French philosophists, to prepare the minds of men for those horrors and calamities which were the infallible consequences of the principles now afloat in the world. To prevent such dangerous abuses, it was a part of the proposed measure to extend the provisions against seditious lectures and political discussions, to all places where money was taken at the door, making that the criterion, and putting them upon the footing of disorderly houses, unless where a license had been previously taken out, and where they were subject to the inspection of a magistrate. By this regulation no innocent pursuit or amusement would be obstructed, and the public would be protected from an evil of serious magnitude.

Another part of the plan for infusing poison into the public mind, it was the object of this bill to provide against. It had been the proud and distinguishing principle of the law of England, to cherish the liberty of the press, as the most powerful bulwark of civil liberty. It certainly was one, from the proper use of which the greatest advantages had been derived, but from the perversion and abuse of which the greatest mischiefs had ensued. It had, therefore, been the object of the law of this country, without imposing any previous restraint, to secure a subsequent responsibility in the author

and publisher, if they should be guilty of private libels, or of public treason.

From the laws already existing, and the general spirit of loyalty in the great mass of the community, libels of any magnitude were not likely to escape punishment. Indeed, though formerly so prevalent, they were, at this time, much restrained, by the vigilance and vigour displayed by writers whose efforts were honourably directed to the propagation of sound principles. Unfortunately, however, the liberty of the Press had been abused, in a way most calculated to pervert and mislead the lower class of people. Instead of being employed to communicate knowledge and instruction, it had been perverted to give false and imperfect representations of facts, and inadequate or improper discussions of subjects, in no wise adapted to those to whom they were addressed, and fitted to produce the greatest mischief to them, and, ultimately, to the public itself. Hence, had been prosecuted to such an extent, the plan of disseminating hand bills, tending to poison the minds of the people, to deprave their morals, to pervert their loyalty, and to undermine their religion. Against this novel species of mischief, some new provisions were necessary, the object of which would be always to have a responsible author or publisher.

Such a regulation was strictly in the spirit of the constitution. If, in its application, it was new, it was because the evil was likewise new, while the remedy was so unexceptionable in its nature, that it must secure the approbation of all who valued public morals and public tranquillity. It was proposed, therefore, to have the name of the publisher affixed to every hand-bill, as to every other species of publication; and to have every press registered. Such a regulation, Mr. Pitt contended, would not injure the cause of science, literature, and improvement, or even interfere with any inno cent amusement, while it would secure the public against the circulation of anonymous treason, sedition, or impiety, by which, in the quarters most exposed, the pillers of morality, religion, and government, were attacked. Bills to accomplish these salutary objects were prepared, and passed into laws, in the course of the session.

CHAPTER XLIII.

Irish affairs-State of Ireland, from her first connection with England to the rebellion of 1798-Efforts of the Catholics to produce a separation of the two countries-The Catholic Priests exhort their flocks, previous to the rebellion in 1641, not to give their votes to Protestant candidatesImperfect state of the representation in Ireland-Abuse of the elective franchise by the Catholics-Their conduct, the natural result of their religious principles-An union of Great Britain and Ireland projected by Mr. Pitt-The King's message to Parliament, on the subject-Debate on the message-Address moved by Mr. Dundas-Opposed by Mr. Sheridan, who moves an amendment-He ascribes the evils prevalent in Ireland to the ignorance and poverty of the people-Denies the competency of Parliament to conclude an union-Moves an amendment—Address supported by Mr. Canning-Mr. Pitt's speech-Censures Mr.Sheridan's doctrine as leading to jacobinism-Asserts the competence of Parliament - Contrasts the former statements of Opposition, relative to the defects in the Irish Constitution, with their present eulogies, on the same system -Shews the settlement of 1782 not to have been final-Displays the advantages of an union to both countries-Proves its necessity, from the evils arising from the present state of parties in Ireland-Instances the case of the Regency, to prove that a diffe

rence on points of primary importance might subsist between the two separate Parliaments-Mr. Sheridan's amendment rejected, and the address adopted-Public discussions of the same subject in Ireland-Great ferment occasioned by it in that country-Tract in favour of the Union, by Mr. Edward Cooke-Meeting of the Irish Bar-They decide against the Union-Resolution of the Corporation of Dublin against the Union The bankers and merchants of Dublin pass similar resolutions-Meeting of the Irish Parliament-The Viceroy's speech-Address carried in the House of Lords without a division-Majority of one only in favour of the address in the Commons-Lord Castlereagh condemnus the rejection of the plan without examinationThe address rejected, on the report, by a majority of five -The members who voted with the minister are insulted by the populace-Mr. Pitt unfolds his plan of an Union to the British House of Commons-Expresses a hope that the measure will be ultimately carried-Takes a comprehensive view of the question in all its bearings-Supports his own sentiments by those of Mr. Foster, on the question of the commercial propositions-Proves Mr. Foster's former opinion to be directly opposite to his present opinion-Considers the measure as necessary for the security of Ireland -Takes a view of the religious disputes in Ireland-Considers all questions relating to the Catholic claims as more Nikely to be impartially discussed in an united, than in a separate, legislature-Remark upon Mr. Pitt's motion, respecting tithes, in Ireland-Commercial benefits to be derived by Ireland from the Union-Ireland indebted to the liberality of the British Parliament for her present advantages in trade-Mr. Pitt confutes the objections of Mr. Sheridan and others, who oppose the UnionExposes the folly and dangerous tendency of the asserted principle of the sovereignty of the people-Shews the independence of Ireland not to be affected by the Union