as they were called, and were in fact in Scotland, the commiffions of the perfons chofen, have contained fome reference to the fubject? Would not the minutes of the election meetings, whether of counties or burghs, which in that country are drawn up with fo much form and precifion, have recorded the especial object and purpose for calling the Parliament, and the inftructions on that account given by each body of conftituents? Would there have been no trace of any thing of that fort among the entries in the corporation books of Edinburgh, or of the other cities, towns, and boroughs of the kingdom? Would there not have been fome tradition, some memorral, fome narrative, or fome hint of a formal, or at least of fome incidental allufion to the fubject of Union at fome of the elections? Of some conteft founded on the known or declared opinions of different candidates, for or against the measure? And, laftly, would not the very act of the Scotch Parliament, which ratified the treaty, haverecited the special power which alone warranted them in that act, and which their general character as a Parlia ment did not authorize ?

Now, Sir, not one of those circumftances exifts. The proclamation, the copy of which I hold in my hand, gives no particular direction as to the elections. The fummonfes for election, the commiffions, the minutes, the corporation books, bear no marks or signs of any thing special. History, memoirs, tradition, are all filent; and you know, Sir, that the act of the Scotch Parliament is equally fo.

It is hardly neceffary to wind up the narrative I have been giving, by ftating that the commiffioners who met by virtue of the two acts of 1702, and of whom those

for

for Scotland muft have been the only perfons in the contemplation of the electors of the new Scotch Parliament, if thofe electors had exercised any judgment, as such, on the fubject of the propofed Union, never came to any conclufive treaty or agreement. Their meetings were finally adjourned on the 3d of February 1703.

The new Scotch Parliament did not meet till the 6th of May 1703. On the 9th of September 1703, they voted, that the commission of Parliament, as they called it, was terminate and extinct; and that there fhould be no new one without the confent of Parliament.

In February 1704-5, the English Parliament paffed a new act, empowering the Queen to appoint commiffioners, when a similar act should have paffed the Parliament of Scotlanda. On the 5th of April 1705, that first English Parliament of Queen Anne was diffolved, and the new one met on the 27th of October.

In the mean time, after a great deal of angry proceedings in the Parliament of Scotland, during their first and fecond feffion, in the third, which began on the 28th of June 1705, an act also paffed, authorizing the Queen to appoint commiffioners.

Under these two acts new commiffions iffued; that for Scotland on the 27th of February 1704-6, and that for England on the 10th of April 1706. The commiffioners met at Whitehall on the 16th of that month; on the 22d of July, the articles were executed; on the 16th of January 1706-7, they were (with feveral alterations) ratified by an act of the Scotch Parliament; and on the 6th of

Scotch Acts ift Parl, of Q. Anne, 3d feffion, c. 4. p. 776.

March

March of the fame year, by the English statute of 5th Anne, cap. 8. and the Union took effect on the ift of May 1707.

Sir, I did in a prior debate, declining at that time the argument, which was in much better hands, advert to the authority of several eminent perfons in Ireland on this question of the competency of their Parliament, and referred to a debate in the Irish House of Lords, in which the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Juftices, and the Chief Baron had voted, and three of them spoken in fupport of its competency. What I then faid has been misunderstood. I have been fuppofed not only to have afferted what I have just mentioned, and (which I alfo admit I did) that Mr. Fofter and Sir John Parnell had avoided giving their fanction to the contrary doctrine, but to have added, with fome triumph and exultation, that there had nobody been found to maintain it, but M'Nevin and Lewins. Sir, that is not what I ftated. I did perhaps difcover the fatisfaction I felt from the confideration that the diftinguished characters I have mentioned had fupported that fide of the queftion which I thought was neceffarily connected both with the general principles of government and those of the British Constitution; but I never said or meant to say, that no opinion had been delivered of an opposite sort, by any body in Ireland, except M'Nevin and Lewins. I merely obferved that the names of those who, at the different county and other meetings which had then taken place, had come to refolutions denying the competency did not appear; and that I thought it right, in contrast with the learned Noblemen to

Monday, 11th February 1799.

whom

whom I had referred, to mention two notorious perfons in that kingdom, who had in their own names and characters pronounced boldly, and without hefitation, their authoritative opinion to that effect. It was therefore unneceffary to question me whether I did not know in particular that three confiderable lawyers, and Members of the Irish Parliament, had denied this competency; and whether I doubted of their legal learning and abilities? I dare fay they have denied it. I have indeed read in a printed letter, to which the name of one of those gentlemen is fubfcribed, That the Parliament of Ireland, true to itself and honeft to its country, will * never affume a power extrinfic of its delegation".' Similar fentiments may have been delivered by the other two, and by others in the fifter Parliament; and as to the le gal abilities and acquirements of thofe gentlemen, far be it from me to express or entertain any opinion to their difparagement. One of them I have the pleasure of knowing; and that government, to which I had the honour of belonging when in Ireland, though fo corrupt and wicked according to fome of the Honourable Gentlemen on the oppofite fide of this Houfe, had the advantage of receiving from him a moft ftrenuous and spirited fupport. I do not recollect the other two. I believe they were not in Parliament in my time, but I understand they are alfo men of talents and eloquence. But, Sir, I am perfuaded thofe gentlemen themselves would not think. it implied any difrefpect to them, as members of the profeffion to which I once had the honour to belong, if I were now to say, that the opinions of barristers, however able or eminent, are not, in point of authority, to be put in the balance, on a great conftitutional point, with those of the heads of his Majesty's fupreme tribunals, the

Mr. Barrington's Letter to Mr. Saurin, dated 20th January 1799.

fathers and oracles of the law; efpecially when thofe great judicial ftations are fo filled as they at present are.

But, is it true, that, with a difproportion of members, fuch as it may be fuppofed will be fettled be tween the two countries, Ireland would only give, and Great Britain only acquire? I fpeak now of legiflative authority. In my judgment, quite otherwife. There would be a reciprocal, and, having regard to the respective weight of each in the scale of empire, an equal communication of power. The Lords and Commons of Great Britain would indeed acquire a direct hare in the légiflation of Ireland, but fo would the Lords and Commons of Ireland in that of Great Britain. Mutually they would relinquish, or, if Gentlemen like a more exceptionable word better, would furrender, the exclufive jurifdiction over their refpective countries z but each would obtain a fhare, commenfurate with its relative importance in the united ftate, of the fupreme dominion over the whole; and, therefore, as to the ditinction attempted on the queftion of right, how can it be contended that the British Parliament may lawfully receive within its bofom, fay 80, 100, or 120 ftrangers, velting them individually with the fame authority as its original members individually poffeffed, if the Irish Parliament cannot, on the condition of participating, according to due proportion, in the government of Great Britain and the empire, lawfully admit the legiflators of this island and of the empire to a fhare, adjusted by the fame rule of proportion, in the local government of Ireland ?The idea that inequality of numbers would vitiate the tranfaction on the fide of the weakeft country, leads to this (as was well remarked by a Right Honourable

Gentleman,