for the general good. The United States of North America may be viewed as an example of what is termed a Federal Government. As the revolted colonies were first confederated, they were too loosely united to form a general body, and the necessity of constituting a supreme assembly, or congress, at Washington was soon felt. Still more recently-as in the case of M'Leodone State by its act (New York) had nearly involved every other State in war with England. Congress have now passed an act compelling each State to submit such questions to the general government and Congress at Washington. Thus, step by step, the government at Washington will become an Imperial Government, or, if not, a dissolution of the Union will take place, feuds, and ultimately war, will ensue between the different StatesNorthern and Southern,-several fierce democratic republics will be created, and finally some military despot will crush each republic, and consolidate all into an absolute government. If no Imperial Representative government, with a limited monarchy and hereditary aristocracy, be established in the United Statessuch will be the inevitable result of several States holding separate parliaments. It is the cycle of events in unison with the passions of mankind, and in conformity with the history of all nations, Pagan or only nominally Christian.

It is obvious, on reflection, that the Federal Union is a primary stage of society, and an Imperial Government a marked and indispensable step towards civilisation. The history of mankind amply illustrates the truth of this observation. A Federal Union has in it no principle of preservation; discordant interests soon arise; petty passions, private jealousies, local feuds, exercise a baneful influence; direful contests arise; and, after long and harassing wars and desolation, the union of federalised states is either disintegrated into separate and hostile governments, or the iron heel of despotism crushes the discordant materials into an indiscriminate mass, to be ruled by brute force at the mercy of an individual tyrant. In all ages and in all countries such has been the inevitable course of federalised states. Athens had her federal allies in the Ægean Sea, and was destroyed. So also

Sparta subsequent to the Peloponnesian war.

Carthage and her republican federation also fell, as did Rome and its Italian and foreign municipia. Egypt, Syria, and Lydia were federally allied to the Persian monarchy. Hindostan was a collection of federal states, nominally under the authority of the Great Mogul, on our arrival in India; but the whole peninsula, with one hundred and fifty million of inhabitants, rapidly yielded to British sway on the slightest pressure of our power. Turkey, Egypt, and Syria is another illustration of the effect of federalisation, although differing in degree from that of other states. So also the Germanic Union, the Swiss Cantons, the Italian States, and the Union of Hungary and Austria, under one crown; all either feeble and ineffective for general defence against a common enemy, or daily threatening a separation of their union, or a concentration of despotic power. The Netherlands, the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily, and the Duchy of Milan, were separate States with local Governments, but under a common head-the King of Spain; each was placed under a viceroy, the Alter ego of the Sovereign, with delegated powers. The inevitable result was a separation, although originating from various causes. This, however, strengthens my argument It demonstrates that there is in the body politic, as in the human body, a dissolving ingredient always at work, requiring care, vigilance, counteractives, and continual restoratives, all under the control of a single organ, adapted for their reception, which influences the power of the executive whence emanate the functions of thought for the government of the whole frame. These remarks hold equally good whether applied to a conjunction of several representative states, or to an assembly of several nations under a despotism. Napoleon attempted the federal alliance of several states, under his own control as Emperor of France, namely, the kingdoms of Spain, Italy, Naples, Holland, Westphalia, and the Confederation of the Rhine. Even his master-mind failed, notwithstanding the vast military power which he despotically wielded, and that the sovereigns of the different states were either allied to him by blood, or creatures of his own formation. Our own country affords a

remarkable illustration of the two forms of government, federal and imperial, in its different stages of civilisation. When the Romans first landed, A.D. 83, they found England and Wales divided into seventeen separate kingdoms, with a nominal ruler over all. The result was that each kingdom fell separately and rapidly a prey to the invaders. On the withdrawal of the Romans, (A.D. 446,) the different Saxon chiefs founded different dynasties, and divided England into seven kingdoms, but the weakness and imperfection of this federation were felt on the incursions of the Danes, and a single sovereignty was established in England under Egbert, (A.D. 827,) from whom Queen Victoria is lineally descended.

As

The foundations of the power of England were now laid; and the Imperial Union of the remainder of the British Isles was the consequent result. Up to the year A.D. 1282, Wales was a separate kingdom from that of England; and the Welsh possessed their own language, laws, customs, and sovereignty. might be expected, there was constant dissension and hostilities between the two countries. Periods of foreign war or internal disturbance in England were sure to be accompanied by Welsh aggressions, ravaging incursions, and imperious demands. Edward I. wisely determined to put an end to this source of national weakness; and on Llewellyn, the Welsh king, refusing to do homage for his sovereignty to Edward, an English force was marched into the country, Llewellyn was slain in battle, the Welsh Kingdom was destroyed, Wales was annexed as a Principality to the English Crown, national animosity and distinctive rights were abolished, and the people were united under one Sovereign, one government, and one code of laws.

Edward I. wisely refused to permit any Parliament* to be

The first authentic record of any assembly or parliament being held in Ireland was in the third year of the reign of Edward II., at Kilkenny, A.D. 1310; and the same year, there was another assembly or parliament held at Kildare. These assemblies were for local purposes, and for the purposes of registering and enforcing the orders and edicts of the Sovereign and Parliament of England. The relative numbers of the English, Oastmen, and Celts, or Irish, in Limerick, after the junction of Ireland to the throne of England, is shown by an entry in the Rotulus Placitorum of Edward II. (A.D.1201): “Recognitio facta per sacramentum, 12 Anglorum, et 12 Ostmannorum, et 12 Hibernensium, de terris, ecclesiis, et cæteris pertinentiis ad Limericensem ecclesiam spectantibus."

assembled in Ireland. In the eighth year of his reign, the Irishmen in Ireland petitioned the King, that His Majesty would, out of his special grace, grant that they might for the future use and enjoy in Ireland the "lawes and customes of England." Edward, then bent on uniting England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland in one kingdom, would do nothing therein without the advice and consent of the English inhabitants in Ireland, whom he commanded by a certain day to assemble, and to examine whether it would be for his and their damage to grant the petition, and further to certify unto him, the King, their opinion thereof, under the seal of his Chief Justice in Ireland or his Lieutenant, before his next Parliament at Westminster, that he might by the advice of his Council do what should be thought expedient therein. The extant roll of this is marked [Pat. 8 Ed. 1. m. 13 Hibern'.]. There is no answer on record to this petition. But in this and subsequent reigns there are records of licenses granted by special favour "to some particular Irish, to use the laws of England there, and to be tried by them," which is evidence that no such general license as petitioned for was granted.

After the union of Wales with England, the next legislative and social improvement to be desired was a similar incorporating union between England and Wales on the one part and Scotland on the other. The necessity of this measure was long felt; and the want of a union between the two countries gave rise to frequent wars, bitter feuds, and desolating incursions along the borders of England and Scotland. The masculine, patriotic, and prescient mind of Edward I. clearly perceived the manifold advantages of conjoining Scotland as well as Wales and Ireland in one government; and by the nomination of Baliol as his Deputy in Scotland, and his formidable invasions of that country at the head of one hundred thousand men (A.D. 1296), he prepared the way for its final annexation to the English Crown. When on his deathbed, his last injunction to his son was, never to rest until Scotland, like Wales, was reduced to one sovereignty. The weakness of his successor (Edward II.) and the foreign wars of Edward III. prevented the completion of this desirable measure. The wary policy of Henry VII., which

induced him to marry the Princess Elizabeth, daughter of Edward IV. (A.D. 1485), and thus blend indissolubly the hitherto antagonistic Houses of York and Lancaster, also led this subtle and politic monarch to marry his eldest daughter Margaret to James IV., King of Scotland. Their son, James V., was succeeded by his only child, the beautiful but unhappy Mary, who was driven from the throne of Scotland by her own subjects for her crimes. On the death of Elizabeth without issue, the crowns of England and Scotland were united in the person of James VI. King of Scotland (the son of Queen Mary), who now became James I. of England.

But, although the thrones of Scotland and England were thus filled by one Sovereign, two separate parliaments still existed— the materials for disunion and animosity remained, and an occasion was soon found (A.D. 1627) for open hostilities. hostilities. War was formally declared by Charles I. (previous to the Civil Wars) between England and Scotland as between two foreign nations, although the two kingdoms were united under one sovereign. Thus also would it be, were an endeavour now made to rule Ireland by a separate parliament, although under one crown. Cromwell, after conquering Scotland, wisely caused an Act of the English Parliament to be passed, abolishing Royalty in Scotland, annexed it as a conquered province to England and Wales, and, as he also had done with regard to Ireland, empowered Scotland to send a certain number of representatives to the English Parliament. During the tyrannical and dissolute reign of Charles II., parliaments were again unfortunately permitted to be held in Scotland and in Ireland, thus perpetuating the great evil of separate legislatures which Cromwell had prudently abolished. The expulsion from England of James II., and the wars in which William III. was engaged in Ireland and in France, prevented attention being devoted to the state of Scotland; but after the accession of Anne, and the arrangement of preliminary articles (the Union being opposed in both countries), a final incorporation of the legislature of Scotland with that of England and Wales happily took place A.D. 1707, a century after the union of the two