| ; |
It was while Ireland was distracted
by these events that the project of Union with Great Britain began seriously
to be discussed. Forty thousand British troops held the country, the Habeas
Corpus Act was suspended and all right of assembly and discussion denied;
trials by courts martial were in progress and the loyalists were fatigued
and worn by the exertions they had made to put down rebellion. This was
the moment chosen for proposing a radical change in the constitution of
the country. While the rebellion was still running its course hints of
a proposed union between the two countries had been industriously spread
abroad. Pamphlets for and against it had occasionally appeared during
the preceding years [1] and it runs like an undertone through the official
correspondence between London and Dublin from 1793 onward. Valentine Lawless,
afterwards Lord Cloncurry, when a young student in the Middle Temple,
heard it mentioned at a dinner at which Pitt was present in 1795 and hastened
to publish a pamphlet against the project.[2]
[1] Pamphlets appeared in 1787 by de Lolme and Williams recommending
a Union, and by Edward Cooke in 1798 against it. The latter ran through
nine editions in as many months.
[2] Personal Recollections of Lord Cloncurry (1849), p. 38.
But Pitt had made up his mind, and Cornwallis had been sent over to carry
through the policy that had been resolved upon. He was warned that the
time was one of too much danger to agitate such a contentious question,
but Cornwallis found "the principal people so frightened" that
he believed they would consent to a Union, provided that it were a Protestant
Union. Even Plunket, who hated the idea and held that it was beyond the
competence of the Irish Parliament to extinguish its own existence, thought
that if it were brought forward at once the Act would be carried; "animosity
and want of time to consider coolly its consequences and forty thousand
British troops in Ireland" would suffice to carry the measure. "But
in a little time," he added, "the people will wake as from a
dream, and what consequences will follow I tremble to think." His
convinced view was that it would accelerate a total separation between
the two countries.
There had been times when the idea of a Union with Britain had been looked
upon with favour. Molyneux, in his pamphlet on the Union, thought that
for Ireland to have representatives in the Parliament of England "would
be a state of things to be willingly embraced; but this," he adds,
"is a happiness we can hardly hope for." But with the hard-won
fight for the independence of the Irish Parliament, partial and limited
as that independence was, another spirit had arisen, and there was no
disposition to part with newly acquired rights and privileges. In regard
to the country at large, it cannot be said that the Irish Parliament had
fulfilled the hopes with which it was established. It had neither been
able to avert rebellion or to mitigate the cruelty with which it was being
put down. Yet neither Cornwallis nor Plunket was prepared for the strength
of the opposition shown towards the proposed measure. Elliot, a Member
of the Lower House, felt that no part of it could be carried "without
the enforcement of severe Parliamentary discipline."[3] But Lord
Castlereagh, to whom the business of securing its adoption was confided,
took the cynical view that there was no man, whether in the House of Lords
or Commons, who had not his price, and in the most systematic manner he
undertook to sound each Member as to what his price would be. Men of position,
like the Speaker Foster, or the Chancellor of the Irish Exchequer, Sir
John Parnell, or Lord Ely, were to be purchased or cajoled, or, if they
proved obstinate, removed from office and disgraced;[4] men who supported
were to receive due rewards.
[3] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 30.
[4] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 91, 92 ; Cornwallis Correspondence,
iii, 35-36, 37-38.
It is clear, from Castlereagh's correspondence on the subject, that many
members made very cool bargains before promising their votes. The motives
that moved them were, in the large majority of instances, purely personal:
borough proprietors feared a loss of their influence and authority; officials
dreaded a change that might bring to an end the corrupt system to which
they were accustomed and out of which they reaped large profits; and every
individual was calculating what personal advantage he could derive from
the change.[5] The effect of the Act on the country was, as Cornwallis
contemptuously observes, the last thing that seemed to be in their thoughts.
For Parnell, who "disliked the measure, but if it could be made palatable
to him personally" would give it his support, Pitt thought an English
peerage and a provision for life might suffice. To Lord Ely, who considered
the Union "a mad scheme" and who "had not heard a single
argument in its favour," but who intimated that he "kept his
mind free," it was explained that "he would not be allowed to
shuffle" but that "his objects would be attended to." There
were, however, a considerable number of men, like Foster, La Touche, Bushe,
Jebb, and Ponsonby, in the Lower House and the Duke of Leinster and Lords
Moira, Downshire, and Powerscourt in the Upper House who preserved their
integrity and refused to be bought, though large offers were made for
their acquiescence. Yet the corruption in the Upper House was far more
pronounced than in the Lower, £128,000 being expended in the purchase
of four peers only, besides other douceurs.
[5] Cornwallis Correspondence, iii, 36.
The twenty-five Members bought over by Castlereagh between the first and
second discussion of the Bill secured him fifty additional votes and sufficed
to carry the measure. Some of the Members made their public recantation
in the course of the debate. Such was the patriotism of the private Members.[6]
In the country opinion was divided. The most determined opponents to the
idea of Union were the city of Dublin and the Irish Bar. The Dublin bankers
and merchants offered a serious opposition. They believed that the existing
prosperity of the city would be sacrificed, that absenteeism would increase
and their manufactures be ruined. The Corporation was reported to be furious;
and the bankers and merchants, headed by William Digges La Touche, and
supported by J. C. Beresford, drew up, at a meeting at the Mansion House,
a series of strong resolutions against the measure. They attested that
since the establishment of an independent Parliament "the commerce
and prosperity of this kingdom have eminently increased," which they
ascribed to the wisdom of the Irish Parliament.[7] Next to the city the
lawyers took up an attitude of resistance. They assembled in a body, as
a yeomanry corps, and threatened to set an example to the yeomanry of
the country to revolt or to lay down their arms. This danger was averted
by the exertions of Cornwallis, but at a full meeting of their body led
by Saurun, who, like La Touche, was of Huguenot descent, a resolution
was passed by a majority of 134 stating "that a Legislative Union
of this kingdom and Great Britain was an innovation which would be highly
dangerous at the present juncture to this country." It was little
wonder that the discussions on the subject had put new life into the "almost
annihilated" body of the United Irishmen and that the Association
began "to rise like a phoenix from its ashes."[8] But lawyers,
like senators, had their price, and the list of their rewards shows that
thirty-four of their body accepted compensation in money, positions, or
titles, rather than risk dismissal by offending the Government.[9]
[6] The lists of purchased votes and of those who voted against the Bill,
called the Black and White Lists, will be found in Sir Jonah Barrington,
Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation (1853), pp. 394, 389.
[7] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 43, 46, 48, 51.
[8] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 51, 194.
[9] Ibid., ii, 151 ; Barrington, op. cit., p. 232. Wolfe Tone thought
the Irish Bar "the most scandalously corrupt and unprincipled body,
politically speaking, that he ever knew." Memoirs, ii, 201. But some
of these men had paid as much as £4,000 for a seat and they naturally
expected compensation.
The North was, in general, friendly. The Orangemen decided to adopt, as
a body, no fixed attitude, but to leave their members free to vote as
they wished, "it being not the habit of that part of the kingdom
to take a very lively interest in any measure proposed by Government."[10]
The Catholics were in a more difficult position. The admission of Catholics
into Parliament was represented as dependent on the passing of this measure,
and Pitt, while not actually pledging himself, held out what appeared
to be distinct hopes of their complete emancipation in bringing in the
Bill.[11] Fitzwilliam had been instructed "to give it a handsome
support on the part of the Government" if the Catholics seemed determined
on it. Cornwallis had declared his unqualified approval of the admission
of Catholics into Parliament. On September 30 he wrote that he would never
consent to the insertion of any clause (in the Act) that shall make the
exclusion of the Catholics a fundamental part of the Union, "as I
am fully convinced that until the Catholics are admitted into a general
participation of rights...there will be no peace or safety in Ireland."[12]
"I certainly wish," he wrote again, "that England could
now make a Union with the Irish nation, instead of making it with a party
in Ireland." When he begins to doubt of his views being accepted
he feels "great doubts of the efficacy" of the measure, and
"does not believe that it would have been much more difficult to
have included the Catholics." But, as on previous critical occasions,
the Catholics themselves failed to speak with any decided voice, and showed
a fatal complacency with any arrangements that Ministers chose to make.
They seem to have regarded the question with a supine lethargy and to
have left all efforts to the Protestants.[13]
[10] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 368, and cf. 369, 373, 374.
[11] Ibid., ii, 140-141, 147-148, 155-156, etc.
[12] Cornwallis Correspondence, ii, 417.
[13] See Tone's opinion on this point, Memoirs, i, 279, 283.
A representative meeting held at Lord Fingall's at an early stage in the
negotiations came to no decision. Lord Kenmare and Lord Fingall were decidedly
in favour of Union. Dr. Troy, Archbishop of Dublin, was of the same opinion;
all that was wished for was some provision for their clergy,[14] to render
them less dependent on the lower orders. The letter of Dr. Moylan, Bishop
of Cork, on September 14, 1799, to Sir J. Hippisley is most remarkable.
He praised "the present humane and enlightened administration"
whose measures had contributed to the tranquillity of the country; "except
where the Orange influence prevails, peace and good order appear,"
he says, "to be re-established." He believes that nothing will
more effectually tend to lay disgraceful party feuds and restore peace
and harmony "than the great measure in contemplation of the legislative
Union and incorporation of this kingdom with Great Britain," which
he was happy to say was working its way daily and daily gaining ground
in public opinion. He adds: "The Roman Catholics in general are avowedly
for the measure."[15]
[14] For the Catholic position, see Cornwallis Correspondence, iii, 22,
121, etc.; Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 35-36, 46, 50, 78, 147-148,
etc.
[15] For Dr. Moylan's letter, see ibid., ii, 399-400.
From Pitt's point of view the urgent necessity of some change in the relations
between the two countries was daily becoming clearer. The war with France
and the growing power of Buonaparte filled the nation with a dread that
had been unknown in England since the days of the Armada. In 1797, at
the same time that Napoleon was planning the conquest of Syria and Egypt,
the Directory had sent to the coast of Wales two thousand desperadoes
taken from the gaols, "the greatest reprobates in the French army,"
known as the Legion Noire. "Sad blackguards they are," says
Tone, who saw them reviewed at Brest.[16] Their purpose was to burn Bristol
to the ground and to buccaneer in England. Even Tone pitied the probable
fate of Bristol. This was at the same moment that revolutionary doctrines
were running through Ireland, and Tone was urging the Directory for fleets
and money to invade the country and obtain separation from England. Pitt
was uncertain what the views of the Irish Parliament might prove to be
if a critical moment arose. Subservient as it had usually shown itself,
it had on rare occasions asserted itself and taken a course not approved
in England.
[16] Memoirs, ii, 85, 99, 108, 111. A similar project was proposed for
Munster, ibid., i, 325.
The Members had not always acted in harmony or with good judgment. In
one instance, the question of the Regency, they might fairly be accused
of hasty action and want of discretion. The Regency matter was constantly
in Pitt's mind and takes a large place in his speech introducing his measure
in the English Parliament. Might they not, he urged, on some critical
occasion in which the defence and safety of Great Britain was involved
again take an independent attitude? Pitt's view came simply to this: a
Parliament in Ireland was safe only so long as it was subservient. As
soon as it became effectual it became dangerous. This was the main line
of argument advanced by him in his speech on the message of His Majesty
on the question of the Union on January 23, 1799, which was moved by Dundas
and replied to by Sheridan, who fought the measure step by step in the
English Parliament. Pitt said: "We have all in our mouths a sentence,
that every good Englishman and every good Irishman feels—we must
stand and fall together—we should live and die together; and yet
without such a measure as that which is about to be proposed to you, there
can be no security for the continuance of that sentiment;...as it now
stands it is liable to a thousand accidents...What security is there that
they (the two Parliaments) will agree on all questions hereafter, in which
the general interest of the British Empire is involved?...Is it a difficult
thing to suppose a case in which the two Parliaments may clash and become
perhaps as hostile to one another as any two independent bodies politic
in Europe?"[17] Had the Parliament of Ireland in any way really represented
the proletariat, such arguments would have had great weight. The examination
of the leaders of the United Irishmen had revealed to the Government the
existence of a widespread conspiracy to sever the connexion with Britain
with the armed aid of France, Britain's bitterest enemy.
[17] Pitt's Speeches (1806), iii, 356-357.
The spread of republican sentiments in the North and the rebellion in
the South proved the unrest and disaffection felt through large parts
of the country. To the English public Pitt's arguments presented an unanswerable
position. His speech was pronounced "the most impressive and one
of the most judicious the Under-Secretary had ever heard." But even
supposing that the rebellion had been a real expression of popular opinion
instead of a movement largely worked up for political purposes, as in
fact it was, neither republicanism or rebellion found any sympathisers
in the Irish House of Commons. Any efforts made by the House in the direction
of independence, reform, or Catholic freedom had been accompanied with
assurances of the most devoted support of the Throne and of England in
her prosecution of the war. So far as the Parliament was concerned, Pitt
could not bring any accusation against it; he could only presuppose a
possible change of sentiment if ever the Parliament should really express
the sentiments of the people it was supposed to represent. Yet, at last,
even the venal oligarchy who constituted the majority of the House was
proving restive. On January 26, three days after this speech, Pitt was
writing to the Lord Lieutenant that he "was certainly much disappointed
and grieved to find that a measure so essential is frustrated for the
time by the effect of prejudice and cabal," and he takes practical
steps to guard against a repetition of inconvenient conduct by recommending
it "as very desirable, if the Government is strong enough to do it
without too much immediate hazard, to mark by dismissal the sense entertained
of the conduct of those persons in office who opposed."
The way being thus prepared, Pitt, on January 31, brought in his resolutions
affirming the principles of the Union in a long and closely reasoned speech,
in which he calls upon the Parliaments of both kingdoms "to provide
in the manner which they shall judge most expedient for settling such
a complete and final adjustment as may best tend to improve and perpetuate
a connection essential for their common security, and to augment and consolidate
the strength, power, and resources of the British Empire."[18] In
this speech Pitt, while he fully admitted the entire competence of the
Parliament of Ireland to accept or reject a proposition of this nature
and had no hope of its immediate adoption by the Irish legislature, challenged
the finality of the settlement of 1782 and pointed to the fresh dangers
of total separation arising from the separation of the legislatures. He
argued that the commercial regulations of 1785 led directly to legislative
union; and that only by making the countries one could commercial jealousies
be obviated and commercial compacts kept. He then passed on to consider
the special dangers arising from the present war with France and the efforts
she was making to effect a landing in England through Ireland; and he
argued that only by making the interests of the two countries identical
could the safety of both be attained. Pitt, with an all-absorbing and
critical war upon his hands, may well be excused if he saw the question
only from the Imperial point of view. He had always been of the same opinion
and had never condescended to play a double game, as Portland was accused
of having done. He also honestly thought that certain measures, Catholic
emancipation in particular, which he believed to be fraught with peril
in the present circumstances, might be carried with safety in a United
Parliament.
[18] Pitt's Speeches (1806), iii, 361-403.
The Catholics, now a large majority in a separated Ireland, would be a
minority under a union of the two countries, and thus unable to carry
the revolutionary measures they were constantly supposed to have in view.
A re-arrangement with regard to tithes and a provision for the Catholic
clergy were also held out as inducements to accept the Bill. Pitt, after
enumerating the advantages that he believed would accrue to Ireland in
trade, defence, and prosperity, by the acceptance of his proposals, ended
with a vigorous challenge to the new doctrines of Jacobinism which placed
the final sovereignty in the people themselves, a principle which he characterised
as "striking at the foundation of all Governments and obviously incompatible
with all civil society; one of the favourite impostures to mislead the
understanding and to flatter and inflame the passions of mankind."[19]
Sheridan and Grey opposed the arguments with great eloquence, but Pitt
carried the resolutions, Sheridan's amendment being lost by 140 to 25.
When transmitted to the Upper House the Bill was agreed to without a division,
Lord Lansdowne and Lord Moira speaking against the measure and Grenville
and Auckland in support.
[19] Pitt's Speeches, iii, 392, 394.
Meanwhile, the passage of the Bill was not going smoothly in Ireland.
In spite of the persistent efforts of Castlereagh and the lavish promises
of high rewards, in spite of the dismissal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
Sir John Parnell, and of the Prime Serjeant, James FitzGerald, and the
resignations of George Knox, Colonel Foster, son of the Speaker, and J.
C. Beresford, Castlereagh was very uncertain of the issue of the debate.[20]
The Speaker, Foster, was organizing the opposition and his dismissal was
also under consideration. Lord Pery, Sir Lawrence Parsons, Sir John Parnell,
the Ponsonbys and Plunket, made a formidable and able body of opponents,
whose position and staunch honesty of purpose carried great weight; still,
from 160 to 170 votes were calculated upon if all attended. The debate
took place on January 22, 1799, when the Lord-Lieutenant delivered a speech
from the throne in the Upper House, and was followed by Lord Glandore,
recommending the subject of a legislative union with Great Britain to
the consideration of the House. Lord Powerscourt vigorously opposed the
measure, declaring that the House was incompetent to entertain the principle
of a legislative union, and that therefore the subject ought not to be
discussed at all. He moved an amendment that, while they desired to strengthen
the connexion between the two countries by every possible means, this
measure was not within the limits of their power. He conceived that it
would be highly impolitic to adopt such a measure, even supposing they
had power to do so, and would tend, more than any other cause, to an ultimate
separation from Great Britain.[21] Lord Enniskillen seconded him, and
Lord Bellamont introduced a second amendment to insert the words "so
far as may be consistent with the permanent enjoyment, exercise, and tutelary
vigilance of our resident and independent Parliament, as established,
acknowledged and recognized."
[20] Cornwallis Correspondence, iii, 34, 35, 38; Castlereagh Correspondence,
ii. 126, 127, 131.
[21] Cornwallis Correspondence, iii, 40-41.
The aged Lord Charlemont returned to register his vote against the extinction
of the liberties he had done so much to win; but the wavering Lord Ely,
who was ultimately to be bought with a marquessate and a British peerage,
went behind the throne and declined to vote. So little was he to be depended
upon that Cornwallis thought it would be highly imprudent to give him
his reward till the Union was passed; but in March he declared for the
Act he had abhorred, and brought with him two members, though his adhesion
was "clogged with some awkwardness."[22] At twelve o'clock the
house divided; fifty-two were in favour of Union, the Bishops of Down
and Limerick and seventeen lay peers against. "Never," exclaims
Sir Jonah Barrington, "did a body of hereditary nobles, many of ancient
family and several of splendid fortune, so disgrace their ancestry. After
an ineffectual resistance...the Irish Lords recorded their own humiliation.
They perpetrated the most extraordinary act of legislative suicide which
ever stained the records of a nation." "In the hands of the
Chancellor, Lord Clare," he adds, "the House was powerless,
his mere automaton or puppet which he coerced or humoured according to
his ambition or caprice...The Irish Lords lay prostrate before the Government."[23]
Clare's speech on this occasion was undoubtedly a great forensic triumph,
and presented the case for the Union with a masterly lucidity. But such
a speech came strangely from one who, a few years before, had declared
that he would fling his office in the face of anyone who spoke to him
of Union.
[22] Beresford Correspondence, Camden to Castlereagh, January 15.
[23] J. Barrington, Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation (1853), p. 348.
In the Commons the debate was long and brilliant. The son of the Marquess
of Waterford moved the address on Lord Cornwallis's speech and for a day
and a night the motion was opposed by the few incorruptibles who dared
to challenge the Government, in spite of certain loss of place and favour.
Lord Castlereagh replied, stating the case for the Union with the cynical
arguments and in the cold, hard style which enforced unpleasant truths
with what Lord Plunket's grandson called "abrupt, inevitable force."
"Incorporate with Great Britain," he said, "and you will
have a common interest and common means. If Great Britain calls for your
subjection, resist it; but if she wishes to unite with you on terms of
equality 'tis madness not to accept the offer." To this specious
address Lord Plunket rose to reply in the uncertain light of a wintry
daybreak. His broad and massive face was marked by the intensity of his
feeling, and his strong, metallic voice rang over a House hushed into
silence. "This is a subject," he began, "which must arouse
the slumbering, and might almost reanimate the dead. It is a question
whether Ireland shall cease to be free. It is a question involving our
dearest interests and for ever." In scathing words he lashed the
"black corruption" that had been carried on within the walls
of the Castle by men "who could not endure any reflection on their
untainted and virgin integrity." He denied the competency of Parliament
to do this act. "You have not been elected for this purpose,"
he cried. "You are appointed to make laws and not legislatures. You
are appointed to act under the Constitution, not to alter it. You are
appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, not to transfer them.
If you do so, your act is a dissolution of Government...no man in the
land is bound to obey you."[24]
[24] The speech is reported at length in The Life and Letters of Lord
Plunket by the Hon David Plunket, i, 137-150.
It seemed as though another Grattan had been born into the assembly. This
great speech was not without effect. The numbers announced at the division
showed that the Government had a majority of only one, two Members having
been bought over openly in the House when the result seemed doubtful,
during the progress of the debate.[25] Thus a slight majority was secured
for the Government. Two days later, on January 24, the debate was renewed,
when a still more excited discussion took place, George Ponsonby avowing
that the measure was revolutionary; that it would endanger the compact
between the Crown and the subject and the connexion between the two countries.
Such a speech from a discreet and loyal man and constitutional lawyer
of high position in the country produced an immense effect in the House.
He assailed Lord Castlereagh with cool and deliberate irony, which affected
even the youthful Minister, who endeavoured to reply to this new attack
and to Plunket's philippic of the previous occasion at one and the same
time. The galleries were filled, and the excitement was immense when a
majority of five against the Government was announced. The city was illuminated;
joy-bells were rung in Dublin and Cork; and the populace drew home the
Speaker's coach in triumph. Unionists and anti-Unionists established duelling
clubs, where the political animosities of the day could be fought out
in a practical manner.[26]
[25] J. Barrington, op. cit., pp. 343-345.
[26] See the extraordinary account of these duelling clubs in Life and
Letters of Lord Plunket, i, 152.
But the question of the Union was only postponed. Castlereagh wrote to
the Duke of Portland the day after the debate that "considering the
temper of Parliament and the country he did not see the possibility of
re-agitating the question this session with any advantage." But the
time was advantageously spent in "composing more fortunately"
the leading interests toward the measure, and convincing the misguided
of their errors, as Portland had recommended in his reply. The last discussion
of the session bearing on the Union took place on May 15, and the question
was not again brought forward till January 15 of the following year (1800)
when, after one of the most stirring debates ever heard in the Irish Parliament,
the Members signed their own death-warrant in the division that followed.
Meanwhile Ministers had not been idle. Castlereagh was coolly calculating
the money price to be paid for the success of the measure. He put the
total at a million and a half, to be levied on Ireland itself for the
purchase of its own political extinction. Every nobleman who returned
Members to Parliament was to receive £15,000 in compensation for
each of such Members; as few returned less than two Members the price
paid was a large one. Every Member who had paid for a seat in Parliament
was to have his money returned to him, and all Members who were losers
by the Union were to be compensated for their losses. The borough interest,
the Dublin interest, the barristers, all had their price; and places and
honours were lavishly scattered to accommodate the waverers. Those officials
who dissented were dismissed.[27]
[27] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 149-153.
All these arrangements were, with a cynical contempt for human cupidity,
openly stated in the House. The public lack of any sense of morality may
be judged by Portland's remark on these arrangements that "the whole
of Lord Castlereagh's conduct throughout the course of the proceeding
has been so judicious and correct that it is the decided opinion of the
King's Servants that the line he has hitherto observed cannot be too strictly
adhered to."[28] The proceedings had their effect. During the recess
Lord Cornwallis made a tour through the country to obtain signatures to
petitions for a Union. During this tour the warmest supporters of the
Government project proved to be the Catholic bishops and clergy, who were
now almost unanimous in its favour. They were followed by a large number
of the laity of their own faith, both nobles and commoners. It is, indeed,
safe to say that but for the strong support of the Catholics all over
the country the Union could not have been passed except by pure force
and bribery. Plowden, the Catholic historian, tells us that "it may
be said that a very great preponderancy in favour of the Union existed
in the Catholic body, particularly in their nobility, gentry, and clergy."[29]
[28] Castlereagh Correspondence, ii, 155; for list of official dismissals,
see Cornwallis.
[29] Plowden, Review of the State of Ireland, vol. ii, Pt. II, p. 979.
The truth of this statement was proved by the petitions in its favour
which were sent up, alike from the Catholics of the towns and country
districts, with their bishops at the head. Cornwallis might well report
on his return that "he found a general good disposition towards the
Government and cordial approbation of the measure." The Catholics
believed that all their chances of freedom lay in union with England.
The Protestant gentry, for that very reason, resisted a union which they
felt would mean, in large measure, the eclipse of their prestige and power.
It is to be remembered, as some explanation of the Government payments,
that the sums paid in ordinary times for seats were very large. The election
of Caulfeild, Lord Charlemont's brother, had recently cost £7,000;
that of Viscount Castlereagh had cost in election expenses £60,000
for the Hillsborough interest, money that had been saved by his father
for the completion of the Mount Stewart estates. It was intended to send
one hundred Members to Westminster, the gross pecuniary compensation for
the remaining boroughs being calculated at £563,000. But no excuse
can be made for the lavish scale on which money payments were distributed
and places given away with a view to corrupt the Houses. The demands continued
to rise as fast as they were acceded to. "There were times,"
says Sir Jonah Barrington, "when Mr. Pitt would have lost his head
for a tithe of his government of Ireland." And while all this was
going on in the official circle, a reign of terror which made it dangerous
to petition, especially for Catholics, was in force in the country. Executions
for the late rebellion were proceeding in various parts, "the same
wretched business of courts-martial, hanging, transporting, etc...going
on as usual," as Cornwallis, the person most responsible, reports
on September 26 to Castlereagh.[30]
[30] Cornwallis Correspondence, iii, 135.
On January 15, 1800, the last session of the Irish Parliament met, being
surrounded with military and under the threat of Lord Castlereagh that
the sitting would be removed to Cork if its proceedings were interrupted.
Many able speeches were made on the motion of Sir Lawrence Parsons by
members of the Opposition, those of Bushe and Plunket making the deepest
impression. In the early morning Patrick Egan had risen to speak, when
a whisper ran through the House that Grattan, by the almost superhuman
efforts of his friends, had been elected in time for the close of the
debate for Henry Tighe's close borough of Wicklow, and that he was on
the road to Dublin to take his seat. At this moment the doors of the House
were thrown open and Grattan, supported by George Ponsonby and Arthur
Moore, entered the House. "The effect was electrical. Mr. Grattan's
illness and deep chagrin had reduced a form, never symmetrical, and a
visage at all times thin, nearly to the appearance of a spectre. As he
feebly tottered into the House, every Member simultaneously rose from
his seat."[31] Even Castlereagh stood uncovered at the head of the
Treasury Bench while the venerable patriot took the oath. "Never
was there a scene more solemn," writes a reporter of the day; "an
indescribable emotion seized the House and Gallery, and every heart heaved
in pulsation to the name, the virtues, and the return to Parliament of
the founder of the Constitution of 1782, the existence of which was now
the subject of debate."[32] For two hours Grattan reviewed the situation
since the establishment of the Parliament, but the result was determined
before he came and the Government majority numbered forty-two. Though
the debates went on, the fate of Ireland was then decided. Some months
later, when the Bill was again before the House, Grattan uttered the famous
words: "Identification is a solid and imperial maxim, necessary for
the preservation of freedom, necessary for that of empire; but without
a union of hearts...identification is extinction, is dishonour, is conquest,
not identification...Yet I do not give up the country; I see her swoon,
but she is not dead; though in her tomb she lies helpless and motionless,
still there is on her lips a spirit of life, and on her cheek a glow of
beauty...I remain here anchored to the fortunes of my country, faithful
to her freedom, faithful to her fall."[33]
[31] Barrington, op. cit., p. 372.
[32] Life and Letters of Lord Plunket, i, 194, and note.
[33] Grattan's Speech on May 26, 1800, D. O. Madden, Grattan's Speeches,
p. 286.
On June 7, the third reading of the Articles was taken; and on July 2
the English Bill received the Royal Assent. The Union was accomplished.
END OF CHAPTER XVI
|
|
