William Pitt and the Great War by John Holland Rose (e book reader for pc .TXT) 📖

in order to harangue them on the insult to Ireland and the

injury to their profession. His example was widely followed. On 9th

December the Dublin Bar, by 168 votes to 32, protested strongly against

the proposal to extinguish the Irish Parliament. Eloquent speakers like

Plunket warned that body that suicide was the supreme act of cowardice,

besides being _ultra vires_. The neighbouring towns and counties joined

in the clamour. The somnolence of Cornwallis, his neglect to win over

opponents by tact or material inducements, and the absence of any

Ministerial declaration on the subject, left all initiative to the

Opposition. On 24th December Cooke wrote to Auckland in these doleful

terms:[550]

 

    ... Our Union politics are not at present very thriving.

    Pamphlets are in shoals, in general against a Union; a few for

    it; but I do not yet see anything of superior talent and effect.

    The tide in Dublin is difficult to stem. In the country

    hitherto, indifference. We have no account from the North, and

    that is the quarter I apprehend. The South will not be very

    hostile. The Bar is most impetuous and active, and I cannot be

    surprized at it. The Corporation have not sense to see that by

    an Union alone the Corporation can be preserved. Most of the

    best merchants are, I know, not averse. The proprietors of

    Dublin and the county are violent, and shopkeepers, etc. The

    Catholics hold back. They are on the watch to make the most of

    the game, and will intrigue with both parties.... In the North

    they expect the Dutch fleet. If we had a more able active

    conciliating Chief, we might do; but the _vis inertiae_ is

    incredible. There is an amazing disgust among the friends of

    Government. The tone of loyalty is declining, for want of being

    cherished. Do not be surprized at a dreadful parliamentary

    opposition and a personal opposition.

 

Cooke's reference to the mediocrity of the pamphlets for the Union is a

curious piece of _finesse_; for he was known to be the author of an able

pamphlet, "Arguments for and against an Union between Great Britain and

Ireland." In it he dilated on the benefits gained by Wales and Scotland

from a Union with England. He dwelt on the recent increase of strength

in France consequent on the concentration of political power at Paris,

and demonstrated the unreality of the boasted independence of the Dublin

Parliament, seeing that Irish enactments must be sealed by the Seal of

Great Britain. After touching on the dangerous divergence of policy at

Westminster and Dublin during the Regency crisis of 1789, he showed that

peace and prosperity must increase under a more comprehensive system,

which would both guarantee the existence of the Established Church, and

accord civic recognition to Catholics. At present, said he, it would be

dangerous to admit Catholics to the Irish Parliament; but in the United

Parliament such a step would be practicable. This semi-official

pronouncement caused a sensation, and before the end of the year

twenty-four replies appeared. In one of the counterblasts the anonymous

author offers "the reflections of a plain and humble mind," by stating

forthwith that the policy of the British Government had been to foment

discontent, to excite jealousies, to connive at insurrections, and

finally to "amnestize" those rebellions, for the purpose of promoting

its favourite and now avowed object of a Union.[551]

 

Far abler is the "Reply" to Cooke by Richard Jebb, who afterwards became

a Justice of the King's Bench in Ireland. He showed that only in regard

to the Regency had any serious difference arisen between the two

Parliaments; he scoffed at the notion of Ireland's needs finding

satisfaction at Westminster. Would Pitt, he asked, who whirled out of

the Cabinet the gigantic Thurlow, ever attend to Irish affairs? Jebb

then quoted with effect Clare's assertion that the Irish Parliament

alone was competent to deal with the business of the island. He admitted

the directing power of the British Cabinet over Ireland's concerns; but

he averred that under the new system the Lord Lieutenant would be little

more than a Great Contractor. As to the satisfaction to be granted to

Catholics, the Under-Secretary had done well not to be too explicit,

lest he should offend jealous Protestants. But, asked Jebb, would the

Catholics have much influence in the United Kingdom, where they would

be, not three to one as in Ireland, but three to fourteen? Nature

herself had intended England and Scotland to be one country; she had

proclaimed the need of some degree of independence in Ireland. Finally,

he deprecated in the mouth of an official a reference to the success

attending the policy of annexation pursued by France, which Pitt had

always reprobated. The effect produced by these replies appears in a

letter of Lees to Auckland on 29th December. Dublin, he writes, is in a

frenzy against the Union. As for Cornwallis, he was as apathetic as

usual: "We are asleep, while the disaffected are working amain."[552]

 

Not until 21st December did Pitt and his colleagues come to a final

decision to press on the Act of Union at all costs. On that day he held

a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street, all being present, as well as the

Earl of Liverpool and Earl Camden. The following Minute of their

resolution was taken by Lord Grenville.

 

    That the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should be instructed to

    state without delay to all persons with whom he may have

    communication on this subject, that His Majesty's Government is

    decided to press the measure of an Union as essential to the

    well-being of both countries and particularly to the security

    and peace of Ireland as dependent on its connection with Great

    Britain: that this object will now be urged to the utmost, and

    will even in the case (if it should happen) of any present

    failure, be renewed on every occasion till it succeed; and that

    the conduct of individuals on this subject will be considered as

    the test of their disposition to support the King's

    Government.[553]

 

Portland forthwith informed the Lord-Lieutenant, Cornwallis, of the

purport of this resolution. Drastic proceedings were now inevitable; for

mischievous rumours were rife at Dublin that nobody would suffer for his

vote against the Union.

 

A brief Declaration as to the essentials of the Government plan was

issued at Dublin on 5th January 1799. It stated that twenty-eight

temporal peers elected for life would be delegated to Westminster, and

four Protestant bishops, taken in rotation. Irish peers not elected

might sit for British counties and boroughs, as before. The Crown

retained the right of creating Irish peers. As to the delegation of the

Commons of Ireland, each county or large town now returning two members

could send only one to Westminster, except Dublin and Cork, each of

which would return two members. Of the 108 small boroughs, one half

would return members for one Parliament, the other half for the next

Parliament. In the sphere of commerce Ireland would enjoy the same

advantages as Great Britain, the duties between the two islands being

equalized, the linen manufacturers retaining their special privileges.

The Exchequer and National Debt of each island were to continue

separate, the quota paid by Ireland into the Imperial Exchequer being

reserved for future consideration, it being understood that when the

Irish Revenue exceeded its expenses, the excess must be applied to local

purposes, the taxes producing the excess being duly modified.

 

Apart from the inevitable vagueness as to the proportion of Ireland's

quota, the Declaration was calculated to reassure Irishmen. The

borough-mongers lost only one half of their lucrative patronage. True,

the change bore hard upon the 180 Irish peers, of whom only one in six

would enter the House of Lords at Westminster. But commerce was certain

to thrive now that the British Empire unreservedly threw open its

markets to Irish products; and in the political sphere the Act of Union,

by shattering the Irish pocket-borough system, assigned an influence to

the larger towns such as those of Great Britain did not enjoy until the

time of the Reform Bill. Nothing, it is true, was said to encourage the

Catholics; but in Cooke's semi-official pamphlet they had been led to

hope for justice in the United Parliament.

 

The following letter of Cooke to Castlereagh (6th January) is

interesting:

 

    We shall have difficult work; but there is no need to despair. I

    do not hear of anything formidable from the country. Armagh is

    stirred by Lord Charlemont; Louth, I suppose, by the Speaker;

    Lord Enniskillen will move Fermanagh; Queen's County will be

    against [us]. I hear Waterford, Cork, Kerry, Limerick is [_sic_]

    with us. Sir Edward O'Brien in Clare is against and is stirring.

    Derry will be quiet, if not favourable. The North is so in

    general at present. The sketch of terms thrown out is much

    relished. I cannot tell you how our numbers will stand on the

    22nd. The Catholics will wait upon the question, and will not

    declare till they think they can act with effect. Many persons

    are anxious to make them part of the measure. Grattan is come. I

    know not yet what he is doing. I hope all friends in London will

    be sent over. The first burst is everything. It would be

    decisive if the Prince of Wales would declare publicly in favour

    and hoist his banner for the Union.[554]

 

Apart from this enigmatical reference, there were few grounds for hope.

The landlords and traders of Dublin naturally opposed a measure certain

to lessen the importance of that city. Trinity College, the Corporation

of Dublin, and the gentry and freeholders of County Dublin all protested

against Union. Equally hostile were most Irish Protestants. In their

pride as a dominant Order, they scorned the thought of subordination to

Great Britain. Sixteen years of almost complete legislative independence

had quickened their national feelings; and many of them undoubtedly set

love of country before the promptings of caste. How was it possible,

they asked, that the claims of Ireland should receive due attention

amidst the clash of worldwide interests at Westminster?

 

Doubts like these should have been set at rest. Surely Pitt missed a

great opportunity in not promising the appointment of a perpetual

committee at Westminster, elected by the Irish members for the

consideration of their local affairs. A similar committee for Scottish

business would also have been a statesmanlike proposal, in view of the

increase of work certain to result from the Union. Doubtless those

committees would have interfered with the functions of the Lord

Lieutenant at Dublin, and the Scottish patronage controlled by Henry

Dundas. But some such measure would have appeased the discontent rife in

both kingdoms, and, while easing the strain on the Imperial Parliament,

would have nurtured the growth of that wider patriotism which has its

roots in local affections.

 

A survey of the facts passed under review must, I think, lead to the

conclusion that the conduct of Pitt in preparing for the Act of Union

was halting and ineffective. It is true that Camden had advised him to

make careful preliminary inquiries; but they were not instituted until

October 1798, and they dragged on to the end of the year, by which time

the fear of a French invasion had subsided. There were but two

satisfactory ways of carrying the Act of Union through the hostile

Parliament at Dublin. In June-October, during the panic caused by the

Rebellion and the French raids, Pitt might have intimated secretly

though officially to the leading loyalists that Great Britain could not

again pour forth her blood and treasure for an unworkable system, and

that the acceptance of that help must imply acquiescence in a Union.

Such a compact would of course be termed unchivalrous by the

rhetoricians at St. Stephen's Green; but it would have prevented the

unchivalrous conduct of many so-called loyalists, who, after triumphing

by England's aid, then, relying upon that aid for the future, thwarted

Pitt's remedial policy. Prudence should have enjoined the adoption of

some such precaution in the case of men whose behaviour was exacting

towards England and exasperating towards the majority of Irishmen. In

neglecting to take it, Pitt evinced a strange lack of foresight. At this

point George III showed himself the shrewder tactician; for he urged

that Cornwallis must take steps to frighten the loyal minority into

accepting an Act of Union.

 

But there was an alternative course of action. Failing to come to an

understanding with the ultra-Protestant zealots of Dublin, Pitt might

have elicited a strong declaration from the many Irishmen who were in

favour of Union. He seems to have taken no such step. Though aware that

Cornwallis was in civil affairs a figure-head, he neglected to send

over a spokesman capable of giving a decided lead. In the ensuing

debates at Dublin, Castlereagh showed the