1

any

themselves, or perfuade others to do fo. But no
provifion for fuch a cafe ever has been or can
be made before-hand; it forms no chapter in
known code of laws, it can find no place in
any fyftem of human jurifprudence. But, above
all, if fuch a principle can make no part of any
eftablished Conftitution, not even of those where
the Government is fo framed as to be most liable
to the abufe of its powers, it will be prepofterous
indeed to fuppofe that it can he admitted in one
where thofe powers are fo diftributed and balanc-
ed as to furnish the beft fecurity against the pro-
bability of fuch an abuse. Shall that principle be
fanctioned as a neceffary part of the best Govern-
ment, which cannot be admitted to exift even
as a check upon the worst! Pregnant as it is
with danger and confufion, fhall it be received
and established in proportion as every reafon which
can ever make it neceffary to recur to it is not likely
to exift? Yet, Sir, I know not how it is, that,
in proportion as we are lefs likely to have occafion
for fo defperate a remedy, in proportion as a
Government is fo framed as to provide within
itfelf the best guard and control on the exercife
of every branch of authority, to furnish the means

of

of preventing or correcting every abuse of power, and to fecure, by its own natural operation, a due attention to the intereft and feelings of every part of the community, in that very proportion perfons have been found perverfe enough to imagine, that fuch a Conftitution admits and recognizes, as a part of it, that which is inconfiftent with the nature of any Government, and above all, inapplicable to our own.

Í have said more, Sir, upon this subject than I fhould have thought neceffary, if I had not felt that this falfe and dangerous mockery of the Sovereignty of the People is in truth one of the chief elements of Jacobinifm, one of the favourite impoftures to mislead the understanding, and to flatter and inflame the paffions of the mafs of mankind, who have not the opportu nity of examining and expofing it, and that as fuch on every occafion, and in every fhape in which it appears, it ought to be combated and refifted by every friend to civil order, and to the peace and happiness of mankind.

Sir, the next and not the leaft prevalent objection, is one which is contained in words which are an appeal to a natural and laudable, but what

f

muft call an erroneous and mistaken fenfe of national pride. It is an appeal to the generous and noble paffions of a nation easily inflamed under any fuppofed attack upon its honour, I mean the attempt to reprefent the queftion of a Union by compact between the Parliaments of the two Kingdoms as a queftion involving the Independance of Ireland. It has been faid, that no compenfation could be made to any country for the furrender of its National Independance. Sir, on this, as well as on every part of the queftion, I am defirous Gentlemen fhould come closely to the point, that they fhould fift it to the bottom, and afcertain upon what grounds and principles their opinion really refts.. Do they mean to maintain that in any humiliating, in any degrading fenfe of the word which can be acted upon practically as a rule, and which can lead to any useful conclufion, that at any time when the Government of any two feparate Countries unite in forming one more extenfive empire, that the individuals who compofe either of the former narrow focieties are afterwards lefs members of an independant country, or to any valuable and ufeful purpose less poffeffed of political freedom or

។

F

civil happiness than they were before. It muft be obvious to every Gentleman who will look at the fubject, in tracing the hiftory of all the countries, the most proud of their prefent exifting independance, of all the nations in Europe, there is not one that could exift in the ftate in which it now ftands, if that principle had been acted upon by our forefathers; and Europe must have remained to this hour in a state of ignorance and barbarifm, from the perpetual warfare of independent and petty ftates. In the inftance of our own Country, it would be a fuperfluous waste of time to enumerate the fteps by which all its parts were formed into one Kingdom; but will any man in general affert, that in all the different Unions which have formed the principal ftates of Europe, their inhabitants have become lefs free, that they have had lefs of which to be proud, lefs scope for their own exertions, than they had in their former fituation. If this doctrine is to be generally maintained, what becomes of the fituation at this hour of any one county of England, or of any one county of Ireland, now united under the independant Parliament of that King. dom? If it be pushed to its full extent, it is obviously incompatible with all civil fociety. As

the former principle of the fovereignty of the people ftrikes at the foundation of all governments, fo this is equally hoftile to all political confederacy, and mankind must be driven back to what is called the ftate of nature.

But while I combat this general and abstract principle, which would operate as an objection to every union between feparate ftates, on the ground of the facrifice of independance, do I mean to contend that there is in no cafe juft ground for fuch a statement? Far from it: it may become, on many occafions, the firft duty of a free and generous people. If there exifts a country which contains within itfelf the means of military protection, the naval force neceffary for its defence, which furnishes objects of industry fufficient for the fubfiftence of its inhabitants, and pecuniary resources adequate to maintaining, with dignity, the rank which it has attained among the nations of the world; if, above all, it enjoys the bleffings of internal content and tranquillity, and poffeffes a diftinct conftitution of its own, the defects of which, if any, it is within itself capable of correcting, and if that conftitution be equal, if not fuperior, to that of any other in the world, or (which is nearly the fame