Unless this
be the case, which is a question of fact, it is better for them to
be completely united. That a totally different system of laws, and
very different administrative institutions, may exist in two
portions of a country without being any obstacle to legislative
unity is proved by the case of England and Scotland. Perhaps, however,
this undisturbed co-existence of two legal systems, under one united
legislature, making different laws for the two sections of the country
in adaptation to the previous differences, might not be so well
preserved, or the same confidence might not be felt in its
preservation, in a country whose legislators were more possessed (as
is apt to be the case on the Continent) with the mania for uniformity.
A people having that unbounded toleration which is characteristic of
this country for every description of anomaly, so long as those
whose interests it concerns do not feel aggrieved by it, afforded an
exceptionally advantageous field for trying this difficult experiment.
In most countries, if it was an object to retain different systems
of law, it might probably be necessary to retain distinct legislatures
as guardians of them; which is perfectly compatible with a national
Parliament and King, or a national Parliament without a King,
supreme over the external relations of all the members of the body.
Whenever it is not deemed necessary to maintain permanently, in
the different provinces, different systems of jurisprudence, and
fundamental institutions grounded on different principles, it is
always practicable to reconcile minor diversities with the maintenance
of unity of government.
Pages:
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361