for Scotland must have been the only perfons in the contemplation of the electors of the new Scotch Parliament, if those electors had exercised any judgment, as fuch, on the fubject of the propofed Union, never came to any conclufive treaty or agreement. Their meetings were finally adjourned on the 3d of February 1703. The new Scotch Parliament did not meet till the 6th of May 1703. On the 9th of September 1703 they voted, that the commission of Parliament, as they called it, was terminate and extinct; and that there fhould be no new one without the confent of Parliament. In February 1704-5 the English Parliament paffed a new act, empowering the Queen to appoint commiffioners, when a fimilar act should have paffed the Parliament of Scotland*. On the 5th of April 1705, that first English Parliament of Queen Anne was diffolved, and the new one met on the 27th of October. In the mean time, after a great deal of angry proceedings in the Parliament of Scotland, during their first and fecond feffion, in the third, which began on the 28th of June 1705, an act also paffed, authorizing the Queen to appoint commiffioners †. Under these two acts new commiffions iffued; that for Scotland on the 27th of February 1705-6, and that for England on the 10th of April 1706. The commiffioners met at Whitehall on the 16th of that month; on the 22d of July the articles were executed; on the 16th of January 1706-7, they were (with feveral alterations) ratified by an act of the Scotch Parliament; and on the 6th of Scotch Acts ift Parl. of Q. Anne, 3d feffion, c. 4. p. 776. March March of the fame year, by the English ftatute of 5th Anne, cap. 8. and the Union took effect on the ift of May 1707. Sir, I did in a prior debate, declining at that time the argument, which was in much better hands, advert to the authority of several eminent perfons in Ireland on this question of the competency of their Parliament, and referred to a debate in the Irish House of Lords, in which the Lord Chancellor, the two Chief Juftices, and the Chief Baron had voted, and three of them spoken in fupport of its competency. What I then faid has been misunderstood. I have been fuppofed not only to have afferted what I have just mentioned, and (which I alfo admit I did) that Mr. Fofter and Sir John Parnell had avoided giving their fanction to the contrary doctrine, but to have added, with fome triumph and exultation, that there had nobody been found to maintain it but M'Nevin and Lewins. Sir, that is not what I ftated. I did perhaps discover the satisfaction I felt from the confideration that the diftinguished characters I have mentioned had fupported that fide of the queftion which I thought was neceffarily connected both with the general principles of government and thofe of the British Conftitution; but I never faid, or meant to say, that no opinion had been delivered of an opposite fort, by any body in Ireland, except M'Nevin and Lewins. I merely obferved, that the names of those who, at the different county and other meetings which had then taken place, had come to refolutions denying the competency, did not appear; and that I thought it right, in contrast with the learned Noblemen to whom I had Monday, 11th February 1799. referred, referred, to mention two notorious perfons in that kingdom, who had in their own names and characters pronounced boldly, and without hesitation, their authoritative opinion to that effect. It was therefore unneceffary to queftion me whether I did not know in particular that three confiderable lawyers, and Members of the Irish Parliament, had denied this competency; and whether I doubted of their legal learning and abilities? I dare fay they have denied it. I have indeed read in a printed letter, to which the name of one of thofe gentlemen is fubfcribed, That the Parliament of Ireland, true to itself and honeft to its country, will never affume a power extrinfic of its delegation *.' Similar fentiments may have been delivered by the other two, and by others in the fifter Parliament; and as to the legal abilities and acquirements of those gentlemen, far be it from me to express or entertain any opinion to their difparagement. One of them I have the pleasure of knowing; and that government, to which I had the honour of belonging when in Ireland, though fo corrupt and wicked according to fome of the Honourable Gentlemen on the oppofite fide of this Houfe, had the advantage of receiving from him a moft ftrenuous and fpirited fupport. I do not recollect the other two. I believe they were not in Parliament in my time, but I understand they are alfo men of talents and eloquence. But, Sir, I am persuaded those gentlemen themselves would not think it implied any difrefpect to them, as members of the profeffion to which I once had the honour to belong if I were now to say, that the opinions of barristers, however able or eminent, are not, in point of authority, to be put in the balance, on a great conftitutional, point, with those of the heads of his Majesty's fupreme tribunals, the 1799. Mr. Barrington's Letter to Mr. Saurin, dated 20th January fathers and oracles of the law; especially when thofe great judicial stations are so filled as they at prefent are. But, is it true, that, with a disproportion of members, fuch as it may be fuppofed will be fettled between the two countries, Ireland would only give, and Great Britain only acquire? I fpeak now of legiflative authority. In my judgment, quite otherwise. There would be a reciprocal, and, having regard to the respective weight of each in the fcale of empire, an equal communication of power. The Lords and Commons of Great Britain would indeed acquire a direct fhare in the legiflation of Ireland, but fo would the Lords and Commons of Ireland in that of Great Britain. Mutually they would relinquith, or, if Gentlemen like a more exceptionable word better, would furrender, the exclufive jurifdiction over their respective countries; but each would obtain a share, commensurate with its relative importance in the united state, of the fupreme dominion over the whole; and, therefore, as to the diftinction attempted on the queftion of right, how can it be contended that the British Parliament may lawfully receive within its bofom, fay 80, 100, or 120 ftrangers, vefting them individually with the fame authority as its original members individually poffeffed, if the Irish Parliament cannot, on the condition of participating, according to due proportion, in the government of Great Britain and the empire, lawfully admit the legiflators of this island and of the empire to a fhare, adjusted by the fame rule of proportion, in the local government of Ireland? The idea that inequality of numbers would vitiate the tranfaction on the fide of the weakest country, leads to this (as was well remarked by a Right Honour able able Gentleman, in one of the more early debates*), that there could never be a lawful Union, unless the numbers. in the united legislature were made correctly and arithmetically equal on both fides. If fo, had England agreed to the unreasonable demand, during the last century, on the part of Scotland t, of joining the two Parliaments. according to their then exifting numbers, or were Great Britain now to receive into her Houfe of Commons, all the 300 representatives of Ireland, and to unite together the two Houses of Peers as they now ftand, the tranfaction would still have no legal folidity; the Scotch Parliament formerly, and the Irish Parliament now, would still have betrayed their trufts. But this junction of the Parliaments, this identification or incorporation of the two Houfes of each, in analogy to the identity which already exifts as to the third eftate, is treated as a deftru&tion, an extinction, an utter annihilation of the conftitution of Ireland. The fame terms were mifapplied in Scotland to the Union of that country with this; for, ingenious and inventive in arguments on most subjects as fome of our opponents are, they will give me leave to say, that on many of the points of this question, they appear to me mere plagiarists, to a degree of fervility, not only of the topics, but, in general, even of the very language and expreflions which were then employed. Of this any man may convince himself by comparing the late debates here and elfe-. where, with the Hiftory of De Foe, and the Memoirs of Lockhart. In the cafe of Scotland and England the mifapplication was not fo great. In that cafe, the third branch of Mr. D. Ryder. E 2 + In 1670. each |