Page:Studies in constitutional law Fr-En-US (1891).pdf/24

10 been decided that Ireland should have her own laws and her own courts of justice, and that her Parliament should have the free use of its own initiative, which up to that time had been subject to the approval of the king’s privy council.

These concessions might have caused most serious embarrassment to the Government at Westminster. The danger was manifest when during the short period of George III.’s insanity the question of a regency was raised. There was actually nothing to prevent the Irish Parliament from choosing a regent, and this regent need not have been the one chosen by the English Parliament. In this case there would have been two regents, one at Dublin and one in London. The transition from two regents to two kings would have been quickly accomplished. The union of the two crowns, the only union which existed between the two countries, was threatened, and the near neighbourhood of the French Revolution increased the danger. In 1798 there was a formidable rebellion. Pitt acted promptly; before a few months had elapsed, by means of money or honours he had bought over the majority of the Irish Parliament, and in 1800 it solemnly gave up its national independence.

The objects and the consequences of the two Acts of Union are shown by their very titles. The first made England and Scotland into one State under the name of Great Britain. The second united Ireland to Great