Marquis of Buckingham, and Lord Carrington by six each.1

If we add to all this that there were ten places in England the members of which, sixteen in number, were returned by the patronage of Government, we shall have an idea of the system of representation which prevailed in England at the time of the Irish Union, and for thirty years later.2

The representation of Scotland was defective and anomalous in the highest degree. In the counties the great mass of the landholders and householders was excluded from all participation in the choice of members. The vote was severed from the land, and attached to a fictitious creation of the law known by the name of the "Superiority." So that the representatives of the landed interest might be elected by those who had no real or beneficial interest in the soil, and who were called "outvoters." These "Superiorities" were openly bought and "were sold in the market, and were enjoyed independently of property or even of residence.*

5

Even so late as 1831 the total number of county electors in Scotland did not exceed two thousand five hundred. The county of Argyll, with a population of a hundred thousand, had but a hundred and fifteen electors, of whom eighty-four had no land in the county. Caithness, with thirty thousand inhabitants, contained

1 May, Const. Hist., i. 277.

2 These places were: Dartmouth 2, Dover I, Harwich 2, Hythe 2, Windsor 1, Hampshire 2, Yarmouth 1, Queensborough 2, Rochester 1, Sandwich 2. Oldfield, vi. 292.

3 Petition of the Friends, &c.

5 Ib. i. 295.

4 May, Const. Hist., i. 295.

forty-seven voters, of whom thirty-six had no real property in it. In Invernessshire, with a population of ninety thousand, there were but eighty-eight voters, of whom fifty were unconnected with the land. And the county of Bute, which contained a population of fourteen thousand, had twenty-one electors, of whom only one resided within it.1

With respect to the boroughs, everything that bore even the semblance of popular choice had long been done away with. The election of members was vested in magistrates and town councils that had constituted themselves into self-elected bodies, and had deprived the people of all participation in the privilege. Edinburgh and Glasgow had each a constituency of thirty-three persons. The constituencies of the sixty-six boroughs amounted to one thousand four hundred and forty. So that the entire electoral body of Scotland was not more than four thousand, not a fiftieth part of the Irish electorate at or shortly after the Union.

2

In 1816 there was not a free seat in all Scotland. Of the forty-five members returned by that country thirtyone were returned by peers or peeresses, and fourteen by commoners. No Catholic could vote at elections.

3

Humour often decides a question on which reason labours in vain. The story told by the Lord Advocate in 1831 to the House of Commons will illustrate the Scotch representation and its working. The county of Bute, as has been mentioned, had twenty-one electors, of whom one resided in the county. "At an election at

Bute only one person attended the meeting except the sheriff and returning officer. He of course took the chair, constituted the meeting, called over the roll of freeholders, answered to his own name, took the vote as to the Preses, and elected himself. He then moved and seconded his own nomination, put the question as to the vote, and was unanimously returned."

1 Hansard, 3 Ser., vii. 529, quoted by May, Const. Hist., i. 297.

CHAPTER III.

Nature of the connection which existed between Great Britain and Ireland after 1782.-Its dangers.-Tendencies to separation, as shown in the refusal of a Commercial Treaty.-In the Regency question. In actual and proposed Irish Legislation.

THE settlement of 1782 put an end to the degrading position in which Ireland stood with respect to GreatBritain, and elevated her to the rank of an independent kingdom. By it the four grievances of which Ireland complained were removed. These grievances were-The X claim of Great Britain to bind Ireland by her laws: The Appellate jurisdiction: the provisions of Poynings' law and the perpetuity of the Mutiny Act. But these four grievances may be reduced to one, viz., the claim to bind Ireland by enactments made in the British Parliament, for the others were merely appurtenant to it. The Appellate jurisdiction fell with the legislative claim, and the other two were matters of internal arrangement. The settlement was final as to the only matters in dispute between the two countries, and it established fully and perfectly the constitution and legislative Independence of Ireland. It was not, however, preclusive of further measures which the legislatures of both countries might deem necessary for securing the permanence of the connection between them. It was not

an abolition of the inherent powers of the two Parliaments, nor did it extinguish or abridge their deliberative or operative capacities. It is evident that it did not preclude independent Ireland or independent Great Britain from offering to, or accepting from, the other an International treaty; whether that treaty referred to commercial regulations or to such an Imperial arrangement as a Legislative Union.'

No attempt was ever made by Great Britain, as has been asserted, to violate the legislative independence of Ireland as established in 1782. On the contrary, it was scrupulously and loyally respected. Ireland was satisfied with the repeal of the Declaratory Act of George I.; Great Britain passed a law renouncing all legislative claims on Ireland. On every solemn occasion Great Britain seized the opportunity of declaring Ireland's legislative independence. In 1785, at the time of the proposed Commercial Treaty, the Bill, which was introduced into the English Parliament to carry out its provisions, pronounced that the Parliament of Ireland was alone competent to make laws binding on that kingdom. At the same time, both Houses of the British Parliament concurred in an address to the Crown containing an explicit declaration to the same effect. The stipulation required by Great Britain that Ireland should adopt England's commercial regulations and

1 The babble about the "finality " of the settlement of 1782 is melancholy reading. Three questions only did or could arise respecting the Union-1. Were the two legislatures competent to enact it? 2. Was it of so great advantage to both nations as to make it desirable? 3. Was the time opportune?