fome navigable river, or larger canal, on entering which, the lading from the fmall craft might be moved into larger barges. On this fubje&t we perceive no new obfervations, the whole being nearly a tranfcript from Mr. Fulton's work.

"To thofe," the author fays, "whofe fituations entitle them, or whofe leifure may enable them to make a proper ufe of detail knowledge on this very interefting fubject, I beg leave to recommend the perufal of Mr. Fulton's ingenious and philanthropic treatise, with that of Mr. Chapman, who has followed him; contenting myself with fuch extracts from thofe authors, as may enable ftrangers to comprehend the new fyftem, fufficiently for comparifon, and form fome idea of the terms and advantages of adopting it, in fuch of its shapes as may fuit the particular fubject of operation." P. 86.

Mr. Fulton's plan is certainly eligible, and to be preferred, where the goods to be carried are capable of being divided into fmall parts, as the labour, time, and expence, confumed in fhifting the cargoes, would be abundantly compensated by the favings in making and keeping the canal in repair. But a canal that fhould exclude large pieces of timber, which could not be carried in his boats, would in many parts of the country lofe more than half its value. In fuch countries, the principal trunk must be made capable of bearing barges carrying from forty or fifty tons. Such barges are particularly required on canals entering the Thames, and bringing goods to London, afterwards to proceed to Deptford, Blackwall, &c. where small boats could not be fafely fent.

The author next gives two plans, proposed by the late Mr. James Sharp, the one for making a canal to extend from Brentford upwards to Bolter's Lock, on the Thames; the other to go from Moorfields, in the direction of the River Lea, and communicating with it, to Waltham Abbey. They were both approved by the City of London, and bills preferred in Parliament, for leave to make them; but the bills were rejected.

"Both canals were intended to become free to the public, as foon as the money advanced for the works fhould be defrayed by the tolls, except fuch fmall proportion of toll as might be neceffary for repairing the works; fo that no private property was to be made of these two great public highways, though the city was to guarantee the repayment of the fums borrowed. Perhaps there never were two propofi tions," our author goes on to fay, "more perfectly difinterefted, and generously intended for the public or national advantage, than thefe two plans, which were approved and adopted by the city of London, without any view of peculiar advantage or intereft whatsoever, except what was equally open to the public, fo that the city, on this occafion, has left on record a noble example for all other corporations and pri vileged focieties," P. 134.

But

But thefe canals, particularly that from Bolter's Lock to Brentford, could not have been made without doing fo much. local injury as was thought more than a balance for the advantages propofed from it. For the trade, with the water necessary to fupply that cut, being diverted from its ufual channel, the bed of the Thames, which was then, and continues to be, embarraffed with numerous fand-banks, and other obstructions to navigation, would in a courfe of time, it was feared, have become impaffable, and the trade to Windfor, and all the other towns and villages on its banks, been annihilated. Of these, and many other objections, which were made at the time, and which were the reafons inducing Parliament to reject the bills, the author takes no notice.

The author next proposes a plan for infulating London. The idea, he fays, was thrown out by Mr. James Sharp, but the plan left by that gentleman is here altered and enlarged, to make it correfpond with the prefent enlarged capacity of the metropolis. Next follows, "A Collection of Tracts on WetDocks, for the Port of London, with Hints on Trade and Commerce, and on Free-Ports." The author feems to have been very diligent in collecting all the publications that have appeared on this interefting fubje&t. He declines, however, deciding on the merits of the different plans that have been propofed.

"Situations," he says, "are to be found on the river, capable of making wet docks, of any fize, for loaded and for light fhips. In the point of choice, thofe fhould be preferred which would in the first intance unite the most immediate benefits, and leffen the oppofition of intereft and of prejudices. Experiment will confirm the utility of them; and when one has once been made, others in time will follow. Difficulties will present themselves to every fcheme, but no inconvenience can be against any fo ftrong, as the great burthen and disadvantage which the commerce of London fuftains from the want of an extenfion of quays and wet-docks. It is fincerely to be wifhed, that contending interefts in favour of particular spots may not cause a mifcarriage in the first outlet, but join to put the fyftem in motion, as the growing commerce of London will be found capable of adopting them all." P. 141.

Plans of inclined planes, for facilitating the paffage of veffels from higher to lower levels, or, the contrary, to fuperfede the ufe of locks, from defigns by Mr. Fulton, with alterations fuggefted by this author; alfo of the different schemes for making wet-docks, and of the propofed canal for infulating London, are added, which contribute much to the value of the volume.

ART.

ART. XII. Speech of the Right Honourable John Fofler, Speaker of the Houfe of Commons of Ireland; delivered in a Committee of the whole Hofe, on Thursday the 11th of April, 1799. 8vo. 111 pp. 2s. 6d. Robinsons. 1799.

THE

HE much-agitated queftion on the expediency of a legiflative Union of Great Britain and Ireland, has appeared to us of fuch importance, not only to the prefent age but pofterity, that we have deemed it our duty to allot a confiderable space to the most interefting publications on that fubject; nor can we, on a review of our conduct, find any reafon to regret having, in fome inftances, detailed at length thofe arguments which claimed attention, from the character and talents of the authors, or derived ftrength from their own intrinfic merit. The first (if not the laft) of thefe confiderations, intitles the Speech before us to a full examination.

Our readers cannot require to be told, that the gentleman by whom this Speech is faid to have been pronounced, after having been, for many years, an active and confidential friend to adminiftration, has declared a determined and irreconcileable oppofition to an Union; or that he and his friends treat the very proposal as an attempt against the liberties and independence of their country. His fentiments indeed on a former occafion, had given some reason to suppose he might not be adverse to the meafure in queftion, and they were accordingly cited and applied with great dexterity in the celebrated Speech of Mr. Pitt. To obviate fuch an interpretation, and thus repel the charge of inconfiftency, is, in part, the purpofe of the Speech before us, which we fhall examine with a proper refpect to the gentleman whofe name it bears, but with that freedom, which, in the cafe of every work fubmitted to public criticism, our acknowledged duty demands.

The Speech, after fome cavil (for we cannot call it by a better name) at an expreffion of Lord Caftlereagh, goes into the queftion, whether the fettlement of 1782, was or was not to be confidered as final between Great Britain and Ireland? To prove the affirmative, the Right Honourable Gentleman cites the Meffage of his Majefty to the Parliaments of both Kingdoms, in April, 1782, with the Addrefs of the Irifh Houfe of Commons in confequence, a Speech of the Duke of Portland (then Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland) to the Irish Parliament, and the Addreffes of the Houfe of Commons thereon, together with his Majesty's Answers to thefe Addreffes, and other public documents of the like nature. The proceedings in Great Britain

on

on the fame occafion, are next very amply detailed, and it is inferred from them, that if any further measures were then in contemplation, fuch measures were not of a conftitutional but commercial nature; of which last description were the propofitions in 1785.

The Right Hon. Gentleman alfo retorts on the Minister the charge of inconfiftency, for now calling the commercial propofitions of 1785, a partial and inadequate measure, although he, at that period, declared them to be "the only poffible means by which the connection between the two kingdoms could effectually and with prudence be established." He admits his own. affertion at the fame period, that "things could not remain as they were;" but contends that every matter of general or imperial concern, which the commercial propofitions would have arranged, has fince been arranged by Acts of the respective Parliaments, and that there is no difference in our present situation from what it would have been, had the commercial regulations been established.

The poffible difagreement between the two Parliaments, on the question of Peace and War, and on that of a Regency, is next adverted to, and the objections thence arifing are attempted to be answered. As to the firft, the Right Hon. Speaker thinks" the argument, which fuggefts the difficulty, is entirely theoretical, and" many things, he fays, "which appear hazardous in theory, are not only fafe, but even reconciled in practice." Of this he gives several inftances; but whether any of them apply to the prefent cafe, may perhaps be juftly queftioned. At the conclufion of this part of the Speech, there is a paragraph which we cannot help marking with peculiar reprobation. Speaking of the Minifter's views in propofing an Union, he says,

"He wants a Union, in order to tax you and take your money where he fears your own reprefentatives would deem it improper, and to force regulations on your trade, which your own Parliament would confider injurious or partial.-I never expected to have heard it fo unequivocally acknowledged, and I truft that it will be thoroughly understood, that it is not your Conftitution he wants to take away for any fuppofed imperfection, but because it keeps the purfe of the nation in the honeft hands of an Irish Parliament." P. 57.

Who, on reading this paragraph, would not fuppofe, either that no members for Ireland were to be admitted into the propofed general Parliament, or that fuch members must neceffarily be deprived thereby of all those talents, that public fpirit, and that attachment to Ireland, which they before poffeffed? Who would not conclude (as indeed this gentleman and other Anti-Unionifts conclude throughout) that in quef

tions relating to Ireland, every British member would vote in oppofition to the interefts of that kingdom, and thus outnumber her reprefentatives? We know of few things more improbable, none more uncandid, than such a fuppofition.

In the cafe of the Regency in 1789. the Right Hon. Gentleman admits that the two countries differed; but fays the difference was not as to the perfon, but as to the limitations of power; nor was it, properly fpeaking, the Parliaments that differed; it was the two eftates deprived of the third eftate, which equally belonged to each Parliament. "All differences,' he thinks, muft have been done away the moment of the Great Seal being again put into exercise;" but, he adds, "no real difficulty does exift," for "the Act, annexing the Crown in Hen. VIII, extends to the perfon authorized by Britain to adminifter regal power, whether King, Queen, or Regent."

It is not our bufinefs to examine the validity of thefe arguments; but we cannot help observing, that (if our recollection does not greatly deceive us) the above conftruction of the Stat. of Hen. VIII, was far, very far, from being admitted by the Irish Parliament at the time of the Regency. They certainly held themfelves, on that occafion, to be wholly independent of the legislature of Great Britain; they indeed nominated the fame perfon, but on their own feparate and uncontrouled judgment, carefully adopting the most oppofite measures from thofe of the British Legislature, and difclaiming (in the first inftance at least) this boafted authority of the Great Seal; which, our readers need not be told, was the inftrument adopted by our Parliament, to fanction the intended Act for establishing a Regency.

Many of the affertions which follow are fo diametrically oppofite to the opinions of all ftatefmen, even thofe of the Oppofition, in this kingdom, that we shall content ourselves with little more than a bare enumeration of them, leaving the difcuffion to those whofe duty it is to examine and decide on this important queftion; or who have leifure to retrace the proofs of pofitions which (in this country at least) have been Jong fince eftablished and allowed. "We are now," fays the Right Hon. Gentleman, "united, fo as if our whole ftrength is the ftrength of the empire." Indeed! What ideots then are our enemies, the Jacobin Directories of France and Ireland, in fuppofing this, and this alone, to be the vulnerable part of the British empire! In rifquing, the one almost the whole of its remaining naval power, the other their own lives and fortunes, to effect a separation in the nature of things impoffible! a feparation as little in the contemplation of any mind as the feparation of Kent, or Yorkshire, from the rest of England!