Section 25: Of the Constitutional Dependance of Ireland on the Legislature of Great Britain

Next Selection Previous Selection

SECTION XXV.

Of the Constitutional Dependance of Ireland on the
Legislature of Great Britain.

WHILE the demand for a free trade was the question agitated between the two kingdoms, nothing was heard in Ireland of any farther grievances, than those of restricted commerce. It was reasonably expected in England, that the wise and liberal measure of emancipating the Irish trade from the restrictions which the monopolizing spirit of traders had laid upon it, would have given complete satisfaction to the people of Ireland. The contrary has been the case; and the parliament of that kingdom may probably be at this time engaged in agitating questions that lead to the entire independance of Ireland on the legislature of Great Britain.

THIS is a question of such a magnitude and importance, that it is impossible it should receive too cool, deliberate, and repeated consideration. On this side the water it is proper to consider what it is necessary that Great Britain should admit. In Ireland they should impartially enquire what may be proper to demand , supposing their demands admitted.

THE affair between the two nations has been already treated historically, and the plea of the right in Great Britain to bind Ireland, considered in all its relations: but a very little penetration will enable any one to see, that it is at present a question which will be decided upon very different grounds than parchment rights. In the first edition of this Work I remarked, that the free trade was given not so much to reason, as to the expediency of the moment; and I observed, that concessions which had the appearance of being forced , would entail a series of new demands. Hitherto the effect has extended no further, than a call upon the parliament of Ireland, to take the constitutional question into consideration. We may very reasonably have a reliance on the wisdom of so respectable a body, that they will not be ready to endanger the happiest constitution in the world, by too assiduous an attempt to define the principles of a connection which has been attended with a regular progressive prosperity to both countries, probably because it never was defined at all.

AMERICA grew great in the train of British liberty, without her own freedom being ever explained. But the moment of drawing the line of connection—the instant of carrying into execution the definition of rights was the era of dissolving every tye between the two countries.

THE dependance of Ireland on the legislature of Britain, is so ill understood, as to be a matter of Controversy: the two kingdoms, however, have been in possession of all the happiness of which human societies, are capable, without being cursed with the necessity of defining the powers of one, or the rights of the other. Unfortunate will it be, if a people, discontented with the solid possession of every concomitant of freedom, should spurn the substance if they cannot command the shadow. I am confident, the wisdom os the Irish parliament will avoid whatever tends to such an absurdity; but we now see, that there are people in Ireland who think it for the advantage of that kingdom, to make use of the present opportunity even to extremes. And a very able writer,¹ pleading the cause of that country, openly declares, that she is not free while any dependency remains on the legislative authority of Great Britain, or any other connection than what results from obeying the same king.

THAT there would be an impropriety in altering the mode of passing Irish acts, by freeing them from some of the many controuls they are under at present, does not appear; but when such reasonable points come in consideration at a moment, when they are carried to such a length as amount to an entire new modelling the constitution; reasonable as they may be admitted independant of other circumstances, they become questionable from the consequence of compliance.

THE popular party in the north of Ireland call out for that absolute independancy chalked out for them by the writer alluded to, let us in a very cursory manner, consider how far it would be beneficial to Ireland, and how far it might be prejudicial to Great Britain.

THE only pretension of a solid benefit flowing from thence to Ireland is, the security they would have, that the British parliament could not recall the favours granted to the commerce of that kingdom; This is declared in the resolutions of those societies that have called for the demand of entire independency. But is it possible they should be serious in an apprehension of such a conduct? No man but what must laugh at the idea. It is not recalling a favour done to Ireland; it would be reversing an act of justice done to the prosperity of England. The interests of the two kingdoms are the same; and experience will soon prove, that every commercial advantage given to Ireland, is a sure means of advancing the wealth of England. To suppose, therefore, that measures so highly beneficial to Britain, as well as Ireland, should, by the British legislature, be reversed, is to apprehend what never can happen, were it to rest on no other foundation: But that of expediency would support the same idea; for what administration, after the experience which this age has brought with it, would dare to propose such a repeal? the idea is visionary; the apprehension can never be real. This circumstance excepted, there remains not another point in which the absolute independency would bring one jot more advantage to Ireland than might flow from a few regulations very far short of such a measure.

GREAT and material changes in the constitution of a country, sanctified by a duration of three hundred years, should not be attempted but in cases of the most urgent necessity. Can the British legislature consent to such changes at present? Can they admit this to be the season of such necessity? Why is the moment in which Irish prosperity is at its zenith to be chosen for the period of apprehension, and favour conferred to become the signal of evil to be dreaded ? But waving such considerations, let it be examined how far it would be prudent to adopt as a maxim of our government, that there should be no other connection between Great Britain and her dependances, than a federal union of different independent countries in obedience to one monarch. If such a connection is dispassionately considered, it will appear to be attended with such disadvantages to the principal power in such federal empire, that dependances ought to be avoided carefully as the source of infinite danger and mischief.

SUCH inferior parts of a great empire are protected, and partly governed at the expence of the principal. America enjoyed every advantage that attended the British navy: She was governed at the expence of England, and represented amongst the powers of the world by the English ambassadors. Her commercial connections with foreigners were the source of so many wars to us, that we now groan under immense debts, contracted for the support of American quarrels. Shall we be told after this, that there ought to have been no other connection between the two countries, than obedience to the same monarch? If this assertion is hazarded on the part of America, let it for Great Britain be declared, that upon such terms, no misfortune can be greater than such a connection with any country whatever. I am loath to apply this to Ireland; but if the doctrine now abroad be just, there ought to be no controuling power dormant in all common affairs, but existing for extraordinary emergencies to prevent a small part of a great empire from involving the whole in the inextricable confusion of endless wars. If this principle is carried to its extent, the rock of Bermudas might esteem itself one of the powers of the world, and (back'd by the power of Britain) enter the lists with the house of Bourbon. If this maxim is just, Ireland might take the first opportunity of peace to establish colonies in disputable regions, and add fresh wars to the commercial calendar. Of what avail is it to tell us, that the king has a negative in an Irish as well as in an English parliament. He might hereafter find it as prudent not to exert such a prerogative in one country as in another: but if his minister in Ireland neglects his duty, is the whole empire to be involved in consequences

IT may be said, that these are far fetched suppositions; They are not, however, more novel than the doctrines which occasion them. But does not experience tell us that such things have been: The case of America is an aggregate of proof. The blood and treasure of this country were lavished in American quarrels, not through affection to that country, I am ready enough to grant: it was pure selfishness. The legislature of Britain were fully persuaded all the while, that they paid their money, and bled for their own interests. They considered America as a part of their empire. Whether justly or not, is unfortunately the question now; but we cannot avoid the recollection that the growth of the whole empire to that high degree of power, and glory, and prosperity, was coeval with these ideas: that these principles were not questioned during the wonderful advance of that prosperity, and the maturity of that glory: that these supposed controuling rights of the British legislature, though rarely exerted, were never formally questioned, but uniformly submitted to, and virtually recognized, by all the dependancies of the empire, which arose to grandeur and felicity, though they admitted a superior.

As a question of general liberty, it has already been decided, and very ably, by various writers that a controuling legislature is favourable to its permanency, and nothing more adverse to it than a variety of perfectly independent ones. History amply explains to us how they may be corrupted and overturned in succession, and the destruction of one made the means of destroying another.

HENCE, therefore, the doctrines advanced by that writer, able as he is, go to such an alarming length, that it is much to be hoped by every considerate person, the parliament of Ireland will reject such ideas, because their execution would not be attended with any material benefit to their country, to balance the great and dangerous evils that arise from attempts to define with accuracy rights and powers, which have slept in indecision for five hundred years: Such attempts can only embroil the two kingdoms, and raise jealousies and apprehensions at a moment when there ought to be nothing but harmony between them.

IF questions of this nature are carried such lengths, they will create an absolute necessity for a union; for it is impossible that Great Britain can admit so entire an independency in Ireland, upon principles that extend themselves to every other possession she has in the world: If she yields only to the powerful, the infamy of the conduct is indeliable and eternal.

IT is true, Lord Mount Morres has, in a late publication, written with much spirit and good sense, declared, that the question between the two kingdoms does not go to this length, but only to a regulation of the mode of passing Irish acts. I am very glad that any well informed man thinks so; but I must observe, that many associations in Ireland, as well as the publication alluded to before, speak a very different language.

---

¹ Letter to Sir William Blackstone, 8vo, 1779.

Next Selection Previous Selection