chamber of hereditary nobility, graduated analogously to these of England, and holding their titles by like grants, and with fimilar limitations,-an hereditary King, the chief Executive Magiftrate, and poffeffing a right of negative on the proceedings of the legislature, that this eftablishment is not like the British Conftitution I cannot argue with fucha man; I can only express my surprise. The arrangement of 1706, however, nogt Dobq5315h 2015. bas practically and fuccefsfully difputed your opinion; and by blending the Scottish Lords and Commons with the English, has recorded them to have been refpectively homogeneous claffesor viam Boy ato bises tirulah dibidw„noizeone Wit b 10 bɔbang55--cubaɔ of elixira bes

2

1

We, however, are not only united to the Crown, “but to the Empire: our friends, our enemies the fame "and our interests, as well as laws, binding us in that "Union. In £A. „acitulora>, "manpotion bas.11 erald bus 97% as gueda & motra ditind set go bute:sgo con bại bWhy then, in the name of Heaven, if a fingle flaw can be discovered on which to fix a doubt of the permanence of our connexion, should we fhrink from confolidating it, by the moft intimate incorporation? We fhould thereby lofe our free Constitution! I deny it. Prove to me e that we shall; and I will vote against an Union. Meantime, you must allow me here to cite a paffage from your Speech; accompanying it with fome qualifying parentheses of my own, it 20? doum ardı

S

"In preferving" (the diftin&iness of)" this Conftitution, we "retain all the means of trade" (except capital, induflry, in ternal quiet, and that stability of connexion, which may attract the capital of Britain) whereas, if we facrifice it," (by blending our distinct establishment, with a system analogous in theory, and better administered in practice,) “wealth will vanifh, when "freedom is banished," (by our obtaining thofe protections which fecure it to Great Britain.) We have more to lofe,than mere ❝ wealth, or trade: we have to lofe found genuine liberty;" (by participating in all the privileges of the British Conftitution.)

In page 104, waving thofe arguments which you haď founded on the alledged difference of our prefent fituation, from that of Scotland at the period of the Union, you (for a moment) admit their fimilarity; but contend" that every "argument drawn from the arrangement of 1706, ftrongly urges us against a fimilar experiment."

You doubt whether the encreasing prosperity of Scotland, frace the Union, is properly attributable to that event. It is difficult to prove the affirmative or negative of fuch a question; and befides, requires evidence, which neither you nor I poffefs. A comparison of the rates of Scottish progrefs, for fifty years before, and fifty years following the Union, would prove fomething. If that progress appeared infinitely accelerated in the latter period, it might seem prefumable that that event had contributed to advance it; and this presumption would become still more violent, if it appeared, on investigation, that the interval between Scotch and English profperity, had been * greater before the Union, than it was fince. For, that ** 1 pro"greffive ftate of the world, for the last century," to which, rather than to this measure, you impute the profperity of Scotland, would have operated in equal degree upon both countries; and therefore, the decrease of disparity between their greatnefs, would be fairly enough imputable to the Union. That arrangement would appear to have removed impediments to Scotch improvement; and by giving it the full ufe of whatever advantages it had from nature, to have enabled it to participate duly in the progrefs of the world.

not.

But has Scotland advanced in profperity, fince the Union, " as much as Ireland ?"* I prefume not. Spite of whatever mifchiefs were produced by Irish diftin&tness, I prefume This admiffion I concede not to your proof; but to my own conviction. Your demonftration is inadequate, and sophiftical. You measure the relative progrefs of the two countries

countries, by mere comparison of the advancement of their linen manufacture; without afcertaining whether this has fo predominated in Scotland, as with us: whether it has been equally the staple of both countries,

་

But I prefume, the advancement of Ireland has been more confiderable. I do not conceive Union to be a measure of fufficient efficacy, to effacé the distinctions of natural advantage, and prevent the prosperity of a country from bearing some proportion to thefe. It is enough, if it removes all political obftacles to a country's greatness; and thus renders it more profperous, than difunited it could have been. Ireland may be bleffed with natural capacities, which have fo far outweighed her political difadvantages, as, after all, to let her outstrip the profperity of Scotland. But if united, I am fatisfied' fhe will leave her still more behind; and reap, at length, the full benefits -of her foil and fituation.

*** On the question, however, whence Scotch profperity has arifen, I am content that we should make a compromife, if you think proper. I will abate, fomewhat of my certainty, that it has been produced by the Scottish Union, if you, on your part, will not fo inexorably refer to the fettlement of 1782, every advance which has been made by Ireland, fince that period. Suppofe, that in fourteen years from 1782, Irish exports rofe as much, as they had done in eighty years before we know, that in the cafe of individuals, and of nations, improvement does not proceed regularly, but par feconfes we know that the recent acceleration, of which you boaft, may have arifen, not from the arrangements of 1782, but from that free trade of 1780, which an Union, instead of cramping, would practically promote we do not know but a comparison in the cafe of Scotland, would furnish the fame difference between her rates of progrefs, fince, and previous to, 1782: We do know, that latterly, the advances of England have been incomparably more rapid, than they were before,

#Page 107.

and that the may have hurried us along, as an Imperial Relative, in those ftrides. At all events you know (for you have ftated) that the argument is fhallow, which attributes every "encrease of trade in Scotland, from that day to this, to the "Union;' and the argument which is fhallow, as to Scotland, cannot, as to Ireland, be more profound; nor can the fettlement of 1782 be entitled to a privilege, which you deny to the arrangement of 1706.

"The question between England and Scotland," (you fay) "was Union, or Separation " I doubt whether, in the prefent cafe, the queftion be widely different, and found my doubts on events too melancholy, and too notorious, for enameration: I might found them on the mere reports of our Secret Committees; and they would ftand. But the proposed Union "leads to feparation." Prove this to its fupporters, and I will answer for their conversion. Can you feriously imagine that the Minister, or the Legislature of Great Britain, would propofe a meafure,which "leads to feparation?" What has brought the British Militia into Ireland ?---Would the government which fent thofe to fight, if neceffary, for the connexion,---lend its hand to a measure which leads to separation --Nay, Sir, we should liften with diftrust even to arguments, which were employed to prove any thing fo incredible as this; and fo long as you confine yourself to mere paradoxical affertion,---fpite of your merited weight, we cannot liften to you at all.

You afk, why Mr. Dundas " has not told us the opinion of "his countryman, Mr. Adam Smith, on the effects of the "Scottish Union ?Ӥ---I am sure I cannot tell.He might, with perfect security, have reforted to his authority; while, for you to quote it, appears rather indifcreet.Adam Smith has explicitly declared it as his opinion that, by an Union with Great Britain, Ireland would obtain not only commercial, but other more important advantages: that this measure would dry

* P. 104. † P. 107. Ib. § P. 106.

up

up a fource of difcord and oppreffion; and that " without it, "the inhabitants of this country were not likely, for ages, to "confider themselves as one people."* A writer who holds thefe fentiments with refpect to Union, is not exactly the authority, which an Anti-unionift fhould chufe to cite.

Having, in a fpeech which I made in Parliament, in January laft, and which has, fince that time, appeared in print, dif caffed the queftion of Parliamentary competence pretty fully, I fhall, (without meaning to refer my reader to what has been said, or written, by so poor an authority as myfelf,) yet decline repeating here what I have thus already offered to the Publick;

and shall content myfelf, in answer to what you urge upon this head, with obferving briefly---that to difpute the competence of Parliament, is to deny the conftitutional existence of the united kingdom of Great Britain, and fhake to its foundations his Majefty's (not hereditary) title to his Scottish Crown; nay may go to impeach the right of the Houfe of Hanover, (under the Act of Settlement) to the Throne of England --that it is to contradict the express pofitions, as well as to fubvert the confequential doctrines, of fome of the ableft conftitutional and legal writers; including names no less respectable than thofe of Blackstone, Coke, and Montefquieu ;---and operates to give inevitable admiffion to a Republican Principle, which will degrade Parliament from its high ftation, and deck a fierce and unwieldy multitude in the fpoils of legislative fupremacy.

The fecurity of the fubject against Parliamentary domination arifes, not from the limited authority of the legislative, but from the frame and conftruction of Parliament itself; in which the various and conflicting interefts of the state, are fo well poifed, as mutually to control the encroachments of each other and if, fpite of thefe precautions, a weak and wicked. Parliament fhould yet abufe its vaft authority,---it might thereby legitimate infurrection, and pull its own power about its

Inquiry into the Nature and Caufes of the Wealth of Nations: Book V. c. 3.