The queftion of competency (if that is ferioufly a queftion) is the next in order; and then the general utility and fairness of the measure itself. But it is not my intention, for the prefent at least to examine the particular merit of every clause and condition, which can only be difcuffed with any beneficial effect, and I fear only with any candour, by commiffioners on both fides, who shall be already fatisfied of the pure and honourable character of the proceeding of the competency of the two parliaments, and of the reciprocal advantage, dignity, and security, which it is their object to procure and confirm to both kingdoms.

As to the question of competency, I fhall add but one argument to those which have been urged with fuch refiftlefs energy on both fides of the water and that, because it is addreffed to those persons whose fanciful and dangerous doctrines would unhinge the civi

lized

lized world; who deny the power of states and governments and legislatures, and would affemble in plains or forefts upon every new cafe and occurrence, the population of an empire, to collect the votes of labourers and shepherds. I think the absurdity of their opinion is merged and drowned in its depravity; the bitter malice and fubtlety of their scheme fwallows up its madness and impracticable folly, But I would ask them upon their own principle, and accrding to their own reasoning, what right the British Parliameut poffeffed in 1782, without confulting numerically the people of Britain, to surrender the fovereign controul and supremacy of the British legisJature over their colony in Ireland? What right had Britain to abandon three millions of Catholics to the difcretion of the colony, without the confent of every shop and every cabin in the four provinces? I would afk them what right the parliament of Ireland poffeffed in 1782, to accept that fatal

boon,

boon, without confulting the people of Ireland in the fame manner? Do they mean to fay that parliaments are competent when themselves approve their measures, and incompetent when they differ from them? Does the authority of the ftate, and the exercife of the conftitution, depend upon their approbation or concurrence? or is parliament competent to contract, and not to refcind a contract-to bind, and not to loofen? Do they mean to fay we had no authority to cede the colonies of America? or that we have no competence to fever Ireland and abandon it France? they will not go this length. I know it, but their argument does; for it denies the validity of every legiflative act, of every great national fettlement, because the votes of the multitude have not been collected per capita. It would neither leave order, government, nor authority in ftates, nor peace between them; it would revoke into doubt and litigation every a&, every

treaty,

treaty, and every principle, by which the conduct of nations has been governed or their misfortunes terminated,

If it is contended that parliaments are competent to procure advantage and general good, but not to part with or alienate them; I fhall anfwer, that this is a begging of the queftion; for we affert the union to be adyantage and general good. But it is not only a begging of the question, but a confusion of the terms; for competency does not intend, nor conclude, nor refpect wisdom, An ufurper has made wife and wholesome laws, and a legal prince abfurd and unjust ones: yet the competency is with the legal prince. For For competency depends upon a juft autho rity, and not upon the the ufe of it. This is material for me to ftate, who am preparing to fhew, that the act of 1782, (the legality of which who doubts muft, in my opinion, very weak or very wicked) was an act

bc

very imprudent and very prejudicial to the people of Ireland.

By that act, I confess I think that the parliaments of the two kingdoms did mean to come to a FINAL SETTLEMENT; though there exifts great authority to prove that there were ftatefmen on both fides the water who faw either the danger, the infufficiency, or the nullity of the act. I think the public of both kingdoms interpreted it in that light, and in that light I think it was condemned, and lamented by every man of feeling, reflection and fagacity.

It was an act extorted by the base ingratitude of our Irish colony, from the feebleness and calamity of our ftate. It was an act of ambitious violence, imposed upon us while we lay weltering in our blood, and faint from defeat and difafter. It was an act of unfilial and unmanly artifice, plotted by the bafeft

H