The next measure in which the Irish parliament placed itself in collision with the English, was the attempting to rescind the Methuen treaty with Portugal. It is very remarkable that the great and able men who were members in the Irish parliament at this time, should have fallen into so grave a constitutional error as to assume the right of a legislative body forming an integral part of a monarchy, to deal with a treaty with a foreign state, save only through the exercise of the prerogative of the crown, not the privilege of Parliament.

Suppose that the separation between the two countries, England and Ireland, had been more complete in 1782; that the governmental authority of England over Ireland was confined solely to the exercise of the right of Suzeraineté; still, the attempt of the Irish legislation to overthrow an old commercial treaty, common to both countries, and by itself to establish a relationship with any foreign state, was as great an infraction of international law, and an advance to revolutionary and anarchical principles, as was the treaty of commerce concluded between Louis the Sixteenth and the Insurgents of America, before they had established their independence of the British throne.

Cast a retrospective view over what were the inordinate errors which involved the largest principles, not of local but of universal policy, which this legislative power called into being in 1782. First, it attempted to separate itself from all reciprocity of interest with England, as regarded the navigation laws and maritime trade. Secondly, it opposed the Parliament of England, as regarded the extent of royal prerogative with which the Prince of Wales, as Regent, should be in

N

vested the question being one that in no way affected the prosperity or local government of Ireland; inasmuch as the rays of regal power which shone upon Ireland, were reflected from the executive government of England. Whereas a separation of the regal power in the two countries was to create, in Ireland, a separate executive; when the revolution of 1782 demanded only a greater independence of legislative authority. Thirdly, it fell into anarchical exercise of power by the mode in which it attempted to regulate commercial interest with Portugal. For the policy was the same as that which directed the early French Revolutionists, and had even then been found, in the progress of time, to be incompatible with wholesome government.

What we have enumerated are incontrovertible factsthey are not deductions drawn from collateral incident; they prove, beyond doubt, that this legislative authority in Ireland was incompetent to deal with any grand State affair, but still more incapable of directing Irish interests according to the wishes and hopes of the great men who used their influence in setting up Irish parliamentary independence.

In 1785, when an explanatory act was brought into the British Parliament, to settle the disputed questions of navigation and commerce on permanent and equitable principles, for the mutual benefit of both countries, Mr. Burke spoke as follows:

"To consult the interests of England and Ireland, to unite and consolidate them into one, was a task he would undertake, as that by which he could best discharge the duties he owed to both. To Ireland, independence of legislature had been given; she was now a co-ordinate, though less powerful state; but pre

eminence and dignity were due to England; it was she alone that must bear the weight and burden of the empire; she alone must pour out the ocean of wealth necessary for the defence of their little puny tridents; but the great trident that was to move the world must be grasped by England alone, and dearly it cost her to hold it. Independence of legislature had been granted to Ireland, but no other independence could Great Britain give her, without reversing the order and decree of nature. Ireland could not be separated from England; she could not exist without her; she must ever remain under the protection of England, her guardian angel."

The very necessity that occasioned the passing of the resolutions in 1785 by Mr. Pitt, and the speech of Mr. Burke, demonstrate that Ireland, through the means of her legislature, was seeking other independence than that of free legislation; that she was "reversing the order and decree of nature;" that she was, like the Repealers, attempting a task beyond her strength, and that she failed, like them.

CHAPTER XII.

Remarks on the Schemes of Lords Charlemont, Clare, and Mr. Grattan.-The separation of Ireland from England was an usurpation of Executive Power, an infraction of the British Constitution.-Defective Legislature in 1782 felt by the Executive being powerless in repressing disorders and their causes. -Peep-of-day-boys, White-boys, etc., not peculiar to Irish character, shewn by a reference to continental History.-Excesses of the Flemish marauders.-Striking illustration of the inefficiency of the Irish Parliament before the Rebellion of 1798.-Mr. Grattan's integrity and talents admitted; his mistake excused. No difference between the policy of Union Repeal of 1843 and that of the United Irish in 1798, only a distinction between the two chiefs.-Opinion of the Irish of the efforts of Mr. Grattan and Mr. O'Connell. Of the Union of 1801, and of the cause of the universal contempt the Irish Parliament incurred.-Difference between public opinion in Ireland and England; and Irish and English dealing with defection. Two great questions concisely discussed.—If local legislation could not be controlled by such a triumvirate as Clare, Charlemont, and Grattan, how then shall it be by Mr. O'Connell? - On Mr. O'Connell's projected Parliament.Certain Memoirs setting forth curious facts relating to the Irish followers of the Stuarts.-Of the treasonable communications and connexions of the same, for a lengthened period, proved by State Papers.-Indiscretion of Mr. O'Connell in receiving Mr. Ledru-Rollin and Mr. Verhagen pointed out by a reference to their political opinions.-No sympathy in 1798 between the Irish Catholic priesthood and French Republicans any more than there is in 1843 between the disaffected of both countries.-No one better than Mr. O'Connell

can account for discordant alliances, to the detriment of religious concord, for political purposes.-Surveillance in France over the Irish educated for the priesthood in the Colleges of that country.-Object of Mr. Pitt in re-establishing the College of Maynooth the same as that for which surveillance was exercised in the colleges of France-the exclusion of Jesuitical principles.

WHEN such mighty men as Lords Charlemont, Clare, and Mr. Grattan, led the popular party in the Irish Parliament, and urged the measures (we have alluded to) contrary to the spirit of the arrangement effected in 1782, these statesmen were too eminent to be accused of ignorance in not having foreseen the consequences sure to result from the prosecution of schemes so contrary to international law, so destructive of legislative authority. For the policy that directed the separation from England was an usurpation of executive power, which even the United Parliament could not have touched in such a manner without being guilty of an infraction of the British constitution.

Thus one arrives at a clear view of what too frequently occurs in history, when inefficient authority commits itself to a dangerous and inapplicable policy, in order to gain favour with the vulgar, the sordid, and corrupt. When, against their conviction, superior minds submit to what they call the force of circumstances they go with the stream, not possessing the power to stem the flood of popular error.

In dealing with grave affairs the independent Parlia ment of 1782 found itself singularly deficient; but how far more inept was it, not only in what it did, but what it left undone, when it became more especially the duty of the Irish Parliament to render efficient the authority