“See the mischief of having two Houses of Parliament whose functions impede each other:”
or if we send a money-bill, and they think proper to make some alteration in it, we may make the same objection. If you reason of what may be, and not of what is, only see the inconvenience of the argument, particularly in a Constitution like ours, composed of three branches, King, Lords and Commons: it goes to the destruction of the Constitution altogether; for the Lords may on some question be against the Commons, the Commons against the Lords, or the King against both; and these different estates acting diametrically opposite to each other, you would make an argument of their destruction. Thus it is evident, when you argue against experience and fact, you argue against the existence of one of the best Governments that ever was formed for the protection of the liberty, and property of the subject.
The Hon. Gentleman next came to the state of France, resorting to his old argument of the destruction of order and regular system of Government. French principles and Jacobinism were, as usual, introduced into the debate, and made the subject of splendid invective. — But what was Jacobinism? — Was it not Jacobinism that pretended to make other States more free, independent, and prosperous than it found them? — Was it not Jacobinism that called on other countries to resign their freedom, their independence, and their Constitutions, with a promise to substitute something better in their place? I agree with him in what he states of the conduct of the people of that country. Indeed it is waste of time to paint the enormities of the French Government toward the people of France, or their atrocities toward the King of Sardinia. — Those pathetic descriptions which have been so often repeated, are of as little effect as the attempts of Germanicus, who is recorded by Tacitus to have endeavoured to raise the fury of the soldiers, by painting in strong colours the indignities his brother’s body had received, when it was well known to the army he had no brother. I agree that the conduct of France, where they have attempted incorporation with other countries, is not to be defended; but with respect to that system of Jacobinism so much deprecated by the Right Hon. Gentleman, what is it? Jacobinism is, when under the hypocritical pretence of making a nation free, you in fact take away all they possess that is worth possessing. And in this view the Hon. Gentleman is the Arch-Jacobin of all Europe. He does not know what good he is doing the French cause, when he approaches Ireland with a coarse French hug of fraternity, and reprobates the Republic while he is endeavouring exactly to imitate it. He speaks of the great favours bestowed on Ireland, and the acquisitions she has made during the present war. I would, however, have it understood, and indeed the Hon. Gentleman has admitted, that we did not go to war to gain acquisitions, but to prevent the French from making them, to prevent France from overrunning the countries of Europe, and fraternising with the people. Have we done this? Have we prevented France overrunning nearly the whole of Europe? No; quite the reverse; and as to the acquisitions of Ireland, we have suffered her to partake in ours. O Magnanimity! O unbounded Liberality! We say to Ireland, in all we gain you shall go part — in all our blessings in this war you shall have share. What are they? The only blessings we have to offer them are non snare of the two hundred and fifty millions expended in the prosecution of the war. This is all the blessing, is all the recompense we have to offer to poor prostrate Ireland.
The next argument of the Hon. Gentleman is, the ignorance and want of civilisation of the Irish. I agree with him in the existence of those evils — but from what do they proceed? I say, it is because men of great property do not, as they do in this country, associate in a certain degree with the lower classes; they do not form themselves into a mass to relieve the poor from poverty and distress; they have not the same motive. That is the source of the penury and wretchedness of the people of Ireland. What is the remedy? The cause of the evil is, the absence of the persons who possess estates in that country; and the remedy you propose is, an Absentee Government. — With respect to Scotland, the case is very different to what it is relative to Ireland. The people of Ireland have not that local attachment to their country, which the people of Scotland possess. Except a Scotchman leaves his native home for the good of his country, as the Hon. Secretary over the way (Mr. Dundas) has done, he can be content to remain without roaming, all his life; but not so with an Irishman: — In Ireland, a fashion of emigration prevails; and should the measure of an Union render it more general among the superior classes, the lower will desert their native soil and all its evils; and therefore the remedy proposed is calculated to increase, and give additional poignancy to the weight of that misery and poverty already experienced.
The next argument is held out as a lure to the Catholics; he attaches all the miseries of the country to its religious feuds, and then throws out a lure, that when the Parliament is away, it will be the means of giving freedom to the Catholics. Does he mean that if he thinks Catholic emancipation necessary, there has been a period since he has been Minister, in which it could not have with propriety been brought forward? In Lord Fitzwilliam’s administration, will he say that if, instead of having been obliged to rescind what that Nobleman held out, he could not have carried the plan into effect with the general approbation of the country? Sir, if the Parliament of Ireland find that the disunion, weakness, and discord, by which the country is torn, have created the opportunity for wresting its independence; if, in consequence of this impression, it has recourse to union instead of discord, concord instead of disunion, and sets about healing those feuds which have destroyed its vigour — if the Parliament and the People of Ireland were to unite, perhaps, it may still be able to counteract the designs of the Hon. Gentleman. Should I see that confiding principle spring up in Ireland, I should still hope to have my wishes on this subject realised. — The Hon. Gentleman has adverted to the argument of the competency of Parliament to dispose of a question of this kind, and to surrender the rights of the people, and make over its own independence; alluding to what I had said, he observed, I had avoided giving any decisive opinion; I certainly did avoid speaking decisively; on the contrary, I merely urged the impolicy of advancing any speculation on a subject which he admits to be one fraught with danger and peril. I applaud the wisdom and temperance of the Irish Parliament, for not coming to any decisive opinion respecting the competency of the Irish Parliament. He observed, that in the case of Scotland, the Parliament of Scotland surrendered their rights in the same manner as is proposed with respect to Ireland. He argues, that if the Parliament of Scotland was not competent to do so, you, Mr. Speaker, have no right to sit where you do; and that every public legislative act performed in this House for Scotland is the result of usurpation. Surely, a more Childish argument was never advanced. If there exists a small Monarchy, no matter what is its size, and it is part of the King’s coronation oath that he shall not barter the independence of the Government, as has been done in the German Empire by the Margrave of Anspach to the King of Prussia; still if he does make the surrender, there can be no question of the right by which the Power to whom he surrenders his Kingdom exercises the acts of Sovereignty and Legislation. Wales, though not for a considerable time incorporated in the British Government, yet when it was annexed, no doubt was made as to the loyalty of our acts of Legislature for that part of the kingdom. If others violate the trust reposed in them, it does not follow the acts of the Government in whose favour the trust is violated are not binding. When Chester, the palatinate of Durham, and Berwickupon-Tweed, which were independent of the rest of the kingdom, were called on to send Members to Parliament, no doubt was entertained of their legal capacity to legislate those places. — But because we have the power of so legislating, where a surrender has been duly made, yet it does not follow that those are guilty of usurpation who surrender the rights of others, by assuming a power of disposal inconsistent with the nature of their trust!
It is not my intention, Sir, to oppose going into a Committee, but I shall certainly object to your leaving the Chair, for the purpose of moving two resolut
ions, which I shall, in case the propositions should be carried, wish to have placed before them, for the purpose of taking off, in some degree, that jealousy which the Irish Parliament, I am afraid, will be apt to entertain of their passing this House, after the measure of Union having been so decidedly rejected in the House of Commons of Ireland.
And now Mr. Speaker, let me conjure and implore the House, not to consider this question, as a question of party. I know that factions and parties exist amongst us; the influence and prerogative of the Crown have found their advocates among the People’s Representatives, but on great questions the House has often distinguished itself, by laying aside all paltry, petty, party considerations, — when the good faith, the honour, the safety of England and the sincere good-will of Ireland were the subject of consideration; — I trust that the integrity of Parliament will rise above the murderous and devastating ambition of a British Minister; — I hope you will sit on this measure, as if the character of the land was involved; — and that you will not desist until it is completely overthrown: — Remember the proud-spirited character of the Irish Nation, — remember the state of your domestic affairs, — remember the eventful crisis of the political world; — do not, I conjure you, take a mean advantage of the distresses of that country, or subscribe to a system of evasion, of subtilty, low cunning, and insidious artifice — because it is cloathed with a pompous display of words, and a ridiculous parade of empty phrases, on the extension of the most wild and visionary commercial advantages to Ireland, which ever deluded the disordered imagination of the most hair-brained Politician; — do not, I entreat you, violate your most solemn guarantee, and break your faith pledged by stipulation; — disdain to be guided by any base, false, and oppressive conduct to your Sister Kingdom; — degrade not yourselves in the estimation of Irishmen, by a low, underhand, crooked policy: — you know that the most groveling ideas can be conveyed in the most inflated language, — that it is easy to give a mock consequence to low cavils, and to utter quibbles in heroics; — abandon the sordid ideas of the mercantile principle on which this obnoxious measure is sounded, and shew that whatever may be the character of the Minister, this House has none of the attributes of the Trickster and the Tyrant; exhibit to your dear, your valued Sister Kingdom, all the captivating characteristic of expended intellect; — study to attain great ends by great means; — support truth, protect the weak, relieve the oppressed, and right the injured, — but on no consideration countenance fraud, rapine, ignominy, injustice; — these are not the times for skulking meanness, bombastical prevarication, or perverted wisdom: — I solemnly declare, that in every point of view in which I can consider the measure of an Union, its great and leading features are — obliquity, fraud, falsehood, solly, treachery, oppression, — the most glaring violation of national faith, and the most open breach of solemn engagement.
FINIS.
GRANT TO THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY, 1800
A speech arguing against payments to Francis II, the Holy Roman Emperor, (Francis I of Austria) and dealing with the European situation and war with France. Given in the House of Commons on 17 February 1800.
The honourable gentleman [Mr. Wilberforce] who has just sat down, and said he rose only to save himself from misinterpretation, has declared that he has no objection to peace. Now I should expect a warmer declaration from that honourable gentleman, when I recollect his conduct on a former occasion. I recollect a time when he came to rebuke the violence of the Minister. [Mr. Sheridan read a motion, made by Mr. Wilberforce, for an address to His Majesty, praying that the Government of France might not be made an obstacle to peace, when an opportunity should arrive.] Now, as the honourable gentleman is anxious to escape from the charge of inconsistency, I should expect he would state the reason for this difference in his conduct now. Then the Government was a provisional government; a government from its nature not intended to stand; a government of furious Jacobins; and yet the honourable gentleman implored to supplicate His Majesty that it might not be suffered to stand in the way of peace; but now, when it is of a less objectionable description, he justifies his friend from an arrogant, violent, inconsiderate, and I hope he will not find an unfortunate note, refusing to accept peace from such a government. An honourable gentleman who has spoken in the debate put a very just question, whether the country will endure to be governed by words, and not by facts? I admit it right that it should not be so governed, but I unfortunately have the authority of the present Government that it is. The honourable gentleman spoke with great eloquence, I may say irritation; but never did I see eloquence so misapplied. He has shown his dexterity in driving the subject from its proper basis; he guides, urges, and inflames the passions of his hearers on Jacobinical principles, but he does not show how they bear on the present question. He has not dared to say, that so far as respects the restoration of the House of Bourbon, we have suffered by the defection of Russia. What that Power may still do with regard to La Vendée, or reconciling the people of Ireland to the Union, I do not inquire; but with regard to the great object, the restoration of monarchy in France, we are minus the Emperor of Russia: that Power may be considered as extinct. Is it, then, to be endured, that the Minister shall come down and ask for a subsidy under such circumstances? Is it to be endured, that we shall be told we are at war for the restoration of monarchy in France, that Russia is pledged to the accomplishment of that purpose, that Russia is the rock on which we stand, that the magnanimous Emperor of Russia, the gallantry of whose troops, and the skill of whose great generals, place them above all the troops and generals in Europe, is all we have to rest on? Is it to be endured, I say, that this rock should prove as brittle as sand, and that those who held this language should come down in a week after, and say, give us two millions and a half to subsidize Germany, and then we shall have a better army than we had with Russia? After such unqualified praise upon Russia, and after her defection, is not such language, I ask, inconsistent, absurd, and preposterous? If Germany possessed these wonderful forces before, why were they not called into action; and if not, why are we to subsidize the posse comitatus, the rabble of Germany? But who is the person that applies for this subsidy? As to the Elector of Bavaria, I leave him out of the question. It is the Emperor of Germany. Is there anything in his conduct and character to incline us to listen to him? I think not, and for these two reasons. First, he applied once on a false pretence, and secondly, he failed in performing his stipulated engagement. What was his false pretence? He said he could not open the campaign without the pecuniary assistance of this country; and yet he did do so, and displayed more vigour, energy, and resources than ever. Now, if to this we add experience, and the evidence of facts, when he dared, though bound to this country, to break faith with her, and make a separate peace, does it not furnish a reasonable cause for declining to grant a subsidy to such a Power? The honourable gentleman is offended at our connecting the situation of the country, and the present scarcity, with the question of war. I do not know to what extent this principle is to be carried. I see no more objection to state the pressure in this particular from the continuance of the war, than there would be to advance the increase of the public debt, the situation of the finances, or any other of those reasons so often repeated without its having been ever objected that they were of an improper kind. Sir, I say, there is no more impropriety in urging this argument, than in urging Ministers not to press the people too far, but to apportion the burden to their strength to bear it. What has my honourable friend said? We see an opulent commercial prosperity; but look over the country, and we behold barracks and broth-houses, the cause and the effect, the poverty and distress of the country; for surely it will not be contended, but that among the calamities of war are to be reckoned families left without support, and thrown upon charity for subsistence. That the war is unnecessary, as being useless, is self-evident, and nobody can deny it. But, say they, Buonaparte has taken us at an unguarded moment: we do not object to peace, but we have a fear and jealousy of concluding
one, except with the House of Bourbon: in a peace concluded with it we should have confidence, but we can have none in the present Government of France. I say, were that event arrived, and the House of Bourbon seated on the throne, the Minister should be impeached who would disband a single soldier; and that it would be equally criminal to make peace under a new King as under a republican government, unless her heart and mind were friendly to it. France, as a republic, maybe a bad neighbour; but than monarchical France a more foul and treacherous neighbour never was. Is it, then, sufficient to say, let monarchy be restored, and let peace be given to all Europe? I come now, Sir, to the object of the war as expressed in the note. It is there stated, that the restoration of monarchy is the sine qua non of present negotiation; and then it proceeds to say, that it is possible we may hereafter treat with some other form of government, after it shall be tried by experience and the evidence of facts. What length of time this trial may require is impossible to ascertain; yet we have, I acknowledge, some thing of experience here by which we may form a kind of conjecture.
Delphi Complete Works of Richard Brinsley Sheridan Page 90