Εικόνες σελίδας
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

ness and self-absorption, which may have been but manner, but which the world called hauteur, circumscribed his usefulness, and too often counteracted the effects his efforts might otherwise produce. Plunket disdained the results which men at that period deemed to spring from the pen of the grave or of the satirical pamphleteer. He would be the defender of his country's independence in her senate or upon the platform-he would not bend his genius to serve her openly or anonymously in the study; he would be her champion, armed cap-a-pie. Bushe would serve her in the Senate, in the popular assembly, with a deep and thoughtful essay, with the flashing, galling pasquinade; he would stand for her rights, and do knight service in the stately ring, or would strike for her in the hurried onset of the clashing mêlee.

As a specimen of his eloquence in the House of Commons, we insert the following: he is speaking of the proposed union, and exclaims:

Let me conjure this house to consider whether this is a transaction on which they are willing to commit themselves, their properties, their characters, and their children. Let me conjure them to weigh that question well, if every generous feeling be not banished from amongst us; and if private honour and public virtue be not a name. Where is that spirit which in '82 swelled the crest, and ennobled the character of the Irish gentry? which achieved liberty for Ireland, extorted justice from England, and admiration from Europe? Is it fled and extinguished for ever! I will not believe it. But were every appeal to everything human fruitless and vain, I would invoke that Providence which even in my short life, has stretched his protecting arm so often over my country? In my short life, my country has been raised from a province to become a nation has been protected from a bloody rebellion and a formidable invasion, and has seen one desperate attack against her liberties and constitution defeated and overthrown. I will rely on God to save Ireland.*

The period of the Union was the age of parties and the epoch of pamphleteering; the minister had his corps of penand-ink supporters; the country likewise possessed its band of advocates; and as we now look back through the long array of "Union Pamphlets", as they are called, upon the shelves of our public libraries, we feel it hard to decide whether the wit, the power, and the arguments of the anti-Unionists are

For a still more brilliant passage, see infra.

exceeded by the audacity and ingenuity of those who supported the ministerial project. Mr. Secretary Cooke was a very distinguished, though not a very disinterested assistant to Lord Castlereagh, and amongst the most audaciously impudent of all his productions, is that entitled, Arguments for and against an Union between Great Britain and Ireland Considered. It was published in the early part of the year 1798, and is in pamphlet shape, sixty-four pages in length, at the price of one British shilling. So great was the anxiety to peruse the work, that in the month of December, 1798, J. Milliken, of Grafton-street, announced the eighth edition as being ready. This success excited the alarm of the anti-Unionists, and Bushe resolved to test his powers of ridicule in overturning, amidst the public contempt, the sophistry and misrepresentation of the advocate of denationalization.

Mr. Cooke argued that the Union was necessary for the advancement of Irish interests, and the burden, or refrain, of almost every paragraph was, "the union is certainly to be the salvation of the country." Bushe, with a sarcastic humor, resembling more the galling irony of Voltaire than the grinning spleen of Swift, rendered powerless, by his pamphlet entitled The Union; Cease your Funning; or, the Rebel Detected, all the efforts of the Castle Secretary. It appeared about the middle of the year 1798, and in the month of December the publisher, James Moore, of College-green, announced the fifth edition. It consisted of fortyeight pages, and was published at the price of one Irish shilling. He commences thus :

I love wit as much as any man, but a joke may certainly sometimes be carried too far. I have never submitted to the justice of Lord Shaftesbury's fanciful position, that ridicule is the test of truth, and I own I think its application is peculiarly offensive when political subjects of the deepest and most serious importance, are treated with idle levity and buffoon irony. These sentiments have been principally excited by reading a pamphlet entitled 'Arguments for and against an Union Considered.' The author of this work has evidently written after the model of some of Swift's lighter compositions; a style which in my apprehension has never till now been successfully imitated, though attempted with some talent by the supposed annotators of the late Alderman George Faulkner, and in some few other instances. This style consists altogether in the art of supporting in a strain of grave irony the opposite of the opinion which you mean to establish. It is a good-humoured application of the argu

ment called by logicians argumentum ad absurdum, but whether it partakes more of jest or sophism, I again protest against the use of either upon subjects of national importance and public concern. I shall briefly enumerate a few of the most prominent artifices by which the author of this work, who I am convinced is either a member of Opposition or an absolute United Irishman, endeavours by an affected recommendation of the measure to cry down and depreciate the projected Union, the only chance of this country's salvation; premising that, in order to give a higher relish to his ridicule, he has had the address to circulate a report with very successful industry, that the work in question is the production of an English gentleman of considerable talents, who is an Irish member of Parliament and in high official situation in Dublin Castle. Indeed, such has been the prevalence of this report, and so well simulated is the mark assumed, that on the first perusal I was scarcely able to distinguish whether the author was in earnest or not; and I am credibly informed, that to this hour several well-meaning people continue in the erroneous opinion that he was so. I do not pretend to trace the progress of the facetious writer regularly from page to page, but shall point out a few of his topics which appear to me sufficient to detect at once the duplicity of the style and the depth of the intentions. He affects with great appearance of gravity throughout the entire pamphlet to denounce the existence of the Irish Parliament as the cause of the late rebellion and invasion, and he draws from these principles once established an inevitable conclusion that the return of such calamities is only to be prevented by the annihilation of the cause of them. Here, indeed, latet anguis in Herbû. This is the very language of the United Irishman. The same positions, the same inferences, are to be found faintly visible in the speeches of all the opposition members in England and Ireland, and glaringly conspicuous in every number of the Press and Union Star; avowing themselves in the confessions of Doctor M'Nevin, proclaiming themselves in the manifestos of Arthur O'Connor. Is it not evident that by insidiously inferring the necessity of an Union from the corruption of the Irish Legislature, he in fact di

rects the attention of this deluded nation at one and the same moment to the pretence of a Reform and the project of a Separation? He never imputes the late calamities of this country to anything but Parliament, and so far from accusing the prevalence of French principles or the extravagance of French ambition as instrumental to our misfortunes, he never speaks of that abandoned nation without partiality and panegyric. He cannot expect that so flimsy an artifice must not be seen through by every discerning man. Every such man knows that his assertions and his arguments are equally unfounded, that his Majesty has every year since his accession, returned thanks to the legislature, for the patriotism and loyalty of their conduct, and that both Lord Cornwallis and Lord Camden, have repeatedly declared (from the throne) that the discomfiture of the disaffected and rebellious, was entirely owing to the virtue, spirit and sagacity, of Parliament. It is well known, that if it was not a good Parliament, it would never pass the in

tended Union, which is to be salvation of the country, and which there is very little doubt, will be passed by a great majority-notwithstanding the sly opposition, and affected support, of such wolves in sheep's clothing as the author of the pamphlet in question.

He continues in this strain for some few pages, assuming that all the arguments are those of a United Irishman concealing his real character under the mask of a friend to the government. At length he states that he considers the pamphlet to be the production of the notorious Sampson, and writes:

I shall no longer, by disguising my sentiments, follow the example of this sophist, whom I reprobate. I have hitherto hinted my opinion of what he is, and shall now boldly avow my sentiments as to who he is. I have consulted several eminent political and literary personages, who all agree with me in discovering in legible characters the principles and style of a certain democratic counsellor, the well-known author of Hurdy Gurdy, and the Old Lion of England, and who has recently experienced the lenity of government, in being suffered to banish himself; and for the sake of his health, to make Lisbon the scene of his exile. For shame, Mr. Sampson! is this gratitude? Is this honour? Is this a return for the mercy ex. tended to you? And had you no other way of thanking my Lord Cornwallis than by opposing the wisest measure of his government, and by making a travesty and caricature of his secretary, the vehicle of your malignity? This is one of the many proofs that rigid and effectual justice ought, long since, to have been executed upon the author of the pamphlet in question.

Having shown how the Union could benefit neither the Protestant nor the Catholic, and having proved that a measure which injured Ireland as a nation could never really serve any branch of her traders, any section of her professions, or any considerable portion of her people, he continues in the same bantering strain; and we beg the reader to remember that the title of the pamphlet is Cease your Funning:

The rational Irish merchant knows that the union is to be the salvation of the country, and that is as much as he wishes to know about it. The opinion I have here combated is pressed by the enemies of both nations for obvious purposes. The benefits to be acquired by an Union would be either such as are obtained by compact between the countries, or such as are the natural operation and result of the measure itself. Now in this case the advantages to be contracted for, whether for Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, or

Galway, are altogether out of the question, inasmuch as they are all equally attainable under the present connection, and as the two countries are already imperially connected, there could be no honest or rational motive assignable, why they are not at present imparted (especially as such benefits could continue only while the connection exists,) except the generosity of Britain wishing to make each kindness more valuable, by giving them all at once. But because that description of advantage is out of the question, we always hear of it from the enemies of the measure, who entirely overlook, or affect to do so, the benefits which naturally result from the measure itself, which flow from the mere fact of union, and are created simply by the transfer of legislation. It would be useless to detail the particulars of such benefits; honourable confidence has already given credit for them, and sceptical incredulity is proof against conviction. A few of those which the transplantation of Parliament must instantly, and of itself, generate, are the total oblivion of all religious animosities, the immediate conversion and repentance of the United Irishmen, the multiplication of the Protestants, and consequent satisfaction of the Catholics, the rush and influx of English capital into this peaceful and contented country, the improvement of agriculture, by the brotherly and edifying intercourse of English and Irish farmers, the diminution of absentees and taxes, the reduction of an expensive standing army, the improvement of the metropolis, peace with the French, and glory with the world! These are but a few of the blessings necessarily connected with the simple fact of changing the seat of legislation. Blessings innumerable, and which only can be described by saying, that the measure must be the salration of the country. I am sorry to find that it is not unnecessary to caution this credulous country against the artifice of this disaffected hypocrite. I lament that since these sheets begun, his subtle and malignant poison has taken effect in one member of the national body. I lament that a description of men, whom I respect so much as the Bar of Ireland, has not been able to resist the infection, and I have the vanity to regret, that they had irreparably erred, before this publication could appear to warn them of their danger. However, my resentment to the dupes merges in my superior indignation against the impostor, and candour compels me to remember, that if it were not for the audacious pamphlet in question, most probably 166 Irish lawyers would never have disgraced their profession and themselves by publicly denouncing to the nation a measure which is to be the salvation of the country. This libeller knew the strings upon which to touch the profession, and by affecting to represent their possible objections to an Union as frivolous, has, in reality, made them the subject of the liveliest anxiety and irritation. Thirty-two independent and public-spirited characters have certainly rescued the Bar from universal opprobrium; they may be considered by an ominous coincidence of numbers as so many county representatives, and in that respect, as speaking (ex cathedra) the sentiment of the kingdom; but it is melancholy to see the extended corruption of 166 men, all influenced by the expectation of sitting in parliament, and desperately monopolizing more than half the representation of the people, and

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »