But, Sir, is it conceivable that Scotland, having in the laft hundred years improved fo much in trade, manufactures, and agriculture, having been vifited by no violent epidemical diftempers, and certainly not having on the whole fuffered more, notwithstanding the two fhort rebellions in 1715 and 1745, than Ireland from internal difturbances, should have experienced either a diminution of one fourth or more, or even but an increase of one third of her population, while that of Ireland has been multiplied four or five folda?

It is true, more authentic calculations do not carry the population of the latter fo high. Dr. Price, in 1773, reckoned it only 1,908,207, and he then computed that of Scotland at one million and a half. Lord Auckland, in his Letters to Lord Carlisle in 1779, fays, the common large calculation' of the numbers in Ireland was at that time two millions. Lord North, in the debate on the Irish Propofitions in 1785, ftated them at 2,300,000,

Statement of the Proceedings of the Roman Catholics of Dublin, 9th of April 1795. p. 37. Five millions, Mr. Lewins, ibid. p. 31. Mr. Emmett; Report of the Secret Committee of the Houfe of Lords of Ireland 1798, Appendix, No. vi. p. 33.

a I think I could ftate, from a comparison of the refpective rates and produce of the duties on ftilled Spirits in Scotland and Ireland, very strong prefumptive reafons for believing that the quantity confumed is as great in the former as in the latter. If we fuppofe the individual use of whiskey in each to be nearly the fame, this would lead to a very different propor tion in the respective population of each, from that furnished by the common calculations.

Price on Reverfionary Payments, p. 185, note.

* P. 82.

30th May 1785, Parliamentary Register, vol. xviii. p. 425.

and

and he does not appear to have been contradicted. Indeed in the fame debate, a Gentleman who is a native of that country, admitted them to be under two millions and a halfa. So late as 1792, Mr. Burke, throughout his Letter to Sir Hercules Langrishe, takes them at three millions. In that year, however, the fubje& having been much attended to in Ireland, particularly by the late Mr. Bushe, one of the commiffioners of the revenue there, according to the accounts which were then exhibited to the Houfe of Commons, the number of houses in Ireland was computed at 701, 102, which, reckoning 5 persons to each house, gives 3,505,510 for the number of inhabitants; at 5, 3,856,061; and at 6, 4,206,612. Dr. Beaufort thinks it reasonable, when we take into confideration the great populousness of the poorest cottages, the many crowded houfes in Dub'lin and other large towns, and that the university, bar' racks, hofpitals, and public offices are not included in 'the hearth-money returns' (according to which the number of houses had been calculated,) to rate the number of perfons, on the hypothefis of only 701,102 houses, at the medium reckoning of 51⁄2 to each house, and to ftate the population on the whole at about 3,850,000. He appears to have had communications with Mr. Bushe on the subject, and therefore this may be conjectured to have been alfo the opinion of that very accurate and intelligent perfon.

This laft computation may, perhaps, be near the truth. My fcepticism is chiefly with regard to the received opinions as to the population of Scotland, concerning

which, I think, I could adduce many facts and arguments, befides the general confiderations I have hinted at, to render it probable that it approaches nearer that of Ireland, tho' no doubt very confiderably under it, than has of late been generally fuppofed,

Among the reafons drawn from the fuppofed peculiar fituation of Scotland before the Union, which are thought to fhew that fuch a meafure might be very advantageous to that country, without being fo to Ireland, are two, concerning which I will fay, a very few words. They have been adduced, I prefume, principally as inftances of the comparative vicioufnefsa of the conftitution of Scotland, and to justify the opinion that it was not worth preserving.'

1. One is, that the two Houses fat together,' i. e. that there were not two Houses, and that the King, by his ་ power of creating Peers, could at any time overpower the voices of the Commons.'

2. The other, that the Scotch Parliament, even with ⚫ this imperfect constitution, had not a deliberative power, • because it could discuss no subject but what was previously prepared by the Lords of the Articles","

1. As to the first, there certainly was but one House in the Scotch Parliament, which continued in that refpect to resemble the original form of the English; but

it is a point of confiderable doubt whether an act of that Parliament (which was originally confidered as compofed of four diftinct estates, and after the abolition of the prelacy, and to the very laft, of three; 1. Noblemen: 2. Barons, i. e. reprefentatives of fhires; and, Burrows, i. e, members for boroughs) was valid without a concurrence of the majority of each estate. There are great authorities on both fides of the queftion"; and the very doubt seems to prove that, in all cafes of importance, fuch concurrence had, in fact, taken place. In the lifts of the divifions on the treaty of Union, preferved by De Foe, it appears that the votes of each estate were kept diftinct; and that, on every queftion divided upon and carried, there was a majority of eachb. Be this point, however, as it may, it would feem that the Crown had not found it expedient to exercife its prerogative, by creating an excess in the number of Peers; for, in fact, at the time of the Union, the whole number of Noble-men in the Parliament of Scotland was but 154, while that of the Commoners was 156. Early in the preced-: ing reign no lefs than twenty-fix members for counties. had been added at once to the reprefentative part of the legislature of Scotlandd; afterwards an additional Parliamentary borough was erected; and a very short time before the the Union, Mr. Fletcher of Saltoun had proposed to provide by ftatute, that in all time coming, 'for every nobleman that should be created there should be a baron added to the parliament. His motion,

Craig de Feudis, lib. i. dieg. 7. § 11. Mackenzie's Institutes, p. 402.

Wight on Elections, p. 83.

bi De Foe, Appendix, F. xx. p. 662. E. xx. p. 666.

De Fan, Wight, Robertson, &c.

dSc. Acts, 1st Parl. 2d ses. Will, and M. c. 11. 1690, p. 288.

• Fletcher's Works, p. 283,

did not indeed pass; but from the known hiftory of the act of fecurity, which the popular intereft in that very Parliament had been able not only to carry there, but to force the Queen to affent to, is it too much to conclude that if the method of outnumbering the Commoners by creating new Peers had been attempted, which is fupposed to have been fo eafy, fuch a motion would have been lefs unsuccessful?

2. As to the Lords of the Articles, what has been obferved on that fubject is clearly the effect of overfight i many years before the Union, by an act of the Scotch Parliament, the inftitution had been totally abolished, and it made as little a part of the conftitution of Scotland in 1707, as the Court of Star-chamber or High Commiffion Court did of that of England.

Before I quit this subject, of the advantages Scotland has derived from the Union, I muft beg leave to take notice of a paffage or two in Smith's Wealth of Nations ;* from which, taken by themselves, and, even in that detached ftate fingularly misunderstood and mifinterpreted, inferences have been drawn or furmed, as if that judicious and impartial writer had not conceived that that event had tended to improve the prosperity of his native country.

-

We have been told here, that he has imputed the increafed trade of Scotland to the establishment of banks.He has certainly faid, that within five-and-twenty or thirty years from the time in which he was writing, many private banking companies had been erected in every confiderable town and in many country villages of

* Sc.Acts, ift Parl. Will, & M. 2d fef. c. 3. 1690, p. 220.

Scotlanda