sivt qor¶ ikisınımınst) 185la " (v) any! “Making on 1 * their facrilegious irreverence to wax. On their arrogance, a “ parchment, adorned with the Great Seal of England on its right fide, and of Ireland on its left, can make no impreffion of resis fpect. They affirm, (but they are calumniators of our Conftit tution) that Ififh independence (which they admit to be remarkably well-founding words) is no where to be found, but in certain rolls of parchment, called 22 Geo. Ill. c. 53, and 23 Geo. III. c. 28; and thefe, they are fo far from refpecting, that they quite mistake their operation, which they conceive to have been (I was about to fay, purely)

of a com

F!, ! ༣ mercial nature, and to have erected an Irish aristocracy into a company, for exclufively carrying on the trade of Jobbing, and of Parliament. This commerce they indeed contend to have flourished under their protection, but doubt whether the prof perity of the country has advanced in proportion: whether the commodity in which they traffick-I mean connexionwas not fecured as well to England, and lefs expenfively and gallingly to this country, before their ariftocratick monopoly had accrued, and whether, in fhort, British afcendancy might not, with as much advantage to both kingdoms, have remained in the keeping of an English Parliament, as been transferred to Irish Commiffioners, to adminifter. Nay, they infift, that by the ingenuity of British Councils, this Wax and Parchment has been manufactured into a mask, beneath which, English Superiority, wearing the features of Irish Independence, has ranged without control, and been lefs. fufceptible of confine ment, within the limits of that afcendant, which, (I fpeak this seriously) Britain ought to poflefs: which belongs to our fituation, and is neceflary to our connexion; fince I' hold it for a maxim, that this country must be united with, or feparate from, or in a certain degree practically dependent upon Britain, Bite sood wond i

In truth, I conceive you, Sir, in 1785, to have very fignally recorded your concurrence in my doctrine, as to the propriety of fuch control. I mean by the fupport which I apprehend you gave to propofitions that were refifted by Mefirs. Flood

and Grattan, on the ground of their "interfering with the legi- ! flative authority of the Irish Parliament," violating that com

F

*

pact of 1782, on which you now fo much rely, and putting! an end to the free conflitution of Ireland." And as, in truth, that commercial fyftem went to bind this country in certain" cafes, by the acts of a Parliament in which he was not reprefented, (by pledging her to the adoption of fuch acts when made, and thus so far divefting her of all legislative freedom,) I am the more surprised at your conftitutional fcruples about "a" Union, which would not bind freland by the acts of any legis nature, but one in which her ariftocracy, wealth, and population," were adequately reprefented; and I cannot eafily reconcile your affirmation, that not an atom of our Constitution" was furrendered by the plan which you recommended in 1785, with your pofition that the fyftem now propofed involves its utter annihilation. To me that measure feems fomewhat more than merely eligible, which, by identifying even to vulgar eyes, the interefts of both countries, will appeafe the factions, and pro-tol mote the wealth and tranquillity of this which, instead of t deftroying the fubftance of our eftablishment, will animate its lifelefs forms with the pure and genuine spirit of the British con ftitution, and give it a vigour that shall scatterblèffing's through this too-long drooping land, bas barrow of Hobi feve bivibul cwt ngawted supiq &

But will Union produce thefe advantages to our country —lon This, I admit, is the real queftion. The intrinfick merits of 97* the measure form the true matter for our difcuffion;-to which the competence of Parliament, and the compact of 1782, are about as pertinent as Lord Macartney's embaffy to China. 91 15b at of en folis find bybis clini You afk, what defects, tending to feparation, the present ‡ ftate of our connexion involves? For my part I difcern enow o

(

* See Woodfall's Sketch of the Debate, and N. B. That thefe obfervations of Meffrs, F. and G. were applied to the Bill of Mr Orde, winchno the then Chancellor of the Exchequer fupported.58-1 to heqne

to produce difficulty in felection, and tediousness in enumeration. If our independence be real, I fee a range of poffible diffenti ons, as wide as is the sphere of legislative dominion in a state. I fee that jealoufy, which will be apt to mistake acts of animo-7 fity, for affertions of independence, confpiring with a thoufands nameless contingencies, to turn this theory into practice; to loofen the connexion, and "ftrike the Crown into the hazard.". If our independence were merely nominal, the thing would be fill worfe it might involve a dependance the more galling," and aggravated, because concealed: at all events, it would be a fraud; and would contaminate, and render' odious, that connexion, of which it made a part; whilt it might expofe our oftenfibly independent Parliament to the diftruft and abhor rence of the people; might bring their moft meritorious acts, and thofe most necessary towards fupporting the connexion, into fufpicion, and make them pafs for fymptoms of corrupt fervility. Again, if our Independence were, as it might be, fome thing fluctuating between reality and name,fubftantial ont fome occafions, and but apparent upon others,-it feems to me, that the likely confequence would be, its combining the mifchiefs of both fyftems: in any of the three cafes, I difcern in our diftinctnefs, (that is to fay, in the theory of our prefent relation to Britain,) a ftore of weapons, whereof faction might avail itself, to wound and feversa connexion fo frail, that even a pique between two individuals, on oppofite fides of the channel, might give to its friends fome reafonable ground for trembling.sai

T

If, in our prefent imperial arrangements, there lurk thefe tendencies to difruption, have the fituation and views of France fo little aided their effect, as to render it unwife in us to wrest from our foe, the arms which we had inadvertently committed to his hands Have feparatifts at home looked idly at the weakness of our fyftem, or profited by that weakness, in attempt ing its deftruction? Has our populace manifefted fuch a contented" fondness for the prefent eftablishment, or that celebrated compact of 1782, which fecured it, as that we need entertain

T

fears

.

graditi zmobyalabant and at playin

bfears of modifying it, left we might thereby damp the loyalty, www.91 Hill? gevinced by our liege pikemen, at Rofs, or Vinegar

The hiftory of (would I could fay the late) rebellion,—the defcents upon our coafts,-the fatigues of our yeomanry,-the ftern, though neceffary, provifions of our legislature, the scenes of fcourging in our metropolis, the multitude of our troops, with all the train of confoling details, which attend on civil difcord and difaffection, accompanied with the comments of the empty, arrogant, and applauded Tone-will fupply answers to fome of the enquiries which I have made, and fuggest whether the defects of our fyftem be practical or merely theoretick.

But you, Sir," can find only two defects even suggested: "the one of peace and war, including treaties; the other of a

Hogar innstu lo essum di bas, bagery adt of allda

DowAs to the first, you fay, that as the two kingdoms may hap

pen to diffent from each other, fo a difagreement between two shouses of Parliament may take place; and therefore the argument which proves the expediency of confolidating the kingAll would go to recommend a confolidation of the two Houses doms,

of Parliament; quod eft abfurdum vig of who of

1 atasa (gsub 1sis of JobST

rotoThis reasoning appears liable to fome strong objections; which I fhall take the liberty of offering without much order,—fuggefting them as they occur. one noy nɔd"} chasib dedi o pos ei sugmy Firft! One Empire, with two Legiflatures, is fomewhat analogous to the idea of one man, with two wills; a wills; and is indeed litwall the fhort of a contradiction in terms: therefore, that the legiflative powers of an empire fhould ld not be scattered, but concen

trated, is at leaft defirable, if not effential, to conftituting and giving existence to the Empire. Polakaer

But one legiflature, confifting of diftinct branches, is perfectly intelligible in point of theory, and highly beneficial in poin of practice.

Page $2.

Therefore,

Therefore, legiflatively to blend two kingdoms, if they be parts of one Empire, would be to remove an inconfiftency, and obtain a good; whereas, to confolidate two branches of the legislature, would be to produce a mifchief, and this without the pretext of having had any anomaly to remove, gosp

The British Legiflature is divided into diftin&t branches, because the community, which it reprefents, is split into difelisasi ferent interefts: but the kingdoms of the British Empire have but one intereft, if properly understood; and therefore the neceffity for divifion does not exift. tangono erages

dom smed I didw asping ans le smol of

It contributes to constitutional freedom, to have the branches of a legislature diftin&t: it contributes to imperial energy, to have the legislative of the empire confolidated, not dispersed.

If two Houses of Parliament difagree the effect is, that the measure falls to the ground; and in matters of internal regulation, this may happen without ill confequence; but how languid will the Empire be, if in great imperial concerns it must remain inactive, paralyfed by the disagreement of its two legislatures!

Why are the Houfes of the British Legislature kept diftin&? In order to give them an opportunity of disagreeing with effect: in order to give efficacy and operation to their disagreement;

and make each of the branches a check upon the other.

When you prescribe* separate legislatures, for the British Empire, is it with a view to give efficacy to their diffenfions? If it be not, you cannot fupport your meafure, on the theory hich the conftruction of the British Parliament is founded: if it be, you do not much confult either the tranquillity or vigour of the Empire. signs to asset zavit

on which

The British fyftem of Legislative balance is compounded of three parts; and involves in it a principle as well of Union, as of Separation. It poffeffes, in the Royal Estate, a guide to

the

* Page 56.

.