nomination, we may rest assured that there would be then found legislators in that august assembly to search for and adopt the precedents of attainder and confiscation referred to by Lord Avonmore.

66

The Union itself," observes Dr. Miller, in his Philosophy of History, "may be regarded as a proof that this parliament had reached the natural limits of its duration. If such a measure as the Union were honestly adopted, the parliament must have been conscious of its own insufficiency; if it were purchased by corruption, that parliament must have been un-. worthy to exist."

CHAPTER III.

We now proceed to review the constitutional history of the Union. One of the fallacies designedly impressed upon the public mind, in respect of the legislature of Ireland, is, that the transfer of her representatives to England was a violent innovation on the constitution. The following passages, from the high authority of Molyneaux, remove this objection: "We find," said he, "that in the reign of Edward III., and by what foregoes, 'tis plain 'twas so in Edward I.'s time, knights of the shire, citizens, and burgesses were elected in the shires, cities, and boroughs of Ireland to serve in parliaments in England, and have so served accordingly; for amongst the Records of the Tower of London, Rot. Clau., Edward III., Parl. 2, Membr, 23, we find a writ from the King at Westminster, directed to James Butler, Lord Justice of Ireland, and to R. Archbishop of Dublin, his Chancellor, requiring them to issue writs, under the great seal of Ireland, to the several counties, cities, and boroughs, for satisfying the expenses of the men of that land who last came over to serve in parliament in England. And in another roll, 50th Edward III., Membr. 19, on complaint to the King by John Draper, who was chosen burgess of Cork by writ, and served in the parliament of England, and yet was denied his expenses by some of the citizens, care was taken to reimburse him. If, from these last-mentioned records, it be concluded that the parliament of England may bind Ireland, it must also be allowed that the people of Ireland ought to have their repre

sentatives in the parliament of England; and this, I believe we should be willing enough to embrace, but this is an happiness we can hardly hope for.*-P. 97.

The authority of Molyneaux is decisive, that at a very remote period the representatives of Ireland formed a component part of the English legislature. That the attention of the English parliament was, in later times, devoted to the affairs of Ireland is evident; for it appears by their journals that, on the 6th of November, 1640, an order was made in the parliament of England, appointing a committee of the whole House, which was to meet every Thursday, to take into consideration the grievances of Ireland. Molyneaux further proceeds: "We shall find also, that then [in Cromwell's time] there were representatives sent out of this kingdom, who sat in the parliament of England." As Mr. O'Connell touches this subject rather delicately, we may refer more fully to it. We learn from Godwin," that St. John and Vane had been sent as commissioners from England, to arrange the terms of a union with Scotland; and it appears by the journals that the bill was read the first and second time on the 13th of April, 1652." It was probably afterwards considered that a bill was unnecessary; for Godwin further informs us, "that on the same day, 1st June, 1652, on which it was voted to take into consideration the number of representatives that Scotland should send to the parliament of the Commonwealth, a similar direction was given on the subject of Ireland." Again,-" Among the projects particularly characterised by the largeness of the views of these men, was that of a law for uniting the three nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and governing the whole by one legislature. They had no narrow and exclusive notions of making one of these countries prosperous by the oppression of the other two, but were sincerely desirous of rendering them one fold with one shepherd, to wit, a band of enlightened statesmen, devoting their labours to the common benefit of all. They, therefore, determined that Scotland and Ireland should be represented by thirty delegates from each country, to sit in the common parliament of the empire."§ "In consequence, in Cromwell's two parliaments of 1654 and 1656, sixty representatives were chosen from the two countries of Scotland and Ireland."||

This united legislative plan formed, in fact, part of the

*Note 2.-See Appendix.

332.

+ History of the Commonwealth, vol. iii., Thurloe Papers, vol. v., p. 323.

↑ Journals.

§ Vol iv., p. 446.

system, called "the government of the Commonwealth." In a letter of the 20th of August, 1656, addressed by Henry Cromwell to Secretary Thurloe, and published in the Thurloe Papers, he says: "We are this day electing parliament men at Dublin. I hear my Lord Broghill, William Jephson, and Vin. Gookin, are chosen for Cork county and towns therein. I shall the next week go to Kilkenny to meet Sir John Reynolds, who is gone to Tipperary to secure his election. We are all, blessed be God, very quiet.'

The elections appear to have been general and regular throughout Ireland. In another letter, in the same volume, signed Henry Cooper, dated at Carrickfergus, August 22, 1656, addressed to Henry Cromwell, the writer says: "This precinct proceeded yesterday to election for parliament men, and did choose myself, and Lieutenant-Colonel Trail, for the counties, and Mr. John Davies for the burroughs.' And again, in the subsequent letter, dated the following day, he says: "I have been wholly passive in the business; and had not my friends, whom I esteem, overruled me, should not have suffered my name to have been mentioned."

We learn from Ludlow, that Mr. O'Connell's predecessor for Cork county," Colonel William Jephson, one of the mcmbers that served for Ireland, moved in the house, that Cromwell might be made king; whereupon Cromwell, slapping him on the shoulder, said, "Get thee gone for a mad fellow as thou art." Although Jephson was an Irish member, Cromwell afterwards sent him as ambassador to Denmark and Sweden.

In the same volume of the Thurloe Papers is a letter from another of Mr. O'Connell's predecessors, Vincent Gookin, addressed "From my lodgings at Westminster, Nov. 22nd, 1656, to the Lord Protector," in which he says, "My lord, the affairs of Ireland are, through God's blessing upon the cause of his people, now brought to that state and issue, that there remains no indisposition to as glorious a settlement as ever nation enjoyed, but what lies in the minds of a few busy cholerick people, who unjustly think themselves as fit to build and settle, as they are to break and pull down. These, my Lord, are the persons who only stand between the quiet and orderly persons of that nation and the settlement so much desired, who repine to see you, or indeed any else greater than themselves; who glory in their dissatisfactions, and endeavour to make themselves

considerable by the means which have been used to quiet them.”* We are almost tempted to imagine that the writer had in his mind's eye "the present disturbers of the public peace," and the use made of the privileges conferred upon them by the Catholic Relief and Municipal Reform bills. Secretary Thurloe, in a letter of the 1st of December, 1657, addressed to Henry Cromwell, thus solicits the prompt attendance of the Irish members, as anxiously as ever Lord John Russell did by his circulars: "But, I beseech your Lordship, do not suffer our friends of Ireland who are of the House of Commons to absent themselves."

A general union of the three countries seems to have been a favorite design with the mighty mind of Bacon. "The position vis unita fortior,"" said he, "being one of the common notions of the mind, needeth not much to be induced or illustrated." "England, Scotland, and Ireland, well united," said he, addressing James I., "were such a trefoil as no other prince weareth in his crown." That the feelings of Bacon towards Ireland were most friendly, may be inferred from the following impressive passage: "That this island (Ireland) being another Britain, is endowed with so many dowries of nature, considering the fruitfulness of the soil, the ports, the rivers, the fishings, the quarries, the woods, and other materials, and especially the race and generation of men-valiant, hard, and active as it is not easy, no, not upon the Continent, to find such confluence of commodities, if the hand of man did join with the hand of nature." That his opinion was opposed to an imperfect union, is evident from the following passage: "There hath been," said he, "put in practice two several kinds of policy, in the uniting and joining together of states and kingdoms; the one to retain the ancient form still severed, and only conjoined in a sovereignty; the other to superinduce a new form, agreeable and convenient to the entire estate. The former hath been the more usual, but the latter is the more happy."

In the second year of James I., commissioners were appointed to treat and conclude a union between Scotland and England. The measure appears, however, to have been unpalatable to the English; and the reasons assigned to the king, by the English Commons, against it, are preserved in manuscript yet unpublished, in the British Museum. Some of them appear almost as convincing, as many of Mr. O'Connell's reasons for

• Thurloe Papers, vol. v., p. 646.

Repeal. "The contracted name of Brittayne," say they, "must needs weare out our olde name in tyme."—" The harshness on ye popular conceit to lose their name, is not lightly to be respected."-" This union, in name, will give an animating to the country of Scotland to flock hither; and though our nation be very fertile, will prove very dangerous; for thereby we may find cause to say, Non sufficit vobis et robis.” We have before shown, that during the Commonwealth, the legislative union between the three countries was, in effect, complete. Although it was the policy of Charles II. to shun the example of that period, still we find that the subject of union was resumed by him; and we learn from Heath, "that the act for the treaty of union passed both houses of parliament at Edinburgh, in 1670." In the same reign, the Council of Trade, in Ireland, by a report dated the 25th of March, 1676, and which was said to have been prepared by Sir William Petty, addressed to the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council, expressly recommended, "that endeavours should be used for the union of the kingdoms under one legislative power, proportionably, as was heretofore done in the case of Wales." Sir William Petty, who had such a dislike to absentees that he, by his will, directed that his daughter should marry an Irishman, in order that her fortune might remain in the country, remarks in his "Political Anatomy of Ireland,” “If both kingdoms were under one legislative power and parliament, the numbers whereof shall be proportionate to the power and wealth of each nation, there would be no danger such a parliament should do any thing to the prejudice of the English interest in Ireland; nor can the Irish ever complain, particularly when they shall be freely and proportionably represented in all legislatures."

On

The disastrous reign of James II. prevented the completion of this design. The last act of William III., almost dictated on his death-bed, was a message to the parliament of England, urging upon them the Scottish union. the 1st of October, 1703, the Irish House of Lords, thus addressed Queen Anne:-"As we are fully sensible, that our preservation is owing to our being united to the crown of England; so we are convinced it would tend to our further security and happiness, to have a more comprehensive and entire union with that country."

The completion of the union with Scotland was reserved for the era of the brilliant military achievements of Marlborough. That measure was strongly opposed by the Scottish people. "All the Scotch," said Tindall, the historian,