaves her at his mercy, and therefore, he will avail himself of it, to compel her to acquiesce in an Union. While this, however, most undoubtedly appears to be his real intention, he talks of leaving her adoption of the measure to the unbiassed and calm deliberation of her own independent Parliament. Was not this an insulting mockery? Such, at least, it must be deemed by men who regard not the words of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but who look at his actions for their true interpretation and import; and when I reflect upon the whole of his past conduct, can I believe that this question is to be left solely to the unbiassed judgment, to the independant discretion of the Irish Parliament? Surely not: and therefore I most seriously appeal to the good sense and the high dignity of the House, not to lend the sanction of its authority to the shameful means by which this measure is to be forced upon the reluctant feelings of the sister kingdom. And what, in the name of God, are those means? Do we not see in the foremost rank of them a barefaced and staring corruption, that stalks along the land with a purse in one and a scourge in the other? Do we not see intimidation exerting its discouraging power in the sudden and scandalous dismissals of the oldest and best tried servants of the Crown, in the removal of a Parnell and of a Fitzgerald? And after this shall we still be told that the adoption of the proposed measure is wholly left to the calm judgment and independant discretion of the People of Ireland? Or rather, must it not be allowed that the whole of this imperious and threatening conduct on the part of Ministers is a lesson and a warning held out to the Irish Parliament to enforce their assent, or perhaps to hang over them the terrors of a Dissolution, or shew what those who still remain in place may expect from the examples of the punishment that has already been inflicted on some of the fairest and most distinguished characters in Ireland, unless they sacrifice the dictates of their duty and their conscience to the intemperate imperiousness of an headstrong Minister? The same stretch of insulting power might perhaps also be resorted to here, if any Gentleman now in office should venture to consult his Conscience and the Constitution, and espouse the opinion I propose; the fate of such a person most undoubtedly would be, to be turned out tomorrow; for we have been frequently told how important and necessary it is to repress and punish first symptom of insubordination and insurrecttion.

But conceiving, as I do, that the House is not free from the influence ever attained over easy tempers by bold and ingenious sophistry, apprehensive that we are in the situation of men who just begin to free themselves, by a collected vigorous effort, from the chains imposed by beauty, or the seductive allurements of an amorous sportive imagination, I must adjure the House not to dispose of a question that is perhaps to decide for ever whether a great and generous nation is to retain its independance, and by implication, to determine whether a set of Representatives chosen by a free People, must vote themselves out of existence, and give up the liberties, the property, the acknowledged constitutional rights of their Constituents, to the domination of a power, that, under the mask of friendship, has introduced among them a force, originally said to be intended solely for their defence against a daring insidious enemy, whom all deprecate, but who is not more to be detested than the pretended friend who assists only that he may acquire confidence enough to delude, and strength enough to destroy.

I must think the House has been hurried along by the Right Hon. Gentleman from one degree of transport to another, until, in the groves of his Elysium, they have been elated with scenes of grandeur, and fatigued with that variety, or enfeebled with that richness of prospect, which is to render enquiry loathsome, and which will inevitably prepare the human mind for the reception of any doctrines, however wild—and any assurance of future advantage, however illusory. I took an opportunity last week of opposing the measure of Legislative Union with Ireland, in the first stage of the discussion, which, as matter of course, was to lead to that question. I did so then, as well from a conviction that measures of such magnitude, and of such novelty, should always be opposed in the infancy of their progress, as in the contemplation of what I naturally anticipated would be the effect of the eloquence of the Right Hon. Gentleman. I then said, what I am at this moment prepared to repeat, after much considering the subject, that under the present circumstances of Ireland, in this crisis of her convulsed and necessarily disordered system of polity and general government, it is not only impolitic but unsafe to urge, nay even to agitate the discussion of topics, in the issues of which are to be seen developing themselves, the poison and the horrors, which are to lay the most hardy and stout of heart prostrate at the feet of a British Minister—that are to intimidate and appal the most heroic spirits. Ireland, in her present temper, must be beat into this measure, and that Minister who shall make the bold experiment of flogging a whole nation into stupid beings, insensible alike to the duty she may owe herself, insensible to the rights of the present generation; and the interests of the race yet unborn, as much as to the arrogance and cupidity of those who shall inflict the blow, or direct the torture—such a Minister have secured his minions, but it may not be altogether unbecoming him, if he be desirous ultimately to prevail, to measure his power by the force of his antagonists', and in the estimation of his means of victory, to seek an antidote against national pride and local attachments.

Gracious God! Sir, Who would have supposed that a British Minister, wrapped up in the insolence of power, and that odious self-sufficiency, the genuine characteristic of a narrow and impotent understanding, rather than of a manly and vigorous intellect, would dare in the face of the Irish Nation, to spurn the assertion of her rights, to fawn and flatter her guiltless mind, and by seeming to respect her declared unequivocal opinion, to full her into inactivity, the more successfully to enslave her for ever? But let not the Right Hon. Gentleman deceive himself whilst he is exerting his ingenuity to deceive Ireland. Let him remember, Sir, that some plots have been so closely wrought, some measures of surprise and delusion so intricately planned, and attempted to be carried into effect with such novelty of means, that the authors, the actors, even the subordinate characters in the drama, have been themselves entangled in the mazes they have contrived for innocence, and overwhelmed under the ruins of that fabric, which they have erected to overawe the independant.

The Hon. Gentleman set out with saying, he wished the question to be argued coolly and dispassionately, distinctly expressing himself, that he wished to submit it to the unbiassed judgment and independant discussion of the Parliament of Ireland; but, Sir, I pay very little attention to the Hon. Gentleman's words, I look to his actions; and referring to them, let me ask, Is the question left to the unbiassed judgment and independant discussion of Ireland? Is it not on the contrary apparent, that in order to carry it, corruption is stalking through Ireland with a scourge in one hand and a purse in the other? Is that, I ask, leaving it to the unbiassed judgment and independant discussion of the Country? It is the contrary; it is not only a mockery, but an insult to Parliament. Besides, how can Parliament tell, how soon the Hon. Gentleman may adopt the same line of conduct, with regard to the Parliament collectively, as he has done with respect to individuals? If he has dismissed individuals for expressing sentiments different to his own, may he not, by the same rule, dismiss the Parliament too, if it presumes to oppose him. The inference is fair. Was it just, in the case of a Viceroy consulting his conscience, on a question of all others the most necessary, to act according to its dictates, was it, I say, necessary to tell him, because he did so, he was unfit to be any longer in his Majesty's service? He says, that time should be given to the people, as well in as out of Parliament, to consider the subject, and for heats and animosities to subside. I believe, that with respect to the Irish Parliament, his intention is, that time should be given to try the effect of further corruption; and what sensation will be produced by dismissing the Servants of the Crown; what the influence of the Crown is; and what are the expectations of those devoted to its services.—Nor was it the Right. Hon. Gentleman alone who attempted to justify these measures. I have heard them also justified by an Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning) and never did I hear any thing with more poignant regret; for what sensation but that of sorrow and regret could arise in my mind, when I heard that Hon. Friend plead the cause of bold and barefaced corruption, and thus cloud and contaminate with its •oul fog and baneful breath the pure early morning of his political life? Would he now tell us that the Right Hon. Gentleman had given a determined pledge, and could not now recede? Why did he? Who called upon him to speak? Was it to encourage his friends in Ireland by a display of his resolution?—but that was unavailing, as the discussion and decision took place there before that encouragement could reach them; but as to the charge of urging intimidation, neither the Right Hon. Gentlemen, nor his Hon. Friend who answered me on a former occasion, had thought proper to say a word. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Canning,) from his Parliamentary standing, could not, indeed, have taken any part in the violation of the compact in 1782, and therefore his Right Hon. Friend stepped generously forward and claimed all the shame, guilt, and treachery of it to himself.—Like another Nisus he threw his broad shield over his beloved Euryalus to protect him from the vengeful resentment of the Irish nation, calling out to them—Me, me, I, I am the man; wreak all your vengeance upon me.

Me, me, adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum,

O Rutuli; mea fraus omnis; nihil iste nec ausus,

Nec potuit—

My Hon. Friend's abilities might, however, prove that potuit; and as to his courage, he was satisfied the House had no reason to call it in question.—The generous ardour of the Right Hon. Gentleman to protect his Hon. Friend, was therefore only the impulse of affection.‘Tantum in••…licem ninium delexit amicum.’

Then, with respect to the rejection of the question by the Parliament of Ireland, the Hon. Gentleman says the measure is necessary to the people of Ireland; and at the conclusion of his observation he adds, that he will wait a more favourabl• 〈◊〉 ••…∣nity. What does he mean? That he will 〈…〉 till the Parliament of Ireland is convinced by reasoning? No, he will wait till a day or an hour of additional weakness, when the country shall be still further incapacitated for resisting their enemies, and more intimidated at the consequence of our withdrawing our assistance. What does he mean by saying he will wait? Does he mean he will wait till a period, as one which may or may not arrive, when he knows he has it in his power to create it whenever he thinks proper? It seems the Hon. Gentleman has now been fifteen years with this system of an Union rankling in his heart, but has never thought proper to bring it forward till the present moment.—What conclusion will the people of Ireland draw from such conduct? Have they not a right to suppose, if the measure was never proposed in the hour of their strength and prosperity, but is attempted when they are weakened and unable to resist, that it is not intended as a measure of advantage to them? If when a Lord Lieutenant was sent over to heal the differences respecting the Catholics; if when the cup was at their lips, it was dashed away, and that Lord Lieutenant withdrawn; if the hostilities of the Catholics and the Protestants were not necessary for him to attend to, what must they consider of his conduct when he attempts to introduce an alteration at a time when their weakness prevents them from resisting it? Does he think that he will by such a measure, so carried into effect, produce a permanent connexion between the two countries? Does he not consider what will be the feelings of men so provoked?—But is this the real argument of one who wields the power of national will? When we have already pledged ourselves to support that independant legislation which Ireland claimed as its right, what reason have we to suppose that if we attempt to destroy that pledge, we shall not drive that country to the expedient of gaining assistance, and repelling our attacks? The Hon. Gentleman treated the pledge of this House and the Government, at the last Adjustment in 1782, as a circumstance of a silly and trifling nature. Among other terms of scorn and opprobrium he calls it most childish; at the time he made this assertion he was not arrived at his full experience; he had been but a year and an half in office; but I should like to know what the conduct of the Hon. Gentleman's present collegues had previously been? He reviles the Duke of Portland and the other Ministers who were then in power. There was a Gentleman, now a Noble Lord, I can't remember all the new Noble Lord's names, but he was considered the mouth-piece of those who carried that business into execution. He brought up the resolutions, and it will be sound they passed nemine contradicente. Surely, the Hon. Gentleman will plead his tender years at the time, for not remembering this, for it was much about the time when he had the application of Heaven-born Minister bestowed upon him; but he says the resolutions were considered as childish, because there was one tacked to them which stated, that it was necessary to do something further. It is quite enough for me to know that there could not be any fraud intended by this last resolution; that it could not be considered as a caveat against that admission of the independance of Ireland which had been before acknowledged. Ireland says, "We will have an independant Parliament—Right—but to defeat that, we will put in the journals what shall have the effect of defeating the claim. I am persuaded it is impossible such a hard construction can be put upon that resolution. It is libellous to suppose that any one could mean it in that light. But I will tell you, Sir, to what the resolution alluded:—It was meant that with regard to commerce between the two countries, something further should be done; but as to the Constitution of Ireland and its Independance, that was finally adjusted. It was supposed, that on the subject of commerce something might arise which it might be necessary afterwards to refer to the arbitration of Parliament. But why was not the Hon. Gentleman's opinion followed up? Why did he adhere to this silly pledge? I believe in the very next year, 1783, when this subject was again brought forward by Mr. Flood, the Hon. Gentleman did not think of saying there was something more to be done; though he must be now supposed to have been convinced that something further was necessary, yet he did not intimate that opinion; but now, at the distance of fifteen years, he states there is a necessity for following it up. Why has he so long delayed? Because he never before thought he had a favourable opportunity; because he never before thought Ireland was at his mercy; and now, as the means of carrying his system into effect, he must look forward to those feuds and discords which may weaken Ireland, and lay her still more at his mercy. With his usual lofty tone and carriage he again and again repeats, that an Union is the only remedy that can heal the evils that afflict Ireland, or that can secure the salvation of both countries. He must, therefore, persist in it, and call on Parliament to assist him in the execution of the measure; he is willing, however, to wait for a more favourable opportunity, and until the Irish Parliament is convinced of its necessity, And what is that opportunity he pretends to wait for—is it not the day and hour when Ireland shall be in a greater degree of weakness? Does he wait until he can again reproach her with her inability to defend herself, and threaten her with withdrawing those commercial favours she receives from England, and from which, he contends, are derived all the sources from which her prosperity arises? Alas! it is but too much in his power to create that moment! And here, let me conjure, let me entreat the House to recollect the shameful manner in which Lord Fitzwilliam was recalled from Ireland, at a moment when he was supposed to have been sent over to grant to the Roman Catholics the rights and privileges which they claimed. The cup of concession was just presented to their lips, but instead of permitting them to taste of it, it was dashed in their faces. Was this the proof of a sincere desire to reconcile the Roman Catholic body? And if he is acquainted, as surely he is, with the workings of the human heart, must he not be well aware of what men will do when so provoked?—We all agree, continued Mr. Sheridan, respecting the necessity of a connexion between the two countries, and that nothing could be more fatal to either than that Ireland should be possessed by the French. Should we not then seriously consider how far the enforcing of this measure may tend to favour what the Right Hon. Gentleman calls the favourite object of the enemy, and which I really believe to be their earnest wish, namely, the Invasion of Ireland. Seeing it as I do, in this light, have I not every reason and motive for imploring the House not to give it any further countenance? Indeed in every view I can take of it, it appears to me not only to be dangerous, but as Childish a scheme as that which the Right Hon. Gentleman has chosen to stigmatise so frequently with that epithet.

In the long and laboured calumnies of the Right Hon. Gentleman, my valued, my esteemed friend, Mr. Fox, has not escaped from the indecent accusation of a proud, sullen and domineering arrogance, see with what indecency he taunts my honourable friend with not having followed up the resolution of 1782—when he knows full well that that uniform friend to the peace, property and independence of Ireland, remained but two months after in office, and therefore could give it no effect—but did the Right Hon. Gentleman himself, when he came afterwards into power, attempt to bring forward the objections which he had this night so triumphantly urged? Had he not now been fifteen years a Minister, without ever endeavouring to do that which from the first he deemed to be indispensably necessary?—He says, that in the House of Lords in Ireland there was a decided majority in favour of the Union; that in the Commons it was nearly equal; and that out of doors the largest party were in favour of it;—but, Sir, look to the qualities of the division; against the Union were all the country Gentlemen, while those in favour of it were persons in office, and men of no reputation for independency of political character. What is the inducement to the measure held out in Cork? it is said that its marine will be strengthened, and that it will have a dock-yard.—In the north of Ireland, it is stated that if the measure is not acceded to, they will lose the advantages of their Linen Trade; thus a bribe is held out to one, and a threat to the other.—The Hon. Gentleman says he must be assured of the continuance of the connexion with Ireland, and then he says that the Union is the only way to continue it. Is this his proposition or not? I say it is so. But I defy him to mention any one advantage which he offers to Ireland for their acceptance of the Union, which he might not give without that condition. For instance, the subject of Tithes has been mentioned; it is said that arrangements are to be made respecting them; but permit me to ask him whether, if the proposed arrangements are right, they cannot as well be carried into effect without the Union as with it? He has said that every enlightened politician on the continent is convinced what an accession of strength it would be to this country if Ireland was united to it (by the way, I don't like this quoting the opinions of continental politicians); but notwithstanding their opinions, let me ask whether, in pursuing his favourite subject, he is not more in danger of acting as the Ally of the French, than of assisting Ireland to repel their attempts? If France knows that Ireland is so far subdued that she is unable to resist an attack on her independence, will not that assurance be the means of her taking those measures by which she may be enabled to strike that dreadful blow she has so long aimed, namely the Separation of Ireland from Great-Britain?—The Honourable Gentleman next comes to the question of the advantages to accrue to Ireland by an Union with this country. He skips over the advantages she has acquired since 1782, and proceeds to give an account of Scotland since the Union, and an argument strongly urged in favour of the Union, is the prosperity which Scotland is said to have enjoyed since it has been united with England:—but might not Scotland have attained this increase of wealth and prosperity merely by dint of her own industry? Besides, Scotland cannot well be compared with Ireland:—in Scotland the Gentlemen of property are fond to reside, and to encourage trade, agriculture, &c.; in Ireland it is the very reverse. Whether without the Union, Scotland would not have been in as good a situation as she is now, is more than I can determine; but is it not true that Ireland prospered from the moment when she shook off her ignominious dependence, and insisted on a free and independent legislation? It is argument founded on mere guess and hazard to say, that after the Union Ireland will derive an increase of progressive advantages beyond what she has enjoyed since 1782.—Then he says that the endeavours of our legislature may, in the course of sixteen years, be deseated by the legislature of Ireland. He argues not from what has been, but from what may be. I may say that the two Parliaments have now, for above 100 years, gone on co-operating with each other without exception. With regard to what is called the Declaratory Law, he knows that the terms of that law never created any apprehension, that it was always considered as a dead letter. I assert that there has been a co-operation of 100 years between the two Parliaments, except only in the instance of the Irish Propositions. It is merely an attempt to entrap and impose upon the House, to state, that a case may occur in which the operations of legislation may be defeated by the want of co-operation in one of the Houses of Parliament of the two countries. It may as well be said, if we send a bill to the House of Lords, and they do not approve of it—"See the mischief of having two Houses of Parliament whose functions impede each other:" or if we send a money-bill, and they think proper to make some alteration in it, we may make the same objection. If you reason of what may be, and not of what is, only see the inconvenience of the argument, particularly in a Constitution like ours, composed of three branches, King, Lords and Commons: it goes to the destruction of the Constitution altogether; for the Lords may on some question be against the Commons, the Commons against the Lords, or the King against both; and these different estates acting diametrically opposite to each other, you would make an argument of their destruction. Thus it is evident, when you argue against experience and fact, you argue against the existence of one of the best Governments that ever was formed for the protection of the liberty, and property of the subject.

The Hon. Gentleman next came to the state of France, resorting to his old argument of the destruction of order and regular system of Government. French principles and Jacobinism were, as usual, introduced into the debate, and made the subject of splendid invective.—But what was Jacobinism?—Was it not Jacobinism that pretended to make other States more free, independent, and prosperous than it found them?—Was it not Jacobinism that called on other countries to resign their freedom, their independence, and their Constitutions, with a promise to substitute something better in their place? I agree with him in what he states of the conduct of the people of that country. Indeed it is waste of time to paint the enormities of the French Government toward the people of France, or their atrocities toward the King of Sardinia.—Those pathetic descriptions which have been so often repeated, are of as little effect as the attempts of Germanicus, who is recorded by Tacitus to have endeavoured to raise the fury of the soldiers, by painting in strong colours the indignities his brother's body had received, when it was well known to the army he had no brother. I agree that the conduct of France, where they have attempted incorporation with other countries, is not to be defended; but with respect to that system of Jacobinism so much deprecated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, what is it? Jacobinism is, when under the hypocritical pretence of making a nation free, you in fact take away all they possess that is worth possessing. And in this view the Hon. Gentleman is the Arch-Jacobin of all Europe. He does not know what good he is doing the French cause, when he approaches Ireland with a coarse French hug of fraternity, and reprobates the Republic while he is endeavouring exactly to imitate it. He speaks of the great favours bestowed on Ireland, and the acquisitions she has made during the present war. I would, however, have it understood, and indeed the Hon. Gentleman has admitted, that we did not go to war to gain acquisitions, but to prevent the French from making them, to prevent France from overrunning the countries of Europe, and fraternising with the people. Have we done this? Have we prevented France overrunning nearly the whole of Europe? No; quite the reverse; and as to the acquisitions of Ireland, we have suffered her to partake in ours. O Magnanimity! O unbounded Liberality! We say to Ireland, in all we gain you shall go part—in all our blessings in this war you shall have share. What are they? The only blessings we have to offer them are non snare of the two hundred and fifty millions expended in the prosecution of the war. This is all the blessing, is all the recompense we have to offer to poor prostrate Ireland.

The next argument of the Hon. Gentleman is, the ignorance and want of civilisation of the Irish. I agree with him in the existence of those evils—but from what do they proceed? I say, it is because men of great property do not, as they do in this country, associate in a certain degree with the lower classes; they do not form themselves into a mass to relieve the poor from poverty and distress; they have not the same motive. That is the source of the penury and wretchedness of the people of Ireland. What is the remedy? The cause of the evil is, the absence of the persons who possess estates in that country; and the remedy you propose is, an Absentee Government.—With respect to Scotland, the case is very different to what it is relative to Ireland. The people of Ireland have not that local attachment to their country, which the people of Scotland possess. Except a Scotchman leaves his native home for the good of his country, as the Hon. Secretary over the way (Mr. Dundas) has done, he can be content to remain without roaming, all his life; but not so with an Irishman:—In Ireland, a fashion of emigration prevails; and should the measure of an Union render it more general among the superior classes, the lower will desert their native soil and all its evils; and therefore the remedy proposed is calculated to increase, and give additional poignancy to the weight of that misery and poverty already experienced.

The next argument is held out as a lure to the Catholics; he attaches all the miseries of the country to its religious feuds, and then throws out a lure, that when the Parliament is away, it will be the means of giving freedom to the Catholics. Does he mean that if he thinks Catholic emancipation necessary, there has been a period since he has been Minister, in which it could not have with propriety been brought forward? In Lord Fitzwilliam's administration, will he say that if, instead of having been obliged to rescind what that Nobleman held out, he could not have carried the plan into effect with the general approbation of the country? Sir, if the Parliament of Ireland find that the disunion, weakness, and discord, by which the country is torn, have created the opportunity for wresting its independance; if, in consequence of this impression, it has recourse to union instead of discord, concord instead of disunion, and sets about healing those feuds which have destroyed its vigour—if the Parliament and the People of Ireland were to unite, perhaps, it may still be able to counteract the designs of the Hon. Gentleman. Should I see that confiding principle spring up in Ireland, I should still hope to have my wishes on this subject realised.—The Hon. Gentleman has adverted to the argument of the competency of Parliament to dispose of a question of this kind, and to surrender the rights of the people, and make over its own independance; alluding to what I had said, he observed, I had avoided giving any decisive opinion; I certainly did avoid speaking decisively; on the contrary, I merely urged the impolicy of advancing any speculation on a subject which he admits to be one fraught with danger and peril. I applaud the wisdom and temperance of the Irish Parliament, for not coming to any decisive opinion respecting the competency of the Irish Parliament. He observed, that in the case of Scotland, the Parliament of Scotland surrendered their rights in the same manner as is proposed with respect to Ireland. He argues, that if the Parliament of Scotland was not competent to do so, you, Mr. Speaker, have no right to sit where you do; and that every public legislative act performed in this House for Scotland is the result of usurpation. Surely, a more Childish argument was never advanced. If there exists a small Monarchy, no matter what is its size, and it is part of the King's coronation oath that he shall not barter the independance of the Government, as has been done in the German Empire by the Margrave of Anspach to the King of Prussia; still if he does make the surrender, there can be no question of the right by which the Power to whom he surrenders his Kingdom exercises the acts of Sovereignty and Legislation. Wales, though not for a considerable time incorporated in the British Government, yet when it was annexed, no doubt was made as to the loyalty of our acts of Legislature for that part of the kingdom. If others violate the trust reposed in them, it does not follow the acts of the Government in whose favour the trust is violated are not binding. When Chester, the palatinate of Durham, and Berwickupon-Tweed, which were independent of the rest of the kingdom, were called on to send Members to Parliament, no doubt was entertained of their legal capacity to legislate those places.—But because we have the power of so legislating, where a surrender has been duly made, yet it does not follow that those are guilty of usurpation who surrender the rights of others, by assuming a power of disposal inconsistent with the nature of their trust!

It is not my intention, Sir, to oppose going into a Committee, but I shall certainly object to your leaving the Chair, for the purpose of moving two resolutions, which I shall, in case the propositions should be carried, wish to have placed before them, for the purpose of taking off, in some degree, that jealousy which the Irish Parliament, I am afraid, will be apt to entertain of their passing this House, after the measure of Union having been so decidedly rejected in the House of Commons of Ireland.

And now Mr. Speaker, let me conjure and implore the House, not to consider this question, as a question of party. I know that factions and parties exist amongst us; the influence and prerogative of the Crown have found their advocates among the People's Representatives, but on great questions the House has often distinguished itself, by laying aside all paltry, petty, party considerations,—when the good faith, the honour, the safety of England and the sincere good-will of Ireland were the subject of consideration;—I trust that the integrity of Parliament will rise above the murderous and devastating ambition of a British Minister;—I hope you will sit on this measure, as if the character of the land was involved;—and that you will not desist until it is completely overthrown:—Remember the proud-spirited character of the Irish Nation,—remember the state of your domestic affairs,—remember the eventful crisis of the political world;—do not, I conjure you, take a mean advantage of the distresses of that country, or subscribe to a system of evasion, of subtilty, low cunning, and insidious artifice—because it is cloathed with a pompous display of words, and a ridiculous parade of empty phrases, on the extension of the most wild and visionary commercial advantages to Ireland, which ever deluded the disordered imagination of the most hair-brained Politician;—do not, I entreat you, violate your most solemn guarantee, and break your faith pledged by stipulation;—disdain to be guided by any base, false, and oppressive conduct to your Sister Kingdom;—degrade not yourselves in the estimation of Irishmen, by a low, underhand, crooked policy:—you know that the most groveling ideas can be conveyed in the most inflated language,—that it is casy to give a mock consequence to low cavils, and to utter quibbles in heroics;—abandon the sordid ideas of the mercantile principle on which this obnoxious measure is sounded, and shew that whatever may be the character of the Minister, this House has none of the attributes of the Trickster and the Tyrant; exhibit to your dear, your valued Sister Kingdom, all the captivating characteristic of expended intellect;—study to attain great ends by great means;—support truth, protect the weak, relieve the oppressed, and right the injured,—but on no consideration countenance fraud, rapine, ignominy, injustice;—these are not the times for skulking meanness, bombastical prevarication, or perverted wisdom:—I solemnly declare, that in every point of view in which I can consider the measure of an Union, its great and leading features are—obliquity, fraud, falshood, solly, treachery, oppression,—the most glaring violation of national faith, and the most open breach of solemn engagement.

FINIS.

SPEECH OF RICHARD BRINSLEY SHERIDAN, ESQ. IN THE House of Commons of Great Britain, ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 31ST, 1799, IN REPLY TO MR. PITT'S SPEECH ON THE UNION WITH IRELAND.

DUBLIN: PRINTED FOR JAMES MOORE, NO. 45, COLLEGE-GREEN. 1799.

Information about this book

Title statement

Speech of Richard Brinsley Sheridan: Esq. in the House of Commons of Great Britain, on Thursday, January 31st, 1799, in reply to Mr. Pitt's speech on the union with Ireland.

Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 1751-1816.

Publication

Distributor

University of Oxford Text Archive
Oxford University Computing Services
13 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 6NN
ota@oucs.ox.ac.uk

ID [ota]

http://ota.ox.ac.uk/id/4308

ID [isbn10]

1106013077

ID [isbn13]

9781106013071

ID [TCP]

K049986.000

ID [BIBNO]

CW3306714091

ID [ECSS]

1214402100

Availability

Distributed by the University of Oxford under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

Source

— Speech of Richard Brinsley Sheridan: Esq. in the House of Commons of Great Britain, on Thursday, January 31st, 1799, in reply to Mr. Pitt's speech on the union with Ireland., Sheridan, Richard Brinsley, 1751-1816., Great Britain. Parliament.. [2],26p. ; 8⁰. Dublin :: printed for James Moore,. 1799.. [On the union of Great Britain and Ireland.] [Also issued as part of: 'Tracts on the subject of an union', v.6, Dublin, 1799.] [Reproduction of original from the University of London's Goldsmiths' Library.] [Goldsmiths', 17549] [English Short Title Catalog, ESTCT56428.] [Electronic data. Farmington Hills, Mich. : Thomson Gale, 2003. Page image (PNG). Digitized image of the microfilm version produced in Woodbridge, CT by Research Publications, 1982-2002 (later known as Primary Source Microfilm, an imprint of the Gale Group).]

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2p5.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

This electronic text file was keyed from page images and partially proofread for accuracy. Character capture and encoding have been done following the guidelines of the ECCO Text Creation Partnership, which correspond roughly to the recommendations found in Level 4 of the TEI in Libraries Guidelines. Digital page images are linked to the text file.