Treaty of Union between England and Scotland.  But on this point I do not care strongly to insist, because at the present moment every part of Irish history excites controversy.  When, however, the excitement of the day has passed by, no one will dispute that 22 Geo. III. c. 53 and 23 Geo. III. c. 28 constituted the renunciation by the British Parliament of sovereignty over Ireland.  The difference between the limitation of sovereignty and the surrender of sovereignty has been pressed far enough for my present purpose; no principle of jurisprudence is more certain than that sovereignty implies the power of abdication, and no fact of history is more certain than that a sovereign Parliament has more than once abdicated or shared its powers.  To argue or imply that because sovereignty is not limitable (which is true), it cannot be surrendered (which is palpably untrue) is to confuse together two distinct ideas, and is like arguing that because no man can while he lives give up, do what he will, his freedom of volition, therefore no man can commit suicide.

The Parliament of the United Kingdom, further, whilst because it is a sovereign body it cannot impose any legal limit to the exercise of its own power, may so express an intention to use or not to use its power in a particular way as to excite expectations which it will be extremely difficult or hazardous to disappoint, and so may find itself morally fettered as to its subsequent legislative action.

A notorious instance, taken from our constitutional history, illustrates this proposition.  The statute 18 Geo. III. c. 12 declares in substance that Parliament will not impose any tax on any colony in North America or in the West Indies.  The history of the statute is told by its date—­1778.  Now no constitutional lawyer will contend that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is legally bound by this Act.  If Parliament were to impose an income tax on Jamaica to-morrow the impost would be legal, and could, no doubt, be enforced.  But the Declaratory Act of 1778 makes it morally impossible for Parliament to tax any colony.  That the impossibility does not arise from a law is clear, because it applies with as much strength to colonies which do not fall as to colonies which do fall within the terms of 18 Geo. III. c. 12.  Victoria is not a colony in North America or in the West Indies, but Victoria is at least as well protected from Imperial taxation as is Barbadoes.  The so-called Act establishes not a rule of law, but a precept of constitutional morality.  It does not theoretically limit, but it practically impedes and interferes with the legislative sovereignty of Parliament.