Page images
PDF
EPUB

viduals so often confer benefits on each other is because they have a common law, and the interest of one is not incompatible, or in no degree interferes with, that of another—in the jarring of interests, generosity ceases. So among States: let them have a common interest, and they will act with mutual attention to each other's welfare. Remove, then, the cause of England's jealousy, and the jealousy itself will vanish. Make one country with England, and you will have one common

interest.

5thly. It is objected that this measure will probably excite insurrections in this country, as it did in Scotland, where the Union was followed by the Rebellion in 1715. But it is most certain that the Union and the Rebellion in Scotland were two events no more connected with each other than any two events in history whatever. It is well known that the endeavour of the Scots to place the Pretender on the throne arose entirely from their attachment to his family, and their persuasion that he was the lawful heir to the Crown, and would equally have been made in whatever manner the two kingdoms had been connected.

6thly. It is objected that the Union cannot give us, in point of trade, any benefit of which we are not already possessed. Now, even admitting this to be true, what is the consequence? All States are self-interested; and therefore, since England proposes the Union, it must be for her own advantage, and therefore we should reject it. Such is the exhortation of one of the many writers on this subject.

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."

Certainly, I admit the premise; England is interested in the measure, but I deny the consequence that therefore we should reject it; because we ourselves, perhaps, may be equally interested with her, and because there are other advantages besides those of trade, as, for instance, greater national security and strength.

But, secondly, with respect to trade, though she may have

nothing to grant, she may have much to withhold. What certainty have we that our linen trade shall be countenanced and supported? What assurance can we have, that East India ships shall continue to touch in our ports, as they have for some time continued to do? May we not secure these and other advantages also, in the same manner as we gained them, that is, by the conjuncture of circumstances?

[ocr errors]

7thly. It is objected that a Union, at all times, is inexpedient, but more particularly at this, when England is embarrassed with a heavy load of debt, in the discharge of which we should have no concern. But this objection, in truth, springs from the most extreme disloyalty. For the argument, when analyzed, runs thus: England, in her war with France, has been so impoverished, that the Government cannot subsist without our aid; then let us refuse this aid, and her Government must be overturned. This argument is certainly valid, if we have no concern with her affairs; but, if her safety be our safety, how mad is it to refuse every assistance that is in our power! On a former occasion we rejected a Union with England, without any essential injury on either side: the political storm was not then violent, nor had the vessel of the State sustained those rude shocks, which, in the late tempest, have so torn her sails and wounded her helm; and shall they, who have the care of the ropes and the cordage, refuse their assistance in repairing the damages which other parts of the vessel have sustained, and preventing a shipwreck, in which the whole crew must alike perish?

But how is England interested?

1. Is she interested on account of her manufactures? Will they be benefitted by the new lights which we can give them in the construction of machines, and by such examples of diligence and attention as they have hitherto been unacquainted with?

2. Is she interested on account of her political liberty? Surely, that can in no wise be affected, since the form of our Government will remain precisely what it was.

3. Is she interested on account of her navy? Certainly no further than as a Union will remove all her fears of establishing arsenals in the different ports of this kingdom, by which we must be even more benefitted than she can.

4. With respect to taxes, there is no doubt she is interested. England has sustained a most severe and expensive war with the greatest military power that perhaps ever appeared. But has not the security of our religion, our property, and our laws been involved in the contest as well as her own? Dignified indeed has been the struggle of England for establishments in opposition to anarchy; and no sophistry can detract from the glory she has obtained, of being the only power in Europe that effectually stemmed the torrent of atheism and French tyranny. I am persuaded that there is not a loyal person in the kingdom that would in the slightest degree obstruct our freeing England from a weight of debt she has contracted, as far as our finances would admit; nor can she entertain the least doubt of being able, through our Parliament, to levy whatever contributions she may think we are able to make. In this point of view, she is not interested in a Union, as connected with taxation; but, in another point of view, she is materially. From the improvement of our trade, the wealth of the country will certainly increase, and, according as our wealth increases, we shall be enabled to contribute more to the expences of the State, with less inconvenience.

But, 5thly, in another respect, England is materially interested in this Union; and that is with respect to her political power in the scale of Europe. By the unity of Parliament, all matters relative to the Empire will be despatched with more facility and advantage to the State, as in no part subject to the influence of faction. No petty intrigues can embarrass the Minister in his plans for the general good, nor can the disaffected in one country practise on the Parliament of the other. When France, intoxicated with her successes in her first career of war, projected the invasion of these countries, and that subjugation which, she made no doubt, would be the

immediate consequence, her plan was to have established three Republics, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, entirely independent of each other; knowing that, by their division, we should be so weakened as to be unable, for the future, to obstruct her in her scheme of universal Empire. It is, therefore, manifest, by the law of contraries, that the union of the three governments must be the most effectual means of giving such strength as will enable us to counteract her ambitious designs.

England, therefore, is interested in the Union; but her interests depend on it in such a manner that ours are necessarily connected with them; inasmuch as they must result from an increase of national wealth and political consequence flowing from a consolidation of interests. That England has not any other advantage in view than such as I have mentioned seems probable from her conduct, when a Union with Scotland was proposed by James I., which measure, though supported by all the argumentative powers of Sir F. Bacon, was rejected, merely from the jealousy of the English.

Some men there are, who, no doubt, will oppose this measure for what question was ever carried unanimously by a nation?—but, narrowly inquire into their motives, and you will find either that they are guided by self-interest, without any regard to the public good; or, that they have no respect for the established Religion of their country; or, that they wish to withhold from England every assistance that we can give her in her arduous struggle for liberty against imperious and overbearing France; hoping that, in the end, she may fail in the contest, and that at length they shall gain their longwished-for object-a total separation of this country from England.

MR. EDWARD COOKE'S NOTES IN FAVOUR OF THE UNION. Will a Union make Ireland quiet?

Who can judge for the future? Yet, although we cannot command futurity, we are to act as if futurity were in our

power. We must argue from moral causes to moral effects. If, then, we are in a disadvantageous situation, we must of course look to those causes which have brought us into that situation. What are they?

1st. The local independent acting of the Legislature.

2nd. The general prosperity of the country, which has produced great activity and energy.

3rd. The emancipation of the Catholics.

4th. The encouragement given to the reform principles of the Presbyterians.

5th. The want of number in the Protestants.

6th. The uncertainty of counsels as to this great division of the country.

Now what is the complaint? That we have not influence in the originating Cabinet. By a Union we should have that influence.

We have no influence in the originating Parliament of the Empire. We should have a great and commanding interest there.

The want of numbers, which is the want of power, would be increased by an accession of all the Protestants of the Empire. The question of Reform would be settled.

The Catholic question would be settled.

The question then is, Can these moral causes of discontent be taken away with safety without Union?

1st. Can the Protestants of Ireland, as a separate State, gain an internal accession of strength as Protestants? No. 2nd. Can the Roman Catholic question be altered so as to preclude Reform of Parliament? It cannot.

3rd. Can a Reform of Parliament be made consistent with Protestant security? It cannot.

4th. The Representative body of Ireland will obtain a joint right with the Representative of Great Britain to legislate for the whole Empire.

« PreviousContinue »