Throughout all this period, Mr. Plowden seems to us far too much possessed with the pot-house principle, that all governments are in the wrong, and all oppositions in the right; and even in reporting the debates upon the union, of which he is an avowed, and, we presume, a sincere admirer, he cannot help shewing a bias towards the adversaries of ministry. Strongly as we have expressed ourselves as to the prior conduct of England towards the sister country, it cannot we think be denied, that during the present reign a continual stream of concession has flowed in upon Ireland. The vice-royalty of lord Townshend, so much condemned by Mr. Plowden, is still, we believe, celebrated with convivial gratitude at Dublin. Those of lords Harcourt and Buckinghamshire were yet more conciliating. It would be ungracious to answer, that Ireland enforced these concessions; there certainly was no disposition to withhold them. The declaratory act of independence in 1782 crowned the whole; and while it relieved Ireland from a nominal subjection, placed the connection of the two countries on that precarious basis, which left no alternative for the presiding government, but corruption of the Irish senate, or legislative incorporation.

Great

In our free constitution, parliamentary proceedings form often the most important parts of historical narrative. men,' says Mr. Burke, are the landmarks of the state.' Those who wield the complex engine of a democratic assembly, have a right to claim that immortality which it is the boast of history to confer. But that every motley scrap of unmeaning common-place, which an obscure member of parliament has. uttered, should be dragged into such a work as the present, and swell it to a portentous size, is what we must strongly reprobate. Accounts of parliamentary debates exist, and it is. right they should, as important repertories, from which the historian is to condense and select what is material. But the desire of book-making overrules all laws of composition: and thus it will be, until some man shall arise, more jealous of fame than eager for money, more solicitous to impart truths worthy of perpetual remembrance, than to propagate idle tales of temporary faction. In the notes upon this part of his work, Mr. Plowden, as if afraid of being too concise, details many contemporary debates in the British parliament (some of them not relating to Ireland, as, for instance, those of the regency), which he very properly borrows from Mr. Belsham. They are indeed both Arcadians; alike prompt to believe, and quick to circulate, every falsehood and misrepresentation which can throw odium upon their adversaries; alike forgetful of the dignified tone in which history reviews the actions of public men; alike able to rouse the reader's anger by their perver

sions, to excite his smiles by their absurdities, or to lull him into weariness by their prolixity.

When we reach the disastrous æra of the late rebellion, we find our author, though visibly inclined to represent the out rages of the magistrates and the military in the strongest light, yet not uncandid enough to suppress all mention of those which were perpetrated by the United Irishmen. In this he has certainly the advantage of sir Richard Musgrave. It is painful to read these records of atrocious retaliation, by which the protestants of Ireland, especially those of the Orange deno mination, sullied their acknowledged intrepidity in the cause of the constitution. Yet we must not weigh in too accurate a balance the actions of men struggling for their very exist→ ence against an enemy who knew no mercy. An European in India who had never seen a cobra di morte, would pro bably kill every snake that came in his way: and men ha rassed by suspicions of every peasant they met; who knew that murderous treason lurked in every household; who for months had never slept unarmed; who heard, day by day, the butchery of peaceful families, and never looked on their chil dren without conceiving them writhing on the pike; may well have been wrought to a state of mind which prompted such acts as may be committed with less guilt than defended. We are aware that this excuse is as valid for the rebel as the loyal ist, for the peasant as the noble; and we intend that it should so be taken.

A few observations on the great event of the union shall conclude the present review; and in these we shall endeavour to place the subject in that light in which a dispassionate Irish patriot would consider it. It seems not difficult to prove, that an union was more eligible than the actual state of connection between the two countries immediately previous to it. Ireland had obtained what she fondly deemed a perfect independance in 1782. But while this vaunting name deluded the multitude, it was manifest that she was still in every practical respect subordinate to the councils of Great Britain. Controul over the ministers of the crown is the noblest privilege of the British parliament. But this controul could never be, possessed by Ireland. Impeachment, that sword which, though happily rusted in the scabbard, is still, we should ever remember, the avenging weapon of liberty, which may one day be unsheathed, was beyond the grasp of a parliament at Dublin; whose sena tors might aim their petty lances in vain against an administration which, secure in a majority at home, would smile in scorn at such puny assailants. The measures pursued by a viceroy seem indeed the only constitutional object which the jealousy of an Irish parliament could have reached; but such.

measures were commonly planned in the cabinet of St. James's, and the removal of an individual from that high station has often proved no augury of an altered policy. In the mighty questions of peace and war Ireland could take no part; and was compelled to see her exchequer exhausted, and her fields drained of men, for contests which she was alike incompetent to approve or condemn. Her commerce, though much enlarged, still laboured under restrictions which, as they would be the price of union, were not likely to be conceded without it. The nation was feverish with religious and political feuds, the future duration of which might be judged by the past. So slight was the tie which kept the two nations together, that necessity prescribed to government the preservation of that power by influence which was lost by law. A loathsome corruption had tainted to the core that Irish parliament whose independance was so loudly proclaimed; one hundred and sixteen placemen sat among the three hundred members of the house of commons; and the peerage was the notorious and undeniable reward of services which modestly withdrew themselves from public observation. All that remained of independance in this assembly, was shewn only in an implacable determination to resist the introduction of the catholics, who, on their side, in an intemperate pursuit of the few privileges from which they were debarred, seemed careless how much desolation they might be the means of bringing upon the

country.

The sole question which could, we think, admit of much doubt, was union or separation; for to the latter the actual con stitution was tending, and perhaps most of the zealous antiunionists, of whatever party, cherished in their hearts the hope that it would one day be effected. Independance is a word of noble sound, and in the fervour of political contest it is not the fault of Ireland alone to have listened without rigorous exami nation to those imposing names, which more often excite generous sentiments than correct ideas :

Tuumque

Nomen, Libertas, et inanem prosequar umbram.'

It must be allowed, that the advocates of union went much too far, when they contended that no political incorporation upon equitable terms could be injurious to the liberties of a nation. Certainly they would not readily have allowed, that Great Britain could safely and honourably be embraced in the em pire of France, though due provision were made for her participation in the corps legislatif, and though it were stipulated in the articles of the pact that not less than twenty of her nobility should, in all time to come, be members of the legion

of honour. The Author of nature has placed, in the physical and moral circumstances of nations, landmarks, which human policy cannot safely over-step. It is probable, though great names may be cited for a different opinion, that America could not have been retained, by any durable legislative union, within the dominion of the British empire. But it does not seem that Ireland is thus naturally separated from the neighbouring island. Independant she could not be without the desolation of protracted war; the success of which would leave her with a population, reduced in numbers, furious with animosity, blinded with superstition, and averse to industry. Her maritime and commercial energies, would be checked by Britain in peace, and crushed by her in war; war, which would be perpetually renewed, and in which she must ever be inferior, unless she purchased the humiliation of her adversary by connections most dangerous to her own liberty.

We have hitherto considered the two islands as detached from the rest of Europe, and only in their relation to each other. But wise men do not neglect the signs of the times. The ambition of France, which, for near two centuries, has menaced the independance of western Europe, after bursting through the dams which the providence of our ancestors erected, has spread like a deluge over the adjacent country, and no longer covertly displays its inordinate thirst of power. That her yoke is galling and ignominious to whatever unfortunate nation has endured it, is a truth as indubitable, as it is that Great Britain stands foremost in the breach, and sustains a struggle of such incalculable duration and difficulty, as to make the hearts quail even of those who have the proudest confidence in her energy and resources. In this contest Ireland has borne her full proportion; deprived of Ireland, Great Britain would undoubtedly preserve her own liberty, but must perhaps relinquish the hope of maintaining the interests of the European republic. Ireland herself could scarcely hope for so much; exposed alike to Great Britain and to France, she must select the friendship of one, and would be numbered among the other allies of the Corsican, the respectable and independant sovereignties of Spain, Lombardy, and Etruria.

The particular articles of union seem, for the greater part, just and prudent. In the election of peers for life, and the annihilation of small boroughs, the system of representation is, we think, greatly superior to that which was established by the Scottish union. For the power reserved to the crown of creating new Irish peerages of a limited number, no better reason can perhaps be alleged, than the unwillingness of ministers to part with an instrument of influence. Though rendered necessary, perhaps by the strange admixture of English

gentlemen with the Irish peerage, yet the eligibility of peers to the house of commons, úpon waving all their peculiar rights, accords very little with the genius of our constitution. Theoretical writers consider a peer as merely an hereditary senator. But the privilege of being summoned to parliament is, though an eminent part, yet but a part of those characteristics by which the nobility are separated from the rest of the state. The peerage is a distinct order, which would subsist though no parliament, if that could legally be the case, were ever again to be convened. The persons who compose it are, upon constitutional principles, invested with rights inherent in their blood: rights which, whether they will or no, they must transmit to their posterity; and which, in the words of the celebrated protest of 1695, nothing can take away, but what, by the law of the land, must withal take away their lives and corrupt their blood.'

Our opinion of Mr. Plowden's work may be shortly expressed; it is no history, but a partial and ill-digested compilation; yet, until a better shall be written, 'may be found of some value as a book of reference. Each volume contains a copious appendix, some parts of which are useful, and others the contrary. As for the style, it is below criticism.

ART. II.-A Poem on the Restoration of Learning in the East. By the Reverend F. Wrangham, M. A. F. R. S. of Trinity College. 4to. 35. 6d. Mawman. 1865.

IN our number for March last we noticed Mr. Grant's 'Poem on the Restoration of Learning in the East: the work now before us was an unsuccessful rival of that poem, which nevertheless has been printed at the particular request of those who adjudged the prize-a request equally creditable to themselves and Mr. Wrangham.

India affords ample materials for the speculation of the politician, the research of the philosopher, and the excursion of the poet. The vicissitudes of intellectual light and darknessthe ages of gold and iron which have alternately blessed and afflicted that finest portion of the earth-the powerful and splendid empires, Hindû, Mohammedan, and christian, of which she has been the seat-the renowned conquerors to whom she has given celebrity-her wealth, her religion, and her connection with this country-conspire to attach a pecu liar degree of interest to every thing which relates to her.

Our author begins his poem as it were ab ovo, with the production of light at the fiat of the Almighty. He bursts upon us at once with the abruptness which Johnson vainly ridiculed CRIT. REV. Vol. 5. June, 1805.

K