POSTSCRIPT

то

"NABIS AND THE UNION."

Historical sketch of, and resemblance between, Scotch and Irish Anti-Unionism-Remarkable official testimony to the predominance of Anti- Union sentiments in Ireland-Enquiry into the amount of Irishmen who died in the British army and navy during the last half century, and an outline of the national capabilities of Ireland as contrasted with other ancient and modern states, in answer to the notion that a permanent Union between Great Britain and Ireland CAN be maintained by force-Fiscal injustice to Ireland against the terms of the Union, and necessity for the redress or amelioration of THAT and OTHER grievances resulting from the act of 1800, before a true Union CAN or SHOULD take place.

THE strong and general feeling of Anti-Unionism in Ireland, in which the lines in the text originated, and the public occurrences to which that feeling gave rise, assume a new aspect, and appear equally natural and excusable, as viewed in connexion with the events and ideas resulting from the operation of the same spirit of posthumous nationality in Scotland. The aversion of the Scotch people was so general to their Union, which, in addition to its having been a notorious matter of sale by the aris

tocracy for about £50,000,1 imposed upon Scotland an unprecedented weight of taxation, that in 1713 or but six years after the passing of the act, a motion for Repeal was made in the British House of Lords. Its proposer was the Earl of Findlater,

1 The "equivalent" to the Scotch Parliamentary Commissioners deputed to treat of the terms of a Union, was £30,000. For this, they sacrificed the rights of their country, particularly in reducing her representatives from 155 to 45; though, on the score of revenue, Scotland should have gotten 60, and on that of population, 66 members. To redress an analogous injury done to Ireland at her Union, is, I need scarcely add, one of the present objects of Mr. O'Connell. The additional sum of £20,000 given to the party of Scotch members called the Squadróne Volánte, completed the sale of Scottish independence. Never, perhaps, were such instances of meanness and corrup tion displayed. "One noble Lord, (Lord Bamf,) accepted," says Scott, "of so low a sum as ELEVEN GUINEAS; and . he threw his RELIGION into the bargain, and from CATHOLIC turned PROTESTANT to make his vote a good one!" It was in reference to such baseness, that the English Secretary Harley afterwards said, in reply to some Scotch Union members,"Have we not bought the Scots, and did we not acquire a right to tax them? or for what other purpose did we give the equivalent ?" On the other hand, in the last Irish Parliament of 278 sitting members, the Union was only gained by 43 votes, chiefly consisting of rotten-borough members, many of whom were English and Scotch officers-while, in spite of bribes amounting in money to above £3,000,000, exclusive of £1,275,000 compensation for boroughs, there was, without counting the Speaker's vote, that would in case of necessity have been given against the Union, a glorious minority of 117! And nearly all these were men, whose emoluments would have been great, in proportion to their having been, unlike their opponents, not the members for rotten boroughs, but the representatives of real constituencies! Thus the dishonest, as opposed to the honest, portion of the Irish parliament, were, notwithstanding the most unparallelled temptation, only 43 in point of numerical superiority; or the very small difference, under such circumstances, of 160 to 117!--(See Mr. O'Connell's excellent Letter to W. S. Landor, Esq.) Yet who talks of the corruption of the SCOTCH, and who does not talk of the corruption of the IRISH, Parliament? Such is the force of ignorance and cant!

who, at the time of the Union, was as Earl of Seafield and Chancellor of Scotland, one of its principal promoters, and had even been so heartless as to exclaim, on witnessing the last dissolution of his native Parliament, "There is an end of an OLD SONG !" Thus this Scotch, like our Irish, Lord Chancellor, Clare, lived to repent of the part he had taken in annihilating his country's independence! The motion was only defeated by a hostile majority of four. The gentlemanly temperance and rational calmness that distinguished this "Repeal debate" form a very creditable contrast to the indecorous and violent threats of "civil war" from Lord Althorpe, and of "resistance to the death" from Mr. Stanley, in reference to the proposed Repeal of the Irish Act of Union. With but one or two exceptions, it would appear that the House of Lords would have agreed to a "Repeal of the Union," if Scotland, to guarantee England against a "separation of the two countries," by the apprehended choice of the Pretender in one and of George I. in the other, would consent, as a condition of Repeal, that the English legislature ALONE should be entitled to

"Seafield the chancellor's observation, on adjourning the parliament, was there is an end of an auld sang, to his immortal memory and honour." (A short History of the Revolution in Scotland, in a Letter to a Friend at London, 1712.) Here is a truly English view of "immortal memory and honour!" The destruction of Scotch independence was gratifying to England; and, therefore, Scotchmen ought to consider Scotland's loss as Scotland's gain, because that loss was a gain to-ENGLAND! This mode of thinking, as applied to Ireland at present, is too prevalent a specimen of "England and the English."

appoint the sovereign of the British empire! This was exactly Mr. O'Connell's plan of obviating the chance of a separation between Ireland and England in case of Repeal, so far as the objection, that the two parliaments might appoint two different sovereigns, was in question! The same year as the Earl of Findlater's motion occurred, a petition for a "Repeal of the Union" was signed by great numbers in Edinburgh; after which the populace proceeded to the Parliament Close, and, under the statue of Charles II., drank Queen Anne's health, that of all true Scotchmen, and the "dissolution of the Union !" They then did the same, amidst great cheerings, at the Market Cross. These circumstances may be compared with the Repeal procession of the Trades of Dublin round the statue of King William, in front of the once Parliament House of Ireland in College-green, when that body went, attended by immense crowds, to present a Repeal Address to Mr. O'Connell, in Merrion-square, in the year of Lord Anglesey's rather personally inconsistent proclamations. Addresses, in favour of Repeal, were gotten up the next year, 1714, in Scotland; and "it was also proposed," says Tindal, "that none should be elected members of parliament but such as would promise to use their endeavours for that purpose !"5 Thus, the idea of returning none

3 Tindal's Rapin, vol. III. p. 737-8, fol. edit. Lond. 1743. 4 Id. ib. p. 745.

5 Id. ib. p. 801.