oppress the middle classes of the na

tion.

In another debate, sir John Sinclair made various objections to the measure. It was improper, he thought, to subject income to taxation without taxing capital: if both should be included in the new plan, those who depended on income only would be (as they ought to be) considerably relieved; and there would be no greater difficulty in estimating one than the other. The persons who would be affected by the tax on income might be divided into three classes--those who were accustomed to save some portion of their income-those who might save, but did not―and such as were unable to reserve any part. The first and second classes would soon be reduced to the condition of the third; and, by the consequent decrease of the consumption of taxed articles, the ordinary imposts would be much less productive than they had been. The baronet added, that the extension of the impost to property in Ireland and in the West Indies, the inquisitorial power which would be given to the commissioners, and the taxation of the funds (for that would be the effect of a part of the scheme,) would be impolitic and unjust. Mr. Simeon defended the scheme as the most seasonable that could be devised; and the solicitor-general thought it the best

mode of calling forth the resources of the people. Sir Francis Baring disapproved it, as it would harass commercial men, and yet might be easily evaded. Mr. Smith affirmed that it was unjust, cruel, and oppressive; but all objections were overborne, though not fully obviated, by the commanding eloquence of the minister, who exaggerated the benefits and extenuated the inconveniences of the measure, with his usual talent and animation.

Sir William Pulteny was a warm opposer of this bill of requisition, particularly of that part which involved the alternative of paying too much, or of submitting to the disclosure of private concerns. But being supported by a great majority, it triumphantly passed through the ordeal of debate, and became an operative law. It fell with great weight upon the middle orders of society, as it deprived them of many of those comforts which they could before command, while the higher ranks suffered no other inconvenience than the diminution of luxurious indulgences or unnecessary enjoyments.. The vigilance of the commissioners did not prevent the frequent evasion of the act; for it cannot be expected that the most rigorous provisions will secure a full obedience to statutes of this complexion.

2T 2

HE rebellion in Ireland seemed to point out the necessity of adopting a great political measure which had occasionally been recommended to the ministry, by writers as well as by parliamentary speakers, without making at the time any other than a transient impression. The risque of a revival of commotion, and the apprehensions of the formidable efforts of an ambitious enemy for the separation of that realm from the British empire, prompted the leaders of the cabinet to undertake the task of effecting that close union between the kingdoms which would give additional strength to both, and so improve aud concentrate their resources and their power, as to enable them to defeat all hostile attempts. Strenuous opposition to the scheme was expected from the pride and prejudices of a considerable part of the Irish nation; but it was hoped that the good sense of a great portion of the community would see it in its true light, and promote its happy accomplishment; or, if it should be disapproved by the majority of the people, little doubt was entertained of the efficacy of various means of influence and persuasion, in securing a plurality of parliamentary votes for its adoption.

When a legislative union was recoinmended by implication to the parliament of Ireland, the peers approved the idea;

but, in the lower house, after a very long discussion which ended in the appearance of a majority of only two votes for the scheme, a renewed debate produced a division which favored its opposers. The latter, however, were defeated in another trial of strength.

.

A preliminary debate, in the British house of commons, was distinguished by an animated speech from Mr. Sheridan against the measure. When it was again investigated, Mr. Pitt eloquently supported its propriety. That a permanent connection between Britain and Ireland was essential to the true interests of both countries, and that, unless the existing connection should be improved, there was great risque of a separation, he had strong reason to believe. The settlement of the year 1782, he said, was so imperfect, that it substituted nothing for that system which it demolished; and it was not considered as final even by the ministers of the time. It left the two realms with independent legislatures, connected only by the identity of the executive power-a very insufficient tie either in time of peace or of war, inadequate to the consolidation of strength or the mutual participation of political and commercial benefits. The case of the regency exhibited a striking instance of the weakness of the connection; and, if the two parliaments had differed on the

subject of the war, the danger of a disjunction would have been seriously alarming The entire dissociation of the kingdoms was one of the great aims of our enemies; and, as their eventual success in Ireland would expose Britain to extreme peril, the establishment of an incorporative union, by which their views might be effectually baffled, was a necessary act of policy. Great Britain had always felt a common interest in the safety of Ireland: but that interest was never so obvious and urgent as when the enemy attacked the former realm through the medium of the latter. The French had shown by their conduct, that they deemed Ireland the most vulnerable part of the empire; and this consideration alone ought to enforce the adoption of a measure which would tend to strengthen and secure that country. It ought to be noticed, that the hostile divisions of its sects, the animosities existing between the posterity of the original inhabitants and the descendants of the colonists, the rudeness and ignorance of the people, and the prevalence of jacobinical principles among them, had produced a state of distress for which "there was no cure but in the formation of a general imperial legislature, free alike from terror and from resentment, removed from the danger and agitation, uninfluenced by the prejudices and uninflamed by the passions of that distracted country."

Among the advantages which would accrue to Ireland from an incorporation with Britain, he mentioned "the protection which she would secure to herself in the hour of danger, the most effectual means of increasing her commerce and improving her agriculture, the command of English capital, the infusion of English manners and English industry, necessarily tending to meliorate her condition;" adding, that "she would see the avenue to honors, to distinctions, and exalted situations in the general seat of empire, opened to all those whose abilities and talents enable them to indulge an honorable and laudable am bition." He farther remarked, that the question was not what Ireland would gain, but what she would preserve; not merely

how she might "best improve her situation, but how she might avert a pressing and immediate danger." In this point of view, her gain would be the preservation of all the blessings arising from the British constitution.

After some commercial statements, tending to show the benefits derivable to Ireland from an union, he asserted the competency of the legislature, not by argument or demonstration, but by allegations of the danger of controverting such right. A denial of parliamentary competence, he said, would amount to a denial of the validity of the Scottish union, and of the authority under which the existing parliament now deliberated; and it would even shake every principle of legislation. That a competency for any new or very important measure could only arise from the express directions or consent of the electors or the great body of the nation, was a jacobinical idea, connected with the dangerous doctrine of the sovereignty of the people.

As the supposed loss of national independence formed, in the minds of many, a strong objection to the scheme, he argued, that the dreaded loss would be a real benefit; that the Irish would rather gain than lose in point of political freedom and civil happiness; and that, though a nation possessing all the means of defence, dignity, and prosperity, might justly object to an association with a more numerous people, Ireland, being deficient in the means of protection and inferior in the requisites of political and civil welfare, could not be injured or degraded by such an union with a neighbouring and kindred state, as would connect both realms by an equality of law and an identity of interest. Her people would not less be members of an inde pendent state, or, to any valuable or useful purpose, less free in the enjoyment of the benefits of society and civilization.

Mr. Sheridan opposed an union as par ticularly unseasonable amidst the irritation which prevailed in Ireland, and deprecated the exercise of force or intimidation, or the practices of artifice and corruption, for the accomplishment of an unpopular measure.

If the court wished to improve the state of Ireland, there were, he said, means of attaining that object without destroying her independence or involving her in servitude. Lord Hawkesbury, however, was of opinion, that nothing but an union would remove the radical evils of the existing government of Ireland.

Mr. Pitt's plan being submitted to the house in eight propositions, a majority of 125 voted for their being referred to a general committee. In the next debate on this subject, Mr. Sheridan compared the views of the minister with those of the United Irishmen, who wished, as he did, for the ruin of the constitution of Ireland. Two motions from that speaker, condenining all corruption and intimidation, and protesting against every measure which had not for its basis the fair and free consent of the parliaments of both kingdoms, were rejected; and the efforts of Mr Grey and other gentlemen, who conjured the house to explode the scheme, served only to encourage the minister to the prosecution of it. It was defended by Mr. Dundas, who dwell on the advantages of the Scottish union, and alleged that the confidence which ought to subsist between the governors and the governed could only be established under the auspices of an imperial legislature, which'would be free from the apprehensions and animosities interwoven with the frame of the Irish parliament, arising from the opposition between the power and the population of the country. Mr. Windham, though he abhorred innovation, was friendly to a measure which promised a melioration of the state of Ireland, by an infusion of British capital and British manners; and Mr. Grant supported the general competency of parliament, and the propriety of proceeding to a specification of the terms of union. A substitute recommended by Mr. Sheridan-namely, the abolition of all incapacities incurred in civil affairs by religious distinctions-did not satisfy the majority; nor did the remonstrances of lieutenant-general Fitzpatrick, who deprecated the enforcement of a scheme which would subvert the settlement of 1782, or

the arguments of Dr. Laurence, who reprobated a legislative union as unnecessary and injurious, effectually impress the house. In another debate, Mr. Bankes affirmed that the disordered state of Ireland rendered it inexpedient and even unsafe to coalesce with her; but Mr. Addington combated that assertion, and maintained that an incorporation was calculated to avert much probable evil from both countries, and to produce positive and substantial. benefits to each. The propositions were then adopted by the committee.

When the report was offered to the house, Mr. Hobhouse and Mr. Jones opposed the measure with plausibility rather than with force: Mr. Peel defended it with some hesitation and reserve the lords. Temple, Morpeth, and Belgrave, strenuously recommended it. The solicitor-general compared the political establishment of an empire which had two independent parliaments to a monster with two bodies and one head influenced by each, and gave it as his opinion that an union would be the best mode of supplying the deficiency of a sovereign power for the direction of imperial concerns. By a majority of 104, the report was received ; and the resolutions were soon communicated to the peers.

The subject was discussed by lord Grenville in a long speech, which met with the general approbation of the assembly. He endeavored to show, that the pretendedbond of connection between Ireland and this kingdom was not merely imperfect, but was absolutely null. He illustrated this point by referring to the chief branches of the prerogative, in which the identity of the sovereign of the two realms could not enforce a desirable unity of action. Under such a system, he said, there was no security for the connection. The general interest of the empire, therefore, required new arrangements; and the evils of Ireland, in particular, called for the application of a speedy remedy. He traced the origin of those divisions and animosities which had retarded in that country the progress of civilization; attributed the late rebellion to the influence of jacobinical

principles; and contended, that nothing but a legislative union would furnish an effectual antidote to the poison of such doctrines, or correct the radical vices of the government. Earl Fitzwilliam wished that some attempts might be made to cure the disorders of Ireland without the hazard of an unpopular union but the marquis of Lansdown recommended the ministerial scheme as the best of all experiments. Earl Camden decidedly favored the measure; the marquis Townshend less strongly supported it. The earl of Moira and lord Holland advised the ministry to relinquish it, because it was odious to the Irish. Lord Mulgrave, and the earls of Carlisle and Westmoreland, professed contrary sentiments; and the resolutions were adopted by the house.

When an address to the king was proposed, lord Auckland appeared as an advocate for the scheme, corrective as it would be of an anomalous, incompetent, and unsettled government; the bishop of Llandaff gave it the weight of his approbation; and lord Minto (formerly sir Gilbert Elliot,) with a mixture of declamation and argument, forcibly urged its expediency. The commons, being desired to join in the address, complied with the request after a renewal of debate; and the resolutions were presented to his majesty. Before this address was voted, the scheme was assailed by the vigorous hostility of Mr. Foster, speaker of the house of commons in Ireland, who, after endeavoring to show the finality of the settlement of 1782, entered into a detail of the ill consequences of what he termed the "rash quackery" of the minister; and the eloquence of Mr. G. Ponsonby was also exercised in an attempt to prove that an union would be highly injurious to the freedom and prosperity of Ireland.

The spirit with which the idea of an union was opposed in Ireland, though it did not so far discourage the court as to produce a dereliction of the object, operated in recommendation of delay; and it was deemed more prudent to wait the effect of a farther exertion of ministerial arts, than

to enforce the immediate accomplishment of an obnoxious scheme. the union,

During the deliberations upon the views of the mal-contents in both countries were examined by a committee of the British commons. The result was an act for the suppression of the London Corresponding Society and other clubs which were considered as inimical to the constitution, and for the more effectual restraint of sedition.

A bill which did not please the moderate part of the nation was sanctioned by both houses. It tended to perpetuate forfeiture of property and corruption of blood in cases of high treason, thus repealing the clauses of limitation contained in an act of the year 1709, and in one of 1744. The arguments by which it was opposed did not materially differ from those which were stated in our account of the last-mentioned statute.

The regulation of internal affairs, and the discussion of various bills, were interrupted by the annunciation of pecuniary and friendly engagements with the king's "good brother and ally" the emperor of Russia. That potentate had promised to employ 45,000 men against the French, in consideration of a subsidy from Great Britain; and, after some objections to, the waste of the public money, and strictures on the impolicy of continuing and extending the war, the commons voted £825,000 to supply the wants of the Russians, and assist the Portuguese and Swiss.

By the twentieth article of the treaty of Campo Campo Formio, the contracting parties had agreed that there should be held at Rastadt, a congress solely composed of the plenipotentiaries of the German empire and the French republic, and that this congress should be opened a month after the signature of the treaty, or as soon as possible. Accordingly, in the beginning of 1797, the respective plenipotentiaries assembled at Rastadt, and continued sitting till the 28th of April, 1799, when the mysterious and horrid catastrophe occurred which I shall shortly have occasion to relate. The French legation at Rastadt