On all sides the procedure of the Government met with severe censure. As usual, blame was lavished upon Cornwallis, Lord Carysfort warning Grenville that the defeat was due to the disgust of "Orangemen and exterminators" at his clemency. Buckingham, writing to Pitt on 29th January, reported that on the estimate of Archbishop Troy, nine-tenths of the Irish Catholics were for the Union: "Remember, however," he added, "that this can only be done by the removal of Lord Cornwallis and Lord Castlereagh.... I protest I see no salvation but in the immediate change. Send us Lord Winchilsea, or rather Lord Euston, or in short send us any one. But send us Steele as his Secretary, and with firmness the Question (and with it Ireland) will be saved. Excuse this earnestness."[555] Pitt took no notice of this advice, but continued to support Cornwallis. As for the Irish Executive, it proceeded now to the policy of official coercion recommended from Downing Street. Parnell was dismissed from the Exchequer; the Prime Serjeant was deposed, and four opponents of Union were removed from subordinate posts, among them being Foster, son of the Speaker.
So confident was Pitt of victory at Dublin that he introduced the Bill of Union at Westminster on 23rd January. The King's Speech referred to the designs of enemies and traitors to separate Ireland from Great Britain, and counselled the adoption of means for perpetuating the connection. Forthwith Sheridan moved a hostile amendment. With his wonted zeal and eloquence, he urged the inopportuneness of such a measure when 40,000 British troops were holding down Ireland, and he denied the competence either of the British or Irish Parliament to decide on it. Pitt promptly refuted Sheridan's plea by referring to the action of the English and Scottish Parliaments at the time of their Union, and he twitted him with seeking to perpetuate at Dublin a system whose injustice and cruelty he had always reprobated. Allowing that British rule in Ireland had been narrow and intolerant, Pitt foretold the advent of a far different state of things after the Union. Then, pointing to the divergence of British and Irish policy at the time of the Regency crisis he pronounced it a dangerous omen, and declared the Union to be necessary to the peace and stability of the Empire. The House agreed with him and negatived the amendment without a division.
It is worth noting that of Sheridan's hypothetical colleagues in office under the Prince Regent in the Cabinet outlined in February 1789, not one now supported him. Fox was not present, being engrossed in Lucretius and the "Poetics" of Aristotle. He, however, informed Lord Holland that he detested the Union and all centralized Governments, his predilection being for Federalism.[556] The remark merits notice in view of the concentration of power in France, and in her vassal Republics at Rome, Milan, Genoa, and Amsterdam. That eager student of the Classics wished to dissolve the British Isles into their component parts at a time when the highly organized energy of the French race was threatening every neighbouring State. While the tricolour waved at Amsterdam, Mainz, Berne, Rome, Valetta, and Cairo, Fox thought it opportune to federalize British institutions. The means whereby Pitt sought to solidify them are open to question. But which of the two statesmen had the sounder sense?
On 31st January, after the receipt of the disappointing news from Dublin, Pitt returned to the charge. Expressing deep regret that the Irish House of Commons should have rejected the plan of a Union before it knew the details, he proceeded to describe the proposals of the Government. Firstly, he insisted that it was the concerted action of invaders from without and traitors within that made the measure necessary. He then argued that the settlement of 1782, according legislative independence to the Irish Parliament, was far from final, as appeared in the ministerial declarations of that time. Moreover, Irish Bills did not become law unless sanctioned by the King and sealed by the Great Seal of Great Britain on the advice of British Ministers, facts which implied the dependence of the Irish Parliament. Turning to the commercial issues at stake, he effectively quoted the statement of Foster to the Irish House of Commons in 1785, that they would be mad to reject the commercial proposals then offered, which, if thrown out, would not be renewed. But now, said Pitt, they are renewed in the projected Union; and Foster has used his influence to reject a measure which breaks down the fiscal barriers between the two kingdoms. After referring to the Regency Question, he pointed out the danger of France attacking the British race at its weakest point. Never would she cease to assail it until the Union was indissoluble. Commerce, he said, was the source of wealth; and the wealth needed to withstand the predatory designs of France would be enhanced by a free interchange of British and Irish products. The Union would encourage the flow into the poorer island of British capital which it so much needed. Next, adverting to the religious feuds in Ireland, he remarked on the danger of granting concessions to the Irish Catholics while Ireland remained a distinct kingdom. He then uttered these momentous words:
On the other hand, without anticipating the discussion, or the propriety of agitating the question, or saying how soon or how late it may be fit to discuss it, two propositions are indisputable; first, when the conduct of the Catholics shall be such as to make it safe for the Government to admit them to the participation of the privileges granted to those of the established religion, and when the temper of the times shall be favourable to such a measure—when these events take place, it is obvious that such a question may be agitated in an United Imperial Parliament with much greater safety, than it could be in a separate Legislature. In the second place, I think it certain that, even for whatever period it may be thought necessary after the Union to withhold from the Catholics the enjoyment of those advantages, many of the objections which at present arise out of their situation would be removed, if the Protestant Legislature were no longer separate and local, but general and Imperial: and the Catholics themselves would at once feel a mitigation of the most goading and irritating of their present causes of complaint.
Pitt then deprecated the effort to inflame the insular pride of Irishmen. Could Irishmen really object to unite with Britons? For it was no subordinate place that they were asked to take, but one of equality and honour. Most happily then did he quote the vow of Aeneas for an equal and lasting compact between his Trojans and the Italians:
Non ego nec Teucris Italos parere jubebo,
Nec nova regna peto: paribus se legibus ambae
Invictae gentes aeterna in foedera mittant.[557]
He ended his speech by moving eight Resolutions on the question; and the House approved their introduction by 140 votes to 15. This statesmanlike survey lacked the fire and imaginative elevation of his speech on the Slave Trade in 1792. But there was little need of rhetoric and invective. Pitt's aim was to convince Ireland of the justice of his proposals. And his plea, though weak at one point, must rank among the ablest expositions of a great and complex question. How different the course of events might have been if the Commons of Ireland had first heard Pitt's proposals of Union, clearly and authoritatively set forth, not in the distorted form which rumour or malice depicted. In this respect Gladstone proved himself an abler tactician than Pitt. His Home Rule Bill of 1886 remained a secret until it was described in that masterly statement which formed a worthy retort to Pitt's oration of 31st January 1799. Pitt prepared it with great care, so Auckland avers; and, as he and Long had secured the presence of the best reporters, the text of the speech is among the most accurate that we possess for that period. He now resolved to bring forward specific Resolutions, instead of, as before, proposing merely to appoint Commissioners to consider the details of the Bill of Union. It is unfortunate that he did not take this step at first. The mistake probably resulted from his besetting sin—excess of confidence. On 26th January he expressed to Cornwallis his deep disappointment and grief at the action of the Dublin Parliament, which he ascribed to prejudice and cabal. Clearly he had underrated the force of the nationalist opposition.