WILLIAM CONYNGHAM PLUNKET First Baron Plunket: Lord Chancellor of Ireland (1764-1854) F the shining company of Irish orators William Plunket stands almost at the head. In some respects he is comparable to Burke, and approaches that great man more nearly than any of them in the rare gift of political vision and in the stately and inspiring march of his mind. He seems to possess an insight, in a degree they have not, into the profounder springs of human action, and his voice vibrates with a richer and a deeper harmony. He had practised both as an advocate and as a prosecutor in the Courts and, in perfecting the art of sustained and logical argument, had learnt to play with equal mastery upon the feelings of juries and the understanding of a judge. He had also addressed public meetings, and caught the gusts of popular applause. Finally, he had spoken in an English as well as an Irish House of Commons, and had had the opportunity of shedding in the one any Celtic exaggerations of style that might have infected him in the other. He had thus had an unusually complete training as a speaker on public affairs, and of all those who advocated the removal of the disabilities of the Catholics, no one was so eloquent as Plunket or so convincing. On the death of Grattan he became the chief protagonist in their struggle for emancipation, and bent the bow of Ulysses more mightily even than its former master. As counsel for the prosecution in the Emmet case he lost indeed for a time the affection of some of his Irish admirers, but his practical influence as a debater and orator never waned. It continued rather to increase, and the magic splendour of his gifts was never dimmed either by time, office, or success. There is more literary pleasure in reading Plunket's speeches than those of any other orator in the period covered by this volume, with the exception of Edmund Burke. His range and power, his beauty of phrase and clarity of vision, his warm enthusiasm, barely concealed beneath the somewhat cold Socratic manner of his public utterances, the roll of his periods and the romantic colouring of his thought, can never fail to be a source of delight and admiration to all those who, with a love of what is fine and enduring in human effort, study the now rapidly fading memorials of his turbulent and brilliant times. IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS. January 22nd, 1799. From the speech in the debate which occurred on the occasion of the Viceroy's Speech in opening the Session of 1799. Lord Cornwallis had raised the question of the Union, and in the debate on the Address which followed, Lord Castlereagh, who was Chief Secretary, argued that a Parliamentary Union was for the benefit of the two peoples. Plunket bitterly opposed this argument. Sir, the noble lord has shown much surprise that he should hear a doubt expressed concerning the competence of parliament to do this act. I am sorry that I also must contribute to increase the surprise of the noble lord. If I mistake not, his surprise will be much augmented before this question shall be disposed of; he shall see and hear what he has never before seen or heard, and be made acquainted with sentiments to which, probably, his heart has been a stranger. Sir, I, in the most express terms, deny the competency of parliament to do this act. I warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on the constitution. I tell you, that if, circumstanced as you are, you pass this act, it will be a nullity, and that no man in Ireland will be bound to obey it. I make the assertion deliberately-I repeat it, and I call on any man who hears me to take down my words. You have not been elected for this purpose. You are appointed to make laws, and not legislatures. You are appointed to act under the constitution, not to alter it. You are appointed to exercise the functions of legislators, and not to transfer them. And if you do so your act is a dissolution of the government. You resolve society into its original elements, and no man in the land is bound to obey you. Sir, I state doctrines which are not merely founded in the 1 Lord Castlereagh. immutable laws of justice and truth. I state not merely the opinions of the ablest men who have written on the science of government, but I state the practice of our constitution as settled at the era of the revolution, and I state the doctrine under which the house of Hanover derives its title to the throne. Has the king a right to transfer his crown? Is he competent to annex it to the crown of Spain or any other country? No-but he may abdicate it and every man who knows the constitution knows the consequence, the right reverts to the next in succession-if they all abdicate, it reverts to the people. The man who questions this doctrine, in the same breath must arraign the sovereign on the throne as an usurper. Are you competent to transfer your legislative rights to the French council of five hundred? Are you competent to transfer them to the British parliament? I answer, no. When you transfer you abdicate, and the great original trust reverts to the people from whom it issued. Yourselves you may extinguish, but parliament you cannot extinguish. It is enthroned in the hearts of the people. It is enshrined in the sanctuary of the constitution. It is immortal as the island which it protects. As well might the frantic suicide hope that the act which destroys his miserable body should extinguish his eternal soul. Again, I therefore warn you, do not dare to lay your hands on the constitution; it is above your power. Sir, I do not say that the parliament and the people, by mutual consent and co-operation, may not change the form of the constitution. Whenever such a case arises it must be decided on its own merits-but that is not this case. If government considers this a season peculiarly fitted for experiments on the constitution, they may call on the people. I ask you are you ready to do so? Are you ready to abide the event of such an appeal? What is it you must, in that event, submit to the people? Not this particular project; for if you dissolve the present form of government, they become free to choose any other you Hling them to the fury of the tempest-you must call on them to unhouse themselves of the established constitution, and to fashion to themselves another. I ask again, is this the time for an experiment of that nature? Thank God, the people have manifested no such wish-so far as they have spoken, their voice is decidedly against this daring innovation. You know that no voice has been uttered in its favour, and you cannot be infatuated enough to take confidence from the silence which prevails in some parts of the kingdom: if you know how to appreciate that silence, it is more formidable than the most clamorous oppositionyou may be rived and shivered by the lightning before you hear the peal of the thunder! IRISH HOUSE OF COMMONS. The Viceroy's Speech had contained no allusion to the proposed Union. In the debate on the Address, therefore, this omission was discussed, since during the Recess the Viceroy and various members of the Government had been working hard to obtain support for it. To make a clear-cut issue, Sir Lawrence Parsons moved an amendment to the Address declaratory of the House's adherence to the constitution of 1782, and Plunket spoke in support. Sir, I feel no ordinary sensation on this question being again introduced to the consideration of parliament. It was ushered into the last parliament with the same boyish boasting which now accompanies it, and rejected with the same contumely which ultimately awaits it. Without any change in the circumstances of the country, without the production of any new argument, the same men who fled like detected thieves at the close of the last session, and who in the precipitance of their flight stumbled over and overturned all public decency and parliamentary decorum, now exhibit themselves to challenge the national observation, and to brand with the name of faction every man who has honesty and courage to spurn their degrading purposes. What change has taken place? Has the measure changed its nature, or the minister his objects, or the countries their relations? No, you shall know the changes which have taken place I will unmask the men who have dared to come into the midst of parliament and people to pamper their liberties by sordid bribery and to subdue their spirits by lawless force, and if I cannot excite the feelings of honour or virtue in their hearts, I will call the blooming blush of shame into their cheeks. That You are told with puny sophistry that you ought at least to discuss the question. What is meant by this? you should discuss the principle? You have already done so; no principle ever underwent a more ample discussion in parliament, and after examining it for two entire days in all its relations, and after supposing all the details the most favourable which possibly could be offered to Ireland, the principle was rejected by a majority not only free from any influence, but resisting every influence. If by discussion is meant that we should discuss the detail without examining the principle, I utterly refuse it. We now stand on the high ground of national independence, secured by solemn compact; and we are called on to declare our readiness to surrender that independence and relinquish that compact, for the purpose of treating about we know not what possible advantages, and this is called discussion. In answer to this demand, I say, first, you have not stated any one definite advantage which Ireland can gain, or evil which she can avoid, to induce her to relinquish guaranteed independence. The measure has now been agitated above a year, and we have not to this hour heard stated in definite terms, such as a plain understanding can comprehend, any one specific advantage which we are to gain, or any one evil which we are to escape, by its adoption. We have heard a deal of lofty language-increased resources and consolidated strength-wealth and morals of England imported-present benefits from England secured-possible evils deprecatedcorruption of our own parliament destroyed-to be made partakers with the most dignified assembly in the world— danger of separation to be avoided-and political and religious differences closed for ever. This all sounds magnificently; but analyse it, and where a definite meaning can be extracted, no man pretends to say how an Union can forward the thing meant. Again, I will not admit the principle, because it is a barter of liberty for money, even supposing your advantages as real as they are visionary. The nation which enters into such a traffic is besotted. Freedom is the parent of wealth, |