send to the National Parliament representatives who, by their absence from this country, must be entirely unacquainted with its circumstances. And hence we may deduce an additional argument in favour of the plan of rotation, which will thus produce a double effect, in encouraging residence at home, and giving our representatives full means of being acquainted with the state of the country which they are to represent. Thirdly, though our Parliament will meet in England, there will be always a court here in the capital, and therefore, as far as amusements and the pleasures of polished life are concerned, there will be no considerable increase of inducement to resort to the great capital of the nation.

2dly. It is objected that Ireland has prospered under the present form, and therefore it should be continued. But, as the writers against the Union themselves argue, we should consider how much more it would have improved had we been united with England.

3dly. It is said that this country is so great as to require a local Parliament. But it is to be observed, that there will be always resident here a Lord-Lieutenant, invested with the full executive power, attended always by some of the principal men of the country, forming his council. The Executive Government, therefore, will be equally efficient as before, and the Legislative need not be in continual existence; and, if not, it surely need not exist in a given place. The Executive power, indeed, ought to exist there, where information may be received and wherever mandates may be issued with the greatest despatch; but the place where the Legislative Assembly holds its meetings is of no concern.

4thly. It has been objected, that England has, in so many instances, acted ungenerously, almost falsely, towards Ireland, that we should not trust her with our future interests. -But who is so weak as to expect generosity and disinterestedness among States ! The best writers on ethics derived their systems of morality from self-love. And the reason why indi

viduals so often confer benefits on each other is because they have a common law, and the interest of one is not incompatible, or in no degree interferes with, that of another-in the jarring of interests, generosity ceases. So among States: let them have a common interest, and they will act with mutual attention to each other's welfare. Remove, then, the cause of England's jealousy, and the jealousy itself will vanish. Make one country with England, and you will have one common interest.

5thly. It is objected that this measure will probably excite insurrections in this country, as it did in Scotland, where the Union was followed by the Rebellion in 1715. But it is most certain that the Union and the Rebellion in Scotland were two events no more connected with each other than any two events in history whatever. It is well known that the endeavour of the Scots to place the Pretender on the throne arose entirely from their attachment to his family, and their persuasion that he was the lawful heir to the Crown, and would equally have been made in whatever manner the two kingdoms had been connected.

6thly. It is objected that the Union cannot give us, in point of trade, any benefit of which we are not already possessed. Now, even admitting this to be true, what is the consequence? All States are self-interested; and therefore, since England proposes the Union, it must be for her own advantage, and therefore we should reject it. Such is the exhortation of one of the many writers on this subject.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."

Certainly, I admit the premise; England is interested in the measure, but I deny the consequence that therefore we should reject it; because we ourselves, perhaps, may be equally interested with her, and because there are other advantages besides those of trade, as, for instance, greater national security and strength.

But, secondly, with respect to trade, though she may have

nothing to grant, she may have much to withhold. What certainty have we that our linen trade shall be countenanced and supported? What assurance can we have, that East India ships shall continue to touch in our ports, as they have for some time continued to do? May we not secure these and other advantages also, in the same manner as we gained them, that is, by the conjuncture of circumstances?

7thly. It is objected that a Union, at all times, is inexpedient, but more particularly at this, when England is embarrassed with a heavy load of debt, in the discharge of which we should have no concern. But this objection, in truth, springs from the most extreme disloyalty. For the argument, when analyzed, runs thus: England, in her war with France, has been so impoverished, that the Government cannot subsist without our aid; then let us refuse this aid, and her Government must be overturned. This argument is certainly valid, if we have no concern with her affairs; but, if her safety be our safety, how mad is it to refuse every assistance that is in our power! On a former occasion we rejected a Union with England, without any essential injury on either side: the political storm was not then violent, nor had the vessel of the State sustained those rude shocks, which, in the late tempest, have so torn her sails and wounded her helm; and shall they, who have the care of the ropes and the cordage, refuse their assistance in repairing the damages which other parts of the vessel have sustained, and preventing a shipwreck, in which the whole crew must alike perish?

But how is England interested?

1. Is she interested on account of her manufactures? Will they be benefitted by the new lights which we can give them in the construction of machines, and by such examples of diligence and attention as they have hitherto been unacquainted with?

2. Is she interested on account of her political liberty? Surely, that can in no wise be affected, since the form of our Government will remain precisely what it was.

3. Is she interested on account of her navy? Certainly no further than as a Union will remove all her fears of establishing arsenals in the different ports of this kingdom, by which we must be even more benefitted than she can.

4. With respect to taxes, there is no doubt she is interested. England has sustained a most severe and expensive war with the greatest military power that perhaps ever appeared. But has not the security of our religion, our property, and our laws been involved in the contest as well as her own? Dignified indeed has been the struggle of England for establishments in opposition to anarchy; and no sophistry can detract from the glory she has obtained, of being the only power in Europe that effectually stemmed the torrent of atheism and French tyranny. I am persuaded that there is not a loyal person in the kingdom that would in the slightest degree obstruct our freeing England from a weight of debt she has contracted, as far as our finances would admit; nor can she entertain the least doubt of being able, through our Parliament, to levy whatever contributions she may think we are able to make. In this point of view, she is not interested in a Union, as connected with taxation; but, in another point of view, she is materially. From the improvement of our trade, the wealth of the country will certainly increase, and, according as our wealth increases, we shall be enabled to contribute more to the expences of the State, with less inconvenience.

But, 5thly, in another respect, England is materially interested in this Union; and that is with respect to her political power in the scale of Europe. By the unity of Parliament, all matters relative to the Empire will be despatched with more facility and advantage to the State, as in no part subject to the influence of faction. No petty intrigues can embarrass the Minister in his plans for the general good, nor can the disaffected in one country practise on the Parliament of the other. When France, intoxicated with her successes in her first career of war, projected the invasion of these countries, and that subjugation which, she made no doubt, would be the

immediate consequence, her plan was to have established three Republics, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, entirely independent of each other; knowing that, by their division, we should be so weakened as to be unable, for the future, to obstruct her in her scheme of universal Empire. It is, therefore, manifest, by the law of contraries, that the union of the three governments must be the most effectual means of giving such strength as will enable us to counteract her ambitious designs.

England, therefore, is interested in the Union; but her interests depend on it in such a manner that ours are necessarily connected with them; inasmuch as they must result from an increase of national wealth and political consequence flowing from a consolidation of interests. That England has not any other advantage in view than such as I have mentioned seems probable from her conduct, when a Union with Scotland was proposed by James 1., which measure, though supported by all the argumentative powers of Sir F. Bacon, was rejected, merely from the jealousy of the English.

this mea

Some men there are, who, no doubt, will oppose sure for what question was ever carried unanimously by a nation?-but, narrowly inquire into their motives, and you will find either that they are guided by self-interest, without any regard to the public good; or, that they have no respect for the established Religion of their country; or, that they wish to withhold from England every assistance that we can give her in her arduous struggle for liberty against imperious and overbearing France; hoping that, in the end, she may fail in the contest, and that at length they shall gain their longwished-for object-a total separation of this country from England.

MR. EDWARD COOKE'S NOTES IN FAVOUR OF THE UNION. Will a Union make Ireland quiet?

Who can judge for the future? Yet, although we cannot command futurity, we are to act as if futurity were in our