THE UNION (continued)
"We must consider it as a measure of great national policy, the
object of which is effectually to counteract the restless
machinations of an inveterate enemy, who has uniformly and
anxiously endeavoured to effect a separation between the two
countries."--PITT, Speech on the Union, _21st April, 1800_.
On 22nd January 1799 the long talked-of Act of Union was pointedly
referred to in the King's Speech read out to the Irish Parliament. The
Speech was adopted by the House of Lords, amendments hostile to the
proposed measure being rejected by large majorities. But in the House of
Commons nationalist zeal raged with ever-increasing fury from dusk until
the dawn of the following day. In vain had Castlereagh made liberal use
of the sum of £5,000 which he begged Pitt to send over to serve as a
_primum mobile_ at Dublin. In vain had he "worked like a horse." The
feeling against the measure was too strong to be allayed by bribery of a
retail kind.
Owing to ill health Grattan was not present. Sir John Parnell,
Chancellor of the Exchequer, was among the less violent opponents; but
the most telling appeal was that of Plunket, an Ulsterman. With an
eloquence which even won votes he denied either the right of the
Government to propose such a measure or the competence of that Assembly
to commit political suicide. If the Act of Union were passed, he said,
no one in Ireland would obey it. Then, turning to the Speaker, he
exclaimed: "You are appointed to make laws and not Legislatures. You are
appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, and not to transfer
them; and if you do so, your act is a dissolution of the Government." On
behalf of Government Castlereagh made a well-reasoned reply; but his
speech was too laboured to commend a cause which offended both the
sentiments and interests of members; and the Opposition was beaten by
only one vote--106 to 105. The debate was marked by curious incidents.
Sir Jonah Barrington, a chronicler of these events, declared that
Cooke, perturbed by the threatened defection of a member named French,
whispered to Castlereagh, and then, sidling up to the erring placeman,
spoke long and earnestly until smiles spread over the features of both.
A little later French rose to state his regret at the opinions which he
had previously expressed. The story is not convincing in the case of a
building provided with committee-rooms; but there can be no doubt that
bribery went on before the debate. The final voting showed that there
were limits to that form of influence. Even the canvassing of
Castlereagh failed to persuade members to pass sentence of political
death on half of their number and of transportation on the remainder.
The joy of the men of Dublin found expression in a spontaneous
illumination, and the mob broke all windows which were not lit up.
On all sides the procedure of the Government met with severe censure. As
usual, blame was lavished upon Cornwallis, Lord Carysfort warning
Grenville that the defeat was due to the disgust of "Orangemen and
exterminators" at his clemency. Buckingham, writing to Pitt on 29th
January, reported that on the estimate of Archbishop Troy, nine-tenths
of the Irish Catholics were for the Union: "Remember, however," he
added, "that this can only be done by the removal of Lord Cornwallis and
Lord Castlereagh.... I protest I see no salvation but in the immediate
change. Send us Lord Winchilsea, or rather Lord Euston, or in short send
us any one. But send us Steele as his Secretary, and with firmness the
Question (and with it Ireland) will be saved. Excuse this
earnestness."[555] Pitt took no notice of this advice, but continued to
support Cornwallis. As for the Irish Executive, it proceeded now to the
policy of official coercion recommended from Downing Street. Parnell was
dismissed from the Exchequer; the Prime Serjeant was deposed, and four
opponents of Union were removed from subordinate posts, among them being
Foster, son of the Speaker.
So confident was Pitt of victory at Dublin that he introduced the Bill
of Union at Westminster on 23rd January. The King's Speech referred to
the designs of enemies and traitors to separate Ireland from Great
Britain, and counselled the adoption of means for perpetuating the
connection. Forthwith Sheridan moved a hostile amendment. With his
wonted zeal and eloquence, he urged the inopportuneness of such a
measure when 40,000 British troops were holding down Ireland, and he
denied the competence either of the British or Irish Parliament to
decide on it. Pitt promptly refuted Sheridan's plea by referring to the
action of the English and Scottish Parliaments at the time of their
Union, and he twitted him with seeking to perpetuate at Dublin a system
whose injustice and cruelty he had always reprobated. Allowing that
British rule in Ireland had been narrow and intolerant, Pitt foretold
the advent of a far different state of things after the Union. Then,
pointing to the divergence of British and Irish policy at the time of
the Regency crisis he pronounced it a dangerous omen, and declared the
Union to be necessary to the peace and stability of the Empire. The
House agreed with him and negatived the amendment without a division.
It is worth noting that of Sheridan's hypothetical colleagues in office
under the Prince Regent in the Cabinet outlined in February 1789, not
one now supported him. Fox was not present, being engrossed in Lucretius
and the "Poetics" of Aristotle. He, however, informed Lord Holland that
he detested the Union and all centralized Governments, his predilection
being for Federalism.[556] The remark merits notice in view of the
concentration of power in France, and in her vassal Republics at Rome,
Milan, Genoa, and Amsterdam. That eager student of the Classics wished
to dissolve the British Isles into their component parts at a time when
the highly organized energy of the French race was threatening every
neighbouring State. While the tricolour waved at Amsterdam, Mainz,
Berne, Rome, Valetta, and Cairo, Fox thought it opportune to federalize
British institutions. The means whereby Pitt sought to solidify them are
open to question. But which of the two statesmen had the sounder sense?
On 31st January, after the receipt of the disappointing news from
Dublin, Pitt returned to the charge. Expressing deep regret that the
Irish House of Commons should have rejected the plan of a Union before
it knew the details, he proceeded to describe the proposals of the
Government. Firstly, he insisted that it was the concerted action of
invaders from without and traitors within that made the measure
necessary. He then argued that the settlement of 1782, according
legislative independence to the Irish Parliament, was far from final, as
appeared in the ministerial declarations of that time. Moreover, Irish
Bills did not become law unless sanctioned by the King and sealed by the
Great Seal of Great Britain on the advice of British Ministers, facts
which implied the dependence of the Irish Parliament. Turning to the
commercial issues at stake, he effectively quoted the statement of
Foster to the Irish House of Commons in 1785, that they would be mad to
reject the commercial proposals then offered, which, if thrown out,
would not be renewed. But now, said Pitt, they are renewed in the
projected Union; and Foster has used his influence to reject a measure
which breaks down the fiscal barriers between the two kingdoms. After
referring to the Regency Question, he pointed out the danger of France
attacking the British race at its weakest point. Never would she cease
to assail it until the Union was indissoluble. Commerce, he said, was
the source of wealth; and the wealth needed to withstand the predatory
designs of France would be enhanced by a free interchange of British and
Irish products. The Union would encourage the flow into the poorer
island of British capital which it so much needed. Next, adverting to
the religious feuds in Ireland, he remarked on the danger of granting
concessions to the Irish Catholics while Ireland remained a distinct
kingdom. He then uttered these momentous words:
On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion, or the
propriety of agitating the question, or saying how soon or how
late it may be fit to discuss it, two propositions are
indisputable; first, when the conduct of the Catholics shall be
such as to make it safe for the Government to admit them to the
participation of the privileges granted to those of the
established religion, and when the temper of the times shall be
favourable to such a measure--when these events take place, it
is obvious that such a question may be agitated in an United
Imperial Parliament with much greater safety, than it could be
in a separate Legislature. In the second place, I think it
certain that, even for whatever period it may be thought
necessary after the Union to withhold from the Catholics the
enjoyment of those advantages, many of the objections which at
present arise out of their situation would be removed, if the
Protestant Legislature were no longer separate and local, but
general and Imperial: and the Catholics themselves would at once
feel a mitigation of the most goading and irritating of their
present causes of complaint.
Pitt then deprecated the effort to inflame the insular pride of
Irishmen. Could Irishmen really object to unite with Britons? For it was
no subordinate place that they were asked to take, but one of equality
and honour. Most happily then did he quote the vow of Aeneas for an
equal and lasting compact between his Trojans and the Italians:
Non ego nec Teucris Italos parere jubebo,
Nec nova regna peto: paribus se legibus ambae
Invictae gentes aeterna in foedera mittant.[557]
He ended his speech by moving eight Resolutions on the question; and the
House approved their introduction by 140 votes to 15. This statesmanlike
survey lacked the fire and imaginative elevation of his speech on the
Slave Trade in 1792. But there was little need of rhetoric and
invective. Pitt's aim was to convince Ireland of the justice of his
proposals. And his plea, though weak at one point, must rank among the
ablest expositions of a great and complex question. How different the
course of events might have been if the Commons of Ireland had first
heard Pitt's proposals of Union, clearly and authoritatively set forth,
not in the distorted form which rumour or malice depicted. In this
respect Gladstone proved himself an abler tactician than Pitt. His Home
Rule Bill of 1886 remained a secret until it was described in that
masterly statement which formed a worthy retort to Pitt's oration of
31st January 1799. Pitt prepared it with great care, so Auckland avers;
and, as he and Long had secured the presence of the best reporters, the
text of the speech is among the most accurate that we possess for that
period. He now resolved to bring forward specific Resolutions, instead
of, as before, proposing merely to appoint Commissioners to consider the
details of the Bill of Union. It is unfortunate that he did not take
this step at first. The mistake probably resulted from his besetting
sin--excess of confidence. On 26th January he expressed to Cornwallis
his deep disappointment and grief at the action of the Dublin
Parliament, which he ascribed to prejudice and cabal. Clearly he had
underrated the force of the nationalist opposition.
Meanwhile Castlereagh endeavoured to reckon the value of the pecuniary
interests in Ireland opposed to the Union. In a characteristically
narrow spirit he assessed the losses to borough-holders at £756,000; to
controllers of counties at £224,000; to barristers at £200,000; to
purchasers of parliamentary seats at £75,000; and he estimated the
probable depreciation of property in Dublin at £200,000. Thus, moneyed
interests worth £1,433,000 were arrayed against the Union. He proposed
to whittle down these claims by raising the number of Irish members in
the United Parliament either to 127 or 141. Both at Dublin and
Westminster Ministers were intent on appeasing hostile interests on the
easiest terms. Among Pitt's papers is a curious estimate of the opinion
of the propertied classes in the counties and chief towns of Ireland.
"Property" is declared to favour the Union in Antrim, Clare, Cork,
Donegal, Galway, Kerry, Leitrim, Londonderry, Mayo, Waterford, and
Wexford. It was hostile in Carlow, Cavan, Dublin, Fermanagh, Kildare,
and Louth. In the other counties it was divided on the subject. Among
the towns, Cork, Galway, Lisburne, Londonderry, Waterford, and Wexford
supported Union. Clonmell, Drogheda, and Dublin opposed it; while
Belfast, Kilkenny, and Limerick were doubtful. Most of the Grand Juries
petitioned for Union, only those of Dublin, Louth, Queen's County, and
Wicklow pronouncing against it.[558] In view of the expected attempt of
the Brest fleet, the Grand Jury of Cork burst into a patriotic rhapsody
which must be placed on record:
_March 26, 1799._[559]
... At the present awful moment whilst we await the threatened
attempt of the enemies of religion and of man to crush us in
their sacrilegious embrace; whilst their diabolical influence
cherishes rebellion and promotes assassination in the land, we
look back with gratitude to the timely interposition of Great
Britain, which has more than once rescued us from that infidel
yoke under which so great a portion of distracted Europe at this
moment groans. We have still to acknowledge how necessary that
interposition is to protect us from the further attempts of an
unprincipled foe, ... and to her assistance we are ... indebted
for keeping down an unnatural but wide extended rebellion
within the bosom of this country. To become a constituent part
of that Empire to whose protection we owe our political
existence and whose constitution is the admiration of the
civilized world; to participate in those resources which are
inexhaustible; to become joint proprietors of that navy which is
irresistible; and to share in that commerce which knows no
bounds, are objects beyond which our most sanguine wishes for
the wealth and prosperity of Ireland cannot possibly extend,
whilst the prospect which they hold forth of terminating the
jarring interests of party and reconciling the jealous
distinctions of religion, promises a restoration of that
tranquillity to which the country has too long been a stranger.
This exuberant loyalty may have been heightened by the hope that Cork
would reap from the Union a commercial harvest equal to that which
raised Glasgow from a city of 12,700 souls before the Anglo-Scottish
Union, to one of nearly 70,000 in the year 1800. But the men of Cork
forgot that that marvellous increase was due to the coal, iron, and
manufactures of Lanarkshire, no less than to free participation in the
trade of the Empire.
The fact that Cork was then far more Unionist than Belfast is apt to
perplex the reader until he realizes that Roman Catholics for the most
part favoured Union, not so much from loyalty to George III, as from the
conviction that only in the Imperial Parliament could they gain full
religious equality. On the other hand the Presbyterians of Ulster had
fewer grievances to be redressed, and were not without hope of gaining
satisfaction from the Protestant Legislature at Dublin. It is certain
that the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin and Tuam, besides Bishop Moylan
of Cork and other prelates, used their influence on behalf of the Union.
Cornwallis was known to favour the Catholic claims; and Wilberforce,
writing to Pitt, says: "I have long wished to converse with you a little
concerning the part proper for you to take when the Catholic Question
should come before the House. I feel it due to the long friendship which
has subsisted between us to state to you unreservedly my sentiments on
this very important occasion, especially as I fear they are different
from your own."[560] Pitt does not seem to have welcomed the suggestion
couched in these magisterial terms, and, as the sequel will show, he had
good grounds for concealing his hand. Only at one point did the Cabinet
declare its intentions. There being some fear that the Opposition at
Dublin would seek to win over the Catholics by the offer of
Emancipation, the Government declared its resolve to oppose any step in
this direction so long as that Parliament existed.[561]
It is well also to remember that the concession of the franchise to the
bulk of the Irish peasantry in 1793, with the full approval of Pitt,
enabled the Catholics to control the elections in the counties and
"open" boroughs except in Ulster. Therefore, though they could not send
to Parliament men of their creed, they could in many instances keep out
Protestants who were inimical to their interests. In the present case,
then, Catholic influence was certain to tell powerfully, though
indirectly, in favour of Union. These facts explain the progress of the
cause early in the year 1799. Opponents of the measure began to tremble
for their seats owing to the action either of Government or of the
Catholic vote. Accordingly, despite the frantic efforts of Lord
Downshire and Foster, Government carried the day by 123 to 103 (15th
February). Fear worked on behalf of Union. A great fleet was fitting out
at Brest, the Dutch ports were alive with work, and again Ireland was
believed to be the aim of the Republicans. As was the case in 1798, they
encouraged numbers of Irishmen to make pikes, to muster on the hills of
Cork and Wicklow, dealing murder and havoc in the plains by night.
Cornwallis therefore proclaimed martial law, armed the yeomen, and
sought to crush the malcontents, a proceeding which led critics to
charge Government with inciting the people to outrage in order to coerce
them. Those who flung out the sneer should also have proved that the
naval preparations at Brest and the Texel were instigated from Downing
Street in order to carry the Union.
The real feelings of Dublin officials appear in the letters of
Beresford, Cooke, and Lees to Auckland. On 15th March 1799 Beresford
writes: "Our business is going on smoothly in Parliament; from the day
that Government took the courage [_sic_] of dividing with the
Opposition, they have grown weaker and weaker every day as I foretold to
you they would. The Speaker [Foster], as I hear, appears to be much
softened. I am sure he sees that he has pledged himself too far, and
that he cannot depend upon those who heretofore supported him: and both
he and Ponsonby are conscious that the point will be carried and they,
of course, left in the lurch.... The country is in a wretched way,
organization going on everywhere; and if the French should land, I much
fear that there will be very universal risings." On the subject of
inter-insular trade Beresford informs Auckland on 29th March that
Ireland depends almost entirely upon Great Britain and her colonies,
having a balance in her favour in that trade but an adverse balance in
her dealings with foreign lands. She exports 41,670,000 yards of linen
to Great Britain and only 4,762,000 yards to other lands. Besides, the
British trade is increasing fast, as England uses less and less foreign
linen. On the morrow, Cooke declares that, if the French do not land,
the Irish malcontents will settle down. Commending the policy of going
slowly with the Union, he says: "By letting the subject cool, by opening
its nature, tendencies, and advantages, and seeming not to press it, and
by insinuating that no other course of safety to property remains, the
mind begins to think seriously and faints. I think during the Vacation
pains may be taken with the House of Commons so as to give us a fair
majority, and if the Catholics act steadily we should be able to carry
the point. I could wish that Mr. Pitt would suffer some person of
ability to prepare all the necessary Bills, and to fill up every detail;
so that the measure might be seen in its complete stage. I despair of
this being done, tho' obviously right; for Ministers never will act till
they are forced, and I do not wonder at it."[562]
Again, all the energy was on the side of the Opposition. On 11th April
Foster passed the whole subject in review in a speech of four hours'
duration. In order to weaken one of the strongest of Pitt's arguments,
he proposed that in case of a Regency, the Regent, who was chosen at
Westminster, should necessarily be Regent at Dublin. This proposal of
course implied the dependence of the Irish Parliament on that of Great
Britain; but, as invalidating one of the chief pleas for Union, Foster
pressed it home. He also charged Pitt with endeavouring to wring a large
sum of money every year from Ireland. The speech made a deep impression.
The only way of deadening its influence and stopping the Regency Bill
was to postpone it until August and summarily to close the session on
1st June. The meanness of this device is a tribute to the power of
Foster and the mediocrity of the officials of Dublin Castle.
Meanwhile the naval situation had cleared up, so far as concerns
Ireland. On 25th April Admiral Bruix, with a powerful fleet, slipped out
from Brest by night past Lord Bridport's blockading force. For some days
panic reigned in London, and it is significant that Bridport took
especial measures to guard the coasts of Ireland, thus enabling the
French to get clear away to the Mediterranean. With bolder tactics they
should have been able to reduce the new British possession, Minorca, or
annihilate the small force blockading Malta. The relief felt at Dublin
Castle, on hearing of Bruix' southward voyage, appears in Beresford's
letter of 15th May, in which he refers to the revival of loyalty and the
terrible number of hangings by courts martial: "We consider ourselves as
safe from the French for this year; but I am in great anxiety for my
friend St. Vincent. What steps will be taken against those damned dogs
in the Mediterranean?... I expect that the French going to the
Mediterranean, instead of coming to the assistance of their friends
here, will have a very great effect upon the people of this country,
who, as soon as they find that they have been made fools of will
endeavour to get out of the scrape they are in." On 1st June Cooke
writes "secretly" to Auckland, expressing regret that Pitt ever attacked
Foster, whose opposition is most weighty. The Cabinet lost the measure
by want of good management in 1798: and the same is now the case.
Nothing has been done to win over Lord Downshire with his eight votes,
or Lords Donegal and De Clifford, who had half as many. He even asks
whether Pitt will think it worth while to spend three months' work on
the Union now that the French had gone to the Mediterranean.[563] The
question reveals the prevalence of the belief that Pitt paid little
attention to Irish affairs. Probably it arose from his stiffness of
manner and his execrable habit of leaving letters unanswered. This
defect had become incurable, witness the complaint of Wilberforce to
Addington--"You know how difficult, I may say next to impossible, it is
to extort a line from Pitt."[564]
In July the return of Bruix with the Cadiz fleet into the Atlantic
renewed the fears of Irish loyalists and the hopes of the malcontents.
The combined fleet managed to enter Brest on 13th August 1799; and its
presence there was a continual source of unsettlement to Ireland,
preparations for revolt being kept up in several parts. A large British
force was therefore kept in Ireland, not for the purpose of forcing
through the Union, as Pitt's enemies averred, but in order to guard
against invasion and rebellion. Though reinforcements arrived,
Cornwallis complained that he had not enough troops. On 24th July 1799
he informed the Duke of Portland that he had only 45,000 regular
infantry, a number sufficient to preserve order but totally inadequate
to repel an invasion in force. Thus the facts of the case are, that
French threats to tear Ireland from Great Britain kept up the
threatening ferment and necessitated the presence of a considerable
military force; but they also led Pitt to insist on the Union as a means
of thwarting all separatist efforts whether from without or from within.
It is clear, however, that Pitt and Earl Spencer trusted to Bridport's
powerful squadron to intercept any large expedition of the enemy. The
blow then preparing against the Dutch was in part intended to ensure the
safety of the British Isles.
Meanwhile at Westminster the cause of the Union met with almost
universal approval. The debate in the Lords on 11th April elicited
admirable speeches, from Dr. Watson, the learned Bishop of Llandaff, and
from Lords Auckland and Minto. Only Lords Holland, King, and Thanet
protested against the measure. In the Commons, Lord Sheffield, while
supporting the Union, reproved Ministers for allowing their aim to
become known in Ireland several weeks before the details of their
proposals were made public. The measure received warm support from
Canning, who a month earlier had resigned the Under-Secretaryship for
Foreign Affairs, and was now for the time merely on the India Board of
Control, with a sinecure superadded. The sensitive young Irishman had
found it impossible to work with the cold and austere Grenville; and his
place was taken for a time by his coadjutor on the "Anti-Jacobin,"
Hookham Frere, to whom the Grenville yoke proved scarcely less irksome.
Canning flung himself with ardour into the struggle for the Union, and
proved a match for his brilliant fellow countryman, Sheridan. He
combated the notion that the Irish Parliament was unalterably opposed to
the measure, and, arguing from the contemptuous manner in which the
French had met our overtures for peace, he inferred their resolve to
sever Ireland from the Empire. In animated style he declared that
Ireland would not lose but gain in dignity by the Union, which would
confer on her what she most needed, stronger and steadier government. On
this occasion Sheridan did not speak, and Fox was absent. After a
protest by Lord William Russell against infringing the final settlement
of 1782, Pitt arose merely in order to challenge this statement and to
read the letters of the Duke of Portland to Lord Shelburne of May-June
1782; they refuted Russell's contention only in so far as to show that
Ministers then designed to legislate further on the subject. The Irish
Parliament certainly regarded the legislative independence then granted
as complete and final. The House of Commons supported Pitt by a
unanimous vote.
During the summer the outlook at Dublin became somewhat brighter, as
appears from the following "secret" letter of Cooke to Lord Camden.
After congratulating him on receiving the Garter, he continues:
Dublin, _14 Aug., 1799_.
... I think Union gains ground. Lord Cornwallis is in earnest on
the subject and feels himself committed. The Catholics have been
chiefly courted by him, and he has always been of opinion that,
if they would act heartily in support, the Protestants would not
resist the efforts of the British Government, assisted by the
population of the kingdom. I believe this position to be true.
It cannot, however, be fully acted upon, in my mind, unless
there be a determination to make further concessions to that
body. To such concessions I confess I do not see insuperable,
tho' I do strong, objections. I think they vanish in the
superior importance of the question of Union. From the present
state of the country I conceive the question may be brought
forward with safety. If the Catholics were steady, Dublin might
be preserved quiet, tho' the Opposition would be clamorous. Our
difficulties will be in Parliament. I think the Speaker will not
relax. Lord Downshire, I am sorry to say, seems very hostile.
Lord de Clifford is also unfriendly. Lord Donegal I hear is
coming round. Could Lord Downshire and Lord de Clifford be made
cordial, the Parliament would be secure. I see not any great
difficulty in settling the terms except as to the representation
of the Commons and compensation to the boroughs. Allowing two
members for each county--which makes 64--there is no principle
which can be exactly applied for classing the boroughs and
selecting the great towns, and tho' it would be easy to
compensate the close boroughs, it is almost impossible to
compensate pot-walloping boroughs.[565] The difficulties here
are enhanced by the consideration that in this case private not
public interests are concerned. When I thus represent the
probability of success, I am aware of the strange volatility of
the Irish mind; and I should not be surprised at any sudden turn
of the present appearances....
Very interesting is the statement as to the courting of the Catholics by
Cornwallis. Pitt certainly knew of these advances; for on New Year's Day
1801 Castlereagh reminded him by letter that Cornwallis did not venture
to make them until the Cabinet had discussed the matter sometime in the
autumn of 1799, and had come to a conclusion entirely favourable to the
Catholic claims, finally assuring him that he "need not hesitate in
calling forth the Catholic support in whatever degree he found it
practicable to obtain it." This and other passages in Castlereagh's
letter prove conclusively that not only Pitt, but the Cabinet as a whole
was responsible for the procedure of Cornwallis, which ensured the more
or less declared support of the Irish Catholics.[566]
The chief difficulty was with the Protestant clique which largely
controlled State patronage. In the autumn Pitt had another interview
with Downshire, but found him full of complaints, demanding among other
things that Ireland should send at least 300 Commoners to Westminster.
He departed for Dublin declaring that he would do his duty. In October
the Government's cause was furthered by a state progress of Cornwallis
through the North of Ireland, during which he received numerous
addresses in favour of Union. At Belfast 150 of the chief citizens
attended a banquet in his honour; Londonderry was enthusiastic in the
cause; and it was clear that the opposition of the Protestants of the
North was slackening. But, as often happened in Ireland, many Catholics
now began to doubt the utility of a measure commended by their
opponents. The interest which Pitt felt in this complex problem and in
Cornwallis's tour appears in the following Memorandum which he wrote
probably at the end of October 1799:
The number of placemen in Ireland is 71. Of these such as hold
office for life or during good behaviour, 11, and 2 holding
places for pleasure, vote against. It is said 63 seats have been
vacated by Government by a misuse of the Place Bill. This
number is exaggerated; but at least 10 were vacated to serve
Opposition. A charge is made against Lord Cornwallis for
canvassing for declarations in favour of Union. The fact is that
Lord Cornwallis, being commander-in-chief, thought it his duty
to make a progress of inspection thro' the kingdom in order to
examine the state of the army and to be a judge of the means of
defence he could rely on. In this progress he received numerous
addresses in favour of Union. A charge is made against
Government of intimidation and the exertion of martial law.
There was only one attempt to substantiate such a charge which
was by Sir L. Parsons, which, instead of terminating in censure,
produced a vote of unanimous approbation in favour of
Government. There have been general charges of corruption
adduced, but no proof attempted. The charge retorted by
Government on Opposition for forming the most extensive
subscriptions for the purpose of corruption has not been denied
by them.
The last sentence refers to a curious incident. Downshire, the most
influential opponent of the Union, had opened a fund for influencing
members of Parliament. It reached a large amount, probably £100,000.
Beresford in a letter to Auckland states that £4,000 was paid to win
over a supporter of Government. Pitt, as we have seen, believed that
Downshire's fund necessitated the extensive use of bribery by
Government. But it is on the whole more likely that Dublin Castle opened
the game by its request early in 1799, for £5,000 immediately from
London. Further sums were forwarded, for on 5th April, Cooke, after
interviews with Pitt and Portland, assured Castlereagh that Portland
would send "the needful" to Dublin. He adds: "Pitt will contrive to let
you have from £8,000 to £10,000 for five years," though this was less
than Castlereagh required. After this, it is absurd to deny that Pitt
used corrupt means to carry the Union. He used them because only so
could he carry through that corrupt Parliament a measure entailing
pecuniary loss on most of its members. Probably he disliked the work as
much as Cornwallis, who longed to kick the men whom he had to
conciliate.--"I despise and hate myself every hour," so Cornwallis wrote
to Ross, "for engaging in such dirty work, and am supported only by the
reflection that without an Union, the British Empire must be
dissolved."[567]
The winter of 1799-1800 was marked by fierce discontent; and again,
after the rise of Bonaparte to power, there were rumours of invasion
which excited the peasants of South Ireland. The men of Dublin on some
occasions assaulted Unionist Members of Parliament. Cornwallis, however,
believed that the country as a whole favoured the cause; and Castlereagh
received favourable assurances as to the attitude of the great majority
of Catholics except in County Dublin.[568] Some leading Episcopalians
were appeased by the insertion of a clause uniting the Protestant
Churches of England and Ireland in one body. This concession did not
satisfy the Orangemen, who, despite the prohibition of their Grand
Lodge, clamoured against the Union, and threatened to oppose it by
force.
So doubtful were the omens when Cornwallis opened the Irish Parliament
on 5th February 1800, in a speech commending the present plan of
unification. Castlereagh then defended the proposals and declared them
to have the support of three fourths of the property there represented.
After showing the need of keeping the debts of the two islands distinct,
he explained that an examination of the Customs and Excise duties
warranted the inference that the contribution of Ireland towards
Imperial expenses should be two fifteenths of that of Great Britain. He
claimed that this plan would press less heavily on Ireland than the
present duty of contributing £1,000,000 to the British armaments in time
of war and half that amount in peace. Further, the Union would tend to
assuage religious jealousies and to consolidate the strength of the
Empire. Early on the next morning the House divided--158 for and 115
against Government. This result did not wholly please Dublin Castle.
Cooke wrote on the morrow to Auckland: "The activity and intimidation of
Opposition, together with their subscription purse, does sad mischief.
They scruple not to give from 3,000 to 4,000 guineas for a vote."
Government therefore had to mourn over seven deserters.[569]
Nevertheless, this division was decisive. Castlereagh rounded up his
flock, and by the display of fat pasture called in some of the
wanderers. Is it possible that the Opposition purse was merely the
device of a skilful auctioneer, who sends in a friend to raise the bids?
The triumph of Government at Dublin had its effects at Westminster. On
21st April 1800 Pitt explained the Resolutions as recently accepted by
the Irish Parliament. He spoke very briefly, probably owing to ill
health, which beset him through many weeks of that year.[570] He soon
met a challenger. Thomas Jones dared him to combat by accusing Ministers
of seeking to disfranchise Ireland by corrupt means. Foiled in argument,
they now acted on the principle
Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.
After a further display of classical knowledge, Jones declared that the
introduction of 100 Irish members into that House must destroy the
British constitution, which, like Damocles, would for ever be threatened
with the sword of Dionysius suspended over it by a single hair.
Disregarding rhetoric and classical allusions, Pitt plunged into
business. In none of his speeches is there a simpler statement of a
case. He declared the Union to be absolutely necessary as a means of
thwarting the machinations of an enemy ever intent on separating the two
kingdoms. It would further allay the religious animosities rife in
Ireland, and would conduce to her freedom and happiness. He then uttered
these words: "It may be proper to leave to Parliament an opportunity of
considering what may be fit to be done for His Majesty's Catholic
subjects, without seeking at present any rule to govern the Protestant
Establishment or to make any provision upon that subject." This
statement is not wholly clear; but it and its context undoubtedly opened
up a prospect of Catholic Emancipation such as Cornwallis had far more
clearly outlined. The significance of Pitt's declaration will appear in
the sequel.
On the subject of commerce Pitt laid down the guiding principle that
after the Union all Customs barriers between the two islands ought to be
swept away as completely as between England and Scotland. If at present
they swerved from this grand object, it was for the sake of reaching it
the more surely. In compliance with the demand of Ireland, they would
allow her to maintain a protective duty of 10 per cent. on cottons and
woollens, in the latter case for not more than twenty years. He then
added these words: "The manufacturers of this country do not, I believe,
wish for any protecting duties; all they desire is a free intercourse
with all the world; and, though the want of protecting duties may
occasion partial loss, they think that amply compensated by general
advantage." No more statesmanlike utterance had been heard in the House
of Commons. Only by degrees had Pitt worked his way to this conviction.
In his early Budgets, as we saw, he clung to the system of numerous
duties; but, despite the cramping influence of war, he now relied on the
effects of a two-shilling Income Tax and aimed at the abolition of
protective Customs dues. He was fated never to reach this ideal; but
there can be no doubt that he cherished it as one of the hopes of his
life.
Turning next to the question of Ireland's contribution to the Imperial
Exchequer, Pitt set forth his reasons for fixing it at two fifteenths of
the revenue of Great Britain; but, as this decision might in the future
unduly burden the smaller island, it would not be final; and he
suggested that at the end of twenty years the resources of each would so
far have developed as to admit of a more authoritative assessment. If,
however, in the meantime the amount paid by Ireland should be in excess
of what ought to be paid, the surplus should be applied either to the
extinction of her Debt or to local improvements. He further expressed
the hope that in course of time the Debts and the produce of taxation
would be so far assimilated in the two kingdoms as to admit of the
formation of one National Debt and one system of taxation. Despite the
favourable nature of these proposals, Pitt encountered a spirited
opposition. Grey declared the measure to be a gross violation of the
rights of the Irish people. Sheridan, Dr. Laurence (the friend of
Burke), and Tierney continued in the same strain; and Grey finally dared
the Minister to dissolve the Irish Parliament and appeal to the people.
Throwing off all signs of bodily weakness, Pitt took up the challenge.
Last year, he said, when the Commons of Ireland rejected the Union,
certain members applauded them. Now, when they passed it, the same
members said "appeal to the people." He refused to do so, knowing well
the scenes of violence and intimidation that would result from
consulting primary assemblies of Irishmen. The reference to those
bodies, so notorious during the French Revolution, clinched his reply;
and the House expressed approval of the Union by 236 votes to 30 (21st
April 1800).
The further debates on the Bill are of little interest. In the absence
of Fox, Grey was the protagonist of Opposition. Bankes, once a firm
supporter of Pitt, opposed the measure. Wilberforce confessed to
tremulous uncertainty about it, ostensibly because the addition of 100
Irish members to the House would add to the influence of the Crown, but
more probably because he foresaw Catholic Emancipation. Peel, already
known as one of the most successful and patriotic of Lancashire
manufacturers, spoke up manfully for the Union, though he deeply
regretted that Ireland would retain certain protective duties against
Great Britain. Very noteworthy, in view of the son's championship of
Free Trade in 1845, was the contention of the father that a weak country
(Ireland) had no need of "protection" against a stronger one. In reality
it would be as if a poor family shut its doors against assistance from a
wealthy one. On the trading proposals Pitt's following was thinned down
to 133; but the main question went through in May by overwhelming
majorities in both Houses. In the following month it passed through the
Irish Parliament.
Castlereagh thereupon introduced a Bill to indemnify the holders of
pocket boroughs who would lose patronage by the proposed changes. The
Government, having now revised its previous resolve, proposed to
disfranchise as many as 84 small Irish boroughs, and allotted £15,000
for each, or £1,260,000 in all. In explanation of this payment it must
be remembered that the owning of such boroughs was a recognized form of
property, as appeared in Pitt's proposal of 1785 to compensate British
owners whom he sought to dispossess. Nothing but the near approach of
revolution in 1832 availed to shatter the system of pocket boroughs in
Great Britain; and then their owners were sent empty away. The
difference in treatment marks the infiltration of new ideas. In England
and Ireland a vote and a seat had been a form of property. According to
the Rights of Man the franchise was an inalienable right of citizenship.
The list of Union honours and preferments having been published, we need
not dwell on that unsavoury topic, except to remark that the promotions
in the peerage conferred for services in connection with the Union
numbered forty-six; that the opposition of the Protestant Archbishop of
Cashel was bought off by the promise of the Archbishopric of Dublin; and
that the number of ecclesiastical jobs consequent on the Union was
nearly twenty. The promotions in the legal profession numbered twelve.
Twelve pensions and four titular honours were also granted. Five
aspirants refused the posts offered to them because they expected "snug
sinecures" which "require no attendance at all." In March 1805 Lord
Hardwicke, successor to Cornwallis, complained that his funds were so
embarrassed by the various claims that the Irish Civil List had only
£150 in hand.[571] These sordid bargainings cannot be said to amount to
wholesale corruption, and did not much exceed those which usually were
needed to carry an important Bill through that Parliament. On the whole
Pitt and his colleagues might reflect with satisfaction that the use of
bribes served to cleanse the political life of Ireland in the future.
* * * * *
The Union of the British and Irish Parliaments is generally considered
from the insular point of view. This is quite natural; for primarily it
concerned the British Isles. Nevertheless the influences which brought
it about were more than insular. The formation of the United Kingdom, by
the Act which came into effect on 1st January 1801, was but one among
many processes of consolidation then proceeding. France was the first
State which succeeded in concentrating political power at the capital;
and the new polity endued her with a strength sufficient to break in
pieces the chaotic systems of her neighbours. The mania of the French
for centralization was seen in their dealings with the Batavian
Republic, and with the Swiss Confederation, which they crushed into the
mould of an indivisible Republic. Everywhere the new unifying impulse
undermined or swept away local Parliaments or provincial Estates.
Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity in practice meant a single,
democratic, and centralized Government. In self defence the Powers
threatened by France borrowed her political weapons. In succession Great
Britain, Prussia, and for a time even Austria, pulled themselves
together for the struggle. As the binding powers of commerce also tended
towards union, the Nineteenth Century witnessed the absorption of little
States, except where they represented a distinct nationality.
Confronted by the new and threatening forces in France, Pitt was
virtually compelled to abrogate a system under which the Speaker of the
Irish House of Commons, and Ministers who had no definite
responsibility, could meddle in military affairs. Under the sway of Mars
dualism cannot exist. In the crises of a great war Cabals and Juntos go
by the board. The Irish Ministry was little more than a Junto; and
Ireland need not mourn its loss.
The loss of her Parliament was far more serious; and if that body had
represented the Irish people, Pitt's action would be indefensible. But
Grattan's Parliament represented only a small minority of the Irish
people; and that minority was resolved not to admit Catholics to full
civic rights. It would have fought to maintain Protestant Episcopalian
ascendancy; and under the conditions then existing England must have
drawn the sword on behalf of her exacting "garrison."
Even in ordinary times such a state of things was unbearable; and the
French saw it. Their aim was to strike at England through Ireland; and,
but for Bonaparte's dreams of conquest in the East, this blow would have
been dealt. Fortunately for Great Britain, his oriental ambitions served
to divert to the sands of Egypt a thunderbolt which would have been
fatal at Dublin. Even as it was, the mere presence of Bruix' great fleet
at Brest prolonged the ferment in Ireland, thus emphasizing the force of
the arguments in favour of Union. As we have seen, Pitt placed them in
the forefront of his speeches; and those who charge him with hypocrisy,
because France did not strike vigorously at Ireland during or after the
Rebellion of 1798, only expose their ignorance of the facts and
sentiments of that time. Throughout the years 1799 and 1800 the thought
of invasion filled the minds of loyalists with dread, of malcontents
with eager hope.
Nevertheless Pitt saw in the Union, not merely an expedient necessitated
by war, but a permanent uplift for the whole nation. From the not
dissimilar case of the Union with Scotland he augured hopefully for
Ireland, believing that her commerce would thrive not less than that of
North Britain. Still more did he found his hopes upon the religious
settlement whereby he sought to crown his work. Ever since the days of
Queen Elizabeth the strife between the Protestants and Catholics had
marred the fortunes of that land. Pitt believed that it could be stilled
in the larger political unity for which he now prepared.
FOOTNOTES:
[555] Pretyman MSS.
[556] "Mems. of Fox," iii, 150; "Grattan Mems.," iv, 435.
[557] Virgil, "Aen.," xii, 189-91. "As for me, I will neither bid the
Italians obey the Trojans, nor do I seek a new sovereignty. Let both
peoples, unsubdued, submit to an eternal compact with equal laws." The
correct reading is "Nec mihi regna peto," which Pitt altered to "nova."
[558] Pitt MSS., 196, 320.
[559] Pretyman MSS. See "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 125, 210, for
Unionist sentiment in Cork.
[560] Pitt MSS., 189.
[561] "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 52, 54; Hunt, "Pol. Hist. of England,"
x, 447.
[562] B.M. Add. MSS., 35455.
[563] B.M. Add. MSS., 35455.
[564] "Life of Wilberforce," ii, 227.
[565] These were boroughs in which all holders of tenements where a pot
could be boiled had votes. See Porritt, ii, 186, 350.
[566] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iv, 8-10.
[567] "Cornwallis Corresp.," iii, 101, 102, 226; "Castlereagh Corresp.,"
iii, 260; Plowden (ii, 550), without proof, denies the existence of
Downshire's fund.
[568] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iii, 135, 226. On the proposed changes in
the Catechism there is a long _précis_ in the Pretyman MSS., being a
summary of the correspondence of Lords Castlereagh and Hobart with
Archbishop Troy and Bishop Moylan.
[569] B.M. Add. MSS., 35455; "Dropmore P.," vi, 121.
[570] "Castlereagh Corresp.," iii, 263, 278.
[571] M. Mac Donagh, "The Viceroy's Post-Bag," 43-53; "Cornwallis
Corresp.," iii, 245, 251-6, 267, 318-21.