I now come to the fourth period-when the account came that the 6th of George tne First was to be repealed, and the resolutions of Mr. Fox and the Earl of Shelburne were transmitted.

You have not forgotten the joy of that moment, nor the anxiety of the moment before, when reports were circulated, and when doubts were entertained, whether we had not asked too much, chiefly by those who were afterwards ready to say we had asked too little. Let me suppose at that moment I had opposed the general sentiment, and on the 27th declared that the repeal did nothing; I appeal to the candour of gentlemen, whether they would not have left me in a wretched minority? Would they not have said, that by calling for express renunciation or express recognition, you bring on a question of original right, about which we cannot agree, and you embarrass the question of present liberty, about which we are agreed?

Would they not have added, that the restoration of final judicature made it a matter of still less consequence whether England expressly renounced the claim of making law for us, because Ireland became the only judge of what law bound her? that the final judicature in the Irish Parliament was a constant subsisting living security against the legislative claims of Great Britain, and rendered the dead security of a renunciation nominal? and that, by refusing to accept of the repeal, we stopped a system of measures, mutiny bill, etc., etc., and risked the living security for the dead letter? that if express renunciation were eligible words, they would follow things, and a more flattering form would come after the substance? Would not gentlemen have added, that this nation would not be committed every day, nor the public mind, already thrown into a fever, tortured once more? But the question was tried: the objection to the repeal was started on the 27th, when it appeared that the objection was relied on by two only; some, who have been more loud since, were silent on this subject then, and vanished. I did most heartily acquiesce in the opinion of an almost unanimous House.

It is easy now for men to express their zeal when the difficulty is over, and to contend for us on the ground which we have made for them. They who lamented the bringing on a declaration of right, may, after that declaration and after the repeal, call for a renunciation: when the breach is made, the coward may enter, and is most likely to be the most licentious, but his activity is a proof that the business is done, and the danger is over.

It is necessary, before I proceed farther, to take notice of a pamphlet tributed to a noble lord in the English House of Commons,

and addressed to a high-spirited corps of volunteers, on the legal subject of repeal and renunciation. The whole of the pamphlet may be reduced into two positions; one of them is as follows: That if a renunciation had been asked by those who had authority to do so on the part of Ireland, it had been acceded to. What renunciation ? not a disclaimer of the right; the author does not attempt to say it, nor could he say it with truth; for the fact is notoriously otherwise, that renunciation could not have been obtained then, nor have you obtained it now: no; but the author states an act of the British Parliament, renouncing her right to bind Ireland; her right, a renunciation which you would refuse. His first position then amounts to this, that England was ready to give what you would not and ought not to have accepted.

His second proposition states, that the second resolution, declaring that the connexion of the countries ought to be placed on a solid base, intended as follows: That Great Britain would secure by acts of her own the liberties of Ireland, and in the meantime would prove her sincerity by the repeal. This is not founded; it is a strange conception; England may covenant to restrain her usurpation by her acts, but England cannot by her acts secure our liberties: but England had no such idea. The second resolution intended a treaty between the two countries, with a view to secure their coöperation in peace and war, and the foundation of that resolution, the necessity of some combining power. The control of the British Parliament being at an end by the repeal, the motion did not mean to secure the liberty of Ireland by further acts, but her union; her dependency being at an end by the repeal, and a congress or treaty being rendered expedient as a substitute for a power that was no more, that scheme died in its difficulties.

I ask pardon for taking up so much of your time on the subject of an electioneering pamphlet. My apology is, that I have reduced the whole to two positions; a fallacious security, and an unfounded assertion.

I shall be always happy when the courtiers of the crown become courtiers of the people: it is a proof of your strength, if not of their sincerity, crepat ingens Sejanus-idem populus, hæc ipsa Sejanum dicerit hora Augustum; it is a decided signal of your triumph, wher you behold the old servants of the court among the worshipping cap tives of the people. The people of Lisburn have shown admirabl、 sense on this occasion: they took the noble advocate for liberty at his word, thanked him for his services, applauded him for his zeal, ang turned him out of his borough and his couuty. I have heard

many practical jokes, but I never heard of one that more abounded in justice.

I have stated the reason why the mode of relinquishment was by repeal. I shall now trouble you with a few observations on that mode and first, I must observe, that the question has been falsely stated. The repeal has been called simple: nothing can be more false; the records of both countries give the lie to such a statement: it was hazarded, in the first instance, with much effrontery; that gabble was afterwards circulated with industry, and became the ready cant in every wretched and ignorant publication. The repeal is not simple; the messages of the King and the resolutions of the English Parliament, the addresses of the Irish Parliament, and the resolutions of the British, are, of necessity, connected with it, and make it a part of a great and manifold transaction.

First, a message from the King to the respective Houses of the British Parliament, stating that certain discontents had prevailed in Ireland, and proposing them to their most serious deliberation.

Secondly, the message of the King to the respective Houses of the Irish Parliament, desiring to know the causes of their discontents and jealousies.

Thirdly, the address of the Lords and Commons of Ireland, protesting against the claim of legislative power in the British Parliament, and the act wherein that claim was declared as the principal

cause.

Fourthly, a message from His Majesty to the respective Houses of the British Parliament, referring that protest of Ireland to the consideration of the Parliament of England.

Fifthly, a motion in the respective Houses of the British Parliament, referring that protest to their committees appointed to sit on the affairs of Ireland.

Sixthly, the report of these committees thereupon, that the 6th of George the First ought to be repealed.

Seventhly, the message of His Majesty to the respective Houses of the British Parliament, informing you that he had referred your protest to the Parliament of Great Britain.

And lastly, copies of the English resolution, that the 6th George the First should be repealed; laid before you by His Majest command.

This is the transaction which has been called simple, and every part of it is a record;—the message of the King to his English Far liament, to consider the state of Ireland, is a record.

The laws of England are not the measure in this case, nor are they

admasible, for a variety of reasons; they are the peculiar custom of England to be explained by her judges, who are under the control of her Parliament: this standard is local, and therefore not presumed to be known any where else, and therefore not promulgated, and, of course, defective in the essence of law; it is dependent on the expla nation and comment of the party, and therefore arbitrary and partial; it is dependent on her explanation of the science of her own laws; a subject in whose inscrutable mysteries she has the greatest latitude for her partialities; its extent is the realm of Great Britain; its duration the will of her Parliament. I say, the municipal law of England is a standard inadmissible, for it is the peculiar science of that country, subject only to her own comment; and to refer a covenant between Ireland and England to such a standard, would be to refer it to herself to herself in her most questionable character-the mystery of her law, and the subtlety of her lawyer.

Let me suppose the French Court should refer a treaty with England for the opinion of the judges of France, to be measured by the principles of the law of France. Would not England exclaim, "We do not understand your laws, nor their principles, nor do we submit to their authority"?

Let me suppose the law of Ireland to be as different from that of England, as the law of England differs from that of France; would you, in that case, refer a treaty or compact between Great Britain and Ireland to be governed and explained by the law or the lawye. of England a law differing from your own, and unintelligible. to you; or would you refer it to the laws of Ireland? The laws of Ireland will tell you, that England never had any right, and that the 6th of George the First was not declaratory of law, but declaratory of robbery under the name of statute: so that the laws of one country would tell you, that the right had never an existence, as those of the other might tell you, it never could have an end, at least, except so long as the Parliament was so pleased, against whose will and power you meant to provide. To whom then refer it? to the judges? What judges? The judges of England do you say? They will tell you, that the power of Parliament cannot be bound by statute law, and that they are no judge of the law of nations. Will you refer it to the judges of Ireland? Would England agree that a transaction in which she has a joint concern should be referred to the judges of Ireland? If you do refer to them, they will tell you, I know they will tell you, that England has recognized your rights by the repeal; so that yar judges would be discordant in their respective partialitics and

fears; the Irish. attached to the liberty of Ireland, the English to the power of Great Britain. Therefore, I say, a covenant of this sort is not to be adjudged by either the municipal laws of the respective countries, nor the municipal judges, neither by the local custom nor the partial commentator. The municipal law, or the principles of the municipal law, are no standard; but the law of nations is: it is known to both countries, supersedes the particular customs of both nations, binds the respective states with regard to each other; is above their judges, and above the legislature: the Parliament makes the municipal law, but is itself bound by the law of nations: it is, with respect to the municipal law, the law maker, the sovereign; with respect to the laws of the nation, the subject; it is bound by faith, though it cannot be bound by statute. This is more irresistible when you consider the principle of the municipal law of England, which is the omnipotence of her Parliament. From hence it follows, that there is no principle in that law which can secure you against the Parliament of England: if its omnipotence has a limit, that limit is found in another supposed principle still more hostile to you—that Parliament cannot cede the fundamental rights of England, such as her supremacy over you was conceived by her to have been. From hence it follows, that by the municipal law of England, you cannot have a lasting, and may not perhaps have a momentary, security against her Parliament: the standard, therefore, is not the municipal law, but the law of nations.

Your legal security is not repeal, nor renunciation, nor recognition, nor the laws of England, but the laws of Ireland; your security consists in, that you are not dependent for liberty on the laws of England or the Parliament of England; your legal security is, that you do not require legal security in the Parliament of England, and have nothing to do with her judges or their comments, nor dependent on the laws, construction, comment, power, or quibble of a foreign land. Your legal security is the law of Ireland; the repeal has given every moral security, that on the part of England the laws of Ireland will not be invaded by the power of England: this assurance from England we measure by the law of nations, which binds Parliament: we know that no statute can bind Parliament: but the law of nations may: we know an English judge may comment away the force of statute; but the law of nations is, like the contracting nations, above him; we therefore do not measure the transactions whereby England does away her claim by any such standard, but by another, a higher-the law of nations, which does t depend on the riddle of the common law, nor the comment of