Full text of "Historical review of the Irish parliaments, from the epoch of Henry ii. to the Union"

See other formats

Google

This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project

to make the world's books discoverable online.

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the

publisher to a library and finally to you.

Usage guidelines

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe.

About Google Book Search

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web

at |http: //books .google .com/I

60001 81 64Q

HISTORICAL REVIEW

OF THE

IRISH PARLIAMENTS,

FBOM THE BFOCH OF

HENRY 11. TO THE UNION.

ADDRESSED TO THE

PBOVOST AND FELLOWS OP TRINITY COLLEGE,

DUBLIN.

WARDEN HATTON FLOOD,

(Late Captain H.M,S,)
AUTHOB OF MILITABY AND HISTOBICAL ESSAYS.

SLontion ;

FBINTED BY J. BJaWY, HEATHCOCK COUBT, 414, STBAND.

1863.

Pabt I. — One Shilling.

CONTENTS.

r.— AN HISTORICAL ADDRESS.

n.— HISTORIC DOUBTS.

On Wbiteside's Lecture on Irisli ParliimenlH.

III.— REVIEW AND REFLECTIONS ON THE STATUTE OF
SIR EDWARD POYNINGS TO FETTER IRISH
PARLIAMENTS.

rv.— THE CHARACTER OF MR. FLOOD.

Wm FatriotUm, Statesnimship, htmI Orntnrf,

PREFACE.

The vindication of the Parliaments of Ireland should
more properly proceed from the pen of a member of
the Irish Bar, whose education and pursuits would
have enabled him to refer with accuracy and minute-
ness to every statute, enactment, and opinion which
had formed so large a mass of hinderances to the free
action of the Irish Parliaments from the fifteenth to
the eighteenth century.

I have undertaken to reply to a Lecture entitled the
" Life and Death " of the Irish Parliaments, from an
historical point of view; on the policy of England in
her relations with Ireland, especially during the Tudor
and Stuart dynasties, from the epoch of Henry VII. to
their utter extinction in the reign of James II. It
must also be remembered that all, or almost all, the
cruel persecutions, calamities, confiscations, the ex-
tirpation of the Celtic race, and the civil wars from
dynastic changes, had their origin and their results
within those memorable eras.

The Celtic, the Norman, the Danish, and the British
colonies, which formed the Irish nation for a period of
seven hundred years over which we have to meditate in
the following pages, have left descendants who must
surely take an interest in the history of their Parliar

ments — an Institution which had its time of imperfect-
ness both in England and Scotland, as well as Ireland —
passing through the varied transitions and forms of the
Curia regis to the Concilium ordinarium regi^ which was /
more or less assisted, aided, or contravened by the
camera stelhia according to the power, the genius, and
the character of the monarch who ruled the destinies of
England, at any particular epoch ; and it must never be
forgotten, that the disturbing influences, whether in-
ternal or external, which agitated England over that
long period from Henry II. to the third of the Georges,
reciprocally acted on all the interior conditions of
social life, whether of institutions, of races, or of
creeds, from one extremity of Ireland to the other.

The enquirer into Irish Parliamentary history must
recollect that the institution of Parliaments may be
classified into three distinct periods and categories:
the first — that which was initiatory — continued during
the Norman Monarchy to the first of the Tudor line,
Henry VIL, when Norman barons and British races
formed the Parliaments. The second period comprised
the Tudor and Stuart dynasties, when the immigrants
and "gentlemen settlers" had largely increased in
number and importance, and when the Reformers and
Roman Catholics sat in the same Parliament. The
third period was from William III. to the establishment
of the Hanoverian dynasty, composed of the officers and
followers of William and the previous settlers of the Re-
formed creed ; the elected from these constituted the Pro-
testant Parliaments to the epoch of the Union. It must
be borne in mind, that the confiscations, grants from the
Crown, and other like means, had placed in possession
of the Reformers all the lands and hereditaments, some
forfeited and some unclaimed, which had been held by

more ancient races. They were for the most part
gentlemen by descent, education, and manners, forming
the new proprietary of by far the greater part of the
Kingdom of Ireland. The dynastic events which
created a purely Protestant Parliament, should never
interpose between the high sentiment of national honor
and the duty of vindicating national institutions, which
were hindered in their development by legal obstructions,
no less than political jealousies, and sectarian rivality,
which the laws of Elizabeth, down to the Act of
Uniformity in the reign of Charles II., made a burden
too heavy to bear for dissenters of all denominations.

Ireland has been too often made the scene of party
contests, and her interests have been made the foot-ball of
parties, kicked from side to side, and from point to
point, whichever way the prevailing party in power might
think fit ; and if this political game was familiar before
the Union, it certainly is not less so in the present day,
when she seems to have no adequate representative body
in the English Parliament.

It is true, indeed, Ireland is but a geographical ex-
pression, unknown to the diplomacy of the nineteenth
century ; yet from the fifth to the eighteenth century
she had a political status in European diplomacy, and
a glory that was her own. Her early annals had its
sacred history, her Celtic literature its interest, and
her military talents were appreciated. Oratory and
politics had high places allotted them ; the birth-place
of "Free Trade," where the volumes of Adam Smith
were first discussed, and his principles emancipated
from their tomes to the more practical arenas of Par-
liament and Commerce. Ireland was a Kingdom then,
held her own capital; and if she could not convince
England of the justness of her "riglit» \» fe^*^ V^^^Sisvr

tive power," she enabled her to see and to feel that
none of the accomplishments which were cultivated at
Athens or Rome were deficient in Ireland.

There is not an Isle in the blue jEgean that has not
its hero and its story. There is not a land, however
unimportant, that cannot select a prominent epoch in
its history that is pre-eminently distinguished. It is
thus we perceive the Poles, the Hungarians, and the
Italians rise in the admiration of the European world.
It was not because their institutions were perfect,
nor that they were without manifold social disorders
among themselves; no, it was from that self-respect
arising from independence, — that national pride, the
source of all magnanimity. It is not that the Italians
cannot find in the pages of Muratori, Guichardini^ and
Sismondij many traces of defective institutions, con-
flicting interests, vicious politicians, internal rivalities,
and fatal combinations; no, but they perceived the
bright image of their country surmounting all, and the
lofty grandeur of their public men, their statesmen,
orators, and historians, forming the graceful and re-
splendent ornaments to Italy. Nor are the dauntless
Poles less alive to their former renown, and their, now,
prostrate country; they still have within the spirit
of Kosciusko, Sobieski, and Poniatowski; while the
chivalrous Hungarian breathes the same lofty and
gallant air that protected the crown of Maria Theresa,
the patriot fidelity of a thousand years. Such are the
qualities that constitute a true nobility : a love of
honor, for honor's sake; of truth, for its purity and
dignity; of patriotism, for that devotedness of the
Argive, who died on his shield with love of country on
his lips, or like the Spartan sacrifice of Leonidas — a
love of equity jbo exalted and universal as crowned

Aristides with the epithet of "The Just." Such
victims make a small nation great, a people few in
number renowned and memorable through all time.

That creeping servility repelled by Tacitus and scoffed
and castigated by Juvenal, mark the decline and fall of
any nation.

Before raising the riven and torn standard of Erin,
I must invite the enquirer into Irish Parliamentary
history to examine and meditate on that grand intel-
lectual structure, the British Legislature, the work of
nine centuries. To do so, is particularly necessary to a
right appreciation of the uneven and interrupted
elevation of a similar edifice in the sister Kingdom,
Ireland.

This legislative creation had in its earliest period the
most misshaped and incongruous form. From the
Norman Conquest to the eighteenth century it moved
through or was begotten by a series of long devastating
revolutions, each marked with a distinctness of change
no less interesting than instructive. From the revolt of
the Barons against King John, for their own benefit
more than the people, to the more liberal and generous
^change in the reign of Henry III., still progressing on-
wards in a gradual, checkered, yet positive advance in
the legislative structure, till at last Prerogative and Star
Chambers met their final overthrow in the Common-
wealth.

From this arose a more noble and stately edifice,
large enough to contain all ranks and conditions of
social representation in the same kingdom.

If the House of Commons of England ultimately
emancipated itself from the long-endured pains and
penalties of Prerogative in the most imperious form,
it was not till after two dynasties had C'ftiWBfc^ V^ ^5«^^5^^

and the privileges of the House had been constantly
violated. The following historic trait of Mr. Speaker
Coke and Queen Elizabeth is one remarkable illustra-
tion of the fact, taken from the Parliamentary History,
vol. iv., pp. 345, 346, 349.

The high prerogative of the queen and the slavish
humility of some members were strikingly exemplified
in this Parliament. The famous Coke was chosen
Speaker, and his address to her Majesty contains the
following passage: — "This nomination is only as yet
a nomination, and no election until your Majesty giveth
allowance and approbation. For as in the heavens a
star is but apacum corpus until it have received light
from the sun, so stand I corpus apacum^ a mute body^
until your Highness' bright shining wisdom hath
looked upon me, and allowed me * * *

But how unable I am to do this office my present
speech doth tell, that, of a number in this house, I
am most unfit. For amongst them are many grave,
many learned, many deep wise men, and those of ripe
judgment ; but I am untimely fruit, not yet ripe, but
a bud scarcely blossomed. So, as I fear me, your
Majesty will say, negkcta fruge^ eliguntur folia — amongst
so many fair fruit ye have plucked a shaking leaf.''
Elizabeth assuring him that his corpus (ypacum should
be illuminated by her princely virtue and wisdom. Coke
made the usual demands of liberty of speech, freedom
from arrest, and free access to the royal person ; and
some idea may be formed from the Lord Keeper's
answer, of the extent to which this princess carried the
regal power : " Liberty of speech is granted you ; but
how far this is to be thought on, there be two things of
most necessity, and those two do most harm, which are,
wit and speech * * Privilege of speech is granted.

but you must know what privilege you have. Not to
speak every one what he listeth, or what cometh into
his brain to utter that ; but your privilege is Aye or No.
Wherefore, Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's pleasure is, that
if you perceive any idle heads, which will not stick to
hazard their own estates, which will not meddle with
reforming the church, and transforming the Common-
wealth, and do exhibit any bills to such purpose, that
you receive them not, until they be viewed and con-
sidered by those who it is fitter should consider of
such things, and can better judge of them."

The above historic fact is worth a volume of argu-
ment on the liberty and privileges of the House of
Commons. No more skilful instruments of prerogative
and the imperious queen could well be found than
Coke and Bacon, nor yet men more politically corrupt :
both arraigned Essex without a crime ; both condemned
him ; both were dismissed from office by James, one
for subornation, the other for disobedience. Coke
again turned from privilege to prerogative. How con-
temptible is human character, when men of " wisdom"
compromise themselves for transitory advantages. We
have here also one of the instances of the submissive
character of the House of Commons of England under
the Tudors, when the subsidies were voted for four
years at a time to Henry VIIL, or when Parliaments
were convened, dismissed, or prorogued at indefinite
periods ; sometimes the Parliament lasting for fourteen
years, sometimes only one ; the pleasure and policy of
the Crown being the only restriction observed. Neither
were the members more favoured by fi'eedom of speech,
freedom from arrest, nor imprisonment, or even death,
as in the celebrated cases of Essex and Raleigh.

Constitutions that rest on a represeutcAiN^ \i^>& vs^^

generally analogous in most of their constituent parts ;
and the modem reader may observe this fact in the
systems of Prussia, Spain, and Italy, — the authority of
the Crown constraining or freeing the exercise of the
legislative functions of the Lower House.

The Irish House of Commons was modelled on
the general outline of that of England. The same
statutes, the same rules of form, of election, and general
scope of purview. It was the Norman and Celtic
genius that first presided in these parliaments, at
once ardent, rapid, comprehensive, and varied; often
emitting wit and graceful humour with profound
thought, relieving and lightening the more difficult
subjects of politics. Had the Irish Parliament, there-
fore, been left free in the exercise of its unquestionable
rights, it would have surpassed and eclipsed that of
England during the Tudor and Stuart dynasties. The
reverse was the case ; contrary to the natural instincts
of the Celtic and Norman races, tormented and mis-
governed, the legislature was held back, and perverted
in all its functions.

The author of the "Life and Death of the Irish
Parliament " lays the force of his arguments on three
points, which disappear on a critical investigation : —

First, what the Privy Council did in Ireland, the Crown
and the Ministers did in England for five hundred years.

Second, the duration of Parliaments.

Third, the raising of subsidies and the levy of taxes be-
long to the same category, well illustrated in the reigns of
Henry VIIL, Elizabeth, and Charles I. The Journals
of the House of Commons, the Parliamentary History
of England, Townshend's Debates in the reign of
Elizabeth, and the great historical work of Knight,
Hallam's and May's Constitutional Histories of England,

are the only authorities to be relied on. All courtly
Memoirs and Apologies, with their glozing flatteries
of the worst monarchs and governments, should be
cast aside as unworthy of the austerity and dignity
of the Historic Muse.

As to Ireland, she has few unflickering lights to
lead to truth ; party writers everywhere, historians
few.

For Parliamentary history, Molyneux points with
fidelity and patriotism to all the statutes repulsive to
Irish Nationality no less than to Irish Rights and
Charters. Mr. Barrington's Observations on the English
statutes introduced into Ireland.

The Journals of the House of Commons and Lords
of Ireland, and the Privy Council books ; Wright's
State Papers, and Von Raumer's Critical Notes and
Extracts from the State Paper Office, and the highly
important work of the late Sir Jonah Harrington, the
" Historic Memoirs of the Irish Union," in quarto, — a
valuable contribution, which was suppressed for years,
but which marks with painful distinctness and em-
phasis the sale and overthrow of the national institution
of an Irish Parliament.

It remains for me but to explain my own position
on this sensitive subject.

I do not come forward here to betray my country,
to speak contemptuously of her institutions, her legis-
lative capacity, the inferiority of her lawyers, her
statesmen, and her orators ; no, this would be beneath
an Irish gentleman. I want nothing from the Govern-
ment nor from the electors ; I have nothing to seek but
the approbation of men of public virtue. To think
or to act otherwise would be to forget the pages of
Plutarch and of Tacitus.

The disinterested and unrequited services of many
of my family in the Parliaments of Ireland justify
my protecting their fame to any extent I may find
necessary.

W. H. F.

16, SacJcviUe Street, London.
May 26th, 1863.

HISTORICAL ADDRESS.

Mr. Provost,

Learned and Distinguished Gentlemen,

I have the honor to address your
eminent Board with sentiments of the utmost respect,
not only as the instructors of and guides to practical
wisdom and public virtue, but as the representatives of
a university that for learning and abilities is not inferior
to any in Europe. Nor is your patriotism less con-
spicuous; within your walls are memorials of your
great men, who were faithful to their country in what-
ever sphere of action their genius or their virtue led
them to pursue.

A lecture, entitled the " Life and Death of the Irish
Parliaments," has been recently delivered in Dublin by
your representative in Parliament, who, as such, gives
it an official import. Moreover, the lecture is addressed
to the " Young Men's Christian Association," opening
with psalmody, which gave an air of solemnity to the
proceedings quite in keeping with a thesis on moral
philosophy, political ethics, or Christian civilization,
but little in connection with the " Life and Death of the
Irish Parliaments."

Several of your distinguished predecessors had seats
in the Irish Parliaments; and three of your repre-
sentatives, Mr. Molyneux, Sir Lawrence Parsons, and
Mr. Hutchinson, eminently distinguished themselves.
The case of Ireland, the defence of Ireland, and the
Commercial propositions of Ireland: the first, by
asserting the legislative rights and capacity of Ireland ;
the second, the defence of the anciewt V^\fcx^\»x^ ^S.

Ireland; and the third, the commercial necessities of
Ireland; all these were written with a devoted
patriotism and singleness of motive much required in
the present day.

I shall divide my remarks into two sections : — The
first, on the " Life and Death of the Irish Parliaments"
as national institutions.

And, second, the character and conduct of Mr. Flood
in supporting those institutions.

In ofiering the following reflections, I am not actuated
by any hope of any honorary reward, or the expectancy
of political advancement: ofiice and honors are the
handmaids to power, too often arrived at by corrupt
influence or equivocal motives.

The quiet resources of literary taste and the refine-
ments of modern society are enjoyments not to be
deserted. To defend the weak and helpless, is noble
and disinterested; to protect the memory of a great
public man, who had toiled through life in the service
of his country, is at least an honorable spontaneity.

" The Life and Death of the Irish Parliaments ' is a
large subject, involved in so many complexities in the
social, political, and stastistic condition of Ireland at
various epochs ; and to make such a retrospect valuable,
we must glance at the contemporaneous state of the
English and Scotch Parliaments, so as to trace fairly
the progress, or hindrance, that may have intervened
at particular periods. Such at least is the philosophy
of history ; for we might as well expect to find a defect
in some complicated piece of machinery by examining
one wheel or one pully, as to hope to represent the
Irish Parliaments without the aid of contemporaneous
events in England. Ireland has been since the 12th
century a dependency of the British Crown, given, as
it were, by the Roman Pontifl^, the dispenser at that
period of all temporalities; and she knew of nothing
but dependency from that time forth.

The " Life and Death of the Irish Parliaments" might
well arouse the susceptibilities of the descendants of

the Norman and Anglo Saxon races, from the reign of
Henry II. to William III. ; their ancestors, whether
composing the armies of invasion, or as undertakers,
who had purchased grants from the Crown, all were
branches of genealogical trees that had their roots in
England. Nor were the Scotch settlers of the north of
Ireland less ardent patriots for the legislative inde-
pendence of their adopted country. So, in fact, it was
not the Milesian colonist nor more ancient races who
set the example of independence, but the Molyneuxs,
the Swifts, the Floods, the Caufields, and the Grattans,
all representatives of Norman and Anglo-Saxon lines.

No man in recent times has brought to the instructive
page of history such copious learning, such facility of
comparison, such appropriateness of metaphor com-
bined with a flowing eloquence, as Lord Macaulay,
stamping truth everywhere on his deductions; too
noble by nature to have recourse to the mean artifice
of suppressing the truth to make any particular states-
man odious ; too lofty in his judgment to pander to
vulgar prejudices, or to stoop to the adoption of the
most ribald tales, wandering from mouth to mouth or
book to book, to disparage a statesman not an idol of
popularity, or a Parliament not the perfection of a
Utopia ; too fearless in his spirit not boldly to confess
the despotic power exercised by England over her
colonies and h^ dependencies; and evfn in the distant
realms of India, when his mind soared and pervaded
over all her empire, he turned his thoughts to remote
Ireland, and said ''she had had but too much reason
to complain." Lord Macaulay, statesman, orator, and
historian, would have had the energy to defend and
the heart to sympathise with Ireland. This noble Scoty
worthy of so glorious a land, affluent in genius and
abuDiutnt in eloquence, and superior to both in honesty
of jporpose.

The history of Ireland is one of calamity, even in
her Celtic annals. From the 9th to the 12th century,
one of invasion and confusion. From the 1 2tb to the

close of the 17th a gleam of light appeared on the
horizon — ^fitful, transitory, and misgiving, — ^yet it was
light. From the 17th to the close of the 18th we had
the daylight of comparative freedom ; and it is within
this last period that the statesmen, orators, and phi-
losophers of Ireland are to be found.

Amidst so many conflicting races, religions and
interests, with their attendants, rapacity, bigotry, and
policy, it required a lofty spirit and fearless heart to
rise above the loaded atmosphere of prejudice, and the
vulgar traditions of popular errors, agreeable to sec-
tarian party, but wanting when placed in the balance
of truth and equity.

Removed at this moment from sources of reference
to Irish Parliamentary history, such as it is, and the
local institutions of Ireland, I must for the present, at
least, depend on memory; but a previous study of
Sir tfames Ware, the translations from the Erse lan-
guage made by members of your University, the works
of Spencer, Campion, Wright, and Mant, throw a steady
light on the condition of Ireland at her earlier periods ;
and as I descend in time, the statutory history of
England and the Compendium of Molyneux, the
Journals of the House of Lords and Commons, the
Records of the Privy Council, these, with those small
tributaries, the Reports of Sir James Caldwell, and
Lord Mountmorris's " History of the House of Lords,"
are the only reUable authorities ; the rest are party
statements, or mere inventions for party purposes : and
there is no country in Europe where the bias of party
more actively vitiates the writers of historical biography
and retrospects of bygone times.

Ireland, then, divided into as many opinions as races
— ^into as many creeds as there are sects in religion — ^into
as many modes of government as there were parties in
the State — ^into as many Lord-deputies as provinces;
there were as many cnanges as dynasties, whether
Plantagenets or Tudors, Stuarts, Stadholder, or
Guelph.

Ireland bent beneath the burden of her inferiority,
and the yoke of a despotic power, transmitted through
centuries. It has been said by politicians that, " Ire-
land's opportunity was England's weakness;" an
inference borne out by facts, but one which I do not
adopt, nor do not recommend. England, broken and
distracted by civil contests and social dynasties, had
more than once given opportunities to Ireland. The
Charter of King John was the first formal declaration
of the constitution of Parliament, and a Bill of Rights
was also granted with the charter by that monarch.
This great boon to the Kingdom of Ireland was a
benefaction which might have produced in the course
of time the fruits of good government and civil inde-
pendence, had wisdom prevailed in the council-chamber
of Dublin Castle ; but the policy there was to control
rather than to set up, to constrain rather than to
develope.

If at Runnymede England acquired the Bill of
Rights, why should not Ireland have had the benefit
of ners? The knights and esquires of the same race
had become proprietors and settlers in Ireland; the
distant seat of government, the precarious intercourse,
made local and national institutions of the first
necessity.

The social advance of England and Scotland was
not so far ahead of Ireland, as represented in her large
towns and sea-ports, as to make similar institutions
impossible. No ; Ireland, though a separate kingdom,
was to be governed in an absolute manner, whether
exercised by a Strongbow, a Poynings, or a Strafford,
It was the policy of England for five centuries, at least,
to rule Ireland with absolute control, either by a lord
deputy and privy-council, or viceroy and council.

No sooner had the Wars of the Roses ceased than
the vigilant mind of Henry VII. directed his attention
to his Irish dependency, and he sent over to that
country one of the most acute and learned of the
lawyers of his reign — Sir Edward Poynings — ^to deviae

such statutes, to complete those measures which would
render Irish Parliaments nugatory, and their Charter
and Bill of Rights of no avail.

The temptation to centralize the powers of the State
in one hand was too great for a lord-deputy of so much
obsequious cunning. Mr. Moljmeux, the illustrious
representative of your University in 1688, had re-
viewed with a cautious and careful meditation the
earlier epochs of Ireland's history, and as a lawyer and
gentleman no one was more capable of doing so ; and
he conveyed his views to his friend, Mr. Locke, who
approved of them, so well explained in that singular

?>andect, which contains so much in so small a compass,
'he opinions of such men, eminent for their learning
and philosophy, in favor of the rights of Ireland to a
legislative independence, is conclusive as to this very
material question. The enquiry naturally arises, why
Ireland was never allowed to exercise her parlia-
mentary rights regularly, as in the sister kingdom,
before the great revolution of 1688 ? The answer is,
— Though Ireland was a gift from the Roman Pontiff
to Henry II., yet that politic monarch sent one of
his most powerful vassals to secure "the gift" by
conquest ; nor, did the Roman legions turn with more
contempt from the northern barbarians of Britain than
did the chivalry of England from the Celtic Irish.
Made secure by conquest, the lords of the Pale and the
Parliament soon found it requisite to make the land of
their conquest the place of their residence. Local
parliaments were the first fruits of this change. Remote
from the seat of government, the long interval of time
requisite to communicate and to receive despatches,
pointed readily to administration in either Kilkenny or
Dublin as the chief city or centre.

Whatever prepossession the Anglo-Norman knights
might have had for Parliaments, such as their ancestors
have founded at Rouen in Normandy, the house of
Tudor preferred the management of a governor or a
lord deputy in council, as the more ea$y form of rule ;

a Parliament, or the semblance of one, having been
seldom convened.

The House of Stuart followed with alacrity a course
so congenial, and Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, was a
true impersonation of their despotic power in Ireland.
For one hundred years after the revolution there was a
slow but perceptible change, as progressing as the de-
velopment of the national resources were discovered,
and as the strength of her population increased. The
lethargic repose into which the spell of power of England
had cast the Parliaments of Ireland, required time
before renewed vitality could assume the energies of
strength, and still longer before the maturity of legis-
lative power could be manifested.

The first era of English power in Ireland was the
absolute rule of conquest.

The second, that of a despotic character.

The third, that of a colonial form, with a viceroy, to
indicate by his title that Ireland was integral of the
British Imperial Crown. In the development which
time produced, civil government throughout the country
made some enlargement of the national institutions
necessary ; and thus, rather by constraint than good-
will, the trammels were removed from the Irish Parlia-
ments, which were again to give way before an insidious
policv, leaving a lasting opprobium on a nation that
could sell its legislative independence.

The Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon proprietary,
from Waterford to Wexford, and from Kilkenny to
Dublin, the whole of Leinster and a part of Munster,
presented a sufficient number of knights and esquires
to form a parliament, small but homogenous. The in-
habitants of the large towns, Dublin, Drogheda, Cork,
and Waterford, were descendants from the Danes, who
had occupied the southern and eastern coast line of
Ireland in the 9th century, which no less than the
Spanish colony which Miletus established in the western
limits at a still earlier epoch, were removed from a
barbarous condition, and might soon have become rivals

in enterprise to the maritime towns of England, be-
tween the 12th and 17th centuries.

The scattered and varied population of Ireland was
concentrated chiefly at the sea-ports, and the Celtic
race dispersed throughout the interior, according to
Campion.

The population at the time of the Anglo-Norman
conquest was not appreciable, nor for a long period sub-
sequent. However, elements of civil administration
were always sufficiently abundant to allow of the con-
vening of Parliament at least biennially, had a parlia-
mentary system been the plan of Government.

The religious element in the social and political con-
dition of Ireland, from the Norman conquest to the
revolution of 1688, must have a prominent place in
any political survey, however brief, since religious faith
had too often been used as an important influence in
dynastic struggles and temporal government.

St. Patrick and St. Columba had as early as the 5th
century introduced Christianity.

The Roman Pallium, the emblem of the spiritual
authority of the Roman Pontiff, accompanied the
Anglo-Norman expedition under the great Earl of
Pembroke (Strongbow). His knights, and their esquires
and followers, formed the first military colony of the
Italian church. These increased in numbers by each
successive immigration, thenceforth to the epoch of the
Reformation, a period of four centuries.

The Danes of the 9th century had been converted
to Christianity by the Culdees, and it is probable they
formed a uiiifonn body with the Italian Church
shortly after their new conquest.

The Reformation, however, brought new immigrants,
and with them a new faith ; these extended and settled
on unclaimed or unoccupied territory. The violent
and vindictive reign of Mary and Phillip disturbed the
rapid march of the Reformation ; and the acts of this
reign were probably the first cause of those religious
distractions which have afflicted Ireland for so long a

period. The subsequent reign did little to allay or to
mitigate any of the evils that had arisen.

Elizabeth and James L enlarged the sphere of
action, and encouraged the Reformation, the former by
planting Munster, and the latter Ulster; these were
accessions of strength of a social character, calculated
in some measure to the improvement of Ireland.

The merchants, the undertakers, and the speculators
in land, received grants on very moderate terms, says
Payne, and being of a class of society superior to mere
adventurers, a more favorable turn to events seemed
visible in the South and East, in Munster and Leinster ;
while the North received the hardy sons of Scotland
as a plantation in the following reign. Ulster then
gloried in a Scotch colony. Thus, the Reformation
was largely reinforced, and successive reigns increased
the numerical importance of this formidable body ; the
short and vicious sojourn of James II. scarcely makes
an exception. His conduct in Ireland is noticeable in
reference to the parliaments. He immediately con-
vened the parliaments, says Bishop Mant, and appointed
an adventurer, a hanger-on of the Inns of Courts of
Law, to introduce bills for the repeal of the Law of
Settlement, the repeal of the statutes effecting Pro-
tiistant tenures, and a bill to re-enact the restitution
of forfeited estates, and by these meq^ns to unite the
Celtic Irish and the Anglo-Norman attached to the
Italian faith in favor of the despised and dethroned
king.

In the time of Charles I., Mr. Cobbett, in his " Par-
liamentary Register," relates: "A committee of the
House of Commons was appointed to enquire into the
sale of confiscated estates in Ireland, of which Sir
Francis Annesley, the accomplished surveyor and
patriot of that time, was chairman ; he advised the
restitution of those estates to the Celtic heirs. The
committee, with the exception of Sir Richard Levinge,
were of the same opinion. The Earl of Strafford was
Hot a man to let such advice pass unpunbhed. Sir

Francis Annesley was impeached, and his estates
forfeited to the Crown.**

It is abundantlv evident that the Irish parliaments
were, whenever otate afiairs required, made instru-
ments more or less subversive of a firee legislative
character, and of national unity.

It is equally clear that the divisions in the Christian
Church were arrayed under their respective banners
on all dynastic changes ; and institutions, in themselves
good, were converted to mere political requirements of
each successive party.

The advent of William III. in Ireland was probably
one of the most fortunate incidents in the history of
the country. In two battles — the Boyne and Aughrim
— he vanquished the Celtic armies, officered by
Anglo-Normans. The machinations of the Jacobites
were thus frustrated; the confiscations prepared or
meditated, cancelled ; and the hopes and expectations
of the great Celtic party rendered utterly impossible.

The magnanimous and valiant king, the liberator and
ttene^Eurtor of a great people, came to Ireland, not as
the apostle of a particular ritual, but as the extirpator
of a pusillanimous monarch who had not been true to
one faith or another, who was equally indififerent to
Irish celts or English yeomen ; his sole object being an
absolute power with a subservient Parliament in both
kingdoms, and a Tyrconnell acting the part of another
Strafford. The destiny of Ireland was determined in
two battles. The refined and elegant forms of the
Roman worship were removed from the supreme position
of a dominant faith, and the Reformed Creed placed in
its stead.

There was but one fault in that age. The Roman
Catholics were denied all political power, but never was
there so much liberty gained by so small a sacrifice.
For seven hundred years the Italian faith had exercised
during a long course of time a splendid supremacy ; it
was now to cede to a more simple, yet not less in-
structive, form of Christianity.

With William came a new, refined, and enlightened
gentry, ready to associate themselves with their adopted
country. Settled in different localities from North to
South, they soon became " more Irish than the Irish
themselves."

From this stock or " plantation " sprung the future
Parliaments of Ireland, wherein men of the highest in-
tellectual attainments had seats ; where the happiest
combination of wit and genius, patriotism and power,
dignity and public virtue, were found united with
oratory after the style of Demosthenes and Cicero;
where statesmanship and a high sense of national in-
dependence co-existed with profound loyalty to the
Crown ; where the principles of Locke and Adam
Smith found a ready access ; and where the public mind
became tutored in public policy by orators affluent in
all the graces of language.

The meditative and philosophic minds of Locke and
Molyneux considered the accession of William as an
omen favorable to an enlightened freedom, under a
limited monarchy. Toleration in religious differences —
always the work of time — ^was sure to follow in the
progressive legislation of a mild Government. When
absolute power ceased for ever with the last of the
Stuarts ; when internal calamities were arrested by the
destruction of the causes which led to them ; when the
vices of a weak and unstable government were brought
to an end ; the Irish nation had as much reason to
rejoice in a bright hope of the future as the inhabitants
of Great Britain.

I have the honor to be,
Mr. Provost,
Learned and distinguished Gentlemen,
With highest consideration,
Yours obediently,

WARDEN HATTON FLOOD,
Late Capt, H.M.S.,

Author of Military and Historical Essay a.

Pari^ February^ 1863.

«' HISTORIC DOUBTS

MR. WHITESIDE'S LECTURE—" THE LIFE AND
DEATH OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENTS.**

It is the remark of the celebrated historian Gibbon,
" that he never read a book without first considerinff
" the character of the author, and next, whatever conld
" be said on the subject-matter." I shall try and apply
this admirable recommendation.

Mr. Whiteside's name is familiar to every one as a
clever member of the Irish Bar. He has long obtained
a name, and has maintained a place in the first rank of
the courts of law on the circuits. In literature, his
book on the Papacy in the Nineteenth Century, his
Translation of the Latin essay " On the Cenci," bis " Life
and Writings of Goldsmith," &c., give him a certain
consideration.

Mr. Whiteside, though a Northern, is gradually
getting into favor in the South, and even in Dublin.
His defence of Miss Longworth, or the Honourable
Mrs. Yelverton, was a masterpiece of forensic skill,
confounding witnesses, puzzling priests on their own
terra sacra^ questioning, cross-questioninff, perplexing
and annihilating a host of adverse witnesses. His
case was successful ; he received an ovation from the
courts; he received the cheers of the House of Com-
mons. Mr. Whiteside is a very fortunate man : virtues
in Ireland are seldom so rewarded ; and those public

men who have any, says Swift, generally leave the
country.

Mr. Whiteside is not, however, content with the
laborious honors of the Bar ; he finds time to imitate
Lord Carlisle and Lord Russell in giving lectures, — a
sort of light and fashionable pastime, about which we
have no accountability.

A lecture on " Oliver Goldsmith " is a somewhat easy
task. Macaulay, Washington Irving, and Johnson have
all given interesting biographies of him, and there is
not an edition of his works without a sketch, long or
short, of the author.

Even in this lecture on Goldsmith, it is not so much
the " Vicar of Wakefield " we have before us, as the
struggling litterateur. Nor is he happy in his remarks
on versification : they are not those which Horace would
have made ; and yet they are better than his maxims
on oratory, which could never make an orator ; we
should more profitably study the works of Quintillian,
Longinus, and Tacitus. An orator is born one, not
made, — -just as much as a poet is said to be so gifted.

This year, however, Mr. Whiteside has ventured a
step further. He has given a lecture, called by him
the " Life and Death of the Irish Parliaments." This
is, in fact, the " Rise and Fall of Sir Jonah Barrington"
reversed ; we are presented with the obverse of this
medallion to national honor. Sir Jonah Barrington
brought much Irish wit, talent, dexterity, and a large
bundle of facts, for the most part authentic, and above
all and superior to all, a highly praiseworthy national
spirit; he has exhibited a large share of political
acumen, and a liberal, generous sentiment throughout.

Mr. Whiteside, on the contrary, has shown us, as
Calisthenes did before Alexander, what can be said on
the other side, when invited by the conqueror to argue
both sides of a question. The " Life and Death " shows
Mr. Whiteside to be what he really is, an able lawyer
and a cautious politician, but not yet shown the qualities
of a statesman nor orator.

Mr. Whiteside cannot be accused of a want of con-
fidence or facility in language : without the former he
could not enter on so anti-national a topic as the de-
gradation of the Irish Parliaments in the capital of
Ireland ; and without the latter his treasury of know-
ledge must have been soon exhausted where the statute
book and state prosecutions were the staple of his
lecture. Cataline would have scarcely spoken against
the republic in the Roman forum. It is as easy for
Mr. Whiteside to travesty Irish Parliaments and
characters, as for the actors in the Haymarket to
burlesque the characters of Medea and Jason, in the
play of Euripedes.

The case of Ireland and of her Parliaments does not
admit of the argumentative form of a brief; statutory
law is good when applicable to the state of society in a
country, and the common law excellent when arising
out of the customs of a people ; but the peculiar con-
dition of the Celtic race, the Danish insurgents, the
Anglo-Normans and Anglo-Saxon invaders, as well as
the physical and social state of Ireland, made the
application of such laws of doubtful benefit. But such
a view of the subject is in favor of a local Parliament ;
a country of such extent demanded one, whether com-

Erised of the conquering race or the mixed Anglo-
banish inhabitants of towns and seaports ; the Celtic
population being ignorant of the English language up
to the reign of Elizabeth. Circumjacent countries,
their political disquietudes, jealousies, and animosities,
must be taken into consideration, no less than the great
difliculties of communication iDetween the seat of
government in England, and the seat of authority in
Ireland. Looking for a moment at the first point, it is
necessary to recollect that the Norman monarchy from
WiUiam to Henry V., from the epoch of the battle
of Hastings to that of Cressy, the continental appanages
of the British crown, gave. continual occupation to the
m anarchs; their attention, their policy, and polity had
Bn external character.

Ireland indeed was the gift of the Roman Pontiff;
it was necessary simply to hold it somehow, and a con-
centrated autocratic form was decidedly the easiest;
and a statute enacted in the councils of England, was a
rescript not to be despised. Parliaments were analogous
to the Norman custom — the very word was Norman —
the institution was idiocyncratic of the nation. The
Dukes of Normandy had an identity of object with their
warrior subjects — conquest : to assemble in Parliament
was to agree to a line of policy. The Anglo-Saxons of
the Heptarchy had their storklings or witans (meetings)
for some local or common legislation, by no means so
comprehensive as the Parliament of the Norman.
England gained by the Norman conquest. Her empire
commenced, her glory extended, her power from thence-
forth and for ever to be unlimited. Ireland was of in-
ferior moment, a mere speck, a semi-barbarous and un-
cultivated dependency, colonised, but not subdued, for
at least five centuries after the Norman conquest of
England.

The difficulty of communication was not a less
pressing and portentous consideration ; perils by sea,
perils by land, perils by robbers, perils by false brethren,
were by no means exaggerated figures of the mind ;
they were bodily danger! positive, Ind almost certaini
from the reign of Henry II. to that of Henry VII.
Months had to elapse before despatches could be ex-
changed between the King and his liege vassal lords of
Ireland. Thence the necessity of a Parliament for the
yearly increasing wants of Ireland.

It was felt, and it was obeyed ; not regularly, it is
true, but fitfully; a thousand hindrances sprang up
from one epoch to another.

Adhering with reverent attention to the maxim of
Gibbon — that the character and pursuit of the author
are an index to his work, as well as what can be stated
on the subject-matter, — like an alchymist who purifies
his metal by the crucible, — so the gee^\, >D^^\«t\«xN. \xv^^
every fact by the teat of trvih^ t\ia\, V^^a^A^ ^^ ^oj»N:^

and honor of which a mere partisan, or the mere
speculator on the chances of advancement, can have no
conception.

Horace Walpole was of this opinion as well as
Gibbon. Both were gentlemen by birth and fortune ;
both too dignified to lend their graceful pens to party
views of historic subjects.

Sallust and Tacitus were patricians, and therefore, in
the highest sense of the term, gentlemen. Above
money and above price, the pursuit of history was to
them the elegant refinement of truth in its rigorous
impartiality — a quality rare indeed, as the choicest
plants of a conservatory. Horace Walpole exercised
the quick and penetrating acumen of his inquiring
mind on certain points in the history of England by
Hume ; for Hume, though a very sceptic and cautious
writer, fell into error now and then. Horace Walpole
then gave us his Historic Doubts, and very important
ones they are.

The thought has struck me, that the learned lecturer
of the " Christian Association " might, in his great
zeal in advocating the cause of the Union, make
some grave errors, quite opposed to the philosophy of
history. Mr. Whiteside is a lawyer by profession, a
pleader of either side of a case for which he may be
retained. His mind strong from exercise, and dexterous
in citation jfrom habit, he never fails to make out a
good pleading. Authorities are never wanting, whether
the furious Coke or Jefiries, Thurlow or Mansfield,
Poynings, Wentworth and Tyrconnell, all serve in their
respective epoch, for the purpose of denouncing Irish
parliaments ab initio ad finis.

I hope I shall not misrepresent the learned lecturer.
He states : " One State, one Law, one Church," was the
scheme of policy of the English monarchs from the
first. A theory worthy the Utopia of Sir Thomas
More; but very unlike the thought of the warrior
kings of the Norman line.

When William won the battle of Hastings, the

learned and reverend Abbots of Battle Abbey ap-
proached the conqueror and supplicated his clemency.
" Yes," said he, " and more ; I will make wine be as
"abundant as water here!" The Norman line were
noble conquerors.

I shall take leave to divide the lecture into three
sections, which I shall call epochs.

FiBST Epoch.
From Henry the Second to Henry the Seventh.

Mr. Whiteside will not allow Henry 11. to be a con-
queror, or his military occupation of Ireland to be a
Conquest. There waa no amy of natives to oppose his
landing ; there was no battle of Hastings ; but the result
and attending circumstances gave a correctness to the
expression.

The Celtic race in Ireland — using the nomenclature
of Dr. Arnold, who divides the Celtic race into nomade
tribes — had attained no military character, as our
earliest historians affirm. Conquest it was, in the
sense of those days. The story is : McDermott, called
" King of Leinster," had supplicated, by embassy, the
intervention of Henry II. a long time before, to pre-
vent the rapine and ruin caused by a marauding king
called Mac Murrough. It is said Henry waited the
authority of a Papal bull, Ireland being then considered
a fief of the Apostolic Empire. A gift was made to
Henry by the Roman Pontiff, then the most powerful
sovereign in Europe, of the Isola Santa, on condition
that the Roman pallium and crozier, the symbols of
Roman spiritual authority, accompanied the expedition ;
and so they did. The Holy See gave the right of pos-
session, and made the military occupation of the Nor-
man king and knights from Waterford to Dublin one
of complete success.

Henry II. was courteous and politic, as well as brave.
He offered to the chieftains — now flattered with tl^ft.

title of kings — the common laws and statutes of Eng-
land, — a dead letter to the people, who could not under-
stand them.

The Brehon law, or code, was indigenous, and there-
fore preferable, at least till the dawn of a more perfect
social condition ; but there was a large population to
whom the mission was acceptable — the Dane, the
Anglo-Saxon, and the Spano-Celtic colony who formed
the maritime inhabitants of the large sea-ports from
Kinsale eastward to Dublin and Dundalk ; these formed
the nuclei of an important power, which was one day,
though distant, to develope the commercial strength of
Ireland — these accepted with gratitude the laws of
England.

The egrestic or pastoral people were the ancient
native race, partly scattered over plains and vales of
limited extent, — the physical geography of Ireland
being in the 12th century for the most part wood, lake,
and morass.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the law for hold-
ing parliaments was not operative.

Mr. Whiteside states : " We are assembled to enquire
" when the parliament was bom, — how it lived, — and
" when and from what cause it died? "

To support or illustrate his text, he says: "Lord
" Coke, in Part 7 of his Reports^ and again in the preface
" to Part 4, ^ That Ireland was subject to the crown of
" England long before the reign of Henry II.' " But what
avail is this, but to prove more clearly that the Roman
Pontiff alone could confer a rightful title — a valid title
that was at once the investiture of great and supreme
authority in temporal affairs, and thus give renewed
force to the previous arguments in favor of Henry II.,
and all his acts in Ireland. As the invasion of the
Danes took place in the 9th century, Ireland must have
been known to King Edgar in the 10th ; but all the
honor of complete annexation and settlement belong to
Henry II.

As to the trite maxim, "One Law, one State, one

Church," it existed simply on paper; one of those
delicate theorems too fragile, too absolute, for long
existence. The visible Church, from the Tiber to the
LifFey, was the Roman. The State, the more powerful
of the two kingdoms ; the Law, that which could not be
enforced in Ireland outside the English pale about
Dublin, for centuries after the conquest or military
occupation.

The High Court of Parliament was conceded in the
reign of Henry II. — ^probably some years after his visit
to Ireland — and the exact Charter and Bill of Rights
by King John in a subsequent reign ; as this prince had
long resided in Ireland, he must have known all her
wants and her capacities.

Here, again, an additional force is given to the argu-
ment that Ireland had a right to a separate parliament,
as most essential to her prosperity, to guard and
develope her increasing vigour. The hypothesis as to
the counties, shires, burgs, not having any existence at
the first epoch, is simply arguing ex absurdo : parlia-
ments could be formed without reference to territorial
divisions, and were so in the first instance, — the prin-
cipal men of the immigrant races, the knights, forming
an Upper House. In addition, the Norman kings and
their judges were too wise to command that which it
was impossible to do. Few in number, but still a
parliament, which time added to as the government
extended.

It must always be carried in recollection, that the
civil wars in England essentially retarded the progress
of civil government, especially in Ireland, and rendered
inoperative the concessions of the Norman monarchs.

There is an absence of authentic information where,
and when, the first parliaments met. I should infer
Kilkenny had the priority, as nearest the point of
debarkation, Waterford. When? In the reign of
Henry II. These are points for the cavilist, rather than
the patriot ; for the lawyer, rather thaiv t\ifc ^XsiXescasw^.

Mr. Whiteside's design being to iat3k<^ ovjX ^ ^^»afe *^^

favor of the union of the legislative bodies of both
kingdoms ab initio^ he uses all the subtle abilities of the
casuist in his pleading ; for it is a pleading, not a lecture.
He cites the notable passage of Sir John Davies, who
was himself a strong partisan (teni. James I.): "And
^ as there is now but one common law, so for the space
^ of one hundred and forty years after King Henry II. had

* taken possession of the lordship of Ireland tnere was

* but one Parliament for both kingdoms ; but the laws
' made in the Parliaments of England were from time to

* time transmitted hither, under the great seal of that king-
' do7ny to be proclaimed^ enrolled^ and executed as the law
' of the (this ?) realm.^^ Now, if this citation be accepted

as true and proven^ which it is not, then it follows beyond
dispute that during one hundred and forty years, from
1171 to 1311, that is, to the reign of Edward II. — one
of those great monarchs who never did any injustice,
the successor of the English Justinian — England had
usurped the power of legislating for Ireland ; for Sir John
Davies pointedly and expressedly says, the English
Parliament. Now this proves nothing against Irish
Parliaments, their rights, and the validity of their
powers. But it implies this — an inchoate status of
political life in Ireland, at the period that Henry granted
the modus and statutes to his new conquest. Mr.
Whiteside then quotes Lord Coke's 4th Institute thus :
" Sometimes the King of England called his nobles of
" Ireland to come to his Parliament of England, and by
" special words the Parliament of England may bind the
" svbjects of Ireland ; " cites the Parbamentary Roll, re-
citing the writ or rescript thus: " Ricardo de Burgo, Com.
" Vlton.j et aliis Nobilibus, ^c," but not the Commons ;
clearly manifesting an exceptional case, and an inchoate
state of local and social affairs ; a very possible condition
between the conquest of Henry II. and Henry VII. :
hence controverting the pleadings of Mr. Wniteside.
Indeed the two words, '^sometimes " and '^ special,'^ used
by Coke, as well as the royal rescript or writ, show the
command to be exceptionaL

SUMMARY OF tHE FOREGOING ARGUMENT,

1st. That the honorary title "conqueror" was of
right given to Henry IL by Coke, Hume, Lingard,
Campion, and the illustrious Molyneux, proven thus : —

Adrian IV., Roman Pontiff, had given Ireland, the
'[JsolsL Sacra," to King Henry in 1156. That his
lieutenants, Fitz-Stephen and Fitzgerald, two distin-
guished knights, were sent over in 1169 to aid Mac
Dermott, King of Leinster ; they landed in Waterford
and occupied that district. That Richard de Clare,
surnamed Strongbow, landed in Dublin in 1170, with
ninety knights and their army. That these knights had,
before the visit of King Henry^ beaten all opposing
enemies. That Strongbow occupied Kilkenny, and
established his palatinate authority there, and probably
Parliaments; residing at and buUding Kilkennv Castle.

2nd. That King Henry did of his free will give a
modus tinendi pamamentem in termintis^ which was never
revoked or repealed. That all statutes and laws of
England were given to Ireland in like manner. That
all the Bangs of England, from Henry II. to Henry VII.,
never disturbed those ^fts. Lastly, that King John,
knowing Ireland from long residence, did grant of his
free will a Charter and BiU of Rights to Ireland, never
revoked.

3rd. That from 1171 to 1485, an epoch of three
hundred years, the House of Plantagenet, their judges
and their jurists, left Ireland to the free development of
these laws. That this induction is correct, is consonant
with historical truth, and sustained on the authority of
the illustrious patriot Molyneux.

Second Epoch — ^House of Tudob.

From 1485 to 1688. The era of misfortune to Ireland.

The crafty and treacherous King Henry YII-^ ^^^ ^^
the worst oi British monarcha, sent, Sxi \&i^ \ffo^ ^^^ws,

of his reign, Sir Edward Poynings to Ireland as Lord
Deputy. The character of this man was subtle and
devising.

As helps to a right understanding of the precise
position of Irish politics in the last epoch and the be-
ginning of this, 1 beg attention to the following points
as having a very important influence on Irish affairs.

1st. — ^The civil (Hscontents in England, which in-
creased to such importance as to place one half of that
kingdom against the other, ultimately taking the name
of the War of the Roses, involving a dynasty. The
chivalrous House of Plantagenet had planted in Ireland,
during a period of three hundred years, knights of the
most distinguished name, gentlemen-at-arms of ancient
families, and followers m a proportionate extent ; these,
with the rest of the immigrants, had now formed a very
large population. All Yorkists were ready to take arms
against the usurper.

2nd. — ^The civil wars in Scotland, and the incursive
or border wars with England.

3rd. — The abeyance of the Parliament of England
during the first period j its languid action during the
second, confining itself to raising subsidies and taxes.

4th. — ^The utterly inoperative character of Scotch
parliaments.

5th. — The foreign relations of England and her
appanages — ^Normandy, Aquitaine, and Brittany, — dis-
tracting and absorbing the mind of England. Ireland
was left to herself £rom the end of the 12th to the end
of the 15th century. The Norman kings had made her
^ a generous gift " — the laws of England, on which she
tried her unpractised hand, not yet accustomed to rule
herself.

The statesman must weigh these important facts.

It is admitted with reluctance that parliaments were
regularly held in Ireland, in one place or another,
annually, during several reigns preceding the epoch of
Henry YIL ; and one law of particular value was
id— to prevent appeals to England. The rolls of

Earliament were not printed in the form of a statute-
ook, and probably not preserved in remote times;
hence, much latitude for misinterpretation. The ancient
State Papers (rolls of parchment) have ever been want-
ing to Irish history.

This very serious epoch in the parliamentary history
must be examined with the calm of philosophy, and
bring the " Case of Ireland " into the High Court of
Equity, of honor aad good conscience, of truth and
virtue, "even to our own hindrance." The king and
the peasant, the titled family and the plebian, are on a
level in such a court.

First, then, to the right interpretation of the polity
of the House of Tudor. I arraign King Henry VII.
What was his character? Lord Bacon named him
the " Louis XL ol* England." He was suspicious,
avaricious, superstitious, crafty, politic. All these vices
are proven ; and it is only necessary to refer to Hume,
Lingard, Knight (the great compiler of the histories of
England), to verify the text herein. This bad man
erected a mausoleum for himself with his subjects'
money. Moreover, he was a usurper, the line of the
Plantagenets not being extinct when he assumed the
crown.

Secondly, his ministers were not chosen for their
rank or learning, but for their subserviency. Empson,
Dudley, and Povnings were his principal advisers.
Was he loved and respected ? No ; he was feared. A
great part of England was prostrate and ruined by the
Wars of the Roses. What was the state of Ireland
during the civil wars ? Ireland, the Sacred Isle, the
refuge for saints, the Holy Isle, as it was called, was
also the refuge for the persecuted. All Ireland was
Plantagenet in the 15th century ; for three centuries
their followers had populated districts. Aroused to
arms against the Tudor, they fought- they bled, they
died : four thousand in one battle were destroyed to «.
man. Ireland was troubled •, \\eiT ^(i^^\aaJG^^^ V^^
kiiigbts, her gcntlcmen-at-arm^a, \v^t \actAvwv\»^ ^vst^

ready to suiTer for the House of York. Why ? Because
that House were their benefactors, her institutions their
free-will offering. Ireland had, therefore, good reason
for discontent — even to insurrection.

England was prostrate, her parliament at the feet of
the Tudor. Full of resentment against the Irish, the
king sent over, expressly to carry out his polity,
Poynings, who seems to have been an acute lawyer
of those days; he was made lord-deputy under the
title of Sir Edward Poynings. Skilled in the manipula-
tion of statutes, he framed one that would allay the
apprehensions of the suspicious monarch, by limiting
the power of the Irish parliament and controlling its
power of originating bills, and subjugating them to the
revision or total suppression by the Privy Councils of
England and Ireland. To this end, a parliament, com-
posed no doubt under the influence of the Crown —
for so astute a partisan as Poynings would not have
convened any but his own adherents, as was done
subsequently by James II. It was called on to deface
the Charter and BiU of Rights granted by the House
of Plantagenet.

" Whereas it is enacted that all statutes late made
" (during the reign of Henry VII.) within the realm
" of England, concerning or belonging to the common
" weal of the same, from henceforth be deemed good and
" effectual in the law, and over that, be accepted, used,
" and executed within the land of Ireland, in all points
" and all times according to the tenor of the same.
" And if any statute or statutes have been made within
" the said land heretofore to the contrary, that they
" and every of them be made void and of none effect
" in the law."

That is to say, that the statutes of Henry VII. super-
seded all previous ones, and abrogated the beneficial
laws and charters — ^the gifts of the Anglo-Norman
monarchy. This Act of Sir Edward Poynings was
passed in a Parliament held at Drogheda in 1495.
It was a dynastic Act, — a violation of tiie coiistitution

of Ireland, converting the kingdom into a dependency
— a nationality into a province. Two hundred years
later the noble Molyneux first denounced this iniquitous
aggression ; and one hundred years later still, the great
learning and energy of Mr. Flood were displayed in
1766, explaining the character and power of the law
of Sir Edward Poynings. The Act of Renunciation,
passed by England in 1783, abolished the law, by re-
nouncing the power of legislating for Ireland.

Before advancing further on this grave reflection of
wrong to Ireland, I must consider who were the ministers
in carrying out the new policy of the House of Tudor
in both kingdoms. The nobles and high gentry of
England, and even the people, accepted with regret
their new master ; consequently he chose two lawyers,
Empson and Dudley, unprincipled men, who had
abilities and a knowledge of the law; they fulfilled
their mission, and got into oflBice ; but retribution at last
arrived, — they were hanged at Tyburn.

For Ireland another lawyer of the same order was
employed, Poynings : the notable statute was his project.
Now, a monarch who selected such men for ministers,
is himself an object of curiosity. He is represented by
the most reliable authorities as politic, suspicious, and
jealous, and above all avaricious. He was anxious to
secure himself against external foes. The Roman Pontiff
was at that epoch one of the most active sovereigns of
Europe. Henry the Tudor determined to deprive
Ireland of some of her power, that of legislation. Him-
self a usurper, and detested by the Irish of all races, he
saw that at any moment a land '^ sacred " in the pon-
tifical empire might be lost to him : for the same hand
that had the power to give, had also the power to take
away. It must be carried in mind by the reader that
the Emperor Constantine, the grand and the munificent,
had made " a gift " to the See of St. Peter of the ^^ Isles
of the West^^'' and Ireland had received St. Patrick and
St. Columba as the earliest Christian m\ss\o\va:rv'^^ S.\<^xss.
Rome. This was the deep-set iwotVv^ oi "^^wx^ "^W*^

who was superstitious to a high degree : and it is just

what Louis XL would have done.

To sustain this argument, I must add the explanatory

and declaratory enactment: "That no Parliament be
^ holden henceforth in the said land, but at such session
' as the King's lieutenant and council there first do
^ certify to the King, under the great seal of that land,
^ the causes and considerations, and cdl such acts as

* seemeth should pass in the same Parliament ; and such

* causes and considerations and ax*ts affirmed by the King
' and his Council to be good and expedient for that

* land, and his license thereupon ; as well as in af-^
^firmation of the said causes and acts, as to summon

* the said Parliament under the great seal of England
^ had and obtained : that done^ a Parliament to be had

* and holden after the form and efi^ect afore rehearsed.

* And if any Parliament be holden in that land here-

* after y contrary to the form and provision aforesaid,
^ it be deemed void and none effect in law.^^

This ia what Mr. Whiteside calls putting a bridle in
the mouth of the Irish Parliament. His words are: —
" The effect of this clause was to place a bridle in the
" mouth of the Irish Parliament, and subjugate alike
'^ the lord deputy, the nobles, and the commoners to
" the will of the King's Council in Dublin and in
"London."

Such is, I have no doubt, the reluctant admission of
Mr. Whiteside.

What would Mr. HaUam or Mr. May say if such a
stretch of prerogative had been exercised against the
British Parliament? It was in fact to deface the
liberties of England in Ireland !

And what becomes of the argument of Mr. Whiteside,
— " One Law, one State, one Church ? "

To sum up the points against Mr. Whiteside's
pleading : —

1st. — ^There was no more autonomy in the social

state of England and Ireland than there was between

kingdoma of Scotland and England; and, therefore.

"one law" would in many cases be unsuitable and
inoperative in the 15th century.

^Poynings (10 of Henry Vll.) enacts the adoption of
such statutes as were "/afe made^^ while he renders
" v(M^ of none effedj^ those heretofore.

What becomes of the " identity of law ?"

Was the statutory history of Ireland to begin with
the reign of Henry VII. ?

2nd. — " One State." This implies an autonomy that
did not exist, neither in language, nor race, nor unity
in the several parts; Wales was disunited from
England, Scotland from both, and Ireland from all.
The Norman monarchs attempted an identity, by send-
ing a Royal Prince as Viceroy to Ireland; while the
legislative bodies were to some extent co-ordinate, co-
existing, and national

3rd. — " One Church." This was an impossibility, and
is an impossibility.

Mr. Whiteside, not wholly content with what he has
said on the value of Poyning's law, attenuates his ar*
gument by showing the exercise of prerogative ; first,
by going back to the feeble state of Ireland in Edward
tne First's reign, who ruled "by statute," jpropm motu ;
and then down to Charles I., who did so by Order in
Council, which he calls " a very dangerous prerogative "
— which was not a prerogative, but a characteristic
usurpation of the powers of parliament by the king*
Edward L had a sufficient excuse — the inchoate state
of Irish parliaments in the thirteenth century.

Rebellion in Ireland.

Henry VIII. succeeded to his father, who left his son
one great bequest — the murder of De la Pole, brother
to the Earl of Sufi^olk. In due time this filial duty was
quietly executed. Henry's father having hoarded up a
very large sum of money, extorted from his subjects,
amounting to a million and a hal^ hia ga.^ «wv %Ri«t^ ^5^
rid of it

In Ireland, as might have been anticipated from my

frevious remarks, rebellion was ripe in the land,
'amilies of note, and families not of note, took arms
against the Tudor.
Parliaments were not much to his taste.
In England he held a parliament once in seven years,
and took the revenue in gross for four vears at a time.
Not much could be expected from a king who set at
naught all prerogatives and privileges but his own
pleasure. Indeed, the influence of the Crown was ab-
solute in the reigns of the Tudors and the Stuarts.
Monasteries were confiscated, their moneys appropriated;
subjects plundered ; State trials, a mockery of justice ;
religion, the bye-word of party. A king without re-
ligion, without principle, and without honor, could
scarcely do good for the great mass of his subjects.
What was the consequence ? Wales was in arms, Scot-
land in arms, Ireland in open rebellion. The Roman
Pontiff, vexed and perplexed by such a king, at last
anathematised him ; and had a more energetic Pontiff
exercised the supreme power of the Church, Henry VIII.
would have lost Ireland. Wales, always disaffected to
the House of Tudor, was not politically united to Eng-
land till near the close of this reign. If the English
parliaments did little of their own accord, the Irish
parliaments did less. After the desolation caused by
the dissolution of the monasteries, came an absentee-
tax, dictated, according to the law of Poynings, by the
Privy Councils of England and Ireland, to the parlia-
ment.

There were only two bills and two parliaments in
Ireland noticeable during this long reign. The law of
allegiance to Henry VIII. and his successors, instigated
by the growing hostilitj^ of the Vatican. Adrian VI.
died — a Pontiff of amiable virtues, but not energetic
enough for the epoch ; Clement VIII. succeeded. The
course meditated by Henry VIII. was to break with the
Roman Church — not from conviction of faith, but by
reason ofbia sensual appetites not being appeased by bulls

of dispensation. Marriage, the most sacred of duties —
a wife, the most tender source of our solicitude — had no
place in this king's heart. Sensual desire was omnipo-
tent, — from queen to queen he transferred his desire,
as easy as a garment of fashion.

The oath of aQegiance from the Irish of aU races
was necessary to protect the royal schismatic from the
vengeance of the Vatican. The oath of allegiance was
taken, but it was broken.

Another measure of importance was introduced into
Ireland — an "Absentee-tax," with an inexorable se-
questration. The philosophic reader might well be
surprised at this act. The mind of the monarch is the
key to its interpretation : he had personal resentment
to satisfy. The ever memorable conduct of the king to
Reginald Pole, the Countess of Salisbury, and other
personages of the purest character, unmixed fidelity,
and the noblest blood, is a lesson too grave to be for-
gotten, too true not to be taken as the key to the
closet of the mind of the king. It was at this period
that the celebrated epigram was made by a keen-witted
diplomatist — " That those who were against the Pope
" were burned, and those who were for him were
" hanged."

The " Absentee-tax," per se^ was excellent ; a resident
proprietary, high and low, is like "marrow to the
" bones " — consonant with " the wealth of nations " —
consonant with the high morality of good example.
Economists, indeed ! The apologists for political cor-
ruption.

Parliamentary history becomes useless and insipid,
when it only records the subserviency of the estates of
the realm to the King.

TuDORS Edward VI.

The unity of the visible Church had been broken,
and the Temple of Discord opened by the violexvoA %sA
bigotry of the author of t\ie Svx. \>o^ccka&. '^>w^

*• w ;-; . i

mthiAmatic king left to his yonn^ and feeble

thii g^^rm of complicated calamities. The young prince

did not live long.

Tlic liordfl, Commons, and Courts of Law, creeping
and ohftoqu 10118 to King Henry YIIL, now passed scTraral
HiatnUtH affecting ecclesiastical discipline. The nsnrpa-
tion by the Duke of Somerset of tne royal power was
of itself a flagrant instance of the inability of the par-
liarn(;rit of England to save the realm — a mark of its
inH>ot<;ncy when opposed to royal prerogative.

llijnry VII,, Henry VIII., rrotector Somerset, and
Mary, dictated to their houses of parliament a pro-
cJiirnation that was equal to a statute. It is requisite
to c^any in mind that, from the accession of the House
of 'I'tulor, tho Irinh parliaments were mere instruments
in IImj handn of power for good or for evil j their action
wai* wholly ])aralyzcd.

'* I<Vwt(forri," says the historian Hume, " was agsdn
** ntHtontd to the (•constitution, by recurring to the legis-
** lation of Kdward III., the Norman."

1, All laws wore repealed, extending tiie crime of
tntaKon, nuhw^rjuent to the 25th of Edward III.

2. n<jnry the Kighth's felony laws were repealed.
}{. 'I'lwi Statute of the Six Articles.

4. '1'Imj law agairiHt heresy.

/i. 'I'ho repeal of the Royal Proclamation, an Act by
whicJt the King's will was made equal to an Act of
l^irliament

'I'hcHC meaflurcH were honorable to the Duke of
SotncjrHet, who uHurped the royal authority so far to
the benefit of England.

Mr. Whiteside dismisses the reign of Edward VI. in
these words : " During the reign of Edward VI. no
" parliament sat in Ireland."

What use was a parliament, when the king could rule
by proclamation ?

If the remark have any value, it is that it shows the
unconstitutional system pursued in that country, which
was no better than a despotic rxile, dated the 10
of Henry VII.

There is indeed no Molyneux, no Flood, to answer
the imputation that follows: — "No parliaments had
" been held for a period of thirteen years, which suffi-
" ciently proves of how little importance that assembly
" was felt to be in the kingdom," says Mr. Whiteside.
I answer with certainty, that the calamities, the de-
gradation, and disunion of Ireland, arose from the fact
of a want of a regular local legislation^ of which she
was circumvented by the Tudor.

No country can flourish without a resident proprietary
and local free institutions.

They may be abused, misdirected, and corrupted ; but
these are ekceptions, and arise from bad governors-
never from the people.

What was the state of the English and Scotch parlia-
ments from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century?
Mere council chambers, at the royal bidding and plea-
sure!

It is easy for Mr. Whiteside to make out a case
against Irish parliaments, but it is one not founded
upon sound principles of equity and justice.

I have quoted the six great beneficial measures of
the reign of Edward VL, because they were of the
first importance, not to England only, but to Ireland.

Mary Tudor.

A reign of persecution, bigotry, and passion ; a sub-
stitution of despotic power for free exercise of consti-
tutional rights ; compulsive belief for free will ; phara-
saic semblance for Samaritan simplicity 1

Fortunately, in the nineteenth century every one can
enjoy his belief without disturbance.

The laws of Mary were extended to Ireland, and the
parliament of the nation had to adopt or re-enact them,
as might be the will of the Sovereign and her Star
Chamber. The number of Protestants were but few in
Ireland up to this reign ; it was after it the g:^a.t»YK&si3w
of settlers arrived. Many of tYie x\c\i l?To\fc'9X»xi\». '^^^

to Holland; the less opulent anywhere. Ireland was
in fact, at that date as previously, a Roman Catholic
country.

I make these remarks to oppose the impressions de-
rived from Mr. Whiteside's lecture on this subject.
Mr. Whiteside has but lightly touched on the short,
yet vindictive reign of Mary Tudor, though none of
her family were more grasping for prerogative, and
more desirous to combine tyranny with persecution.

There is one Act of Parliament above all others in
this reign that ought to arrest the attention of Irish-
men, and ought to impress them with the certain fact,
that the presiding idea, from Henry the Seventh's acces-
sion to the close of the reign of the House of Tudor,
was the oppression of Ireland, — to place her under the
supervision of the Star Chamber.

The Act of Phillip and Mary was enacted, called the
Declaratory Law, explaining 10 of Henry VIL, Poy-
ning's Statute. This declaration was to make more
positive the purview of the statute, and perfect the sub-
jugation designed against both Catholics and Pro-
testants.

That Irishmen may know it, I will print it in extenso
hereafter.

Elizabeth.

The Reformation and Confiscation.

Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Henry the
Eighth, by Anne Boleyn, bom in 1533, and was called
to the throne in her twenty-fifth year, therefore beyond
the age of girlhood, — the reverse of which I find in the
" Lecture." Clement VIII. did not grant a dispensa-
tion, nor did Cardinal Campeggio, the Pope's Legate,
think himself justified in countenancing the dissolution
of the previous marriage with Catherine of Arragon.

The reign of Elizabeth is so familiar to every one, in
Eoetry anS dramatic verse, in history and romance, that
)B quite a choice of portraits for the student of
I think Miss Stricklands the best portrait

of this queen; Wright's State Papers in reference
to Ireland and the Statute Book the best authori-
ties. Von Raumer's Critical Notes on English History,
taken from State Papers found in the British Museum,
always lead to a just appreciation of events.

No sooner was Elizabeth installed, than she demanded
of the Parliament a High Court of Commission no-
minated at her will. That is to say, a far greater
unconstitutional power than even her father exercised by
proclamation. This was a despotism never before as-
sumed; and it is agreed that ^Hhe end justified the nieans^^ —
the unctious compliment ever ready on such occasions.

The first act of the High Commission was to establish
the Reformed Chui^ch paramount in the kingdoms of
England and Ireland. This was easily effected in the
former at the expense of conscience ; but in Ireland
it was quite another affair. Archbishops and bishops
of learning were sent by the queen : Usher, Loftus,
Leslie, Browne, Bedel, and many other eminent men,
enumerated by Bishop Mant in his " Church History in
Ireland," but there was one insurmountable barrier —
language to convey the instructions.

For nine centuries the Celtic Irish had been accus-
tomed to hear the mass in the Latin tongue, and they
had some account of the Latin Church ; but of the Re-
formation they knew nothing.

The English flocked in numbers to this new settle-
ment, where land was without value, and confiscations
general Protestants of all shades and degrees, from
the soldier to the merchant ; the favorites of the Court,
from Hatton and Raleigh to Spencer ; all had extensive
grants from the Shannon to the Blackwater, thence
eastward to the Slaney.

The Great Chieftains.

The Earl of Tyrone and the Earl of Desmond in the reign

of Elizabeth.

Mr. Whiteside says : — ^^ The instant the Irish chiefs

to Holland; the less opulent anywhere. Ireland was
in fact, at that date as previously, a Roman Catholic
country.

I make these remarks to oppose the impressions de-
rived from Mr. Whiteside's lecture on this subject.
Mr. Whiteside has but lightly touched on the short,
vet vindictive reign of Mary Tudor, though none of
ner family were more grasping for prerogative, and
more desirous to combine tyranny with persecution.

The Act of Phillip and Mary was enacted, called the
Declaratory Law, explaining 10 of Henry VII., Poy-
ning's Statute. This declaration was to make more
positive the purview of the statute, and perfect the sub-
jugation designed against both Catholics and Pro-
testants.

That Irishmen may know it, 1 will print it in extenso
hereafter.

Elizabeth.

The Reformation and Confiscation,

Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Henry the
Eighth, by Anne Boleyn, born in 1533, and was called
to the throne in her twenty-fifth year, therefore beyond
the age of girlhood, — the reverse of which I find in the
** Lecture." Clement VIII. did not grant a dispensa-
tion, nor did Cardinal Campeggio, the Pope's Legate,
think himself justified in countenancing the dissolution
of the previous marriage with Catherine of Arragon.

The reign of Elizabeth is so familiar to every one, in
poetry and dramatic verse, in history and romance, that
there is quite a choice of portraits for the student of
history. I think Miss Stricklands the best portrait

The first act of the High Commission was to establish
the Reformed Church paramount in the kingdoms of
England and Ireland. This was easily effected in the
former at the expense of conscience ; but in Ireland
it was quite another affair. Archbishops and bishops
of learning were sent by the queen : Usher, Loftus,
Leslie, Browne, Bedel, and many other eminent men,
enumerated by Bishop Mant in his " Church History in
Ireland," but there was one insurmountable barrier —
language to convey the instructions.

For nine centuries the Celtic Irish had been accus-
tomed to hear the mass in the Latin tongue, and they
had some account of the Latin Church ; but of the Re-
formation they knew nothing.

The Great Chieftains.

The Earl of Tyrone and the Earl of Desmond in the reign

of Elizabeth.

Mr, Whiteside says : — ^^ The instant the Irish chiefs

to Holland; the less opulent anywhere. Ireland was
in fact, at that date as previously, a Roman Catholic
country.

There is one Act of Parliament above all others in
this reign that ought to arrest the attention of Irish-
men, and ou^ht to impress them with the certain fact,
that the presiding idea, from Henry the Seventh's acces-
sion to the close of the reign of the House of Tudor,
was the oppression of Ireland, — to place her under the
supervision of the Star Chamber.

That Irishmen may know it, I will print it in extenso
hereafter.

Elizabeth.

The Reformation and Confiscation.

Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Henry the
Eighth, by Anne Boleyn, born in 1533, and was called
to the throne in her twenty-fifth year, therefore beyond
the age of girlhood, — the reverse of which I find in the
** Lecture." Clement VIIL did not grant a dispensa-
tion, nor did Cardinal Campeggio, the Pope's Legate,
think himself justified in countenancing the dissolution
of the previous marriage with Catherine of Arragon.

For nine centuries the Celtic Irish had been accus-
tomed to hear the mass in the Latin tongue, and they
had some account of the Latin Church ; but of the Re-
formation they knew nothing.

The English flocked in numbers to this new settle-
ment, where land was without value, and confiscations
general. Protestants of all shades and degrees, from
the soldier to the merchant ; the favorites of the Court,
from Hatton and Raleigh to Spencer ; all had extensive
grants from the Shannon to the Blackwater, thence
eastward to the Slaney.

The Great Chieftains.

The Earl of Tyrone and the Earl of Desmond in the reign

of Elizabeth.

Mr. Whiteside says : — ^' The instant the Irish chiefs

to Holland; the less opulent anywhere. Ireland was
in fact, at that date as previously, a Roman Catholic
country.

I make these remarks to oppose the impressions de-
rived from Mr. Whiteside's lecture on this subject.
Mr. Whiteside has but lightly touched on the short,
et vindictive reign of Mary Tudor, though none of
er family were more grasping for prerogative, and
more desirous to combine tyranny with persecution.

The Act of Phillip and Mary was enacted, called the
Declaratory Law, explaining 10 of Henry VII., Poy-
ninff's Statute. This declaration was to make more
positive the purview of the statute, and perfect the sub-
jugation designed against both CathoUcs and Pro-
testants.

Tliat Irishmen may know it, 1 will print it in extenso
hereafter.

Elizabeth.

The Reformation and Confiscation.

Elizabeth was the illegitimate daughter of Henry the
Eighth, by Anne Boleyn, born in 1533, and was called
to the throne in her twenty-fifth year, therefore beyond
the age of girlhood, — the reverse of which I find in the
" Lecture." Clement VIII. did not grant a dispensa-
tion, nor did Cardinal Campeggio, the Pope's Legate,
think himself justified in countenancing the dissolution
of the previous marriage with Catherine of Arragon,

No sooner was Elizabeth installed, than she demanded
of the Parliament a High Court of Commission no-
minated at her will. That is to say, a far greater
unconstitutional power than even her father exercised by
proclamation. This was a despotism never before as-
sumed; and it is agreed that ^Hhe end justified the rtieans^^ —
the unctious compliment ever ready on such occasions.

For nine centuries the Celtic Irish had been accus-
tomed to hear the mass in the Latin tongue, and they
had some account of the Latin Church ; but of the Re-
formation they knew nothing.

The Great Chieftains.

The Earl of Tyrone and the Earl of Desmond in the reign

of Elizabeth.

Mr. Whiteside says : — ♦^ The msteaat \Xi^ \y\^ ^^^jSa

" felt no longer the firm hand of ' Harry,' and found a
" girl upon the throne^ they revolted. Plots, con-
" spiracles, rebellions, wars, confiscations, followed each
" other in regular succession." And lower down he
adds : — " In Ireland the statutes of Queen Mary were
" reversed^ the statutes of King Henry were restored,
" the Protestant religion was established, and the Pro-
" testant worship confirmed."

It is first necessary to recollect Elizabeth was no
" girl," but a full-grown woman, with matured plan in
hand, most likely by her Secretary Walsingham. It
was this : —

1. A Parliament perfectly obedient.

2. A High Court of Commission — " a Star Chamber,"
with increased numbers and power.

3. An Ecclesiastical Commission composed of forty
bishops of the Queen's nomination, three of whom
would make a quorum.

These unconstitutional powers were placed in her
hands above the authority of Parliament.

Both Hous€is of Parliament were at her disposal;
they were convened seldom, and then to register rather
than debate the mandates of the Queen.

She had two principal objects, — ^the spread of the
Reformation, and the subjugation of Ireland. The first
of these projects was to be carried out by Ecclesiastical
Commission, which was called the Protestant Inquisition
from the severity of its supervision. The Statute of
Uniformity was the first compulsory measure — to carry
it out was the difficulty. The second was the over-
throw of two great chieftains. Shane O'Neil, Earl of
Tyrone, but in fact King of Ireland, who rose in
arms to repel the new invaders. Lords-deputy were
sent in succession against this great chieftain, and
failed. Armies under chosen officers were sent to
the North, but their march was a picture of de-
solation; they were defeated, not by foes, but by
impassable obstacles. Mr. Wright has printed the
sports of Sir Henry Sidney and tte Earl of Essex.

Shane O'Neil, though unconquerable by the sword of
Elizabeth, could be vanquished by the power of the
"Star Chamber" (or High Court of Commission, as it
was called from its enlarged authority). By an Act of
Attainder he was deposed and his estates confi seated to
the Crown.

Sir John Norris and Sir Anthony St, Ledger carried
out the policy of Elizabeth in Munster.

The great Earl of Desmond, the sixteenth earl, the
most magnanimous of his name, was tracked from place
to place, his followers destroyed, and he himself watched
from point to point, till at last he was taken, beheaded
on the spot, and his head sent to Dublin Castle ! Such
was the end of those great chieftains, whose characters
are unblemished ; equally devoted and uncompromising,
they died as they lived, an example to Irishmen.

When Queen Elizabeth commanded parliaments in
Ireland, they were simply to carry out her scheme of
civil government ; and this is equally true, whether in
the tune of Sir Henry Sidney, the Earl of Essex, or
the Earl of Sussex ; the Reformation and confiscations
on the largest possible scale were the object.

Summary.

In a reign so long and important as that of Elizabeth,
extending over a period of thirty-three years, it will be
useful to place the principal points in reference to
Ireland boldly in relief.

1st. — ^Her chief object was to lay prostrate the Celtic
Irish and the Norman Catholic ; to extirpate these two
races would have been welcomed as a stroke of high
policy. A greater military force was employed for this
object alone than was sent to aid the Huguenots of
France, or to assist the Prince of Orange in the Nether-
lands. Sir Henry Sidney, the Earls of Ormonde,
Essex, and Sussex, Sir John Norris, Sir Anthony
St Ledger, Sir Thomas Bagwell, and Licsit^ ^wsc^^-^n
were successively employed. Oi «Si \}ckeafc^ Vo^» ^^^^

approached the end in view, Sir Thomas Bagwell and
Lord Mountjoy. The nation was prostrated, but not
conquered ; it was occupied, but not subdued.

2nd. — ^The Reformation at any price. For this an
Act of Uniformity was introduced, which compelled the
conscience to accept what it did not understand.

3rd. — Sequestrations of reli^ous domains, confisca-
tions of the two provinces, Ulster and Monster.

4th. — ^The general instruction of the English lan-
guage, to which the Celtic nation had a great antipathy.

5th. — ^The rigid application of Poyning's Law, and
the declaratory one of Philip and Mary imposed against
Irish parliaments.

6th. — In a period of thirty-three years, Elizabeth
convened four parliaments in Ireland, and seven in
England, all mandatory and all subservient.

HotrsB OF Stuart.
James the First 1603.

A comparative calm succeeded to the terrific tem-
pests that disturbed the political atmosphere during the
reign of the House of Tudor.

Elizabeth having devastated two provinces, inhabited
chiefly by Celtic populations, she left to her successor
the duty of planting them, Ulster was undertaken
with success ; Munster, Mr. Payne, as well as Spencer,
have left us some account of It was not the conquest
of Ireland that queen achieved, it was the spoliation of
two provinces out of four, into which Ireland was
divided.

Parliamentary history must be barren, if not lifeless,
where freedom of action was controlled by a Star
Chamber and Privy Council Legislation in Ireland
had long been interdicted, except by command. It is
unjust, as well as unpatriotic, to attribute faults and
incapacities to Ireland, when she had been chained and
fettered by oppressive laws made against her will —

without her consent — against which she constantly
urged in vain her legislative rights granted by King
John.

The parliaments of England were, after all, little
better, up to this reign, for independent legislative
action; and the States-General of Scotland discussed
and legislated with the claymore ever ready to decide
a difficulty.

To Ireland the accession of James I., though a prince
of small personal importance, was of great benefit.
Elizabeth left^ in 1603, the whole province of Ulster,
as Zennacharib did the green valleys of Syria — a desert.

James the First was therefore far better for Ireland than
his predecessor. He planted, he cultivated, he peopled,
he legislated — ^he restored Ulster. From ruin arose
order ; from misery, comfort ; from stagnant life, com-
merce. His scheme of colonization of Ulster was that
of wisdom ; his legislation not oppressive, yet not free :
he did not repeal the obnoxious law of Poynings, nor
alter the declaratory law of Phillip and Mary ; he did
not blot out of the statute book the Act of Uniformity.
If he did not alleviate the Irish of the burdens of the
House of Tudor, he did not aggravate any.

The king's policv for the plantation of Ulster was
far more regular than that of Munster, attempted by
Elizabeth. Colonists were sent from London and Scot-
land in large numbers, with tenures, grants secured by
the Crown on moderate conditions; and Ulster soon
after became the birth-place of social happiness, pros-
perity, and youthful civilization.

The Earl of Salisbury, the First Minister of the Crown,
invented a system of finance which has not been
despised by later times ; the creation of a new minor
sort of peerage, called a baronet, which was the origin
of the Ulster Peerage of Ireland.

Mr. Whiteside, who throughout his lecture feels the
advantage of addressing an audience quite passive and
unmoved, on a matter of parliameutax^ Vscvatorj ^^
which ibejr could form an imperfect oig\moTL% xwwssl^-^^^

by any national sentiment, they would not, if they
could, controvert a single point Mr. Whiteside, with
a confidence in the present, comes forth with an air of
superiority to lay down his law, and supports it with
tessellated fragments from different authors. He now
apostrophises the spirit of Sir John Davis, knight, a
judge of assize, and yet Speaker of the Irish House of
Commons in 1608.

In the usual complimentary tone and language of a
Speaker chosen by the Government, he thus addresses
the assembly, composed of 250 members, Roman
Catholics and Protestants : —

"And now, by way of comparison, it may easily
" appear unto your lordship how much this first Par-
" liament, now begun under the blessed government of
" our most gracious King James, is like to excel all
" former Parliaments, as well in respect of the cause
" and time of calling it, as of the persons that are
" called unto it. For this Parliament (Grod be blessed I)
" is not called to repel an invasion, or to suppress a re-
" bellion, or to reduce degenerate subjects to their
" obedience. It is not summoned to pass private bills
" only, or to serve private towns, or for any special
" service for the Crown : though such have been the
" occasions and causes of calling the most part of the
" former Parliaments. But now, since God hath blessed
" the whole island with an universal peace and obedience,
" together with plenty, civility, and other felicitations,
" more than it has enjoyed in any former age, this
" general council of the whole realm is called now
" principally to confirm and establish these blessings
" unto us, and to make them perpetual to our pos-
" terities." Again : " It is not called in such a time as
" when the four shires of the pale only did send their
" barons, knights, and burgesses to the Parliament;
" when they alone took upon them to make laws to
" bind the whole kingdom^ neglecting to call the subjects
" residing in other parts of the realm unto them, as
^^ appeareth hy that Parliameivt \vo\AaTi \i^ V^acount

" Gormanston ; which Sir Edward Poynings, in the
" tenth year of King Henry VII., caused to be utterly
" repealed, and the acts thereof made void ; chiefly for
" that the summons of Parliament went forth to the
" four shires of the pale only, and not unto all the rest
" of the counties.

" But it is called in such a time, when all Ulster and
" Connaught, as well as Leinster and Munster, have
" voices in Parliament by their knights and burgesses ;
" when all the inhabitants of the kingdom, English of
" blood, the new British colony and the old Irish
" natives, do all meet together, to make laws for the
" common good of themselves and their posterities.

" Lastly : this Parliament is called in such a time
" when all the Lords Spiritual and Temporal do ac-
" knowledge the King of England to be their undoubted
" patron. In a word. Sir Edward Poynings, in the
" time of King Henry VII., and Lionel, Duke of
" Clarence, in Edward the Third's time, if they could
" have seen but half such an assembly in their Parlia-
" ments, would have thought themselves happy and
" highly honoured ; and yet those Parliaments, holden
" by them, are the most famous Parliaments that have
" been formerly holden in this kingdom."

Disposed as I am to give the most frank interpretation
to the benevolent wishes and just expression of praise
to the intentions of James L, I must be allowed to
apply the admissions of Sir John Davis in favour of
Ireland and Irishmen. He avers, that this present
Parliament of Ireland was superior to all former ones,
because it represented all the races inhabiting the island,
and BOTH CBEBDs. He admits the advantage of a varied
and numerous representative body over a single race
and few ; he admits the advantages of a common in-
terest in the affairs of the island — and this can never
be attained but by a most ample representation, all tax-
payers to have the right to vote. He admits that
Viscount Gormanston, Lord-deputy, Kad\vo\,«^^4>5ya^^jji^
Fariiament in number ; that Sit ¥»^N^OT^^oyKvss^Vv^

not one ; and that the same reason extends back so far
as Edward III. So far so good ; but Sir John Davis,
excellent man, forgets that during those three eras the
Celtic lords and proprietors did not know the English
language, nor did not care to know it ; that the Parlia-
ment spoke in English; that the statutes were in
Norman French, or Latin, all that period. He admits,
however, with a candid and generous nature, that in
nine years of the reign of King James I. more good
was achieved for Ireland than in four hundred years
previously ! These, on the whole, are great admissions ;
and he crowns all these benefits by stating the absolute
necessity of an absentee tax, or the forfeiture of

THE LAND.

The persecution laws of Phillip and Maiy were
repealed, and Ireland was allowed to go forward.

During the reign of James I. Sir John Davis occu-
pied two offices successively — a Justice of Assize for
TjTone and Tyrconnel, and Speaker of the Irish House
of Commons. In 1610 to 1614 the duty of Justice of
Assize was slight, and the legal learning necessary just
as much as might be possessed by an ordinary magistrate
of the present day. His opinion on the binding statute
of Poynings could be of no value, except as to the im-
mediate effect ; it was a narcotic — ^it left in repose the
parliaments of Ireland.

Sir John Davis never traces back its origin, he never
traces forward its embarrassments; he refers to Agricola,
as if the Roman law had a place in the statute book ;
he contrasts, but it is only that he may more generously
praise the reign of James his master. Amiable and
virtuous man, no doubt, who loved to see the then
prosperity of Ireland. Such a man could not under-
stand the deep and far-reaching policy of Poynings, no
more than he could fathom the profound thought of
Machiavelli.

Mr. Whiteside closes his eulogy by quoting the

mBxhn of Bacon-«That learned princes govern wisely."

Bacon is a aad instance of liow \itt\e \«X\x^ ^^ ^m^otEi "

is, compared with principle and honesty ! The English
parliament did not think so ; nor did Sir Edward Coke.

Mr. Whiteside continues : — " Before we quit the
" reign of James L, we must notice our old friend
" Poynings and his law. King James having settled
" the constitution of Parliament in Ireland, and wishing
" to conform to law, and at the same time to be advised
" as to the manner by which, under Poyning's Law, par-
" liaments were to be holden and managed in Ireland,
" consulted his judges, and was advised by them, as
" reported by Lord Coke in the 12th part of his Reports,
" in a case called * Parliaments in Ireland.' It was re-
" solved. That the causes and acts transmitted hither
" under the Great Seal of Ireland, ought to be kept here
" in the Chancery of England, and not be remanded.
" Second, if they be affirmed, they ought to be transcribed
" under the Great Seal of England, and returned into
*' Ireland ; and all that which passes the Great Seal
" ought to be enrolled here in Chancery. That if the
" Acts sent over be in any part altered or changed here,
" the Act so altered or changed ought forthwith to be
" returned under the Great Seal of England ; but the
" transcript under the Great Seal of Ireland, which re-
" mains in the Chancery here, shall not be amejided ;
" but the amendment shall be under the Great Seal of
" England^ so as returned into Ireland without any signiji'
" cation or certification of their allowance by that in Ireland;
" so that the amendments and alterations made here in
" England, and all the Acts which are affirmed or
" altered, are returned under the Great Seal of Eng-
"land."

Mr. Whiteside adds: — "Thus stood the parliamentary
" constitution of Ireland until 1782, being as unlike
" the free parliamentary constitution of England, as
" any two systems of government could well be con-
" structed." These are the words of the learned pleader,
who started with the dictum that " One Law, one
" State, and one Church," was the single aiui o£ tJ^ft.
English monarchy. Here Yfe \ia\^ \*>no ^^^v ^viix>6r

graphs at variance with his assertion. And how is it
that the opposite system has arisen? Clea rly by the
statute of Sir Edward Poyningsl Mr. Whiteside
loosely cites the 12th Report of Lord Coke, as explaining
the statute of Poynings, as interpreted by the judges
in the time of James L ; and then follows the explana-
tion, if such it can be called, of involutions, amend-
ments, affirmations, certificates, great seals, &c., of
power and of nullity, of all conceivable hinderances
and delays to free legislation in Ireland. But Mr.
Whiteside's second paragraph boldly overturns his own
argument for unity of Law, State, and Church. Such
was the constitution of the Irish parliament in the
reign of King James L

We must accept with diffidence and hesitation the
first paragraph, particularly the following words: —
That King James " consulted his judges how parlia-
" ments should be holden and managed in Ireland."
Now, who were those judges? The words are not
Coke's, but Mr. Whiteside's. Sir Edward Coke was
dismissed his office by King James in 1610, and was
imprisoned in 1616, and he took an active part against
the king in 1621. In fact, the king was at open war
with his parliament and his legal advisers, all but Bacon.
Was it this honest ex-Chancellor advised the King as to
the interpretation of the 1 Henry VII. ? It has quite
the impress of the man — deep, tortuous, and subtle.

The changeable Sir Edward Coke was only three
years Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench; of
ardent temperament, then of liberal opinions, and then
strongly against royal prerogative; could not have
advised such a course against Ireland, since he, Pym,
and Selden were the principal men who signed the Pe-
tition of Rights in the subsequent reign. King James
probably consulted no judges ; he Mt the statute of
Poynings just as he found it, which was the reed cause
of anarchy and discord in the Councils and Parliaments
between the two kingdoms from 1495 to 1795 ; — " Tbob

^^ BRIDLE IN THE MOUTH OE THE \mS». ? l^B3JLfcJ£KHT,*' HB

Mr. Whiteaide unwittingly ea^lains it.

Reflections

On the Parliamentary Constitution of Ireland of 1171, and
the Statute of Sir Edward Poynings, 1495.

In a matter so interesting to the honor, national
feeling, and dignity of Ireland, no statement should be
taken for granted that is not proven, nor none accepted
that is not a fair induction from the political and social
condition of the era.

Mr. Whiteside puts forward ostentatiously the theory
— " One Law, one State, one Church," were the funda-
mental principles of the English polity. I have now
reviewed a period of five centuries of the constitutional
history of Ireland, and I have not been able to trace
any such autonomy in the kingdoms of England and
Ireland ; and in the remaining two centuries we shall
find they are in conflict. Every institution must have
a beginning, and parliaments must have their infancy.
The year after the Norman invasion of Ireland, Henry
the Second, after a short visit to his new conquest, sent
the rescript of the " Modus tenendi parliamentum,^^ as a
base whereon to construct a solid government ; and it
is equally a matter of history, that he presented the
statutes and common laws of England at the same
epoch, 1171. Where, then, was the constituent body
to be found ? The knights, gentlemen, and burgesses
formed that body. The term parliament is not signifi-
cant of any number ; it is significant of free discussion :
this was undoubtedly the base of the parliamentary
constitution of Ireland. It is true that statutes and
laws are made for a people, and not a people for
statutes; and therefore many of these laws were in-
operative for a long time. At first the Celts preferred
the Celtic code. What was the character of Henry II. ?
He was neither oppressive nor designing. In the frank
and loyal portrait of Geraldus Cambrensus, we have a
king chivalrous, abstinent, and generous ; at once the
courteous gentleman and the ga\Wk\, \av\^\. ^^ %S^

son John, long the Viceroy of Ireland, completed what
his father had begun. He gave a Charter and Bill of
Rights to Ireland ; not as extorted from him at Runny-
mede, but as a " free gift " to the Irish nation. Here,
then, was the perfecting of the parliamentary constitu-
tion of Ireland in the reign of Henry III.

The introduction of useful statutes from England
was a necessary consequence; but neither ^^ modus'' nor
" charter " would have been granted. Lad it not been a
fixed idea that a separate Parliament was essential to
Ireland ; and this fixed idea was carried down through
successive reigns, when it would have been easy to
annul the ^'modits^' and ''charter;'' and this was not
done, even by Poynings, whose master Henry VII.
had every reason to enforce it. We have then a Par-
liament formally and solemnly constituted by royal
authority. Why that Irish Parliament was not more
constantly convened, is quite a distinct question.
. The statute of Sir Edward Poynings has always been
a stumbling block, and a rock of offfence to Ireland,
since it perverted those very gifts and concessions.
There could be no Parliament without free discussion
and free action : none was accorded. What was the
effect produced by this statute ? To increase the pre-
rogative of the Crown. Henry VII., in the third year
of his reign, reconstructed on more powerful proportions
the " Camera Stettata " or Star Chamber, in addition to
the '' Conseleum ordinarium Regni" of the king. The
next step was to place Ireland under control of a
statute.

It therefore cannot be said with historical truth that
King James I. created the parliamentary constitution in
Ireland ; he enlarged and developed its functions only,
and for which every Irishman will give a grateful ex-
pression to the king, no. less than to his faithful servant,
)ir John Davis.

Neither can it be said, with historical truth, that

Queen Elizabeth made the conquest of Ireland. She,

Jndeed, enlarged the conquest in a manner by no means

to be approved. There are apologists for every wrong
and every mal-administration in Ireland ; no country
wants faithful and fearless historians more ; sycophants
and panderers there must be in every country open to
corruption, as Ireland has been for four centuries at
least.

The history of the statute called that of Sir Edward
Poynings, may be thus related with probably an ap-
proach to truth and historical accuracy. King Henry
ViL, from his accession to the throne of England, had
reports forwarded him as to the state of Ireland, the
number of the adherents to the House of York, and
the supporters of Walbeck. The incessant reports of
disaffection from the Lords-deputy, and particularly of
Archbishop Fitz-Simon, induced the king to meditate a*
decisive blow. The Anglo-Irish lords were, in fact, the
origin — "the head and front" — of the '^ lese-MajestS ''
now rife.

Certain Anglo-Irish lords were to-day traitors to their
liege lord the king, and to-morrow traitors to their country;
no oath could bind, no fear intimidate them. They had
their own ill-gotten domains, — ^their rapacity drove them
to crave that of the ancient Celts. These lords returned
to the House of Commons those whom they liked, and
who were obsequious to their orders : a circumstance
that invariably occurs when the oligarchy prevails over
the other estates. It was an oligarchy that prevailed
after Runny mede ; it was an oligarchy that prevailed in
the reign of Henry III. ; and may be said always to
prevail in England.

After ten years of meditation, Henry sent Sir Edward
Poynings with an armed force to reconstitute, if not to
extinguish, the Irish House of Commons ; and from the
10 of Henry VII. its growing strength was so com-
pletely checked, that it may be said to have languished
rather than to show any vital energy. Why it was not
extinguished altogether is not explained ; but the dis
ability was continued after the disease had been c\3x^\
it was the thorn in the side, tYie \}\cfet oax ^^ Vv^ss^ ^
the nation.

Generations after, the first intellects of Ireland were
engaged to struggle against this national grievance to
Ireland. Before closing these reflections, I must notice
Mr. Whiteside's omission of any mention of the English
and Scotch parliaments. Countries and constitutions
are better understood by contrasts.

The English House of Commons.

From 1216 to 1641.

A glance at so large and important a subject as the
above, is no more than I am enabled to do in reply to
Mr. Whiteside's second paragraph above cited.

From the Norman Conquest to the close of that
dynasty, the Commons of England was of the most
limited character ; the rules and privQeges of the House
were few, arising out of the condition of society before
and after that conquest, England being of very limited
extent, and not exceeding three millions in population.
The counties, cities, and seaports sent but an unim-
portant body, assembled by royal mandate, usually in
annual parliaments. These assemblies were very ir-
regular, depending on internal and external politics.
Edward III., indeed, had passed a statute for annual
parliaments, which, however excellent and necessary,
was seldom exercised after his reign. It must be carried
in mind that legislative power in the earliest time
rested with the king and " Commune Concilium Regn%'^
afterwards " Curia Regis " — ^lastly parliament. The
baronial assemblies preceded the Commons, who, in-
deed, were not assembled till the reign of Henry III.

" Magna Charta " sounds well, but in reality the
great barons alone profited by it, tiU the minority of
the young Prince Henry ; when the Lord Protector,
Earl of Pembroke, carried into practice the provisions
of the Bill of Rights of King John.

Under the Tudors and Stuarts the meetings of par-
liament were most irregular, — £o\xt, ^^n^i^ or any

number of years at the pleasure of the Crown ; and the
privileges of parliament, if they can be so called, were
dead and useless before Prerogative, a Star Chamber,
and High Commission Court.

The union of Scotland and Wales added to the
representatives, but privileges and freedom were of slow
advance. What was the state of the English parlia-
ment in 1641? The Long Parliament, the Remon-
strance, the second Bill of Rights, with sequel of
events, form an answer to the question.

The liberties of England, and consequently of the
empire, were secured by the greatness of intellect, the
dauntless courage, and, above all, firmness of character
of Pjnn, Selden, Hampden, Vane, and St. John, — the
true expression of the freedom of the Commonwealth,
and the foundation of the present power of the House
of Commons of England.

No one can turn over the eloquent pages of Godwin
without tracing out the grandeur of the political figures
of Pym and Hampden, Vane and St. John, as the
creators of liberty, and the assertors of the privileges
of the Commons, and to whom statues would rightly
be erected, instead of to such men as Hyde, who first
signed the indictment against Charles, and then wrote
his Apology.

We have seen, by the preceding paragraph, that
Anglo-Norman barons formed the earliest legislative
body under the king, and that a Commons' house was
not assembled till the reign of Henry III. That the
term paxHament was then introduced. That " the
king's pleasure" was the time of meeting, till the
statute of Edward III., which fixed the annual
parliaments.

What now is the value of the argument derived
from the Institute of Sir Edward Coke, or the speech
of Sir John Davis, as to the lapse of one hundred and
forty years between the granting of a " modm " and the
holding of parliaments in Ireland ?

In contrast^ Mr. Whiteside o\)^t\^^^\xi\iOs.\\;^^g^^62?^

— having cited the latest interpretation of Poyning's
Law in the time of King James I. — he says, " Thus
"stood the parliamentary constitution of Ireland until
" 1782 ; being as unlike the/r^^ parliamentary constitu-
" iion of England as any two systems of government
" could well be constructed."

Where are we to find that difference ?

The modus was the same in both kingdoms. There
were two Houses : the barons, or great lords, the upper ;
the burgesses and gentlemen, the lower. The numbers
varied from one hundred members in the reign of
Edward II. to three hundred in James I.— composed
of Roman Catholics in the first, and mixed Pro-
testants and Catholics in the second period. There
was a Speaker to the lower, and a Chancellor to the
upper House. Both were convoked by authority.

The rules and observances of the English parliament
were transferred to the Irish parliament. They ori-
ginated bills without reference to England up to the
reign of Henry VII. The barons of England were
much the same unruly masters of the situation as they
were in Ireland.

The analysis of both parliaiHentary constitutions
being alike, if not perfectly identical, during the Anglo-
Norman period, in what consisted the difference ? The
introduction of the statute of Sir Edward Poynings in
1495. In this consisted the difference which Mr. White-
side puts forward with an air of reproach to Ireland.

The analysis presents very much the same charac-
teristics in both from Henry III. to Henry VU.

The barons, great and small, held sway in^ngland ;
the knights baronial did so in Ireland. The convoca-
tions of a House of Commons did not take place in
England before Henry III. ; the '' Rights " of English-
men commoners were not practically recognised before.
The House of Commons in Ireland was certainly con-
voked in the reign of Edward II. The proprietary in
both kingdoms formed the parliaments. In what, then,

was the difference? The controlling statute of Sir
Edward Poynings— here was the humiliation of Ire-
land. A barrier was henceforth placed on her action,
except by rebellions, insurrections, or revolutions.

Before putting aside the diluted pages of Mr. White-
side, I must draw two terrible pictures of this Tudor
polity.

Sir Edward Poynings was a man of abilities, sagacity,
and depth of polity; he was accompanied to Ireland
by jurists of learning ; he was at the head of a chosen
band of soldiers ; he had known of the defection of the
Earl of Kildare and the Princes of Ulster. This
modem Festus assembled his guards, his attendants,
and followers, shortly after his arrival in Ireland, and
marched against the insurgent princes of the north.
In this dreary and unknown district, at each march he
met a foe ; each day a new obstacle ; each month a
sadder hope — a more distant victory. Like the Par-
thian and Median enemies of the Roman legions, the
Celtic foemen receded and receded before the compact
band. The mountains, the roads, the fastnesses, formed
frontiers and fortifications not to be surmounted.
Baffled and perplexed, the modern Festus laid siege to
the castle of O'Neil, took it, burnt, destroyed, and laid
in pitiless waste the territories of the northern chief-
tain; and at last, when death, affliction, and desola-
tion had laid prostrate the land, it was on his return
from intestine war that he halted at Drogheda, and
convoked a parliament to subjugate by statute a coun-
try he could not by the sword. The 10 of Henry VII,
was that statute.

Nearly two hundred years later we find Wentworth,
Earl of Strafford, taking advantage of this statute,
under cover of which to illuminate the torch of dis-
cord, to put the Protestants against the Catholics : one
of the sad episodes in the histor}' of Ireland, the result
of maladministration from 1490 to the Union.

Charles I.
Vice-royalties of Wentworth and Onnonde.

I consider the seventh chapter of Mr. Whiteside's
Lecture exhibits the object, tendency, and opinions of
the learned member as transparently as any other part
of the book. He seemingly addresses himself to what
is designated a Christian Association, to a legal dis-
sertation on law and politics, without reference to those
higher and better duties of such an association. Such
political instruction, or political ethics, might have done
for the days of Charles I., but certainly not for the
present. We never can substitute vice for virtue, or
the converse of what is just and equitable without
danger of inculcating, forpr^vdice sake^ a vicious appreda-
Hon ofcharojcter of public men, who have had the means of
doing much good or much evil in their lifetime. I
mean this sentiment as applicable to the right reading
of kings or queens, lords or commoners, — they all are
equal before the judgment-seat of Providence ; and
why should a man of yesterday presume to do other-
wise.

Of the many historians of England, none have
removed from Charles I. the stain of deception,
treachery, breach of faith with his people, his parlia-
ment, his friends, and his foes, equally and all aUke, —
for the sole object of exercising a pernicious and
arrogant prerogative by a vacillating and incapable
man. Charles I. was not " unfortunate," but he made
all his subjects unhappy in the three kingdoms during
the Civil Wars caused by him. Nor could a host of
unscrupulous and scurrilous Cokes, time-servinff and
prerogative-serving Hales, or furious Jeflfreys defend
such monarchs.

The ingenuous and resplendent genius of Godwin,

the philosophic impartiality of Hume, the accurate

Hallam and Day, the instructive history of Knight,

all direct to a, right and rationaY N^a^ oit ^^tYcaating

poUticians, high and low, and the philosophy of events
that have transpired in England, and by consequmce
inevitable in Ireland.

Mr, Whiteside turns to his audience, and says,
(p. 61), — " The first statute passed in Ireland was in
" 1634, in a session which ended in July, 1634. Thus
" we again perceive how many years elapse without
" the assembling of a parliament in Ireland." Whose
fault, aye, neglect, is this ? Not the people of Ireland^
nor their members, but the administrators. The as-
sembling of parliament is a prerogative of the Crown ;
the neglect was with the King or his Viceroy. Neither
required parliaments, their projects were of another
stamp. Wentworth had to raise and organise an army
for his master. The lecturer continues, — " The statutes
" passed in this session, 1634, were nearly all tran-
" scripts of useful English statutes, which had long
" previously been law in England, and were tardily
" mtroduced into Ireland."

These and subsequent observations clearly and
emphatically inculpate the English administrators in
Ireland who tardily and neglectfully performed their
duty. Had the Irish parliament been convened by the
Crown in 1626, those laws would have been adopted
ten years earlier. But the learned lecturer convicts
himself in the following page, 64. He says, as the
apologist of the king : — " He conceived a repugnance to
" these troublesome assemblies^ and tried to govern
" without ihem ; with what result — after an omission to
" call parliaments for sixteen yeabs — we know full
" welV Such is the apology of a lawyer and a member
of parliament for most unconstitutional conduct ; by a
lawyer who turns on his own country's parliaments on
all occasions, as we shall see below, either for the com-
position of the members, the duration of the parlia-
ments, or their nullity as a legislative body. No Irish-
man can defend Wentworth, Earl of Strafford. His
rule was odious and despotic without 15^^^^% \s>a» ^^v^c^
ob;ec* was to raise an army in \t^tv^^ ^si wrcccj \f^ vsv-

vade England and assist the king. No amount of
abilities, had he possessed them, can excuse or palliate
his rule in Ireland, which caused one of the most direful
intestine wars throughout the land. To be an apologist
for Wentworth, Earl of StraflFord, would be the ap-
prover of the very worst form of government — cruel
despotism. Mr. Whiteside, indeed, in a tone of, I
suppose, playful irony, tells his Christian brethren seated
beneath his rostrum : " It has been asserted by some
" ' that he ruled Ireland with a rod of iron,' the meaning
" of which seems to have been that he made the Lords
" and Commons tremble in his presence.** It is the first
time I have read the imputation of want of courage in
the gentry of Ireland ; I thought they were generally
supposed too ready to fight, even to the proverb,
" Pistols and coflee for two Irish gentlemen in the next
" room." He then adds, — " The Lord Deputy was at
" times insolent, oflensive, overbearing, and despotic."
Such was the governor of Ireland praised for his
capacity for government as of the highest order. A
more unfitting expression could not be used, or one
more derogatory of all good principles, moral and
social. It was to this despotic man the Duke of
Ormonde succeeded, who took command of the forces
levied for the invasion of England.

The study of the following books would much im-
prove Mr. Whiteside's knowledge of political juris-
prudence and criminal state trials : — " Jardine's Criminal
" Trials, " " Hawle's Observations on State Trials.** The
eminent Solicitor-General Hawles, as well as Jardine,
are worth a dozen Cokes for integrity of political
character ; Godwin also is a mine of genius and principle,

I have to offer a world of apologies for presenting to
the consideration of the learned member for the
University of Dublin these books.

To pursue : Mr. Whiteside says, with a sneer :— " The

" Irish Parliament, copying the example set by the great

^^ pariiamentary agitators of England," — Selden, Fym,

St John, Vane, and liam^eu, tet ^<^^ ^^^ -tibLft

great leaders at the time the learned lecturer is just
speaking of; " agitators," a term applied to a fraction of
the House of Commons at a later period — "prepared a
" list of grievances, and in order to ascertain whether
" the practices which they asserted to prevail were in
" accordance with the constitution, drew up twenty-one
" queries, which were, by order of the Commons, and
" in their name, presented to the House of Lords of
" Ireland, with a request that they should be submitted
" to the Irish judges for their consideration and formal
" reply. The lords, and as desired, the Irish judges,
" very reluctantly, in May, 1641, sent in their cautious
** and elaborate replies. The answers of the judges
" were not relished ; the Commons desired a conference,
" and appointed a Mr. Patrick Darcy, a lawyer of their
" body, to manage the conference on their part ; he did
** so with signal ability, dissecting the judges, or rather
" their arguments, exposed their logic, denied their law,
" and proved clearly enough how imperfectly an Irish
"parUament had succeeded in fixing constitutional
" liberty in this kingdom." No reflecting mind can
read the above without considering it a most serious im-
putation on the competence of the Houses of Parliament
and the judges of the land, without a particle of
evidence, either as to the unconstitutional character of
the grievances, the queries to the judges, or their
" cautious and elaborate replies." Far from the incom*
petency of the parliament of Ireland being proved,
their wiBdom is signaUy marked by the course taken ;
nor is it logical to state that Mr. Patrick Darcy, the
conductor of the conference named by the Commons^ was
rights and the Irish judges wrong, and the parliament
wrong also. But in the absence of any proof to the
contrary, I will assert the Commons were right and
strictly constitutional in the two points above.

" The celebrated Chief Justice of Ireland," one of
the judges consulted, is not named by Mr. Whiteside ;
nor "the profound argument" of Mr. Patrick Dw:c.^^
which he must avow is supeiiot \iO \Sckfc XiY^^Jc^-^^TO^sfei^

" discourse " he calls Mr. Molyneux's " Case of Ireland
"Stated." Why has he not published "the profound
" argument " to authenticate his statement ?

I shall now pass on to the last part or section of this
chapter, the Restoration : — " Independently of the Act
" of Settlement and Explanation, we had some useful
" fundamental English Acts introduced and adopted
" here, as the Act for the Abolition of Feudal Tenures,
** and the Act of Uniformity, an act which every
" one of the present day wiU condemn." He adds :
" During nearly thirty years no new laws were passed,
" for a sufficient reason — ^there was no parliament to
" pass them. Parliament was dissolved, a Roman
" Catholic and Protestant assembly, by what was called
" the fatal dissolution of 1666, and was not again
"summoned till after the revolution of 1688 ; in 1692
"parliamentary government, therefore, in Ireland,
" during this long interval, was in nvMbus^ not in

Of the many wrongs of Ireland in her internal mis-
government, indeed utter neglect, is not this instance
one of the most striking ? But the learned lecturer, ever
prone to censure, does not state why for thirty years
"the parliamentary government " was m nvbibus'fL in
terris.^ The government of the Restoration wa^ afraid
to convene a parliament in a country where so many
calamities were caused by Charles I., the father of a
relentless son. It was the oligarchy of England
brought about the Restoration, not the people. But
what is the excuse oflfered by the learned lecturer ?
Listen, that you may hear ; and give ear, that you may
understand. He says (p. 71) : — " What respect would
" the government, tnat of the Duke of Ormonde, have
" had for such an institution ? What confidence could
" the public have reposed in the members, or their
" public spirit, when for more than a quarter of a
" century they were unseen, unheard, unnoticed ?
" The fact is, there was no investigation of public
^ accounts till after the Tievolvrtivou (^1688) ; the

* revenue was nearly stationary.'* This is bathos with
a vengeance I Demades, in the worst days of the
Grecian Areopagus could not have inventea an argu-
ment more sophisticated.

Animated W the same opinions and sentimente
which guided the legislatures of Ireland to draw up a
list of grievances on the model of the English parlia-
ments of 1641, the intensity of liberal views had
increased, and a correct notion of national poKtics had
clearly been made evident to the gentry, — ^the Lords
and Commons of Ireland ; and this was evident on the
very first occasion. Sir Thomas Wentworth, Earl of
Strafford, had his instructions from Charles I. ; and the
Duke of Ormonde had his from Charles II.

But I appeal to the Bar of Ireland, I appeal to those
hereditary descendants of those parliaments and those
judges herein discredited and sullied in their reputa-
tions to demand the proofs, — ^to examine the laws and
leg al arguments superior to the judges of Ireland.
Where are the twenty- one queries drawn up by the
Commons of Ireland, presented to the Lords to be sub-
mitted to these judges ? Where are the cautious and
elaborate replies of these learned men ? Where is this
argument of Mr. Patrick Darcy superior to Molyneux ?
But if the manager selected by the parliaments of Ireland,
it is evident he would not have argued against those who
elected him ; it is equally manifest the parliament must
have been right or the judges right ; neither could both
be wrong, and yet Mr. Patrick Darcy, the manager for
the Commons, be right.

Where is this note-book of the Lord Chief Justice,
and who was he ? For the honor of the Irish nation —
for the integrity of her institutions — for the purity of
the ermine of the Irish judges — ^let us have these proofs.
It is the duty of the Irish Bar to scrutinise and " sift
" them as wheat ; " it is the duty of Roman Catholics
and Protestants to examine carefully their parliamentary
history. It is only by the past we can gain ^^^^^nsnnra
for the present and the future.

A curious incident occurred to Ormonde, which
exhibits " the ups and downs of life : " — In 1715, on the
change of ministry preceding King George's arrival, he
ordered the dismissal of Bolingbroke, Oxford, and
Ormonde. They were impeached by Walpole. Boling-
broke fled to France, whence he never returned ; Oxford,
ex-treasurer, was sent to the Tower ; and Ormonde re-
mained at large for a time braving his adversaries. But
Walpole*s impeachment was not to be despised ; he pre-
pared for escape, but before starting visited Oxford at
the Tower, whom he councilled to escape to no purpose.
"Farewell, Oxford," said he "without a head."
" Farewell, Duke, rejoined Oxford," without a duchy."
The Duke of Ormonde never returned, and died abroad,
in his eightieth year. So, from Sir James Ormonde,
the companion and friend of Sir Edward Poynings in
1493 in the expedition to Ulster, to the fall of the Duke
of Ormonde, the friend of the Pretender, we have their
adventures. BiUs of attainder were passed against
Ormonde, Oxford, Bolingbroke.

Swiet.

After ten yeari seclusion and silence^ vnrites the " Drapier^s

Letters.^^

Between the two great revolutions which changed
the political, social, and dynastic condition of England,
the transition from absolute prerogative to civil liberty,
appeared Jonathan Swift.

Swift was a churchman by necessity, and a party
political writer by inclination, a patriot by accident.
The striking features of his life and character are easily
traced. Some of his early years he passed in the house
of Sir William Temple in the capacity of sub -librarian,
and where it is probable he improved himself. Ordi-
nation and a curacy were often the means of getting
rid of a poor relative. Sir William T^m^le, in a letter

to Lord Wharton, then viceroy of Ire^Iand, explains the
position of his dependent, Jonathan Swift, and asks
the small provision above stated. There is also Doctor
Sheridan's " Life of Swift," and the Dean's own writings j
these are more than it is profitable to know of his life
and character.

No man detested a residence in Ireland at that time
more than Swift. With a disposition naturally mis-
anthropic and inclined to satire, he has in his letters
described his neighbours with that sarcastic contempt
for which his style of writing is celebrated.

No one can reflect on the writings of Swift and think
otherwise ; then he was a churchman by necessity, a
strong anti-Papist in politics ; he hailed with dehght
the accident that transferred his services to a more con-
genial country and the employment of his dear and
pointed pen to an arena that each day presented new
topics and warm debates. He established and gave
fame to the Examiner^ a paper which has maintained
its repute. BoUngbroke and Godolphin were his
patrons. He defended with his wonted talents the
polity of Queen Anne; and during the existence of
Bolingbroke and Godolphin, Swift had the enjoyment
of the highest praise for his political writings ; but after
their fall he was an embarrassment to their successors.
Swift's Irish patriotism and politics are best explained
by his " Drapier's Letters," which caused a great uproar
among the ignorant populace of Dublin, which is thus
described by an historian of the time : —

" In 1724 a serious tumult was excited in Ireland by
" the coinage called Wood's halfpence, A want of
" copper coin had long been felt in that countrv, to
" remedy which a patent was granted to William Wood,
^^ a considerable iron master, for coining halfpence and
" farthings to the value of £108,000. Wood, according
" to the testimony of Sir Isaac Newton, then Master of
^< the Mint, appears faithfully to have executed his
" contract ; but the Irish Privy Council and Parliame^SLt
" set their faces against the nevf Cio^xiai^vis ^ ^^Y^i^^^

clamour was raised, and Swift, who had been living
quietly the last ten years, seized the opportunity to
exert his unrivalled powers of sarcasm. It was on
this occasion that he wrote the * Drapier's Letters,'
which, though pandering to the erroneous views of
the Irish public, display astonishing wit and vigour.
In the midst of the storm Lord Carteret, afterwards
Lord Granville, the new Lord-Lieutenant, landed in
Ireland. He issued a proclamation against the
* Drapier's Letters ; ' oflfered a reward of £300 for the
discovery of the author ; and caused Harding, the
printer of them, to be apprehended. But the grand
jury threw out the bill against him, and a second
jury, so far from entertaining the charge, made a
presentment, drawn up by Swift himself against all
persons who should, by fraud or otherwise, impose
Wood's hal^ence upon the public. Under these
circumstances, the ministry had no alternative but to
withdraw Wood's patent, granting him a pension of
£3,000 as compensation."
It is evident, then, from the above historical citation,
that Swift was flagrantly wrong. The proclamation of
the Viceroy placed him under the ban of the Govern-
ment ; he was so far an outlaw, and the printer of the
"Drapier's Letters" punished with imprisonment.
There is nothing new in those letters ; it is the style
and hardihood of the penman that excited curiosity,
and, as it were, raised a tempest in a tub ; for the up-
roar was confined to the populace of Dublin. Swift
was mortified and disappointed at his position ; as a
skilful Parthian he knew well how to shoot his arrows
— ^irony, sarcasm, and the coarser style of satire were
figures natural to his temperament. The " Drapier's
"Letters" contain the patent grievances of Ireland
long existing, and had been the subject of the Reports
of the House of Commons of Ireland. The subject-
matter was therefore an old story in a plebian walking
dress.
The Dean of St. Patrick's easily forgot t\i^ dl^vuty of

his office when the more tempting occupation of poli-
tical polemics engaged his attention.

We must infer, then, that the Lord Primate of Ire-
land, the Viceroy Lord Carteret, and Sir Isaac Newton
were right in their opinions.

As to Sir Walter ocott's narrative, it is an echo of
the Reports made in a hundred forms, before Swift had
left the ante-chamber of Bolingbroke, and only repro-
duced by the Dean.

After all, it is not the office of a Churchman to be
an agitator.

HISTORICAL REVIEW

OF THE

IRISH PARLIAMENTS,

FROM THE EPOCH OF

HENRY II. TO THE UNION.

ADDRESSED TO THE

PROVOST AND FELLOWS OF TRINITY COLLEGE,

DUBLIN.

WARDEN HATTON FLOOD,

(Late Captain ff,M.8.)
AUTHOR OF MILITARY AND HISTORICAL ESSAYS.

SLontion :

PRINTED BY J. KENNY, HEATHCOCK COURT, 414, STRAND.

Part II. — One SKillmg,

CONTENTS— Part II.

I.— PAEALLEL BETWEEN MOLYNEUX AND FLOOD.

II.— PAKLIAMENT OF IRELAND AFTER THE RE-
VOLUTION OF 1688.

III.— COMMERCIAL AND SOCIAL STATE OF IRELAND.
IV.— POLITICAL PROGRESS FROM 1760 TO 1782.
v.— CONCESSIONS TO IRELAND IN 1782.

VI.— Mb. GRATTAN — the INADEQUACY OF THE
••SIMPLE REPEAL," AND THE LIMITED
CHARACTER OF HIS "ADDRESS" AND
"DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.''

VII.— Mb. flood— the COMPLETENESS OF HIS POLICY

FOR IRELAND, AND THE GRANDEUR OF
HIS GENERAL VIEWS.

SECOND PART.

Thibd Epoch.

From 1688 to 1790. The Parliamentary era of Molyneiuc

and Flood.

There is a parallelism in the social and political
position of these very eminent statesmen which may well
mark an honourable era for Ireland. Mr. Molyneux,
who occupied the scene in the first interesting period
after the revolution, was the son of William Molyneux,
Master-gunner of Ireland, a post of some value at that
time. He was a man of ancient* family, of Norman
extraction, and possessed of property in the north of
Ireland. His family has since become ennobled, under
the title of Earl of Sefton, and another branch raised
to the Baronetcy, that of Castle Dillon, Sir George, and
now Sir Capel Molyneux, Bart. I am not aware of
any instance of this honourable name being sullied by
defection to their country : to the last they were against
the lerislative union of the parliaments of England
and Ireland. After Sir Francis Annesley, a dis-
tin^ished patriot of an earlier period, came William
Molyneux, member of the Irish Parliament for the
University of Dublin, author of " The Case of Ireland
Stated:" the first able political work in defence of
Ireland.

After the lapse of time I have passed over, it is
refreshing to find such disinterested patriotism — such
exalted views as this gentleman propounded. He was
not a trader in politics, or a time-server, who can
attune his voice and turn his phrases to any audience.

The speeches of Mr. Molyneux have wo\» V^^^w ^-t^-
Berved, hat do douht he urged mt\v «ia xoviOa. ^^tsw«

F 2

and sound principle his views in parliament, as he has
done in his political essay dedicated to William III.
Molyneux, philosopher and friend of Locke, his re-
creations seem always to have been those of an in-
tellectual character. He flourished from the end of the
seventeenth till towards the middle of the eighteenth
century.

Mr. Flood, who next followed him in the same prin-
ciples, was the eldest son of the Right Honourable
Warden Flood, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench,
himself a man of great abilities, an energetic public
man on the Whig side ; presented with the freedom of
Cork, and, 1 believe, other cities, from his enlarged and
liberal views.

The Lord Chief Justice enjoyed an hereditary pro-
perty of five thousand a year, in addition to his public
salary. His son, Mr. Flood, was educated at the
Universities of Dublin and Oxford, under the care of
Doctor Markham and Mr. Tjo'whit, both eminent at the
latter University, since the former became Archbishop
of York, and the latter one of the leading professors
there.

In 1759 Mr. Flood sat for Kilkenny in the Irish
Parliament, accepting all the liberal principles which
emanated from the two great revolutions from Charles I.
to William III. No man of his time entered the battle
of life — and especially public life — with better defined
views, or with a more ardent temperament. The
parallel between Molyneux and Flood is this: — Both
were men of station, of ample property, and resident
Irishmen ; both entered parliament determined to serve
their country, independent of office or title ; both had
large influence from family connection ; both accepted
the principles of the revolution of 1688 ; both were
too dignified to be servile ; both were statesmen from
culture of mind, habit of thought, and the laudable
ambition to be famous; both urged the complete in-
dependence of the Irish legislature consistent with the
unity of the Crown ; that is, mot^ «u5i(i\tt«Aftly^ the per^

petnal union of the Crowns of both kingdoms, " but
" the perpetual separation of the legislatures," which
comprised a national and dignified freedom of action ;
both urged the repeal of Poynings' Law — ^the enact-
ment of Phillip and Mary; both held the polity of
Ireland to be free from the date of the Modus tenendi
parliamentum in tebminis, as expressive of independence
in a parUamentary sense ; both raised as high a^ was
compatible with great changes brought about by the
last revolution, the standard of national autonomy;
both were too noble by nature, and too influential oy
station, to descend to narrower views for Ireland.

Such were the Irishmen who laid the foundation of
that temple to freedom, had their policy been worked
out And what would have been the effect of that
poUcy ? The placing of the parliamentary constitution
of Ireland on a broad and solid basis.

The Charter and Bill of Rights of King John, con-
firmed in Ireland by Henry III., which, with the
" Modus tenendi parliamentum in terminisy^^ and the
Statute of Edward III., formed the base of the parlia-
mentary constitution. If the last named law should be
contravened, a triennial or septennial bill could have
been introduced ; for the House of Commons of Ire-
land would, under the above statutes, have had power
to originate bills, of which power the Statute of Poy-
nings had deprived them.

fhb poUcy would have placed the Irish parliament
in a better position than it was in the reign of James I.

Had Irishmen of all creeds understood their own
national history, and their legislative independence,
they would have followed out the policy of Molyneux
and Flood, as the most disinterested and manifestly
the most capable statesmen of Ireland, brought up and
cultivated in that very pursuit.

The Ca88iu8 malignity of some men and writers has
no pleasure but in the detraction of others — ** the
" filching from them their meritorious ttfA&r Tv^v^^xa.
painfuUjr apparent in Irish biogra^YvV^ \ ^\l\Ocl wvsjip^'^^

'vmnsr itenot lit cbkb on

TL Jkih^ncHX and

iKsynATiL i!TP»L 11 lKT>"r rT*»r3- <> ^ *jHt IE l?E«d'' hj" die
£iiirifBT 3inaf IE ^^ mtirrtTiwK l^iomir iKndd be moiv
'Ssrmrx«iisuiii mul juaianrc^ of ' "•n*^ Tooi&r nond at diat
^^mai usuiiis: jtsibiiL bio. h smecaacaiffiil 3i«!kis and
gnnrmgtJaZ i&ri'Aiiciuis^ "viiEi ^t iib£ cgoyed pre-
TiiiiffilTL "inn TPK iinir IT i*t QHiEri^ z£ XflS^fl^ ooold
fe: K^i^uii^i -Eni^gi; ^irriiiii 'sit jtbompoII rf England —
jjTjt '^1* XijKZTT. mr liit ^tt7i^ ^otct ifc cicaameraal
jr.^fw^sr of lie ^^BT^^^-^' su£. 'nif- irsc sBa-^MS%& dKn de-
T*u:^ci^ jfc 3i?ir-t»rc!L sciiaisr|r *:* moxKiifc&e ihe com-

A( ijdCiS^^Qs ijEST^ >my sDsmoses. ii is afao |HXibable
tiiM tirtr «mdac: rf W. aiiw^4rA a3^ Onnonde. who
«*««ST^ bfiid ii*e jt35« c£ Yiceronr in Irdand, and
^^ho orpa^^ed a&i sent an armv to as^t Charles L,
^^d xh^ fvbseqaesix oondiQCf <it James IL. eomlnned to
a^g»Tai;e the aiigrr di«]Kstkm of the Fnglkh poblic
U/wsardB Ireland; iberefare no ooncssioiK;. polidcal or
'X/mm^Tdal^ were granted br the Parliament of £ng-

7%« O/mpontim and CharaOer o/Ae IriA House of Par-
lUmmt after Ute Revoludm^ 1688 to 1768.

h %\iOuh\ always be borne in mind by the inquirer
\uU) iUit Irish Parliaments, that they underwent a new
orptanl/MUm on the fall of the Stnarte. From the Re-
fonnnlUm^ or at least from the reign of James I.,
llomau (Jtttholi^js and Protestants sat in the same par-
lUuiimU^ md carried on all social affairs in perfect
' MTiriony, and wi*m nearly of equal proportions in the
■^•#« ol' (Commons.

U mmlUm^ powlbly, to say that the conduct of

James IL caused the overthrow of that principle of
political unity in the status of Ireland on which her
dearest interests hinged, and her commercial and legis-
lative independence. Without that unity it was easy
for any wily minister to sow tares in the field, and
render all political and social culture impossible ; and
this did occur. I beg the reader to carry his mind
back, and reflect on the ecclesiastical revolution made
by Henry VIIL, and the subversion of the Roman
institutions made by that monarch, who even set up a
code of dogmas himself This was the first unsettling
of England and Ireland in religious polity, followed by
more extensive changes by Elizabeth, the double and
evasive conduct of Charles I., the frivolity of Charles IL,
and, finally, the perfidy of James IL to both per-
suasions ; hence the strong Protestant tendency of the
triumphant party to establish, by new dynasties, a new
polity in Church and State, The Houses of Parliament
in both kingdoms were consequently Protestant.

The House of Commons of Ireland was composed of
the settlers since the Reformation, down to the recent
reign of William.

It would not do to suppose the settlers were
mere adventurers. No; they were generally derived
fipom ancient and often noble Norman lineages, ani-
mated by national views, anxious for the prosperity of
Ireland, but not sufficiently strong to effect it. The
menibers were, then, gentlemen by birth, property, and
education, quite as much as in the English House of
Commons.

The flagrant defects of the Irish House of Commons
were as follows, arising out of the dynastic changes in
England, consequent on the misrule of the Stuarts : —

1. A limited Representative of the Protestant section
only.

2. A restricted franchise ; the freehold and house-
hold franchise being on tenures too long or too high.

3. The unequal duration of parliaments, pending on
the life of the king ; the demise of the Crown being the

JTP

nxi^sersmL yesiM. i£ ^^ ■p^rj^wHw^- «f i3be Imfc k^irfii

4. M^niuss iJinx^ QSihr ^di^
Cvczidl of Ir^riBTii *fdti^ Aai j iBUMiad a bill to be

in lilt KciQK.

to tiri; £"% txssriat di VrwitBgi^ p^ver : bat liie e¥eF-
pg[i£&^ Ssssace of Ponrs[iz;|g&. a&d ibe expianatory
csdicSEikesSi cf PidiSp ssid Msr. iaciJ fike an
kfefsolUtt OQ lii^ TxaJ eaerpa a£ ilie Ixi^ parijamfirt
X^irdker tliie Tmsmiil BOl of Milium, fat ^nwnthtg ibe
dtmtkisi of jaTfiammt. cor tbe Septennial BSl of
GffjT^ I^ were intrcidxioed imo IidaDd.

We hanre placed befiffe die reader tbe paifiamentaiy
iittdtQtkm €^ Ireibmd. socb as it was immediati^ after
tbe last revolanfjtL We most now pass to tbe aodal
and ccnnmenaal oonditiQn of tbe island. No aocmer
had William orertbrown tbe late djrnasrr, and called a
parliam€3it, than petitions, addreases^ and r^orte were
jmaented on the formidable, and indeed afflictmg
grievances of the kingdom of Ireland ; so con^reben*
Mve were they as to drive mnltitades other to penniy
or emigration. The first in conaidention were the
staple products of the nation : the woollen trade, one
of the most successful branches of Irish industry. It
would be difficult to compute with accuracy the hands
employed in this most beneficial trade. This industry
was transferred wholesale to England.

2. The linen trade, which was to supply the place of
the frmner by certain encouragement^ yet had restricted
limits, as no direct shipments were allowed, England
inmumirig already the emporium of trade. But the
linen tni^le was in comparative infancy, either as to
amount <if product or as to &bric, and could not be
(^>mpan*d in value and importance with the woollen
*tianufttc;tures. The linen trade was of importance : so

many hands were employed in agriculture; so many
hands were busy in the various manipulations to the
plant indigenous before it arrives at the fullness of
hemp, or the fine filaments which compose the texture
of Unen. This manufacture had its embargo — its
hindrances ; the direct international exchanges of com-
modities was prohibited. England stepped forward
and claimed the sole monopoly of direct trade.
Ireland might produce, but England sold and ne-
gotiated. Ireland had had long a free import and
export trade with Spain and Portugal, with France
and Newfoundland. The cured fish and the firkins of
butter found a ready sale in the markets of Lisbon and
Cadiz, and, in return, the wines and wools of Oporto
and Estramadura lent activity to commerce and comfort
to social life.

Such was Ireland before the jealous merchants of
Bristol and of London interfered to prevent a free and
direct intercourse with those countries, where the
fabulous gold of Peru and Golconda was supposed to be
amassed.

3. The silk trade ; a branch of elegant industry intro-
duced into Ireland by the Latouche family, the early
merchants of Britanny, who fled from persecution, and
brought with them their artisans, their looms, and the
ingenious process by which the balls of the silk- worm are
woven into a tissue as rich and varied as the productions
of the looms of Lyons and Florence. The artisans of
Dublin, all instructed by that clever and honourable
family Latouche, were driven to exile and to want, till at
last they formed new factories at Spitalfields and Coven-
try. This great transition in trade, manufactures, and
free commerce, could not be arrived at without a cor-
responding transition in all the relations and mutual
dependencies of life. Like as in the beautiful simile of
Thucydides, when the creeping paralysis supervened
over Greece, through the ^fluence of external foes, so
Ireland, deprived of her means of wealth and of com-

merce, fell into lassitude, yet not servitude; weak-
ness, yet not degeneracy.

4. The butter trade. This is an easy and national
source of wealth which an egrestic people so readily
occupy themselves with ; a pastoral occupation, at once
remunerative and healthful. Ireland had from an early
period a trade with Portugal in butter, and a sufficient
treaty did exist with that country prior to the treaty of
Methuen. The exports to England of butter was like-
wise a large demand.

5. The fish trade. This, as an article of large con-
sumption in all Roman Catholic countries, was a staple
article of commerce. The large provision which New-
foundland offered to the dealer in salted fish, was cured,
dried, and prepared for traffic with the western ports
of France, Portugal, and Spain, which made this a
very important source of commerce, and numbers of
Bien were employed in this hardy occupation.

6. The hat trade. This manufacture was confined
to Dublin, and it benefited very considerably the local
tfade.

These are the principal commercial losses which Ire-
land sustained by the new commercial system of Eng-
land, of which monopoly and prohibition were the two
essential conditions. I am at a loss to find expressions
sufficiently sombre, and yet not surpassing truth, to
depict the prostration of a whole people, deprived of
the means of existence by honest industry, deprived of
those fair and natural means of gaining a livelihood
independent and happy — ^to some even the enjoyment
of wealth — ^that competency which enables the generous
man to scatter blessings to his right hand and to his
left, by relieving the sick and needy, and sheltering the
poor in times of necessity. And this deprivation was
caused by the new commercial code of England since ,
the revolution.

The next point of social and national interest was
the educational system then existing in Ireland.

The reader must recollect that before the reign of

Elizabeth no instruction whatever had been introduced
by the EngKsh Government ; at that era schools were
established on a parochial plan for the introduction of
the English language, and the Anglican Liturgy ac-
cording to the Reformation ; and this elementary
instruction in language and religion was under the
direction of very eminent bishops, whose names are
sufficient to testify to the excellence of their views:
Usher, Archbishop of Armagh ; Bedel, Leslie, Brown,
Loftus ; all of whom stood unrivalled in the Elizabethan
epoch. But the English language had not taken root
rapidly, and therefore the labours of the Kildare and
parish seminaries were slow and difficult.

On the other hand, the Roman creed had long and
easily made its way to every part of Ireland, when the
Latin and Celtic tongues combined to give domesticity
and freedom to the ancient religion of St. Patrick, St.
Columba, and St. Pelagius.

The two rival creeds which had divided the European
world since the Reformation, now stood face to face,
both leading to Christian civilization and Christian
faith ; the one protected by the crosier and pallium of
the Roman Pontiff, the other instructing with the calm
and composed dignity of piety ; this, with the simplicity
of the reformed ritual ; that, with the splendour of the
ceremonial law.

The struggle for supremacy, party politics, and party
associations, gave a bent and tendency to education
even in its elements; and hence the schools and
seminaries throughout Ireland were based too much on
party politics and the dominant creed.

I have, in the preceding pages, traced the outline of
the parliamentary, commercial, and educational system
of Ireland, after the great change effected by the fall of
the Stuarts. The Reports of the Committees of the House
of Commons have fully developed these grievances, and
give ample evidence of their anxiety to prevent, or
mitigate, the national misfortunes. I must direct a
careful perusal of them before wholesale censure an<^

make every public man ponder before he enters on
such high views of polity as those of Molyneux and
Flood.

The brilliant and classic pen of Lord Macaulay is not
less instructive than agreeable, and he devotes some
pages of his valuable history of William III. to the re-
ception given to Molyneux's " Case of Ireland " by the
English House of Commons. Nothing could be more
extravagant and indicative of the public mind at that
time against Ireland, both to constitutional rights and
commercial advantages, which she had enjoyed pre-
viously, but was now to be deprived of Nothing could
be attained except through the good-will of England —
not the Ministry, nor the King, but the commercial
power of the capital and the great sea-ports, then de-
veloping a new-born rapacity to monopolise the com-
merce and productive power of both kingdoms.

As nations have long memories, it is also probable
that the conduct of Wentworth and Ormonde, who
successively held the post of Viceroy in Ireland, and
who organised and sent an army to assist Charles I.,
and the subsequent conduct of James IL, combined to
aggravate the angry disposition of the English public
towards Ireland ; therefore no concessions, political or
commercial, were granted by the Parliament of Eng-
land.

The Composition and Character of the Irish House of Par-
liament after the Revolution^ 1688 to 1768.

It should always be borne in mind by the inquirer
into the Irish Parliaments, that they underwent a new
organization on the fall of the Stuarts. From the Re-
formation, or at least from the reign of James I.,
Roman Catholics and Protestants sat in the same par-
liaments, and carried on all social aflpairs in perfect
harmony, and were nearly of equal proportions in the
House of Commons.
It is needlesa^ possibly, to say t\iat ^^ ^otAmqA. o£

James IL caused the overthrow of that principle of
political unity in the status of Ireland on which her
dearest interests hinged, and her commercial and legis-
lative independence. Without that unity it was easy
for any wily minister to sow tares in the field, and
render all political and social culture impossible ; and
this did occur. I beg the reader to carry his mind
back, and reflect on the ecclesiastical revolution made
by Henry VIIL, and the subversion of the Roman
institutions made by that monarch, who even set up a
code of dogmas himself. This was the first unsettling
of England and Ireland in religious polity, followed by
more extensive changes by Elizabeth, the double and
evasive conduct of Charles I., the frivolity of Charles II.,
and, finally, the perfidy of James II. to both per-
suasions ; hence the strong Protestant tendency of the
triumphant party to establish, by new dynasties, a new
polity in Church and State. The Houses of Parliament
in both kingdoms were consequently Protestant.

The House of Commons of Ireland was composed of
the settlers since the Reformation, down to the recent
reign of William.

It would not do to suppose the settlers were
mere adventurers. No; they were generally derived
firom ancient and often noble Norman lineages, ani-
mated by national views, anxious for the prosperity of
Ireland, but not sufficiently strong to effect it. The
menibers were, then, gentlemen by birth, property, and
education, quite as much as in the English House of
Commons.

The flagrant defects of the Irish House of Commons
were as follows, arising out of the dynastic changes in
England, consequent on the misrule of the Stuarts : —

1. A limited Representative of the Protestant section
only.

2. A restricted franchise ; the freehold and house-
hold franchise being on tenures too long or too high.

3. The unequal duration of parliaments, Ijeudiu^oxs.
the life o£ the king ; the denu&e oi \Xi<^ Qjtcy«w\>^\:^^*^^

uncertain period of the existence of the Irish legii^-
tore.

4. Members having only the privilege of introducing
" heads of a billj'^ which were submitted to the Privy
Council of Ireland, who then permitted a bill to be
founded on " the heads of a UlL^^

5. The prohibition of the publication of the debates
in the House.

These were the principal defects immediately relating
to the free exercise of legislative power ; but the ever-
pending Statute of Poynings, and the explanatory
enactments of Phillip and Mary, pressed like an
incubus on the vital energies of the Irish parliament.
Neither the Triennial BiU of William, for hmiting the
duration of parliament, nor the Septennial Bill of
George I., were introduced into Ireland.

We have placed before the reader the parliamentary
institution of Ireland, such as it was immediately after
the last revolution. We must now pass to the social
and commercial condition of the island. No sooner
had William overthrown the late dynasty, and called a
parliament, than petitions, addresses, and reports were
presented on the formidable, and indeed afflicting,
grievances of the kingdom of Ireland ; so comprehen-
sive were they as to drive multitudes either to penury
or emigration. The first in consideration were the
staple products of the nation : the woollen trade, one
of the most successful branches of Irish industry. It
would be difficult to compute with accuracy the hands
employed in this most beneficial trade. This industry
was transferred wholesale to England.

2. The linen trade, which was to supply the place of
the former by certain encouragement, yet W restricted
limits, as no direct shipments were allowed, England
assuming already the emporium ^ of trade. But the
linen trade was in comparative infancy, either as to
amount of product or as to fabric, and could not be
compared in value and importance with the woollen
mana&cturea. The linen trade Nvaa ot Vxsx^xtMvcft: ao

many hands were employed in agriculture ; so many
hands were busy in the various manipulations to the

Elant indlTCUous before it arrives at the fullness of
emp, or tne fine filaments which compose the texture
of Unen. This manufacture had its embargo— its
hindrances ; the direct international exchanges of com-
modities was prohibited. England stepped forward
and claimed the sole monopoly of direct trade.
Ireland might produce, but England sold and ne-
gotiated. Ireland had had long a free import and
export trade with Spain and Portugal, with France
and Newfoundland. The cured fish and the firkins of
butter found a ready sale in the markets of Lisbon and
Cadiz, and, in return, the wines and wools of Oporto
and Estramadura lent activity to commerce and comfort
to social life.

3. The silk trade ; a branch of elegant industry intro-
duced into Ireland by the Latouche family, the early
merchants of Britanny, who fled from persecution, and
brought with them their artisans, their looms, and the
ingenious process by which the balls of the silk-worm are
woven into a tissue as rich and varied as the productions
of the looms of Lyons and Florence. The artisans of
Dublin, all instructed by that clever and honourable
family Latouche, were driven to exile and to want, till at
last they formed new factories at Spitalfields and Coven-
try. This great transition in trade, manufactures, and
free commerce, could not be arrived at without a cor-
responding transition in aU the relations and mutual
dependencies of life. Like as in the beautiful simile of
Thucydides, when the creeoing paralysis supervened
over Greece, through the ^fluence of external foes, so
Ireland, deprived of her means of wealth Mid ^^ ^^xsc^

merce, fell into lassitude, yet not servitude; weak-
ness, yet not degeneracy.

4. The butter trade. This is an easy and national
source o£ wealth which an egrestic people so readily
occupy themselves with ; a pastoral occupation, at once '
remunerative and healthful. Ireland had from an early
period a trade with Portugal in butter, and a sufficient
treaty did exist with that country prior to the treaty of
Methuen. The exports to England of butter was like-
wise a large demand.

6. The hat trade. This manufacture was confined
to Dublin, and it benefited very considerably the local
tfade.

The next point of social and national interest was
the educational system then existing in Ireland.
The reader must recollect tliat \>e£oTe \J;ie t^\^ of

Elizabeth no instruction whatever had been introduced
by the English Government ; at that era schools were
established on a parochial plan for the introduction of
the English language, and the Anglican Liturgy ac-
cording to the Reformation ; and this elementary
instruction in language and religion was under the
direction of very eminent bishops, whose names are
sufficient to testify to the excellence of their views:
Usher, Archbishop of Armagh ; Bedel, Leslie, Brown,
Loftus ; all of whom stood unrivalled in the Elizabethan
epoch. But the English language had not taken root
rapidly, and therefore the labours of the Kildare and
parish seminaries were slow and difficult.

I have, in the preceding pages, traced the outline of
the parliamentary, commercial, and educational system
of Ireland, after the great change effected by the fall of
the Stuarts. The Reports of the Committees of the House
of Commons have fully developed these grievances, and
give ample evidence of their anxiety to prevent, or
mitigate, the national misfortunes. I ta\v&t <Lvt<^^ vw
careful perusal of them beioxe ^VcJ^^^jesiiva ^^\:^^x^^ ^s!«^

unmerited abuse are accepted aa just arguments against
the institutions of Parliament ; it is so easy to condemn
that which is gone by, when no one will rise to defend,
^and no one has an interest to deny the most scandalous
falsifications of Irish parliamentaiy history.

External to the Parliament of Ireland were two in-
fluences — ^the Privy Council of Dublin, composed of
the Viceroy, the Primate of Ireland, the Chancellor,
the Secretaries, and the Chief Justice of the King's
Bench and Common Pleas, with ex officio Ministers.
This Council, under the Statute of Sir Edward Poy-
ings, examined all " Bills," " heads of Bills," and as-
sumed the power of originating money bills and taxes.

The Privy Council of England supervised the Irish,
and had the power to command the re-enacting certain
bills and statutes that had passed the English Parlia-
ments. Hence the Irish Parliaments had very serious
difficulties to contend against, since their creative power
was limited.

But it must be remarked, that the gentlemen com-
posing the Irish ParUament from the reign of William,
and for a long period after, were as free from corrupt
motives as any national body could be ; nor was there
any motive for corrupting the members, since the
measures were completely in the hands of the Privy
Council. The Irish Parfiaments were not then com-
posed of adventurers ; they, on the contrary, were the
landed gentry of Ireland, men of descent, loyal to
their coLtr/

It was not till some seventy years later, corruption
walked abroad, and with purse and title defiled the
national honour of Ireland.

As long as the spirit of Molyneux presided, nothinj
but a sentiment of legislative independence prevaile<
— ^nothing less was looked for.

It has always been a matter of regret to me that I

have never been able to obtain from the family of

Mr. Molyneux papers that would contribute to illustrate

liia honourable services to Ireland. In a &fcvw^ i^ubli-

cation, on the Parliament and Constitution of Ireland,
I shall point out all the motions he made in the Irish
House, with a view of sustainmg those principles he
has so well developed in the " Case of Ireland Stated." •

Mr. Whiteside, in his nicely trinuned pleadings against
the Irish ParUaments, from their fir^t institution to
the present, has arranged all the scraps of documents,
incidents, and tales more or less valuable, every
detail more or less authentic, that make out a case
against a national institution that existed from the
twelfth to the close of the eighteenth century, in a
manner, too, that makes it appear as a national
opprobrium.

Mr. Whiteside, after quoting the cynical doggerel
of Swift, called the " Legion Club," against the Irish
Parliament, continues : — "It is plain Swift had a
" very poor opinion of this assembly ; and it does
" not appear that his judgment was erroneous. A
" public spirited parliament could never have tokretted
" the commercial legislation imposed upon Ireland ;
" a patriotic parliament would never have submitted
" to the administration of a Primate Boulter. Had
" there been a few in the Irish Parliament possessed
" of the originality, energy, honesty, and capacity of
" Swift, the management of public affairs and the true
" interests of the country would have been speedily
" improved, instead of being shamefully neglected."

In answer to this, I say there is no reason to suppose
the Irish Parliament neglected any of its duties during
the reigns of King William and Queen Anne, that, on
the contrary, as far as the limits of their Parliamentary
constitution allowed them the free use of their repre-
sentative power, they performed them ; but there was
a limit, and that limit was defined by the legislation of
England. Was the Irish Parliament to proclaim a
civu war ? How otherwise oppose the will of England?
But Mr. Whiteside adds, " Had the parliament possessed
" * a few ' such men as Swift." Why, Swift would
have been as much out of ipXaefc m^^sKNassL^e^

was in the Church. His acrid humours flowed in their
natural channel ; and the " Legion Club " is a specimen.
Such satires are usually more biting than truthful.
Mr. Whiteside adds a long list of qualities, which the
abundant good nature of the learned lecturer has
fancied, and which the Dean himself would have
laughed at, had he seen so copious a paneg3rric on him.
The Dean's ten years' silence in exile could scarcely
put him in good humour with any less potent body
than the rabble of Dublin ; and his " Drapier's Letters "
certainly are not a favourable specimen of his legislative
competency, though they are very characteristic of the
man.

To revert to more serious matter. Had there b6en as
many Edmund Burkes in the Irish Parliament as
members, they could not have done more in commercial
legislation than was done, and which the Journals of
the House of Commons testifv.

Mr. Whiteside continues his ironical remarks on the
Parliaments of Ireland after the Revolution, thus: —
"They were oddly constructed; the lucky member,
" once chosen, had a life interest in his seat, subject
" only to a dissolution on the demise of the Crown.
" They might be affected by conscience, but were
" wholly uninfluenced by popular control. Sometimes
" a parliament was not called for twenty years. Of
" course, there was no publication of the debates.
" There was no Place Bill, no Budget, no ministerial
" responsibmty to the Irish ParHament."

In reply to these sarcasms, I have to state — That the
English Parliament was not regulated by any -given
period of dissolution till the introduction of the Trien-
nial Bill in 1694, and a Septennial Bill substituted
in 1716. That previous to those fixed durations the
king;8 pleasure was the ordinary prax^tice, or the king's
demise the final term of the parliament. That, to
illustrate these facts, it is only necessary to refer to the
reiguB of Charles I., when a parliament existed eleven
years, James L, ELzabeth, and Henty Ylll., ^Uen the

parliament lasted fourteen years, sometimes seven and
four years, so perfectly optional with the Crown was
the duration, the king s pleasure being the rule. The
Commonwealth had its long parliaments and short ones.
That the Statute of Edward I. for annual parliaments
had seldom been invoked after his reign, and was,'for
the most part, a dead letter. That till 1716 no per-
manent law was recognised on the subject.

2nd. That a Place Bill had no existence in England
before 1705, in the reign of William III., when the Bill
of Rights was enlarged and modified.

That, notwithstanding these culpable neglects on the
part of England towards Ireland, constant changes of
members took place, from retirement, deaths, or like
accidents.

3rd. That the publication of the debates was inter-
dicted in both kingdoms.

4th. That there was no such thing as "popular
" control," even in a much later period than that under
consideration, Georges I. and 11. That Edmund Burke
denied such a ^'popular control " at his Bristol election,
even later still.

5th. The "Ways and Means" of the Kingdom of
Ireland were always laid before parliament, and resolu-
tions moved seriatim thereon.

It is true it was not a " Budget," a term borrowed
from the bag of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in
England. If this were not so, how could the surplus
revenue of £200,000 have been purloined by a " King's
Letter," according to Mr. Whiteside. In fine, the
learned member is so eager to disparage and defame
his " imbecile Senate," that he rarely elevates himself to
a diffnified mode of thought.

Tne learned member continues :
" It was strongly insisted (by whom?) that a money
" bill need not take its origin in the House of Commons
" of Ireland, and it was then asked, and only refused
" by a single vote, that the supplies should be granted^
" not biennially, but for tweniy-opts/^. yeaTS ^\. ^ ^«okcl^^\5^

"save trouble to all parties." It is scarcely necessary
to say more on so unjust a statement Let me call
attention to Mr. Whiteside's own words in the following
page, 111: — "A spirt of public spirit was made in
" the Irish House of Commons immediately after the
" Revolution October, 1692 {the first parUarnent con-
" vened) it appears that two money bills were ori^ated
" by the Privy Council of Dublin, and carried into
" parliament."

The parliament passed one, on account of urgent
emergencies ; but followed with a resolution that this
proceeding should not be drawn into precedent ; and
rmcted the second because it had not taken its rise
(" origin ") in their House. That it was, and is, the un-
doubted right of the Commons of Ireland m parliament
assembled to resolve the " Ways and Means " of raising
money.

Before the Revolution, the Privy Council of Ireland
had assumed the power of originating money bills ; but
it was an assumption that was at once resisted after that
event. In fact, nothing could be more creditable to
the abilities of such men as Anthony Malone than the
" Ways and Means" during the period he was Chancellor
of the Irish Exchequer, and indeed down to the time of
Vesey Fitzgerald.

I am led to suppose Mr. Whiteside never made any
study of the origin of the financial system of England,
though he may have some knowledge of her laws.
Let him inquire how the Plantagenets, Tudors, or the
Stuarts, even so late as Charles L, raised revenue?
" Money bills " and " Budgets " are terms comparatively
recent; and we ought to thank the Hampdens, the
Pyms, the Vanes, and the St. Johns for leading the way
to the happy result, of which Mr. Whiteside is so
jealous, when speaking of the " imbecile Senate," the
Irish House of Commons. After all the censure of
Mr. Whiteside, I am inclined to believe that from 1688
to 1790 the Irish House was not inferior to the English
Commona; the last ten years, from 1790 to 1800, the
borougb-mongers and placemen pTedoimcQaXfcdL,

Notes on the Authors cited in the Lecture against

Irish Parliaments.

The rambling references in support of the arguments
brought forward for the disqualification of Ireland to
national parliamentary rights, renders it difficult to
appreciate them in a brief form.

The legal supports are the principal ones, the other
writers are of less importance.

Sir Edward Coke, the Attorney-General of Queen
Elizabeth, and the Chief-Justice of James I., dismissed
and imprisoned for not upholding an excessive pre-
rogative, is the first on the list. In the case " Calvin,
7 - Report, and the Prelude, 4 part," the argument
derived from this is really of little value to the main
object — ^parliaments. The Lecturer wishes to make out
that King Edgar, and not Henry IL, was the first
English sovereign who colonised Ireland ; the fact being
undeniably certain, that King Henry II. received from
the Roman Pontifi^ Adrian IV. the sovereignty of
Ireland, the same being in the gift of the Sovereign
Pontiff, derived from the Emperor Constantine the
Great, and Henry II. received the investiture as a fief
of the Holy Roman Empire, therein to establish the
pallium and crosier of the Pontiffs ; and this was done.
The homage of the kings, princes, and abbots of Ire-
land completed the transaction. The knights who pre-
ceded the king having completed the conquest, so far
as to take possession, were accessory to the fact. This,
then, is a closed argument.

Next : Sir Edward Coke again cited in his 4 Institute,
which confirmed the fact, that a ^^ Modus tenendi parlia-
" mentum in terminis " was freely granted to Ireland,
with the common laws then in usage, and such statutes
as had been enacted up to the visit of the king in 1178.

Next: Sir John Davies states that no parliaments
were held for one hundred and forty years after the
visit of Henry II.; but, though a gpoa \xvk«\^ ^^^^ Ns^
no depth oi taought or exactne&B oi ex.^x^wiv \sv *^^

author. For instance, what was a parliament in the
reign of Henry IL, in 1170? A curia regis or a
concilium ordinarium regni ? Sir John Davies lived in
the time of James I., and used the word parliament in
the sense then understood.

Baronial courts and a grand council of barons pre-
ceded parliaments. In the reign of Henry III. parlia-
ments were first held in England, and then in a very
limited sense. It is probable the same plan followed
the conquest of Ireland in the four palatinates.

Next: Sir Edward Coke, in his 4 Institute, states
that somsimies the king (not, however, naming one)
commanded "Ais nohhs " to attend him in his parliament
of England, but not naming the Commxms of Ireland.
Now this clearly demonstrates ^'aliis nobilibus^'^ the
" curia regisy^^ which was composed of barons only,

" 10 Octobris. — Rex affectans pacificum statum
" terr» Hibernise, mandavit Ricardo de Burgo, Com.
" Ulton., et aliis Nobilibus terraB praedictsB, quod sint
" ad Parliamentum suum quod summoneri fecit apud
" West", in Octobris Hillarii prox., ad tractand. ibid.
" cum proceribus, &c., regni sui super statu terrce
^^ proedictce.^^

However the fact be, it does not disturb the position,
that Ireland had a legal right to a parliament. (Coke,
4 Institute, p. 350.)

Next: Great emphasis is laid on the historic fact,
that Bang Edward I. ruled Ireland by statute ; and so
he did England, too ; that is to say, by statute passed
by the king in Council, which Council changed names
from time to time. The " ordinatio pro stata Hibemicay

Next : Mr. Whiteside refers to Lord Macaulay s
" want of generosity towards Ireland." Now, no man
can be more generous, frank, and forgiving than this
historian. If severe, it is in cases of well authenticated
political and social vice. Mr. Whiteside does not
literally quote the words of Macaulay in reference
Molyneux and Cook ; but reiterates what he states to
be the bistorian^a sentiments, w\ivc\v m fe^\» TCiaSLft& ^

the difference, for the value of such quotations often
depends on the context and mode of expression of so
careful a writer. The passage of Mr. Whiteside is long,
and may be found in p. 99 of his lecture. It is in-
tended to support his general thesis against a national
parliament, and concludes with the following words,
which involve the sense of the passage : — " There is, I
" am constrained to say, a singular want of generosity
" towards Ireland in the sentiments expressed by the
" eminent Whig writer ; at the same time, the conclusion
" Macaulay arrives at upon the whole matter was soundj
" and is the moral of my discourse^ namely — ^That to
" conduct the affairs of an empire with two independent
" parliaments would be impossible ; and that one or
" other of two alternatives must be the result of the
" attempt — incorporation or separation^ Now, this is
the foregone conclusion Mr. Whiteside had in view
from the outset of his lecture, from the first chapter to
the last — which would be to stultify the Irish nation ;
to convert her nationality into a province ; to sacrifice
the honor and independence of self-government to the
dictation of the power of England, which had strongly
evinced for seven hundred years a grasping, monopo-
lising appetancy for power, whether over colonies or
sister kingdoms-^Scotland and Ireland.

Mr. Whiteside may see his interest in this mode of
advocating a bygone subject ; one of the few political
honours unhappy and unfortunate Ireland had to boast,
reduced to what he calls an " imbecile senate."

What was the status of England in the twelfth,
fifteenth, or even the eighteenth century? A very
limited kingdom, surrounded with precarious dependen-
cies — not an e^npire. But Mr. Whiteside views the
whole question from the nineteenth century, from the
period in which he himself flourishes.

It would have been easy for England to have with
drawn the ** Modus " of Henry II. ; to have withdrawn
the Charter and Bill of Rights of John. «Avd H&\crj\XS..\
to have withdrawn a local Yegi.^'aXwc^ ^xv ^.^^^

HeniT VII., instead of wounding her national honour
and her personal susceptibility, a humiliation that
lasted from 1494, Henry VIL, to George III., 1760-83.
This was neither politic, wise, nor sagacious.

Next : Mr. Whiteside has laboured much against the
character, capacity, and government of the Lord Pri-
mate of Ireland, Boulter : a churchman against whom
nothing can be said for purity of morals, or correctness
of reUgious duties. His Grace was the chosen servant
of that " sagacious,^ " deep," and " able statesman,** as
Mr. Whiteside has him, Sir Robert Walpole, the first
minister of George I., because he was the only one the
king could converse with in Latin.

Now, it is evident the Primate would never have been
supported by Sir Robert Walpole if his Grace had not
perfectly understood his duty in Ireland, and he did
not promote Dean Swift because, according to Mr.
Whiteside, he had a " hatred " of him.

There is no other charge made against the Primate
that any man who carries his mind back to the epoch
of George I and George II. cannot perfectly appreciate
as harmless against his character and polity. Ireland
was exhausted and required quiet.

The vocabulary of compliments is fairly expended
on Sir Robert Walpole's English government : one of
flagrant corruption ; but of his Irish policy, with such
a man as Boulter, nothing can be said too bad. Such
is Mr. Whiteside's versatile talent of blowing hot and
cold.

Yet the Lord Primate Boulter's Letters and Diary,
when he was Chancellor of Ireland, and Barrington's
Observations on the Statutes, must be carefully con-
sidered — not for abuse — ^before we arrive at a due
estimate of their respective periods.

Mr. Whiteside adds to his criticisms on the primate

the reflection, he says, of Lord Chesterfield : " My

" son, you know not with what little tvisdom the world is

^' ^ove?vied'' It was not Lord Chesterfield, but the

Swedish Minister Oxenstern8aidao,iTOTci^\vo\xvC)\v«ek\fcT-

^eJd borrowed the plan of his " Letters to lixs Scmr

Next : Advantage is taken of a fiction of Hardy in
his Life of Lord Charlemont ; that Lord Charlemont,
in his Travels, relates an interview he had with the
renowned Montesquieu, on the Union between England
and Ireland. The answer is short. The union of the
legislatures was not thought of at the time, 1756. It
is just the reverse of that lord's opinions, written then
and published since (but not by Hardy). Lord
Charlemont owes all his renown to having been elected
General of the Volunteers and chairman of the great
conventions on the principle of the independence of
Ireland. Lord Charlemont was a patriot in 1781, and
was the particular friend of Mr. Flood, who was against
a union of the legislatures. Hardy wrote in 1795, when
this artful statement was quite acceptable.

Next : The main supports of Mr. Whiteside's argu-
ment rest chiefly on two points : — That the Norman
kings of England governed Ireland without calling a
parliament in Ireland for one hundred and forty years,
1171 — 1311. If true, yet it is probable the " Commune
" Concilium Begni " or the " Curia Regis " might have
been held, as had been the practice in England previous
to parliaments. As England was under an absolute
monarchy, the " Camera SteUata " assisted the king, and
in times of civil commotions he governed by statute.

To this is added, "That Charles I. issued Orders in
" Council," to the Treasurers and Chancellors of
England and Ireland, to raise taxes without the inter-
vention of parliament (p. 21). To raise the duty on
Irish exports I This, indeed, is a bad argument, and
worse excuse for not holding parliaments.

Charles L Why this was the most unconstitutional
reign in the history of England, and can never be
referred to for a precedent by any constitutional lawyer.
Neither Hallam, nor May- nor Hume, put forward the
reign of this king, nor tis absolute 'J^ but in con-
demnation.

The second point is: The statute o€ S\t ^4:^«:t^
Poynings and the explanatory eiia/tt\xiexk\&ix^\xv'^^Ks^'^^

to George I. ; the very number and frequency of which
indicated the perplexed view and unconstitutional
character of this statute. Hallam and May in their
valuable works give the English interpretation of that
law, but the Irish interpretation is, that Sir Edward
Poynings' Statute was a usurpation of power exercised
by the stronger over the weaker kingdom. Against
tnis usurpation the force of intellect of Flood was
directed, and the Renunciation Act of 1783, passed by
England, was the result.

It is singular that a lawyer should cite precedents
from the Acts of Charles I., whose strained prerogative
caused a revolution and attendant calamities, to Ireland
especially^ never before equalled.

Mr. Whiteside leans with much stress on the origin
of " Money Bills," taking place in the Privy Council
of Dublin instead of the House of Commons. How was
this privilege respected by Charles I., by Henry VIII.,
Elizabeth, and James I. ? But before we accept the
wholesale censure strongly set forth, we must inquire
what was the state, and working condition and privi-
leges, of the English and Scotch parliaments in a
parallel era.

Mr. Whiteside's lecture is a repertory of all the
defects, real or imaginary, of the Irish parliaments, not
originating from themselves, but external circum-
stances. I shall select two short passages to guide the
mind of the reader to a just appreciation of the value
of the lecture as an historical view of so important a
subject. The following is a remarkable passage in
Mr. Whiteside's lecture which, though short, contains
three fallacies. Afber giving the new version of
Poynings' Law, in 1613, he says: — "Thus stood the
" Parliamentary Constitution of Ireland until 1782,
" being as unlike the free Parliamentary Constitution
" of England as any two systems of government could
" well be contrived." (P. 59.)

Now this short passage contains three fallacies, which
are intended to deteriorate from tive "S^^^otksIX ^^-
liament

1st — Though the Parliament was controlled by a
Privy Council of Ireland, not always hostile to the
wishes of the country, we have the testimony of the
Speaker, an English lawyer, that it was a parliament
representing fairly and freely the interests of the nation
in that reign.

2nd. — ^That the free Parlmmentary Constitution of
England had no existence in the epochs of the Tudors
and the Stuarts. That prerogative ruled with the
Star Chamber. That the dismissal of Sir Edward Coke
and the imprisonment of several members of the
House of Commons in the very reign of James, and by
his command, is sufficient evidence of the fact.

3rd. — ^That in 1782 the Irish parliament obtained
only the repeal of the Declaratory Law of George I.:
a compliment rather than a concession, and of very
limited value, as the conduct of Lord Chief Justice
Mansfield demonstrated.

An Outline of the Historical Biography of the Right Hon,
Henry Floods M.P.^ Vice-Treasurer of Ireland from
1760 to 1780.

Mr. Flood, the eldest son of the Right Hon. Warden
Flood, Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench of
Ireland, was universally considered one of the most
eminent statesmen of the eighteenth century. Highly
educated, dignified in his manner, and graceful in his
deportment, he at once commanded attention, and sus-
tained it when obtained. Related to many high fami-
lies, and inheriting an ample fortune, he was, in a
political sense, the first commoner of Ireland. Free
from vice of any sort, as a public man, he maintained
the austerity of an abstinent virtue among numerous
temptations. As a private gentleman, he exercised a
large hospitality, a sumptuousness of establishment,
and a careful observance of the etiquette of those da^^u,
bath in his person and his mteteoxiwfc ^^ ^"^^s^*

All the accessories to success and independence of
action accompanied him through life. With a mind
varied and instructed, he had generous sympathies
which attached his friends to him ; his hospitable table
collected around it literary men and wits of Ireland in
the last century. His preference for the Greek classics
induced him to translate passages of the Greek orators,
and he was considered the Demosthenes of Ireland ;
while his Shakesperian taste for dramatic literature
gave him an eminent facility with the English language.
His fine figure and intellectual head enabled him to
take part, with effect, in the dramatic performances of
the day. Lord Charlemont used to say, ** You are all
soul," when writing to his friend. Brought up in the
intimacy of the first men of the day, having passed
much of his early life in England, he brought a large
share of influence with him when he either proposed or
supported any motion. I have said Mr. Flood's accom-
plishments were varied, and while he was a good actor,
he could versify agreeably, and he wrote, among other
things, an epitaph on Dr. Johnson, which Mr. Croker
has introduced into his life of that lexicographer. He
was one of those named as the author of the Letters of'
Junius; and from his terse, expressive, and pointed
style, he could use with facility the most poignant
figures of language. In declamation, he could enter-
tain and instruct his friends, by apostrophising some of
the great characters of history, and those fine passages
of Cicero where the most difficult and daring figures of
rhetoric are introduced. It must be recollected that
oratory of the highest order was the ambition of all
public men ; though very few attained the more finished
styles of the Greek and Roman models, yet they were
the study of all, in both parliaments, from the epoch of
the Commonwealth,

The worst feature in a parliamentary life in the

eighteenth century was the frequent contests of men of

genius ; the fiery invectives of Pulteney and Pitt against

Sir Robert Wajpole; of th.e Buk^ oi ^c!l\»ow ^oAnst;

Chesterfield, which caused his death ; of Fox and Burke
against Hastings; Burgoyne against Clive; Grattan
against Flood ; — and it may be said almost without re-
serve, none of these displays of rhetorical skill were well
founded, at least in that sense inseparable from public
life when a great statesman is often obliged to modify
his own plans and principles so as to concur with
political friends, whose influence was material to the
success of the policy of government. Lord Chatham
remained aloof from Government while his friends and
relatives carried out the first American war, while his
presence could have prevented it.

Mr. Flood s political friends were numerous in both
kingdoms ; in England, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Townshend, Mr.
Burke, Lord Temple, Lord Beauchamp, Mr. John Pitt,
Colonel Lennox, Lord Shelborne, and many others. In
Ireland, Lord Charlemont, Lord Granard, the Duke of
Leinster, and the greater part of the House of Lords ;
while in the Commons almost all the most important
names in the kingdom, such as Brownlow, Cavendish,
Annesley, Caufield, Molyneux,Newenham, Montgomery,
Martin of Connemara, Eyre of Eyre Court, Malone,
Sir Samuel Bradstreet, Recorder of Dublin, and many
other members of importance acted with him. Without
a large and strong support, no public man could hope
to achieve anything important; without transcendent
talents and deep knowledge, no man could hope to
guide and to succed. For thirty years he exerted both
for the good of Ireland. The office of highest dignity
under the Crown was given to Mr. Flood, which had
been previously held by Lord Chatham and Lord
Hawkesbury, to whom Mr. Flood succeeded in 1774,
for the first time conferred on an Irishman, and was
held by him six years, during which time he in-
troduced financial measures of importance, such as the
Absentee Tax, and reductions in the military estimates.
Subsequent to Mr. Flood's time this office was held by
three persons, so as to multiply tlaa ^my^otXkc^ ^
GovernmeDt.

The odious habit of detraction and scandal busily and
ungenerously rumoured everywhere at his acceptance
of the Vice-Treasurership : first embarrassed circum-
stances ; then, a desertion of patriotism at a time he was
most affluent, and during administrations of useful
reforms ; while Hutehinson, Burgh, and others escaped
the envenomed shafts of this leprous host of detractors.
Thus—

" Men's ikults are oft writ in brass,
Their virtues in water"

This eminent statesman said himself of such inven-
tions —

" I shake them off, as dew drops from the lion's mane.'*

I do not remember any character in historical bio-
graphy so unjustly and ungenerously defamed, without
a shadow of evidence, as Mr. Flood, except^ that of
Sir Walter Raleigh, when Lord Henry Howard, with all
the refinement of the most subtle aeception, betrayed
Raleigh to Cecil. ( Vide Jardine's " Criminal State
Trial," and Sir John Wallis's " Criminal Jurispru-
dence," Townshend's " Reports of Debates in the Reign
of Elizabeth ").

It is always a painful necessity to repel the fabrications
against personal character of a past century, but it is
the very neglect of not having done so, by those most
capable of such a duty, from their proximity to the
events, their ample fortunes, and their acquaintance
with the noble patriot, has encouraged their circulation.
It is likewise a vile capacity and malignant nature that
holds up to public contemplation the defects, either
personal or mental, of great public men.

Walpole, Chatham, Fox, and Peel, had defects and
inconsistencies, the three first-named particularly so, yet
no one thinks of holding them up to public derision in
England ; such an act would be unpardonable.

In this brief sketch of so eminent a patriot and

statesman for Ireland as Mr. Flood, I cannot be expected

to do justice to his numerous ip\ib\ve. c\a'i&&fts^ %xA Ida

daily life, but I shall refer to his oratory later in this
epoch. The summary of the principal bills, laws, or
proposed enactments for the benefit of Ireland, from
1760 to 1790, I now add as an index to hi& whole
public life. The Commons' Journals, the reports of Sir
James Caldwell, and Mountmorris's volumes of the
House of Lords, will authenticate the following heads
of Parliamentary Bills and Motions : —

1. Reduction of the Irish Pension List.

2. Liberty of the Press in reporting debates in
Parliament, and freedom from arrest or libel for
comments on the Speaker.

3. Independence of judges from removal from the
CuowN.

4. Militia Bill for Ireland.

5. Parliament Duration Bill, brought in several

TIMES for limiting THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENT ; BiLL

brought in consequently by Doctor Lucas and Mr.
Flood, from 1761 to 1765.

6. Motion for the repeal of the Law of Sir
Edward Poynings, 1766.

7. Motion for the repeal of the declaratory and
explanatory law of Philip and Mary.

8. The Octennial Bill, passed for limiting the
duration of parliaments in Ireland, 1768. Mr.
Flood alone had the credit of this great boon for
Ireland.

9. Reduction of the expenditure of the military
establishments of Ireland and a Limited Mutiny
Bill.

10. Free Trade for Ireland.

11. Denies the adequacy of "Simple Repeal" of

THE declaratory LAW OF GeORGE I. TO ESTABLISH THE
independence of THE IrISH LEGISLATURE.

12. Motion on the Appellate Judicature for
Ireland.

13. Absentee Tax OF 28. Again Absentee Tax of 48.

14. Motion of reduction oir ab.iax ^'siya.k^i^s!. ^-^

4000 MEN TO BE carried OlSJ THE. 'E.^QtlA'Stt. ^'S^LKS^^^Sesar
MiENT.

15. Reduction op the civil list.

16. Parliamentart reform by extension of the
franchise, 1783.

17. Commercial propositions.

18. Renunciation Act proposed and passed.

19. Parliamentary Reform in Ireland, 1785.
These are the principal public measures introduced,

supported, and debated in Parliament ; but where every
motion or bill, whether introduced by Mr. Flood or any
other member, was equally a matter of debate, he may
be said to have taken part in all the legislation for
Ireland for thirty years.

Mr. Flood entered Parliament in his twenty-seventh
year, was Vice-Treasurer in his forty-second year, and
died in his fifty-ninth year from a sudden attack of
pleurisy.

The Duke of Bedford^ s Viceroyalty — 1760.

The Duke of Bedford's viceroyalty in Ireland was
looked forward to as an auspicious event. A nobleman
liberal in his politics, and of some talent for govern-
ment, were omens not to be repelled, nor were the Irish
of any party inclined to look unfavourably on the
representative of a family which, though not ancient
in nobility, had not been versatile in its conduct, nor
conflicting in its support of rival djmasties, as other
dukes whose capacity was not established, and whose
transitions from side to side left no room for confidence
any where. It is no wonder, then, that the era of the
duke's arrival in Ireland was a matter of triumph for
an important section of the Irish nation. The Univer-
sity of Ireland, Trinity College, Dublin, took the lead
in the general manifestation of rejoicing; first, f5pom
the principles which had guided the house of Russell,
which, from the reign of Henry VIIL, they adhered to,
the Reformed Creed, and with conscientious integrity
maintained that belief under the transitions that had
raised up one and put down another. Hence, the
UniveFsity accepted a nobleman ot T^gLow!^ «cA ^^-

tical stability of character, to have the distinguished
honour of receiving the dignity of Chancellor; and
this was conferred with considerable ceremonial, and
with a laudatory ode by Lord Mornington, an Irish
nobleman of patriotic views, elegant accomplishments,
and a resident landlord. The Duke of Bedford was
qualified, therefore, no less from his position than from
his education, and his acceptance of the political pro-
gramme of Molyneux, to follow it out to a gradual
completion, to cultivate the hopes and express the
sentiments of the nation, which Lord Mountmorris,
Lord Granard, the Earl of Anglesey, Lord Charlemont,
and the Duke of Leinster had so nobly and devotedly
represented. Ireland had some foundation for a hope
that improvement and enlargement of her institutions
were at hand ; nor was that hope frustrated — ^there was
a move in the right direction.

The calm which opened auspiciously the reign of
George III. gave reason to parliament, which was now
convened, to receive the speech from the viceregal
throne with confidence, which gave a flattering pro-
spect of the kingdom ; its resumed tranquility, its in-
creasing population and prosperity, and its freedom
from financial embarrassments, gave a clear field for
the statesman, and for the Commons an opportunity of
expressing themselves frankly, which had for centuries
before the Revolution of 1688 been systematically with-
held. The popularity of the Duke of Bedford's
Government appears to have been well founded.

Mr. Sackville Hamilton, a friend of the viceroy, was
Secretary of State in Ireland, and however well dis-
posed towards the country, would not overleap the
limits which pre-existing laws had defined. The scrap
of quotation given by Mr. Whiteside may serve his
object, and yet by no means explain the scope of the
official document itself. He, Mr. Hamilton, however
states — "The two constitutions were once identical^
" upon the same model. The plan of Po^wVcv^ ks^^^^a.
" to remove first the constitutioii itoxcv \!tv^ ^w«v^ ^^

100

'^ which it stood, to change the model of it, and to
** make it not only diflferent, but in some respects the
" very reverse of the English House of Commons, and
" then relies on the opinion of the judges of England
" of William III. 1 " I am by no means sure of the
above passage, but I cite it from the Lecture, to which
I mean this essay as a reply.

Mr. Sackville Hamilton was a gentleman by birth,
society, and education ; and I have no doubt set down
naught in malice. He gave the interpretation of the
statute common among the lawyers of England, whence
he had just arrived. In a future work I shall remove
the obscurity Mr. Whiteside has left on this point, by
giving the motion before the House.

The Money Bills on this, as on most previous occa-
sions, had their origin in the Privy Council, and intro-
duced into the House by the ChanceUor of the
Exchequer, but they could not pass into law without
the consent of the Commons, and that consent was
not readily given when they had their free will, except
for national ends. But Mr. Whiteside has made this
one question a stalking-horse for his arguments against
the Irish Parliaments; in reality, the Money Bill
could be thrown out at any time. On this occasion,
Mr. Whiteside says, "there were seventeen * patriots'
"against the motion, and 117 * steady hacks for it"
These expressions, I have no doubt, are quite in-
applicable ; the seventeen members adhered to their
strict right and privilege, yet they are no more patriots
than the 117 who understood equally well the right
and privileges of the Commons, as their predecessors
had evinced on several occasions; but they found it
necessary to vote the Ways and Means for the public
service^ under a liberal and well meaning government.

The Irish Parliament was composed in the vice-
royalty of the Duke of Bedford, 1760, on the new
election of 300 members from towns, counties, and
boroughs; this included the ministerial body. The
Speaker of the Commons wa» Mr. 3o\iXL^OTAtstJa^^^\v

101

upright and respectable gentleman of moderate whig
views, and of what was called the "English Whig
party." Mr. Sexton Pery and Mr. Hutchinson were
of the same party, Mr. Anthony Malone was Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Mr. Warden Flood Attorney-General,
Mr. Robinson Accountant-General, Sir Arthur Brooke,
Sir William Osborne, Mr. Fortescue, Mr. Henry Flood,
and many other men of station and independent pro-

gsrty ; and, still later, after the passing of the Octennial
ill, in 1768, entered Denis Browne, Brownlow,
Caufield, Annesley, Cunningham, Warden Joceyline
Flood, son of the Lord Chief Justice of the King's
Bench, Mr. Hercules Langrishe, who obtained an office
and a baronetcy from the Marquis of To wnshend, whom
he supported.

I have merely mentioned these names to give a clear
idea of the high respectability of the Irish House of
Commons, which Mr. Whiteside qualifies at this time
(p. 120): "I can pronounce no other judgment upon

* the Irish House of Commons of a century ago (1761

* to 1768) than that, while it was composed of gentle-

* men of ability, it resembled more a parish vestry^ or a
' corporation assembly^ than a national parliament. I

* may add," says the learned lecturer, " that the Dublin

* Water Bill is a larger question than nine-tenths of

* these provincial debates. ' To test the truth of these
statements, what were the subjects of these debates?
What were the motions on the record of the House of
Commons — ^the Journals? The Ways and Means, or,
in modern phraseology, the Budget. The Civil List
pensions, a very important subject to the Irish revenue
whenever charges were made in favour of English
pensioners, without a shadow of claim to be so derived.

1st. — " The Ways and Means," resolved into a series
of resolutions, were generally first introduced by the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, at this time, 1761, the
Right Hon. Anthony Malone, whose name and character
deserve to be held historic in Irelwvd^ ^Vv^^'?^^ Ssssii^
were contributors to literature Vj ^^tcvotA ^^^wsfc^

102

" Annotations to Shakespeare.** The Ways and Means
being, in fact, a biennial estimate for Ireland, involved
a Money Bill. The mode of taking this estimate was at
the beginning of the Session. The population of
Ireland being then about one million and a half, by
the poll-tax, the estimate was not a trifle to cover the
national expenditure and amount of Civil List pen-
sioners taxed on the Irish revenue.

2nd. — The motion for the reduction of the Pensioners
from the Irish Civil List.

3rd. — A motion on the liberty of the press, freedom
from prosecution for libel for commenting on the
debates, and freedom from imprisonment for the same.
This, according to Lord Macaulay's testimony in a
parallel case in England, involved the whole question
of the ephemeral literature of the kingdom, which the
fear of Charles II. had imposed on both kingdoms;
for this king being restored only by a knot of nobles
and some merchants, was not a restoration by the
general voice of the people ; he was, therefore, jedlous
of the liberty of the press, and fearful of its effects.
( Vide " Hist, of the Literature of England.")

4th — Heads of a Bill limiting the duration of par-
liaments in Ireland, first brought into the Commons
by Dr. Lucas alone, in 1761.

Another bill, or " heads of a bill," introduced in the
ensuing session by Dr. Lucas and Mr. Flood.

5th.— For a third time, the " heads of a bill " for
septennial elections, or limiting the duration of par-
liaments in Ireland to seven years, was brought in by
Mr. Flood; and a bill was accordingly founded on
them, which he accompanied to England, and he got
it passed with the simple change of the i^vord septennial
to " octenniaV'^ Such, I believe, is the correct history
of this first important change. Dr. Lucas was dead
before this Octennial Bill was passed into a law. It is
here necessary to state some words in reference to
j^^- /Lucas, M.P. for Dublin city. From 1753 to his
aeatb, he was distinguiaVied iox \v\a ^Ass«v\iet^5BX»i.

103

patriotism ; and for political integrity he stood without
a rival. He received a public funeral. Mr. Flood was
one of those named to hold the pall. In Parliament
he supported the principles of Molyneux. In 1753 the
surplus revenue was the question of the day, and he
asserted and victoriously proved the Rights of the
Commons to appropriate the proceeds of Irish duties ;
in this view, ^ I have heard, he was ably supported by
Mr. Warden Flood. Dr. Lucas was the physician and
friend of Lord Charlemont, then beginning his Irish
political career as patriot. The last effort on the im-

Kortant subject of a Septennial Bill was made by
[r. Flood alone; and he, with that large share of
influence he possessed, without which nothing could
be obtained for Ireland, succeeded in getting the
Octennial Act passed by the Privy Council of England.
I cannot allow, by any circumvention, that Mr. Flood
should be deprived of this honour, this first achieve-
ment in the work of constitutional freedom in 1768.
The Commons' Journals, and the Reports of Sir James
Caldwell, testify to this. Mr. Flood's own statement in
Parliament ought to be sufficient.

6th. — " A Limited Mutiny Bill " was, in fact, of the
very first consideration in a constitutional system ; and
this was introduced repeatedly by Mr. Flood.

7th. — A Militia Bill was introduced and discussed by
the same member.

8th. — Before the carrying into effect the Octennial
Bill, Mr. Flood delivered his first oration on the Law
of Sir Edward Poynings. Edmund Malone, brother
to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has borne tes-
timony to the completeness of that exposition of the
statute. I have in the preceding pages briefly enu-
merated the principal measures which were brought
before Parliament m Ireland before the administration
of the Marquis of Townshend, which closed with the
Octennial Bill. It is true, all these measures did not
become law, but they were ex^ouxA^^ ^SScl ^'^^fe^

104

and advanced towards consummation. A Limited
Mutiny Bill, and a Limited Duration of Parliament
Bill, and the Octennial Bill, were of the first im-
portance. The Commons' Journals are open, the
I^rivy Council books are accessible; but Mr. Flood
himself was too dignified by nature, and too upright in
principle, to require the prop of falsehood to uphold
his claims on his country. Thus, in three adminis-
trations within eight years, from 1760 to 1768
inclusive, so many steps were ascended towards the
temple of freedom. The Marquis of Townshend, a
gay and agreeable nobleman, and well calculated to
add to the amusdments of society, was not, un-
fortunately, accompanied by Mr. Charles Townshend
as Secretary, who was a politician of note. His
administration marks an era of new force and vitality
in the nation, and the extraordinary ability which
abounded in Ireland. The acute barrister, Mr. White-
side, has dexterously caught at a straw he found floating
on the political cauldron. He says, the Union was
then a question, for he finds it . alluded to in the
pantomime of the Government of Lord Townshend,
called " Baratariana," and amidst a thousand impos-
sibilities, the Union too forms one of the figures in
the burlesque irony which was thought the best mode
of attacking the Viceroy. And to aid this, he says,
" the wise Montesquieu " recommended a Union to
the young Lord Charlemont, then en voyage; and
thus fabulous politics float in air. It is enough to
say, that in a political career of thirty years and
more, Lord Charlemont did not act on the advice of
the sage, but just the reverse on all occasions. As the
acts of every man are the best test of his character, so
it is certain that the public and private correspondence
of Lord Charlemont was true to the honour and
legislative independence of Ireland, and it is but
fair to infer either that the conversation never took
jplace^ or if it did, it is not faithfully reported by Hardy,
whose acquaintance with Lord C\iaA^T£iOTi\» ^a\v<^\. \»^^

105

place till 1783. There are several other reasons for
believing it was a story got up in 1795, after the death of
Lord Charlemont; but it answers well to bring in the
great name of Montesquieu in a post facto Union, which
idea in 1770 none but an Absentee could have enter-
tained. The idea of Union of Legislatures came from
the Protectorate and was abortive.

Mr. Whiteside, in his lecture, tells the public " The
** Baratariana " is an historical satire on the Government
of Lord Townshend, " in a series of letters resembling
" those published by Junius." Now no tw^o com-
positions could be more dissimilar. " The Baratariana "
was a very clever, humorous pantomime, written to
burlesque the Viceroy and his courtiers, who thought
by a happy profusion to relax the rising patriotism of
the nation. It was, and is, an admirable work, full of
native wit and genius, written by Langrishe, Jephson,
Scott, Boyd, and young Grattan. The humorous parts
and scenes by the two first-named; Boyd, under
" Syndercombe " and Philo-Junius, Fabricus and
Pericles the latter. On the contrary, the austere irony
of Junius is without rival for lofty dignity and correct
style of composition, combined with a political acumen
of singular penetration. The parliament which sat
during the Marquis of Townshend's vice-royalty had
one most constitutional measure passed, the Judges'
Bill ; by which justice, law, and equity were freed from
the contamination of the influence of the Crown. The
want of this beneficial Act had disturbed for centuries
the courts of justice in England ; and last of all came
Ireland to have her judges freed from the influence of
the Crown. Mr. Sexton Pery was elected Speaker
by a majority of two votes, in room of Mr. John
Ponsonby.

The House of Commons increased in strength of
patriotism, maturity of intellect, and knowledge not
inferior to that of England. The Earl of Harcourt,
who had been Governor of G^ot^^ \W* $^\i:rai% >»a.
minority^ waa named Viceroy ot It^otv^^ ^jxA.^xjt ^^«».

106

de Blaquiere accompanied him. Mr. Flood was re-
quested to assist them, and was oflfered the Vice-
Treasurership. It was the highest post that could be
conferred on an Irishman; and Lord Hawkesbury's
letter, extant to all, explains both the position and
importance of Mr. Flood. In Lord Harcourt's time,
and succeeding administrations, he introduced several
measures of finance and economy, all well calculated
to benefit Ireland; the measures shall be given in
detail hereafter ; on this occasion I shall content myself
with noticing two or three.

The reduction of the army estimates by 4000 men to
be carried to the English estimates. The absentee tax
of four shillings in tbe pound on the rental of all those
who did not live six months in the year in Ireland.
Owing to the opposition of Lord Orrery and five other
large proprietors, non-resident, this tax on absentees
underwent a modification of two shillings. This tax
was considered then, and must ever he considered^ the
most beneficial tax Ireland could be blessed with ; it
would confer residency.

Mr. Whiteside employs Burke to say " it was im-
possible." It is improbable Burke could have said
so, as he was usually in a trance on Irish affairs.
Burke was the friend of Mr. Flood; Burke had no
position in Ireland ; a brilliant and philosophic writer,
an excellent man, though irritable and impulsive ; an
orator, yet not a statesman of any great breadth or

Sractical extent — witness the state trials of Warren
Castings and Clive. Mr. Flood, on the contrary, was
a profound statesman, practical and efficient, but em-
ployed on too narrow a field. Many excellent measures
were either carried into effect or brought forward at
this time; suffice to say, there was a considerable
economy in the Military and Civil Lists during Lord
Harcourt's residence in Ireland.

In the year 1779, during the Marquis of Buckingham*
sbire'a vice-royaltyy Mr. Grattan (who had been a few
'^ears before, 1 775, elected a meTpibet oi "^^^X^^^ssi^Tvt^

107

introduced his first motion of importance on free
Imports and Exports^ a measure of the greatest im-
portance to Ireland ; but as the terms of the motion
were involved, Mr. Flood requested the motion to be
reduced to the simple expression of "Free Trade;**
in this he was joined by Hussey Burg, both being in
office. This motion was carried amidst general en-
thusiasm in and out of the House, and indeed through-
out Ireland. It was considered tantamount to a motion
for the repeal of all commercial restrictions. From this
year there was but one national impulse throughout
the nation — ^to be Free, commercially and legislatively.

The ninth chapter of Mr. Whiteside's lecture opens
thus : — " We are approaching a stirring period of Irish
" history. It has been said that for a few years before
" 1780 parliamentary speaking was confined to a few;
" the Secretary, the leading Commissioners of Revenue,
" the Attorney-General, and one or two grave serjeants-
" at-law ; men of sterile and almost interminable
" rhetoric."

This disingenuous and unfaithful passage is a para-

fhrase of Hardy, a writer whose character and conduct
shall refer to hereafter.

I have made it manifest in the preceding pages that
the Irish Parliament, when convened, was always alive
to its duties; always ready, willing, 'and capable to
carry out the most useful measures for Ireland. Un-
fortunately, Ireland was not " approaching," but always
ma "stirring period."

Sir Jonah Barrington states, in corroboration of my
facts of the Irish rarliament prior to 1779: — "The
" contests in the Irish Leffislature had become more
" warm and more frequent.' And in a note he adds : —
" On many occasions previous to 1 779, the Irish Com-
" mons asserted theiy independent rights and privileges
" with great warmth, though sometimes without success."
Then he cites the celebrated struggle of 1749. (His-
toric Memoirs of the Union, quarto ^dxtxsstv^ ^. ^^^
vol 1). But we have seen already ^^ %\KYrai% ^^^^"^^^ ^'

108

1641, 1666, 1692, 1749, 1753, and 1779 , and these
the mere outbursting of an internal patriotic flame.
" Parliamentary speaking was confined to a few /" Why,
Ireland is the land of orators ; a Curran and a Burke
may be found in every cabin in the south and west of
Ireland. Oratory is almost indigenous; rich in imagery,
and fertile in words, an Irishman only requires art,
the rules of the great masters, to make him an orator.

It is difficult to cite vximes before 1760, but my
impression is that there were several of the style of
Molyneux ; I believe I am not transgressing truth in
stating the names of Sir Francis Annesley, Mr. Warden
Flood, afterwards Lord Chief Justice of the King's
Bench, Mr. Anthony Malone, and Doctor Lucas. After
this date, we have the Reports, however imperfect, of
Sir James Caldwell, who considered the eloquence so
fine, as to dedicate his book to Mr. Pitt, then considered
the first orator in England. It is only necessary for
the reader to refer to the preface or dedication of Sir
James Caldwell's Reports to find what I say.

Sir Jonah Barrington, in his great and fearless work,
"Memoirs of the IJnion" (chapter 2, et seq.)j protects
the Bar in general from the aspersion of " st^le and
interminable rhetoricy^ as quoted and adopted by Mr.
Whiteside.

It would be herculean to meet every detraction,
or, to use Mr. Canning's expression, 'Ho strike the
varied falsehood as it flies." Mr. Sexton Pery was
considered an accomplished orator; Mr. Hutchinson
was^ voluble and informed, though not an orator j his
habit of arguing in a circle got him the name of the
" Prancer."

Passing over the dull story of the Irish Peeresses,
which, if true, must have taken place in 1761, twenty
vears before the heading of the ninth chapter, it tells
however against Mr. Whiteside's theory of the "One
State," &c. I was astonished to come to the following
passage from the inspirations of Hardy, since it is no
more than a paraphrase of some dau^exom ^\;a.tQ.ments

109

against Mr. Flood. Mr. Whiteside thinks it decorous
and honourable to adopt them. I repel them as mere
party statements, and it is ungenerous to parade such
tales as authentic facts, the mere outpourings of
party spirit. He says: " Flood now determined to
** be patriotic, and renewed the old cry against
" absentees, by proposing a tax of two shillings on
" the net rents of all landed property in Ireland,
" to be paid by all persons who should not ac-
" tually reside in the kingdom for the space of six
" months in each year, Christmas, 1773, to Christmas,
** 1774. The Irish Government, wanting money,
" favoured the scheme, but it failed. The absentee
" lords in London, a numerous body, pressed Lord
** North to give it up ; Burke in his correspondence
" condemned the plan as impolitic ; although it was
" liked by the multitude and favoured by a party, it
" was lost. Flood now thought it was high time to
" accept a place, that of vice-treasurer, a place highly
" desirable. The rank it conferred was considerable,
" the pay large, and the work small. Few patriots
*' could resist such inducements. When questioned by
" his friends, he moralized on the corruption of the
" times, stating ^ that he had been betrayed oftener,
" * when taking an active part in the House of Commons
" * of Ireland, than he thought it necessary to state.
" * Except some particular persons, men of scrupulous
" * honour, every one to whom I entrusted a parlia-
" ^ mentary motion, or plan of conduct for the session,
" * almost uniformly betrayed me.' Flood seemed sur-
" prised to find that he was promoted, not to speak, but
" to hold his tongue. He might have said witn a witty
" Irishman and brilliant declaimer whom we remember,
" * that he was better rewarded for his silence than ever
" * he had been for his eloquence.' Such is the blind-
" ness or perverseness of ministers, who will sometimes
** prefer a silent vote to a fiery oration, although the
" orator might be Flood or Shell."
The learned lecturer " stram^ vvX» ^ ^'^ ^^'^

110

swiUows a cameL" The mbore leering paragraph
13 no more than a repetition of the statement of
Hardy in 1795: the same ideas in other words,
written when the acrimony of political antagonism was
in full force, and when the ybion of the mind saw in
erery act some dLscolooring matter, detecting through
the broken prism distorted rays and commingled hues,
lending to every feature and eyery object a islae and
unreal character. Such is the effect of party politics,
when the passions run hi^, and when ascendancy of
opinion is frequently the onfy dedderatum.

Mr. Flood had taken too grand and too independent
a part to escape: he had what others had not — a
powerful genius, an indomitable spirit, a coura^ equal
to any emergency, experience in public affaurs, and
ample fortune to allow of lum acting a great part:
sucQ was the bold type of his character.

I shall reply to each sentence consecutively, briefly,

to the accusation against Mr. Flood's patriotism. From

1760 and 1780, I have enumerated the measures, or

most of them, at the commencement of this epoch,

and here I shall only refer to the most prominent,

from their constitutional and national importance.

The Pension List, — ^the Liberty of the Press, — the

Duration of Parliament Bill, — the Repeal of Poynings*

Law, — the Militia Bill, — Limited Mutiny Bill, — J udges'

Bill, — Octennial Bill, — Free Trade, — Absentee Tax,

— all these, and others of minor consequence, were

either introduced or supported, or carried through the

stages of progress, generally to success. This was not

a time when any person, however powerful, could carry

measures by a brilliant coup d^^tdt ; no, it was one of

negotiation, — diplomacy, — influence, — either personal

or by party. The question of the American revolt had

not yet triumphed, and arbitrary rule, whether by

Whig or Tory, was the policy of England. Now,

Mr. Flood had pushed forward as much as possible

legislation for Ireland, and certainly great advance had

been madey but his efforts cost ^Voi \vv& qj&^ ^jad few

^^.^ 111

other men would have hazarded so important a place.
There is not the slightest ground for so base an insinua-
tion as that put forth. " Flood now determined to
" be patriotic," — as if he had not on every occasion
afforded the most devoted patriotism, even to his
personal loss. Mr. Whiteside cites the Absentee Tax,
the 'most useful to the people, the most beneficial to
the finance, and the most popular in the kingdom of all
measures. An ancient tax so far back as Hen. VIII.,
stringently imposed then, and subsequently extolled by
Sir John Davies, "a truly good and well wishing public
man " in the reign of James I. ; and it was the want
of this tax J to make residence obligatory, that denuded
the country of wealth, example, and moral and social
guidance, without which no nation can prosper. If
Burke said " it was impossible," Burke was wrong on
this subject. He was not a resident, he was not a
proprietor; an English Whig in politics, never very
sure of his way on any matter of external legislation ;
and, curious enough, though Burke rose from the
people, he had little sentiment for popular government.
As a brilliant writer and sound moral philosopher he
will live for ever, notwithstanding he was the dinner-
bell of the House of Commons. To such a man as
Mr. Flood, though his intimate friend, he would^
scarcely venture his opinion on practical measures for
Ireland, wheye he seldom or never appeared. Lord
Chatham did not do so when consulted, and why should
Burke ? The next sentence asserts, the government of
Ireland " wanted moneyy This is untrue ; the Govern-
ment of the Earl of Harcourt was financially better off
than either the preceding or succeeding administra-
tions; and the reader has only to refer to the Ac-
countant-General's Report in the Journals of the Com-
mons for 1774 to 1780, compared with 1772 and 1782,
to ascertain this fact. The next sentence is, "Flood
" thought it high time to accept a place," &c. Such an
ungenerous and unwarrantable sneer is not the part of a
gentleman^ nor that of a man oi a\v\^ ^Ti%^ ^^V'^^sssssx,

112

Mr. Flood had attained at this time, from 1774 to
1780, the largest share of reputation for all the re-
quirements of a statesmen that could be arrived at in
Ireland : a far more difficult ascent to place and power
than in England. There was no sacrifice of principle or
character in serving under the Earl of Harcourt, the
personal friend of the King, and a nobleman whose
amiable character and liberal opinions, assisted as he
was by Sir John Blaquiere, justified and made laudable
such a support. Hussey Burg accepted the post of
Prime Serjeant, and Hutchinson became Provost ; why
then should not Mr. Flood accept the Vice-Treasurer-
ship? the highest post, in a degree, honorary and
ministerial. Mr. Fox was Master of the Pells of Ire-
land, another honorary situation which he held under
several changes of ministers, and sold that office for a
large sum.

But Mr. Whiteside does not hesitate to repeat from
the Memoirs of Hardy: "That when questioned," he,
Mr. Flood, moralised on the corruption of the " times,"
stating, " I'hat he had been betrayed oftener, when
" taking an active part in the House of Commons of
" Ireland, than he thought it necessary to state." A
more malignant and envenomed story could scarcely
^be repeated, not only with a view to dishonour the
man but the Parliament,

To qualify the above, and give a colouring of pos-
sibility to such a calumny, it is followed by this sen-
tence: "Except some particular persons, men of scru-
" pulous honour, every one to whom I entrusted a
" particular motion, or plan of conduct for the session,
" almost uniformly betrayed me."

This is, no doubt, an infamous and dishonourable
statement, from whatever source it may have come.
Such as it is, let us test the validity of its character.
Who were the supporters generally of Mr. Flood?
Sir Thomas Osborne, Sir Arthur Brooke, Dr. Lucas,
Mr. Caufield, Sir Edward Newenham, Sir Samuel
^^dstreety Mr. W'alshe, Mr. Warden ¥lood^ LL.D.^

113

Judge of the Admiralty, Sir Frederick Flood, Mr.
Brownlow, Mr. Montgomery, Mr. Martin, Mr. Eyre of
Eyre Court, Mr. Molyneux, Mr. Hatton, Mr. Parsons,
afterwards Sir Lawrence Parsons, Mr. Edgeworth, and
many others whose names I cannot recollect, were all
members of the Irish Parliament, of unscrupulous
honour, who very frequently co-operated with Mr.
Flood as leader; Mr. Flood had about eight or ten
relations and connections members of the House.
Here was a party strong enough and liberal in their
sentiments, not lUkely to betray any one, much less the
country which they openly professed to serve*

The Earl of Buckinghamshire complained^ " That Mr.
" Flood, Vice-Treasurer, Colonel Talbot, and the Duke
" of Leinster did not support the Government measures
'* in the Privy Council." A line of conduct the
reverse of servility. We have also the ample ex-
planation of Mr. Flood himself in the House of Com-
mons ; and no man was ever more accurate in his
statements to the House. It was this very indepen-
dence which lost, him his office. There is abundant
cotemporary evidence which repudiates all low and
sordid imputations from the character of Mr. Flood,
either in or out of office. Nor would Sir Lawrence
Parsons, Dr. Playfair, and Mr. Martin have made those
admirable eulogies of Mr. Flood had he not equalled
the most eminent men of his time in public virtue.
There never has been any evidence to countenance
these ill-natured and illiberal interpretations.

The last sentence I feel called on to notice is the
following : " Flood seemed surprised to find that he
*^ was promoted, not to speak, but to hold his tangue^
This is a vulgar view of the conduct of any public
man, while it is untrue. If such political justice were
generally applied, no leading statesman in parlia-
mentary history would escape. My answer is shortly
this: The revolt of the American colonies began
in 1774 ; during the war that ensued military arma-
ments and finance measures Qccu^\e^ \\i^ <\xsife ^S. "^iw^

114

legislatures of both kiDgdomSy and domestic or internal
questions were for a time arrested. The war with
France which followed added to the external em-
barrassments. It is not the fact of a statesman being
silent, or not silent, at a particular period, which is
to be considered, his own judgment must be his guide :
it is the air of insinuation of something base and
corrupt, that offends. Lord Chatham at the same
period was silent, he remained ten years silent;
Mr. Pulteney was silent; and Sir Robert Walpole
was silent^ when affairs required such conduct. It
would be impossible to expect the regularity of a
pendulum in the movements of great public cha-
racters ; but Mr. Whiteside has one code of political
justice for one Set of men and measures, and another
for those who do not agree with his political notions
and party views. During the revolt of the American
colonies, Mr. Flood assisted the government from
1774 to 1780; on the Declaration of Independence,
his own country, Ireland, was his only consideration ;
and this statement is sustained throughout by the
motions in the Journals of the Commons. The whole
charge would be frivolous and contemptible, were it
not for the corrupt motive which is insidiously implied.
As the son of a Lord Chief Justice of distinguished
merit, a gentleman allied by marriage to one of the
highest families of Ireland, as a man of independent
fortune, as a man of extraordinary genius for public
affairs, and whose eloquence was equal to his genius,
the first honorary place of the State was therefore
his, by right of those claims and those qualities of
pulDlic value.

Since I cannot transcribe a passage from Godwin's
admirable work on " Political Justice," let me invoke
an illustration. Supposing I were to say Lord Chatham
had some defects; he was dismissed the army; he entered
parliament for Old Sarum, and commenced and con-
tinued a very hornet of war against Sir Robert
Walpole, who was a mmiatex o5 ^^'^cfc-, %\t '^^bert

115

was for peace and non-intervention; "the terrible
comet" was for war: he was against all sorts of
political corruption; he accepted three pensions for
nis family, and yet, to the astonishment of all, a peerage
and privy seal for himselij though he had cried aloud
agwist the acceptance of both by others ; he accepted
a pension from the Duchess of Marlborough. He
allowed the king to enjoy his hobby of war in Germany;
he sent an expedition to Quebec with every possible
chance against success, and which was as near failing as
any expedition ever undertaken. He remained silent
during the first American war, though a word from
him would have been enough ; he remained aloof and
allowed his friends and relatives to play out their
policy; he was against the motion of the Duke of
Richmond for the recognition of American inde-
pendence ; yet he was a great luminary and of the
highest public reputation in English history. Sir Robert
Walpole was a far greater minister for England, yet he
did not receive such rewards. Where was the con-
sistency of Sir Edward Coke? the most abject Attorney-
General of the most absolute prerogative ; after other
transitions, he co-operated with Pym, Hampden, and
Selden! This, indeed, was a change for the better.
What was the public conduct of Lord Bacon ? What
that of Wentworth ? First, he took a violent part
against the king, and then he made war for him against
England! There would be an end to history, to
political ethics ; no value in the study of that great
subject " Political Justice," which the genius of Godwin
has illuminated, were we to depose on light and
insufficient grounds one illustrious man and set up
another. In the thirty years of public service, no
instance can be established of a single vice, or a betrayal
of the rights of Ireland, in that long period against
Mr. Flood. He stood alone often, but m the end he
was right

There is, however, this reflection to be made — " Tl^al
"jpublic service and public dutie;^ Vo>«^n^x ^x^xvsssia.

116

" and constant, performed in an inferior country
'* subordinate to some other, have not only all rivalities
*' and jealousies to contend with, but the reward in the
'' end is always inadequate to the labour and anxiety."
It was this that made the pointed answer of the woman
of Salamis so memorable — " And you, Themistocles !
" would not be so great had you not been born at
" Athens ! "

An Historical Outline of the Right Hon. Hen. Grattan, M.P.

1782.

The inadequacy of his Bill of Rights to the per-
fecting of an independent legislature with
AN Appellate jurisdiction.

Mr. Whiteside has said in a previous chapter of his
lecture, p. 59, James I. : — " Thus stood the parlia-
" mentary constitution of Ireland until 1782, being as
" unlike \hQ free parliamentary constitution of England
" as any two systems of government could well be."

We have now arrived at a period when the fallacies
of this assertion are quite apparent. 1. The Roman
Catholics and Protestants were in the same parliament ;
that essential condition had ceased in 1688. 2. That
parliament had ^ fixed duration of eight years. 3. That
the judges of the land were independent of the
will of the king. 4. A freedom of discussion and
reports. 5. A limited Mutiny Bill. 6. A free trade of
1779. This latter Bill was at least carried in the Irish
Commons. The three first named measures involved a
most important change, and therefore Mr. Whiteside^s
assertion is erroneous. The Law of Poynings alone
remained unchanged. In the second clause he asserts
that which was not an historical fact. The ^' free par-
" liamentary constitution of England " was violated in
the persons of her representatives, and in the persons
of ber judges. In the very reign. Va ^\iyc^\v^ ^tw^^\sl^

117

comparison, members of the Commons were imprisoned,
and the Chief Justice Coke dismissed. We find a
further passage in p. 114, thus: — "The 6th of Geo. I.
" furnished a decided proof that whether the Tudor,
" the Stuart, or the Guelph reigned, it was equally the
" policy of England not to permit the existence of a sepa-
" rate parliament; we cannot be blind to that great fact."
Grattan, it is clear, was not of that opinion in 1782;
nor were the people nor gentry of Ireland of this
opinion, as may be seen by the addresses of the dif-
ferent constituent bodies, from the grand jury to the
town council of every county and borough of Ireland.
Nor do I recollect, at any period, a country of four
millions of people, of all persuasions, more completely
united than the Irish, from 1780 to 1790, on one
question — legislative freedom. I shall oppose to Mr.
Whiteside the best authorities, Mr. Grattan himself,
his friend and historian. Sir Jonah Barrington (quarto
edition, suppressed), and the official documents of the
time.

First, I shall place before the reader a short account
of the origin of the restrictive Declaratory Law of
Geo. I.

Second, the Declaration of Rights of Grattan.

The origin of the Declaratory Law of Geo. I. ought
to be well considered, for upon this base Mr. Grattan
founded his Bill of Rights, the inadequacy of which
was maintained by Mr. Flood.

For half a century preceding the transaction of 1782,
the Irish parliaments had constantly disclaimed the
power of the Crown to touch the surplus revenues of
the kingdom, as being derived from taxes levied on the
people, and though called " hereditary revenm^^' was in
no way dififerent in its source than the other portions
of the Ways and Means.

There was another fundamental question, the Ap-
pellate Jurisdiction, constantly agitating the public
mind and the legislatures.

The Irish nation was now poYf erfvi!^, OTLiiL\ic>^^^'^^>s3»

118

of Parliament had determined to assert and uphold
their constitutional privileges.

On many occasions previous to 1779, the Irish
Commons asserted their mdependent rights and privi-
leges with great warmth, though sometimes without
success.

In 1749, a redundancy of £53,000 remaining in the
Irish Treasury an unappropriated balance in favor
of the nation, after paying all the establishments, the
King sent over his Letter, to draw that sum to England
as a part of his hereditary revenue. But the Irish
Parliament resisted the authority of His Majesty's
Letter, as an encroachment on the distinctness and
independence of Ireland, a part of that sum having
arisen from additional duties imposed by her parlia-
ment. The King consulted the English judges, who
were of opinion that the King's previous consent was
necessary to its appropriation ; but the Irish Commons
insisted on their right of appropriation, and asserted
that His Majesty's subsequent assent only was necessary.
This contest was warmly maintained until the year
1753, when the Irish Commons succeeded in establish-
ing their principle ; but the King had in the meantime
drawn the money into his power, and thus ended the
argument. This transaction excited great heat and
animosity in Ireland.

Another cause of incessant discontent between the
two legislatures was the right of appeal, assumed by the
British Lords with respect to suits decided by the
Courts in Ireland. The substantial reason of this
assumption, however artfully palliated, really was, that
so many forfeited Irish estates had been purchased by
Englishmen, that they were afraid to trust the deter-
mination of titles exclusively to Ireland.

However, the Irish judges, who were in general

Englishmen, and held their offices during pleasure only,

endeavoured to enforce in Ireland the decrees of the

British House of Lords by attaching the Sheriff of

JCildare, who had refused to ex^e\x\^ \Xv^yc ot^^^ -^ VoS.

119

the Irish Parliament committed the Chief Baron and
Judges of the Exchequer for their contempt in so
doing. This gave rise to the celebrated statute of the
6th of Geo. I. in England, declaring the total legis-
lative and juridical dependence of Ireland upon Great
Britain ; to which statute, as the Irish were not then in
a condition to resist, they reluctantly submitted, till it
was repealed in 1782. (Historic Memoirs of Sir Jonah
Barrington, p. 31, 32.)

DBcajuaATiON of Ibish Rights, moved by Mb. Gbattan,

AND BBSOLVED Tiem. COU.y IN THE IbISH HoUSE OF

Commons, 16th Apbil, 1782.

Resolved^ — " That an humble address be presented to
His Majesty, to return His Majesty the thanks of this
House, for his most gracious message to this House,
signified by His Grace the Lord-Lieutenant.

" To assure His Majesty of our unshaken attachment
to His Majesty's person and government, and of our
lively sense of his paternal care in thus taking the lead
to administer content to His Majesty's subjects of
Ireland.

"That thus encouraged bv his royal interposition, we
beg leave, with all duty and affection, to lay before His
Majesty that liis subjects of Ireland are a free people ;
that the Crown of Ireland is an imperial crown, in-
separably annexed to the Crown of Great Britain, but
that the kingdom of Ireland is a distinct kmgdom, with
a Parliament of her own, the sole legislature thereof;
that there is no body of men competent to make laws
to bind this nation, except the King, Lords, and
Commons of Ireland ; nor any other parliament which
hath any authority or power of any sort whatever in
this country, save only the Parliament of Ireland.

" To assure His Majesty, that we humbly conceive
that in this right the very essence of our liberty exists ;
a right which we on the part oi ^ \Jcv^ ^^^^^^^ ^^51

120

Ireland, do claim as their birthright^ and which we
cannot yield but with our lives.

" To assure His Majesty that we have seen with con-
cern certain claims advanced by the Parliament of
Great Britain, in an Act entitled * An Act for the better
securing the dependency of Ireland,' an Act containing
matter entirely irreconcilable to the fundamental rights
of this nation. That we conceive this Act, and the
claims it advances, to be the great and principal cause
of the discontents and jealousies in this kingdom.

" To assure His Majesty that His Majesty s Commons
of Ireland do most sincerely wish that all bills which
become law in Ireland should receive the approbation
of His Majesty under the Great Seal of Britain ; but
that yet we do consider the practice of stopping our
bills in the councils of Ireland, or altering them any-
where, to be another just cause of discontent and
jealousy.

** To assure His Majesty, that an Act entitled * An
Act for the better accommodation of His Majesty's
forces,'^ being unUmited in duration and defective in
other instances, but passed in that shape from the
particular circumstances of the times, is another just
cause of discontent and jealousy in this kingdom.

" That we have submitted these, the principal causes
of the present discontent and jealousy of Ireland, and
remain in humble expectation of redress.

" That we have the greatest reliance on His Majesty's
wisdom, the most sanguine expectations from his
. virtuous choice of a Chief Governor, and great con-
fidence in the wise, auspicious, and constitutional
councils, which we see with satisfaction His Majesty
has adopted.

" That we have, moreover, a high sense and venera-
tion for the British character, and do therefore con-
ceive that the proceedings of this country, founded as
they are in right and tempered by duty, must have
excited the approbation and esteem, instead of wound-
^og the pride^ of the British nativoTi. ktA ^^ \ift.^ leave

121

to assure His Majesty that we are the more confirmed
in this hope, inasmuch as the people of this kingdom
have never expressed a desire to share the freedom of
England without a determination to share her fate
likewise, standing and falling with the British nation."

The following letter, however, from Mr. Grattan to
the author appearing to throw new and material light
upon the subject, and to develope the individual views
and politics of Mr. Grattan himself more clearly than
any speech or document heretofore published, the
author gives it to the public. He publishes it also
(now that the writer is no more) as the most honourable
and decisive refutation of those vicious calumnies which
the obdurate malevolence of a rancorous Chancellor,
Lord Clare, and the vulgar libels of a muddling Cor-
poration (Dublin), endeavoured to cast upon the most
disinterested and steady friend of British connection.

This letter also proves, more than volumes, the
insincerity of the Duke of Portland and the English
Government: their distinction between the words
" recognised " and " established," leaves their political
reservation beyond the reach of scepticism.

The letter shows palpably the ruin that a want of
ccHJperaiion between two great men brought upon the
country; and, above all, it incidentally exposes the
courtly, credulous, and feeble politics of Earl Charle-
mont, which was on this occasion fatal to its security.
Patriots without energy, as bees without stings, may
buzz in sunshine, but can neither defend their lives
nor a88aU the enemy.

" House of Commons, London,

March 2nd.
" My Dear Barrington, — I am excessively sorry that
" your health has been impaired, and 1 hope it will
" soon be restored.

" I will get you the Whig Club reaolutlow. TWjj^
" proposed to obtain an internal xeiotixi ^i "^ ^^^^kmss^

122

" in which they partly succeeded : they proposed to
" prevent an Union, in which they failed.

" The address that declared no POLrncAL qtjes-

" TION REMAINED BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, HAD
" IN VIEW TO STOP THE GROWTH OF DEMAND, and

" preserve entire the annexation of the Crown. It
" was, to us, an object to prevent any future political
" discussion touching the relative state of the two
" countries, because we might not be so strong as in
" that moment. And it was an object to us, and to the
" English minister, to guard against any discussion that
" might shake the connection to which we were equally
" attached. Fox wished sincerely for the libertt
" OF Ireland without reserve. He was an enemy
" TO AN Union, and wished the freedom to be annexed

" TO his name.

" The act of repeal was a part of a treaty with
" England. A declaratory act of title is the affirmance
" of the existence of a former title ; the repeal is a
" disaffirmance of any such former title ; the more so
* ^ when accompanied by a transfer of the possession,
" viz., the transfer of the final judicature and the
" legislation for the colony trade of the new acquired
" islands, made in consequence of a protest by Ireland
*' against the claim of England.

" The repeal was not any confession of usurpation ;
" it was a disclaimer of any right. You must suppose
*^ WHAT I have said, UNSAID. A man of spirit may say
" that^ but he will hesitate to unsay word by word. That
" was the case of England. She would not in so many
*' words confess her usurpation, nor did she ; on the
" contrary, when they pressed her, she exercised the
" power and said, ' The constitution of Ireland is
" established and ascertained in future by the authority
" of the British Parliament.' It was proposed in the
" House of Commons to change the words and say,
" * recognised for ever.' They agreed to the words

'^ ^FOR EVEIiy' and recused TKS WORD * RECOGNISED,'
*^AND KEPT IN THE WORD ^ 'ROT 1lB1ASSSX>! ^^a&\^llML

'^ HAKiNQ Ireland free v^itk the NE^c3iEK?&^s«..

123

" I wish, in your history, you would put down the
" argument on both sides. 1 can get you Flood's,
" published by his authority.

" I am excessively thankful for the many handsome
" things you have said of me.

" Yours most truly,

" Henry Gtrattan.
" Chevalier Barrington,

" Boulogne, prfes Paris."

Before addressing myself to the confessions of
Mr. Grattan, which manifestly show the total in-
adequacy of his own arguments and measures in 1782,
I would lay before the reader the repeal of the de-
claratory law of Geo. I., with Sir Jonah Barrington's
well matured opinion, founded on unquestionable
sources of information, at least on this transaction.

Repeal of the Act of 6 Geo. I.

" An Act to repeal an Act made in the sixth year of
" the reign of His late Majesty King George I., entitled
" * An Act for the better securing the Dependency of
" ' the Kingdom of Ireland upon the Crown of Great
" * Britain.' Whereas an Act was passed in the sixth
" year of the reign of His late Majesty King George I.,
" entitled * An Act for the better securing the De-
" * pendency of the Kingdom of Ireland upon the
" * Crown of Great Britain ; ' May it please Your Most
** Excellent Majesty, that it may be enacted, and be it
" enacted, by the King's Most Excellent Majesty, by
" and with the consent and advice of the Lords
" Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this
" present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
" of the same, that from and after the passing of this
" Act, the above-mentioned Act, ana the several
" matters and things therein contained, shall be, and
" is, and are hereby repealed."

Thus stood the British concession to Ireland ul
1782; one more ominouB m \\» ^^^x^^a\^^ ^sssSi

124

indistinct in its purview, could scarcely be conveyed.
The indecorous naste of this Act of Kepeal was in
keeping with the wording of the enactment which left
The Statute of Sir Edward Pojnoings,
The Explanatory Law of Phillip and Mary,
The Interpretation of the Jurists of James L,
The Commentary and Explanation of Blackstone,
all remaining unnoticed and unrepealed on the statute-
book.

Sir Jonah Barrington remarks: — "The British
" Ministry and Parliament now began to feel their
" own weakness. Their intolerance degenerated into
" fear ; and responsibility began to stare them in the
" face. The loss of America had been got over by
" their predecessors without an impeachment ; but that
" of Ireland would not have passed over with the same
" impunity. The British Cabinet had already signed
" the CAPITULATION, and thought it impossible to carry
" it into execution. Bills to enact the concessions de-
" manded by Ireland were therefore prepared with an
" expedition nearly bordering on precipitancy. The
" 6th of George I., declaratory of and establishing the
" supremacy of England and the eternal dependence
" of Ireland on the Parliament and Cabinet of Great
" Britain, was now hastily repealed without debate or any
'^ qualification by the British Legislature. This reped
" received the royal assent, and a copy was instantly
" transmitted to the Irish Viceroy, and communicated
" by circular^ to the volunteer commanders.

" Thus the doctrine of Blackstone, that venerated
" Druid of English jurisprudence, who by his dictum
" had tried to seal the slavery of the Irish people, was
" surrendered as unconstitutional, and renounced by
" the very same legislature that had enacted it. As
* * England drooped, Ireland raised her head ; and for
" a moment she was arrayed with all the exterior
" insignia of an independent nation."
It is clear then, almost to a demonstration, that no
iotemational transaction ot t\v^ &wfc TOv^ot^jKaRfc ^«l

125

ever so undiplomatically negotiated as that of 1782.
But before proceeding nirther I shall briefly make an
analysis of the documents which form the base of the
claims of Ireland, inadequately expressed in Mr.
Grattan's motion of the 15th of April, 1782. I had
traced in the First Part of my " BSstorical Review," a
synthetical argument from a long course of years, that
whenever the Irish parliaments were convened they
had always manifested an unreserved devotion to the
duties of a legislative assembly ; and that there never
was an interruption of this national feeling, except
when British power, avarice, and monopoly interposed.
In following the sequence of events, we shall see the
same fiends of dominion pursuing with relentless hate
all opposing obstacles.

In the first document we have the Parliament of
Ireland struggling against power and avarice for the
application of the revenues of Ireland, drawn from the
resources of the kingdom; and that from 1749 to 1753,
strong resentments were engendered; that two vital
privileges were contested or violated; and to close
all further opposition, a law was introduced which was
an insult to any nation.

2. The declaratory law of Geo. I. was that law ; one
of the most arrogant and arbitrary enactments which
was ever applied to Ireland, not only in the express and
emphatic terms of its style, but the daring usurpation
of its purview. This produced indignation and that
quiet compulsory submission which only abides its time
to reject with disdain the ignoble marks of bondage,
and this sentiment was manifested on the first fitting
occasion. Never in the histories of Rome or Greece
was there a finer example of unanimity of spirit " to he
^^free'' — free from a yoke that from 1495 to 1782
had scarcely ever been removed — ^it had been by the
force of events and circumstances alleviated, but never
removed. The declaration of American independence
gave the opportunity — ofpobtuntty^ which^ Yrhaw iiv^ll
lised, is victory I In 1780, lT\B\vnieii ^«^ ^^ ^\i^\ssxfiSi

126

equal to the achievement of their legislative inde-
pendence, all they wanted was a competent leader, who
from his experience in legislation and diplomacy — ^well
and deeply read in international law, experienced in
the ways of statesmen, and versed in the sinuosities of
governments, and especially with the systematic prin-
ciples of Great Britain, with her dependencies and
foreign relations— a man, lofty, eloquent, and grand — ^a
man, important from his position, independent by his
fortune and his connections, Ireland lost her op-
portunity by trusting to a Bill of Rights so imperfect, it
should have been the repeal of all laws from Henry VII.
to Geo. I. affecting in any manner the independence of
the Irish Legislatures, the complete and free action of
the appellate jurisdiction for the kingdoiii of Ireland
expressed in an Act by the British Parliament, thus to
render "null and void," — ^to use the terms of Sir
Edward Poynings, — ^all statutes enacted during the
Tudors, Stuart, and Guelph dynasties, contravening
the free exercise of legislative and judicial powers of
the Irish Parliaments. This was evidently the ardent
desire of the kingdom of Ireland in 1782.

The example of the American colonies was but as
yesterday ; the mode, no less than the necessity, required
the most careful stipulations, insisted on with the dis-
tinctness of a Franklin, and the firm moderation of a
Washington. Such a treaty was not incompatible with
loyalty to the Crown and connection with the British
empire ; such a course would have been consistent with
diplomacy. — with international law — with the history
of negociations on all transcendant and serious topics
involving the welfare of nations for generations, possibly
for ever. This indeed would be to take " the bridle
out of the mouth of the Irish Parliaments," to invert
the expression of Mr. Whiteside. But it is a painM
lesson and a melancholy truth to find Mr. Grattan
writing forty years after the recantation of his own
y^orda and arguments, and we have in this letter a
^timony of his end and bis mlacioiiee^\AOXLV, ^K^ir^asLi

127

Itnd historian Sir Jonah Barrington states frankly and
honestly the same fact. It becomes the serious and
responsible duty of an historical writer, to carefully
weigh and consider the promoters, the chief negociators
in a great international transaction, such as that be-
tween England and her revolted colony of America,
and that between England and Ireland in 1782 ; it is
as painful to perceive, as it is disastrous to trace, the
utter incompetency of the Irish negociators, and the
fatal incompleteness of Irish legislative independence,
the great aim and object of Ireland for five hundred
years.

First then, Lord Charlemont, the principal agent
with the British Viceroy in 1782, was a nobleman of
amiable nature and gentle virtues, graceful in literary
tastes, and alive to all the charms of the Muses. The
feebleness of his health, particularly of his eyesight,
limited his pursuits, and obliged his attentive ear to
supply him from the resources of others.^ He, from his
constant patriotism, his large sympathies with Irish
grievances, the general of the volunteers, the champion
of Irish legislative independence in the salons of the
Viceroys, for thirty years and more the supporter and
patron of Doctor Lucas, the friend and associate of
Mr. Flood, wa^ now called by the Duke of Portland to
take a leading part in the transaction of 1782, for the
establishment of an Independent Legislature of his
country. He naturally called in his representative for
the borough of Charlemont, Mr. Grattan, who since
1775, had been returned for that seat. Mr. Grattan, as
we shall see, was far less likely to be a negociator equal
to such a responsibility involving the ultimate destiny
of Ireland, than Lord Charlemont, whose hesitating
and sectarian policy was narrow and imcompatible with
the past history of Ireland.

The motion for the liberties of Ireland was entrusted
to Mr. Grattan as Lord Charlemont's representative in
Parliament; and Sir Jonah Barrinffton briefly but
grsphicBliy describes the iatetww \nX5Jv ^<^ \iNi!sA ^

128

Portland previous to the motion being moved in the
Commons.

Mr. Grattan was about 32 years of age in 1782.
After his college course in Dublin he lived in an
obscure way at Windsor, with his friend Broom. His
father had been Recorder of Dublin, and had not
acquired wealth or position. In 1772 Henry Grattan
returned to Ireland, and was a constant listener at the
House of Commons, and attended the Debating Clubs,
then the resort of aspirants to public life in both
kingdoms. It was probably the first time he took any
serious notice of Irish history ; for Ireland before this
time, 1772, he had no particular regard, and indeed
had no reason, being without hereditary interests in
the country. The death of the Hon. Mr. Caufield
opened a way into the Irish Commons ; in October he
was elected, but the biennial sessions of the Irish
parliaments gave him no fair opportunity of showmg
his talents and his patriotism till towards the close of
the first American War of Independence, this was the
occasion ; and in 1779 he brought in his first important
motion for free " Imports and Exports," hence he rose
gradually into fame, and became the idol of the
volunteers and the nation. The tour of inspection he
made as aide-de-camp to Lord Charlemont to the
north of Ireland very much contributed to make
familiar his name and his character. Unpractised in
parliamentary life, unskilled in diplomatic afi^irs, un-
acquainted with courts and cabinets, with the pecu-
liarities of men, the divided interests of many influential
landlords of Ireland, the depending English Whig
party looking constantly and eagerly for place and
title, he could not be expected to reconcile so many
conflicting interests. The Irish party, wearied by the
Sysiphean labour of rolling continually back the weight
of past years, — ^past centuries — hoped to see in a near

Srospective a close to their toils. This, indeed,
emanded a man of profound sagacity, unyielding
character, and of that polUkal co\XTag<^ tWt ^ould take

129

advantage of events without complacency or deference
to any power : — that man was not Grattan. The year
1781 nad seen the acknowledgment of American inde-
pendence by great Britain, subsequently recognised in
a treaty of unreserved acknowledgment.

A Franklin, a Jefferson, or a Washington, would
have at once seized the opportunity and achieved
victory, the securing for her the legislative inde-
pendence, appellate jurisdiction and commercial free-
dom for the kingdom of Ireland ; for this achievement
Grattan was not the man — he failed. ** His credulity "
(to use the expression of Barrington) his inexperience
and unacquaintance in the art of government com-
pletely unfitted him for a great responsibility— the
future destiny of a nation.

The reader will have only to turn and attentively
examine the pages of Sir Jonah Barrington in his
valuable historical memoirs of the " Irish Union "
(quarto edition) to find everywhere the circumventions,
intrigues, and insincerities of leading influential men,
which events and public documents have completely
confirmed, as well as Grattan's own letter, printed in
the preceding pages.

The loyal and patriotic statements of Sir Jonah
Barrington, confirmed as they are by official and
historical papers, must be accepted, as, on the whole,
the most correct version of the transaction of 1782.
Macaulay and Burke lend their evidence to the same
end ; that " the avarice of power " was the main object
of Pitt through the aristocracy ; that of Fox to rule
mpremely ihroxx^ popular opinion ; that of the Duke of
Portland to govern Ireland by dividing the parliament
into two essentially different interests.

We shall look on the portraits of these distinguished
men, and we shall perceive how completely Grattan
was deceived throughout.

" Mr. Fox never had any especial predilection for
" Ireland. He was ignorant equally of her rights and
" her localities ; and be coiisv!3l«^^ \i« ^^^ ^e^si* "^^

130

" segment of a great circle, which he laboured to
" encompass. He wielded the grievances of Ireland
" only as an instrument of opposition to the Crown,
" or a weapon of offence against the Ministry. He was
" a great man, with a popular ambition, and assumed
" the hereditary title of Whig, when the professed
" principles joined to it had nearly become obsolete.
" Mr. Pitt had in view the very same object — to bule ;
" and they only differed in the means of effecting it
" The one wished to rise upon the shoulders of the
" people, the other to be elevated upon those of the
" aristocracy. But the ambition of both was to govern
" the empire ; and of both to rule the Monarch and
" control his Council. Their rivalry was of party, and
" their struggle was for power ; but Ireland, as a
" distinct abstract consideration, never gave one hour's
" solicitude to either the one or the other of those
" celebrated Ministers.

" The Duke of Portland was not of sufficient talent
" or weight to lead the ministry ; but he had enough
" of both to be an efficient accessory. A man of plain,
" fair, undistinguished reputation, can effect important
" acts of duplicity with less suspicion and more facility
" than more prominent and energetic personages ; and
" when the moment of development arrives, he can
" plead the honesty of his character, and the error of
" his judgment, or at the worst, he probably gains a
" great point, and can only lose a narrow reputation ;
" such a loss, too, as gives him a stronger claim upon
" the Crown, in whose service he has made the
"sacrifice."

These observations may be interesting, as decidedly
applicable to the administration of the Duke of
Portland- His grace's conduct and speeches on the
question of the Union, in 1800, leave no doubt that
the whole tenor of his conduct, in 1782, must have
been a premeditated tissue of dissimulation. ("His-
torical Memoirs," p. 14.)
I have now placed before the teadet ^oT\,T^\ta of the
principal politicians who negotiated t\v^ 'ra.K^%feiE?YVQ^ ^^

131

1782 : to add more would be to overcharge the picture
and confuse the view. I shall now pass on to the
" Declaration op Irish Rights," a misnomer of the
first importance, since it caused a delusive hope to the
Irish nation, and had no base whereon a firm and
distinct polity could be founded. It was, in fact, an
Address to the Crown, drawn up by Mr. Grattan with
the concurrence and approbation of Lord Charlemont
and the Duke of Portland, at once adulatory and
servile. An address of compliment and professions was
out of place and tone with the just demands of the
Irish nation, of every creed and rank. It was the
moment of decisive and irrevocable adjustment of Irish
legislative independence of rights just as positive as
were ever extorted from King John by his vassals, or
firom Charles I. by the Commonwealth. It was a
moment of high diplomacy, noble conceptions, of loyal
but unalterable national wilL Mr. Grattan was inferior
to this position ; a negotiator who did not comprehend
his instructions : in this interpretation I am sustained
by ample evidence.

" The Recorder of, and Member for, Dublin, Sir
" Samuel Bradstreet, a strong-minded, public-spirited
" man, an able lawyer, and independent Member of
" Parliament ; of a rough, decisive, firm deportment,
" was the first who ventured to insinuate his dissent
" from the Address, and his suspicions of the Duke's
" sincerity. He entirely objected to that sweeping
" clause of Mr. Grattan s Address — * That all consti-
" * tutional questions between the two countries were at
" * an end.' He stated that many were not yet touched
** upon — many that were vital to Irish independence
" still remained unnoticed, for he insisted that the
" Irbh Parliament actually sat at that moment under
" an English statute ; and that the Address, as moved,
" was in some instances premature — in others too com-
" prehensive — in all defective. Subsequent events have
'^ since proved the soundness and the acuteness of his
^'judgment and his foresighiC

132

Mr. Walshe, a member of the House of Commons,
who enjoyed a reputation for a very considerable legal
capacity, distinguished himself by a bold and fearless
opposition to the Address to the Crown. He was one
of the few members free from strong party prepossessions,
and I infer had no object in his opposition but the desire
to point out the grave defectiveness of Mr. Grattan's
incautious Address, and the inadequacy of the De-
claration of Rights to effect the long desired object of
the nation — its legislative independence. He expresses
himself on the motion before the House in the following
words: — "Until England declares irrevocably by an
^^ Act of HER OWN Legislature, that she had no right
" in any instance to make laws to bind Ireland, the
" usurped powers of English legislature never can he con-
" sidered hy us as relinquished ; we want not the can-
" cessions of England to restore us our liberties. If we
" are true to ourselves^ we possess the fortitude, we
" possess the will, and, thank God, we possess the power
" to assert our rights as men, and accomplish our in-
" dependence as a nation." (" Pari. Debates," vol. iv.)

Grattan was expected by the volunteers to secure
finally and irrevocably Irisn legislative independence ;
such in fact was his mission. It was not by any means
less than a formal acknowledgment by treaty, and an
Act of the British Parliament renouncing the power of
previous statutes^ that a real constitutional freedom could
be obtained for Ireland. The undiplomatic address of
Grattan and imperfect *' Declaration of Rights " were
insufficient to the end in view, as proclaimed by every
county of Ireland.

National writers who were present on the ever
memorable 15th of April, 1782, have left animated
descriptions of the scene of rejoicing produced in
Dublin at the opening of this session of Parliament,
surpassing all previous ones, at the prospect of securing
on a firm basis a legislative independence ; for so many
centuries a subject of disquietude to the Irish nation.
The House of Commons ipTeaexv^^^L ^ ^q«c^ ^thout

133

example: A foil House of three hundred members,
most of whom were oflScers of the Volunteers in uniform ;
the galleries extending round the circle of the dome
were occupied by seven hundred persons of rank, many
of whom were ladies of distinction, dressed in colours
of the regiments of volunteers to which their husbands
were attached ; every thing bore the aspect of surpassing
splendour, and every one appeared animated by one
noble patriotic sentiment, unequalled in any national
assembly in the history of Europe. Ireland had then
a numerous nobility, profuse and magnificent in taste,
generous, enthusiastic, and polite ; adding the grace of
the refined Irish gentlemen to an hospitality almost
boundless. Nor were the landed gentry of those days
inferior to their titled brethren in all the qualities which
could honour or adorn a nation ; and it is singular that
Ireland could fall or succumb where talents of every
degree could be found, and where genius seemed to
have no limits within the compass of thought.

The Duke of Portland, Viceroy of Ireland, must
have been inexpressibly struck with so extraordinary a
sight ; from the Castle to the House of Commons, the
Volunteers of Ireland formed a guard of honour and
of homage to a nobleman whom they supposed was
about to express in royal words, everv concession a
spirited people guided by their parbaments could
reasonably demand. The speech from the Viceregal
ITirone was equal to the expectation ; but it was for
the Commons themselves to point out with distinctness,
not to be misunderstood, the important object of this
session.

This was a duty of the highest order, and which re-
quired a style and precision of expression and a mind
of inflexible firmness. The example of the previous
session of 1779 was before them, when the government
of Lord Buckinghamshire indicated little alacrity to
accept the demand for " Free Trade " (as the amend-
ment of Flood and Burgh defined the motion of Grattan
and Daly). All Ireland agreed on \JaaX ^^^'^^^jl*"^^^.

{

134

Free Trade was the means of recovering the nation
from torpor and destitution. Though voted by ac-
clamation in parliament, and honoured by the most
remarkable oration out of doors, yet the Viceroy's
dispatch was in the tone of complaint, and the British
Cabinet never conceded that measure to Ireland. Com-
mercial propositions were subsequently presented in
1774, but were abortive. The same mover had the
experience of the past fresh on his mind.

Henry Grattan the brilliant and popular orator of
1779 was again to appear in the most conspicuous

Eosition, which the force of events and the accidents of
fe combined to make the most interesting event in
the parliamentary career of any man.

As the representative of Lord Charlemont in the
House of Commons, as aide-de-camp to him, and
Colonel in the Volunteers, he represented the nation :
new in political life, and of an eloquence surpassing
most other men, he was entrusted to move the Address
to the Throne which, while it was fervid, brilliant, and
effective to carry awav the admiration of all present,
and even througnout the land, yet it had the ddfects of
an enthusiastic nature, full of confidence and de-
pendency, probably inseparable from that description
of oratory, where the finest and most difficult figures
are worked through the mazes of the imagination.
The splendid efforts of the orator had all the enervating
effects of subduing the reason to the control of the
most impassioned eloquence.

o J^^ fi^°^ tone of remonstrance and the calm accents
of diplomacy would have been more in keeping with
the previous history of Ireland and the occasion. The
mcautious passages of the Address had been pointed
out at once bv experienced pubUc men, the Recorder of
iSp if ^f^hev for the City, and by Mr. Walshe, an

howevJ^^^"^' ""^ '""^^^^^^^ i^ational principles. Grattan,
however was mover of the Address, and as such
oZTr^ *^% views of the Duke of Port A the

inSwhi ^"!? ?^^-^--^ox.t, md tl.^ numerous
^ngiian Whig party, Waded \>7 Ut. ^^ot^^ Vc.tv^^^J«^,

135

Mr. Connolly, Mr. Daly, Mr. Hutchinson, with all the
officials, and many independent members of the
Commons. But whatever defects in a diplomatic and
legal sense might be attributed to the Address, no
defects of either sort should have been tolerated in the
" Declaration of Rights " of the Irish people, moved by
Mr. Grattan on the following day, April 16th, 1782.
This in fact is one of the weakest and most inadequate
State Papers that was ever presented to a King by a
nation writhing under every possible grievance. It is
supplicating when it ought to be demanding, — it is
assenting when it ought to be exacting, — it is trivial
and complimentary when it ought to be remonstrative
and serious ; it had the smooth inexplicitness of the
courtier rather than the manly decision of the patriot ;
it is more after the style of Charlemont or Daly than
the clear, energetic composition of Grattan ; it asserts
what Molyneux had asserted in 1692 without avail;
it asserts what the Statute of Drogheda had destroyed
in 1495 ; it solicits the repeal of a law of 1720, " for the
" better securing the dependency of Ireland," which
was an insult, and should never have been imposed ;
it solicits the non-interference of the Privy Council
when it had become innoxious ; it solicits the repeal of
an unlimited Mutiny Act when there were no troops
to quarter.

And this " Declaration " is in the tone of a suppliant,
for it says : " That we have submitted these, the
" principal causes of the present discontents and
" jealousies op Ireland, and remain in humble ex-
" pectation of redress I " No wonder the sudden
change in the public mind which ensued.

We have seen Mr. Grattan rather in the character of
a mediator between the Government and the Irish
nation in arms, than the bold patriot who cuts through
the links of a long-endured bondage, or the wise states-
man who closes for ever, by resolutions and by treaty, a
political irritation which must otherwise evetv.t\3A.tft. vc^
civiJ w&r, and actually did so. \\. \^«Jb \vQ^»^^sA^'iiS^^ *^^

13C

first tizae a £7e« ontor IumI mistiken the way to the
Temple of Miserra. The gneefal address^ — ^the lofty in-
vocadossL — and th^ brilliant antithesis^ — delight the ear
and gr&tifr the izztaginatkn : and Hjperides could not
have done more when he addressed the Archons, and
denuded the &ru?e of Phrrne before their jadgment
seat. Perfect as such orators are; more is expected
from the statesman — he has to settle the future
happiness of million^. We have seen by the dear and
emphatic words of Sir Samuel Bradstreeti a lawyer of
no mean condition* that Grattan was wrong from the
outset : and the whole K:»dy of lawyers were of this
opinion but a short month subsequent In his letter
Grattan states, that the En^Ksk Mikisteb, the Grovem-
menty and the Whisr p^^^ supported him in the
expression on the Address that declared no political
question remained between the two countries, which
had in view to stop the growth of demand. Such a
statement would have been incredible had not Grattan
deliberately written this letter to his historian of the
transaction of 1782. His *' Declaration of Rights,"
which followed the Address to the Throne, had neither
the comprehensiveness of Molyneux, nor the severe
energy of Flood. Above all, his letter is a painful
instance wherein we perceive the tenacity of Grattan's
mind and character, adhering with a reckless instinct
to obsolete arguments, which reason, legislation, and
events had demonstrated to be the baseless fabric of a
vision. As an historical document, coming from the
principal actor on the scene, the letter of Grattan is
worthy of serious reflection. It conflicts with the
statement made by the Duke of Portland in the House
of Lords ; it conflicts with what Mr. Fox said in the
House of Commons, what he wrote to Lord Gharlemont ;
it conflicts with what Burke wrote in the Annual
Register of 1782, as the opinion of Fox and himself.
Fox, writes Grattan, was against the Union, and had

WISOED TO IDENTIFY HIS NAME AND FAME WITH THE

Independence of the Irish Legislature; yet we

13^7

have abundant evidence that Fox disclaimed this, and
any acquaintance with Irish affairs. Mr. Grattan con-
founds all that he had done and said by this letter,
particularly by the last sentence.

It was proposed in the House of Commons to change
the words and say, " recognised for ever ;" they agreed
to the words " for ever," but refused the word " recog-
nised," and kept in the word "established." This I
call making Ireland free with a vengeance I

Such is Mr. Grattan's own interpretation of all his
efforts for Irish independence.

To Mr. Hutchinson was generally attributed the

Solitical tuition of Grattan. He was a member of the
[ouse of Commons of long and large experience, who
had always attached himseff to the English Whig party
in Ireland, and joined to his love of place liberal
opinions. Singular enough, in a long course of years
he continued to hold official rank under many suc-
cessive governments. Moderate and mediative in his
politics, he knew perfectly well the wants and necessities
of Ireland, yet his love of rank and official power re-
strained his efforts to the circumscription of place.
He was named Provost of Trinity College without any
adequate acquaintance with the Greek or Roman
classics. He fearlessly faced the Collegians whose
lampoons and satires were shot forth with considerable
truth and accuracy, and a volume of pungent
wit and telling sarcasm was published, called the
" Pbanceriana, intended to mark Provost Hutchinson's
manner of speaking, and his bold contempt for classical
rules. Hutchinson was not to be deterred by missiles
so light and fugitive, and he only doffed the cap and
gown of the university to accept the more stately office
of Secretary of State for Ireland. Such was the tutor
and mentor of Grattan. As the organ of the Duke of
Portland, the Secretary of State announced to the
Commons, on the 16th of April, that he was com-
manded to convey to the House a Message from the
Ein^ — ^That the House do taVe mlo c«rws^«w&^<s^ "^i^fc

138

state of Ireland, with a view to propose some measure
of " Final adjustment." This expression was not only
to be the text for the mover, but the tone and policy
of the session — a final " adjustment." It is curious to
remark here, that on this important day all the princi-
pal supporters but one were either placemen or place-
men in expectancy.

Mr. Grattan at once accepted the condition, and
irrevocably took his stand on the simple repeal of
6th of Geo. I. Here was the base and principle, be-
yond which no further demand was to be made. He
had the approval of the Duke of Portland and the
English Minister, the support of the official and non-
official Whig party, numerous and influential, and of
the country gentlemen in the House, headed by Mr.
Brownlow. Grattan felt the strength he had behind
him, and which gave him a confidence that reached
to temerity.

That Address had, in plain language, renounced all
further constitutional claims by the Irish Parliament ;
and the distinguished mover could not recede from
«uch his own reiterated declarations. Mr. Flood, how-
ever, remained unshaken and firm in his opinion of the
insufficiency of the arrangement, and determined to
increase their security, through an unequivocal act of
the Irish Legislature ; and on the 29 th day of July he
moved for leave to bring in a BiU " to affirm the sole
" exclusive right of the Irish Parliament to make laws
" afifecting that country, in all concerns, external and
" INTERNAL, whatsocvcr." A most animated, and even
virulent, debate took place on that motion. It was
debated with great ability, but ill-placed confidence, or
ill-timed moderation, still guided the majority of the
Commons ; and even the introduction of the Bill was
negatived without a division.

Mr. Grattan, heated by the language of his rival,

blinded by an unlimited confidence in the integrity of

the Whig Ministry, and for a moment losing sight of

tie &r8t principle of conatitutiousl \s\)^t:V^ > ^^ti ^t»-

139

posed a motion equally singular for the language of its
oxordium and the extravagance of its matter. He
moved, " That the Legislature of Ireland was indepen-
" dent, and that any person who should propagate, in
" WRITING or OTHERWISE, an OPINION that any right
" whatsoever, whether external or internal, existed in
*- any other Parliament, or could be revived, was
" inimical to both kingdoms."

The ingenuity of man could scarcely have formed a
more objectionable precedent or dangerous resolution.
It was too great an opportunity not to be taken imme-
diate advantage of by Mr. Flood , his reply was equally
severe and able. He represented the resolution as
" placing Ireland in a state of tyranny worse than
" Russia ; prohibiting both the Lords and Commons of
" Ireland, under a denunciation of being enemies to
"their country, from the common rights of every
" British citizen to discuss the same constitutional ques-
" tion which had been so often before, and was at that
" very moment debating in the House of Parliament ;
" depriving every Irish subject of his natural liberty
" either ol speech or of writing ; a proscription against
" all who differed with the honourable gentleman on a
"vital question respecting his own country, or who
" should presume to publish, or even to whisper, that
" difference ; a resolution which would be scoffed in
" Ireland, ridiculed in Great Britain, and be contemp-
" tible in both — a resolution which could have no
" character to support it, but those of folly and
" tyranny." He therefore moved an adjournment.

The tide, however, flowed too strong against Mr.
Flood personally. It was the great object of the
Government to conquer him first, and then neutralize
his adversary ; and even those who were determined to
negative Mr. Grattan's motion also determined to
negative the motion of adjournment because it was
Mr. Flood's, and a considerable majority decided
against it. Mr. Grattan then proposed another dftr
claratory resolution, stretcYaug^ ww^^-^ fe^\sv "^^ ^'^

i40

facts as to any political application of those that
existed, but unaccompanied by moat of the former
objections; and, at all events, leaving both his own
and Mr. Flood's principles nearly where it found them
at the commencement of the altercation. Mr. Grattan
moved, that leave was " refused to bring in the (Mr.
" Flood's) Bill, because the sole and exclusive right to
" legislate for Ireland in all cases whatsoever, internally
"and externally, had been asserted by the Parliament
" of Ireland, and had been fully, finally, and irre-
" vocably acknowledged by the British Parliament.*'

This resolution obviously stated some founts which did
NOT EXIST. No final irrevocable acknowledgment ever had
been made by the British Parliament^ on the contrary^ acts
had been done and declarations made by the Minister
himself, that a future treaty would be necessary to
render the arrangement full, final, or irrevocable.
Mr. Flood saw the weak point, and he possessed himself
of it. He altered his language, became satiric, and
ridiculed the resolution as the " innocent child of fiction
" and of fancy." He congratulated Mr. Grattan on
changing his tone, and declared "that he would
" willingly leave him in the full enjoyment of this new
" production of his lively imagination." Mr. Grattan's
motion then passed without further observation, and
the House adjourned. ("Memoirs of the Legislative
Union," p. 108.) ^

^°^E-— As a legislator or negotiator Grattan was inferior to many ;
he had m fact no capacity for this more profound duty of a public jnan-

We have seen that Sir Samuel Bradstreet and Mr. Walshe were
better opinions on two points of international law.

The Place Bill of Grattan was a sad mistake for Ireland, though a
strong instance of his infirmity pointed out by Barrington, who says,

Mr. (xratt^^ did not always foresee the remote operations of his
« ^v^^^* His Place Bill of 1794, while it partiaUy effected the

Object designed, MOST ckbtainly, by one of its clauses, lost both

i:'AELiAMBNT and CoNSTinrriON." (Vd. ii. p. 200 )

141

Mr. Flood— from 1782 to 1790.

His policy for the establishment of Irish Independence on a
permanent basis : " The perpetual union of the
" CrownSj but the perpetual separation of the
" Legislatures.^^

Mr. Flood's views were opposed to those of Mr.
Grattan for the obtainment of a "final adjustment"
between the two kingdoms. The crisis had arrived for
a decisive and irrevocable policy accurately defined by
Acts of both Parliaments ; for the experience of history,
the principles of international law, the example of
treaties and conventions, the axioms of diplomacy, all
pointed to one uniform course of action — a treaty of
non-intervention in legislative afiairs respectively ; for
the power of a State to exercise internal and external
legislation, the appellate jurisdiction, being the highest
function of sovereign authority of an independent con-
dition, cannot be interfered with. So long as two
kingdoms co-existing under the same Crown, the one
that assumes the power for legislating in any way for
the other, usurps a right not conceded to her, and
creates internal dissension in the other, by reason of the
inferior position thus imposed. Against the domination
of the stronger, all States annexed either by conquest
or treaty have almost uniformly resisted with success.
In reference to the policy of Mr. Flood for Ireland,
Mr. Fox in the English House of Commons observed,
on the repeal of the sixth of George I., " that the
repeal of that statute could not stand alone, but
must be accompanied by a final adjustment, and by
a solid basis of permanent connection." He said,
that some plans of that nature would be laid before
the Irish Parliament by the Irish ministers, and a
TREATY entered upon ; which treaty, when proceeded
on, might be adopted by both parliaments, and finally
become an irrevocable arrangement between the
two countries."

142

By that short but most important speech, the Irish
delusion of a final adjustment, as proposed by Mr.
Hutchinson and Mr. Grattan on the 15th of April, was
in a moment dissipated. The necessity of such a course
as that pointed out by Mr. Fox was now strikingly
manifested by the judicial decision of Lord Mansfield,
one of the ablest and most eloquent judges that adorned
the reign of George III. ; who, notwithstanding the
repeal of the 6th George I. by the British Parliament,
entertained, in the Court of King's Bench at West-
minster, an Appeal from the Court of King's Bench of
Ireland ; observing, that " he knew no law depriving
" the British Court of its vested jurisdiction."

In one word, the repeal of 6th George I. appeared to
most men constitutionally inconclusive ; the supremacy
of England was reasserted by its own Chief Justice,
and Ireland appeared still subject to a struggle for an
important branch of her independence.^

The efifect of this proceeding was sufficiently alarming ;
but another exciting circumstance immediately took
place, of a still higher order. The English Parliament
passed an Act regulating the importation of sugars
from St. Domingo to all His Majesty's dominions in
Europe. Ireland was a part of His Majesty's dominions
in Europe, and this statute was construed as of course
embracing Ireland, and thereby constituting an act of
external legislation over Irish concerns by the King of
England and Parliament of Great Britain, without the
concurrence of the Irish legislature.

The conduct of Lord Abingdon, in the British Lords,
rendered all further confidence in the state of the
arrangement between the two countries, as it then
stood, totally inadmissible ; it was too explicit to be
mistaken. Lord Abingdon, equally adverse to the rights
of Ireland, followed, in the House of Peers, the example
of Sir George Young in the House of Commons ; and
totally denying the authority of the King and the
-Parliament of England to emancipate Ireland, he
^oved for leave to bring in a De^^axaVyrj^^X/c^T^-

143

assert the right of England to legislate externally in
the CONCERNS of Ireland. This remarkable Bill stated
" that the Kings of England being masters of the
" British seas for eighteen centuries, and the Western
" Sea, which surrounded Ireland, belonging to the
" Bangs of England, the British Parliament had the
'* sole right to make laws to regulate the commerce of
" Ireland," &c.

It was impossible now for the Irish nation longer to
remain silent. The aggregate of all these circumstances
went clearly to a simultaneous attack upon the new
independence of Ireland, and a decisive proof of what
might occur when Great Britain acquired sufficient
vigour to reassert with any prospect of enforcing her
supremacy.

Lord Abingdon's attempt was candid and direct, and
above all others alarmed the Irish people. The
Volunteers beat to arms throughout the whole kingdom.
All confidence in the sincerity of the ministry — its
cabinet-*— its officers — its parliaments, was dissipated;
and there were not wanting persons who believed,
and disseminated their opinion, that the rights of
Ireland were actually betrayed. The danger and
confusion of the times hourly increased. Mr. Flood
preserved his firmness and his dignity, and gained
much ground amongst the people. The repeal of
the 6tn George I. could no longer be urged
as a guarantee; the sincerity of England could no
longer be relied upon ; the people began to act for
themselves, and the Irish Government was driven back
to its old practices, and endeavoured by every means
within its power to diminish the number and over-
whelming weight of their Parliamentary opponents.
Government at length became sensible to the danger
of their situation. They felt the impossibility of further
evasion ; and early in the ensuing session the British
Ministry and the Britbh Parliament, without any
stimulating debate, and without waiting for further
and peremptory remonstraiicei& feoT£i\t^^^T^^^a5M^*^'^

144

most important statute that had ever been enacted as
to the affairs of Ireland, — a statute unequivocally and
explicitly renouncing all future right to legislate for
Ireland. They thereby appeared to have abrogated for
ever that principle of usurpation, which they had for
so many ages pertinaciously and unjustly exercised.

This Act of Renunciation, however, appeared super-
ficially to have a conclusive operation. It was con-
ceived by many that nothing further was necessary to
be done but such as the Irish Parliament was now in
itself competent to enact. But though the measure
tended to give a strong confidence in the good intentions
of the British Parliament, it came too late to satisfy
the Irish people as to the purity of their own. On the
contrary, it convinced them of either its inefficiency or
its corruption, or the Renunciation Act of the British
Parliament would have been totally unnecessary. Mr.
Flood's argument now appeared not only triumphant
in Ireland, but fully acknowledged, and legislatively
acted upon, even by Great Britain herself The un-
fortunate opposition in the Irish Commons, and the
still more unfortunate majorities of that House, which
had scouted doctrines and measures thus subsequently
admitted to be just and necessary by the voluntary acts
of England herself, made a deep impression on the
Volunteers of Ireland.

It was true they had acquired their liberties, they
had gained their independence; but they still had to
secure it. The Renunciation Act of England had dis-
credited the Irish Parliament with the Irish people.
But it had its apology. It had been so long enfeebled
and corrupted, so long within the iron trammels of
usurpation, that the chain had become habitual, and
therefore it was more to be dreaded that its broken
links might be rivetted anew, and Ireland, in the course
of time, sink again under the same power which had
originally enslaved it.

145

British Act of Benundatiorij passed by the English Parlia-
menu January^ 1783, Geo. III. Regis.

" An Act for removing and preventing all doubts
which have arisen, or might arise, concerning the
exclusive Rights of the Parliament and Courts of
Ireland, in matters of legislation and judicature ; and
for preventing any writ of error or appeal from any of
His Majesty's Courts in that Kingdom from being
received, heard, and adjudged in any of His Majesty's
Courts in the Kingdom of Great Britain : Whereas, by
an Act of the last Session of this present Parliament,
intituled an Act to repeal an Act made in the sixth
year of the reign of his late Majesty King George the
First (intituled an Act for the better securing the
Dependency of the Kingdom of Ireland upon the
Crown of Great Britain) it was enacted, that the said
last mentioned Act, and all matters and things therein
contained, should be repealed: And whereas doubts
have arisen whether the provisions of the said Act are
sufficient to secure to the people of Ireland the Rights
claimed by them to be bound only by laws enacted by
His Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom in
all cases whatever, and to have all actions and suits at
law, or in equity, which may be instituted in that
Kingdom, decided in His Majesty's Courts therein
fincdly, and without appeal from thence : Therefore, for
removing aU doubts respecting the same, may it please
your Majesty that it may be declared and enacted, and
may it be declared and enacted by the King's Most
Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent
of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in
this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, that the said Right claimed by the people
OF Ireland, to be bound only by laws enacted by His
Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, in all
cases whatever, and to have all actions or suits at law,
or in equity, which may be instituted in tliat Km^^xs^^
decided in His Majesty's CouTta \yv^T^\w %!wS^ ^ «jSs.

without appeal from thence, shall be, and it is hereby
declared to be, estabushed and ascertained for eveb,
and SHALL at no time hereafter be questioned or
questionable.

" 2nd. And be it further enacted by the authority
aforesaid, that no writ of error or appeal shall be
received or adjudged, or any other proceeding be had
by or in any of His Majesty's Courts in this Kingdom,
in any action or suit at law or in equity, instituted in
any of His Majesty's Courts in the kingdom of Ireland;
and that all such writs, appeals, or proceedings shall
be, and they are hereby declared, nuU and void to all
intents and purposes ; and that all records, transcripts
of records, or proceedings which have been transmitted
from Ireland to Great Britain, by virtue of any writ of
error or appeal, and upon which no judgment nas been
given or decree pronounced before the first day of
June, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two,
shall, upon application made by or in behalf of the
party in whose favour judgment was given, or decree
pronounced in Ireland, be delivered to such party, or
any person by him authorised to apply for and receive
the same."

These being the plain and undisputed facts of the
case, it was thence argued that the mere repeal of the
declaratory statute, so far from definitively renouncing
the existing right of legislation over Ireland, virtually
confirmed it; and, by repealing, only enacted the
expediency of discontinuing its exercise under existing
circumstances.

The statute which had declared that there existed
such a pre-existing right in England to bind Ireland
was indeed repealed by England, but still the principle
of supremacy was left untouched and unimpaired;
though the declaration was repealed the right was not
renounced, but remained only dormant till it might be
advisable, under a change of circumstances, to re-
declare it by a new statute.

147

The simple repeal of any statute certainly leaves tte
original jurisdiction untouched, exactly in the same
situation as before the repeal of it, and with an un-
diminished right to re-enact it as might be convenient ;
and the 6th of George I., its enactment and repeal,
stood exactly in the same situation as any enactment
and repeal of any ordinary statute of the same monarch.
It was therefore argued that it had become indis-
pensably necessary for the security of Ireland that the
British Parliament should, by statutes of their own,
not only repeal the Act declaratory of Irish dependence,
but also expressly and for ever renounce the existence
of any such legislative authority over Ireland, or
future^ renewal of such usurpation, without which
renunciation Ireland had no guarantee for her con-
stitution.

Deduction.

The arguments and statesmanlike opinions of Mr.
Flood finally prevailed ; the British Parliament con-
firmed and legislated on them. Mr. Charles Townshend,
who had long been the friend of Mr. Flood, introduced
the Bill in the Commons on the opening of the Session
of 1783. The Act of Renunciation secured to Ireland
every advantage that could be secured by English
legislation. It was for Ireland next to reform herself.
Neither the "final adjustment" of Mr. Grattan nor the
Act of Renunciation of Mr. Flood could be of permanent
value so long as one-third of the Irish House was com-
posed of nomination boroughs. However, the confusion
of ideas and the false interpretations of many were
dispelled.

The Duke of Portland, Mr. Fitzpatrick, Sir George
Young, Lord Mansfield, Lord Abingdon, and Mr. Fox
had differed widely in their views ; and consequently a
transcendent step had been achieved by the perseverance
and energy of Mr. Flood. We shall now follow him
in the next great measures for Ireland, " Reform," and
" Commercial Propositions;"

148

Parliamentary Reform Bill of 1783 — Purity of Election
Bill — Parliamentary Reform Bill of 1785.

Cardinal Alberoni, the eminent Minister of Philip IF.,
expressed in one of his valuable letters in reference to
the Spanish nation and government of his time —
" That the people were moulded on whatever form the
" King and Minister designed them to represent ; **
which is, in fact, that the grandeur or littleness of a
people depend on the government and institutions of a
nation : a maxim which the consummate genius of the
Cardinal Minister was the practical evidence ; for what
was Spain after Alberoni ?

Ireland, indeed, had had many British governments
ruling over her, but none neither cared for her institu-
tions, nor tended with a protecting hand her generous
virtues and her quick and fervent capacities. Rich in
the abundance of natural gifts, her rivers, her seas, and
her soil teeming with wealth, which only required a
patriotic Irish Legislature to develope; to rnaJce the
Absentee return to his duties ; to make the proprietor
and the landlord feel the national importance of re-
sidence, and of expending their wealth, derived from the
soil, among their tenants and in their country. Such a
plan would have been to make Ireland rich, happy, and
respected. This plan would have been to practise the
maxim of the eminent Alberoni.

Parliamentary Reform in Ireland was essential to a
political existence ; it was a strong link with the Re-
nunciation just obtained, without which the institution
of parliaments would be nugatory. Such a reform,
therefore, as might insure the uninfluenced election and
individual independence of the Irish representatives
appeared to be indispensable, not as a theoretical inno-
vation of a revolutionary character, but as a recurrence
to the first and finest principles of the British constitu-
tion as established in^ Ireland, without any deviation
from the wise maxiins of the original. This was the
presiding idea of the reform, at AeuA-j ^o\3l^\» fct b^ the

149

Irish nation in 1783, and which was the declared object
of Mr. Flood.

Mr. Pitt likewise proposed a plan of reform at this
time for England, but his plan was always subsidiary
to his paramount desire to rule and control everywhere,
whether by corrupt means or by arbitrary power it
mattered not. His idea, therefore, passed away like a
shadow. Ireland received no benefits from Mr. Pitt.
In England he created financial embarrassments without
parallel. He was the Minister that applied the largest
scheme of corrupting influence, especially in Ireland,
though he had in earlier life reprobated such a practice
in the conduct of others. He was not the author of
the "Sinking Fund," which had excellent objects in
view ( Vide " Knight's Hist, of England," Financial Part,
voL iv., quarto). Though Mr. Pitt simulated the
character of a reformer, Mr. Flood declared and man-
fully braved all the disparagements of such a duty.
Two provinces of Ireland now addressed Mr. Flood.
He was the principal figure amidst the Volunteers;
120,000 men, composed of the yeomen of Ireland, and
the officers the landed gentry, were for Reform in Par-
liament. They saw the necessity, and wished to
achieve the object. It was not a measure of enthusiasm,
but of grave necessity. It could not be denied that
any one individual, arrogating to himself and actually
exercising a power to nominate, and by his own sole
will elect and return representatives to the House of
Commons, sent them there to express the opinion of
the individual, and not the sentiments of the people.
The House of Lords of Ireland nominated and re-
turned many members to the House of Commons ; the
peers therefore sat by proxy in the Commons, which
condition destroyed the first principle of the representa-
tive constitution, wherein each body had distinct duties
and interests. To remedy this evil, Mr. Flood proposed
a plan of Reform, approved of by the Whig Club. The
details were mild and moderate, just calculated to re-
move the anomalous Btate o£ t\i^ T^Y^^R^iXLXa&^^X^^^jfe^^

150

To ascertain the relative matters of fact as applicable
to Mr. Flood's plan, the Whig Club caused to be printed
and published lists of the House of Commons, indicative
of the mode of election of every member, the peer or
proprietor whose interest he represented, and the
number of members so returned to the Irish Parlia-
ment. It was ascertained that from twenty to thirty
peers of Ireland returned members to the Commons;
that all the Absentee lords returned at least two
members; that the resident peers, Earls of Tyrone,
Ely, Shannon, Hillsborough, returned four^ nine^ six^
seven ; and minor lords one or iwo.

But the government of Lord Northington, now
Viceroy, had entrenched itself behind men of dis-
tinguished talents, who were determined opponents of
Mr. Flood and his reforms of every sort. Scott, Fitz-

fibbon, Yelverton, occupied the first line. Toler,
.angrishe, Daly, Connolly, and George Ponsonby,
members of Parliament who had become placemen,
occupied the second line.

Hutchinson arid Pery, men of superior abilities in
State affairs, were uniformly supporters of the English
policy since the time of the Duke of Bedford. But an
energetic and national party did exist ; ever first the
name of Molyneux. Montgomery of Cavan, Martin of
Connemara, Brownlow of Lurgan, Hatton of Clonard,
Warden Flood of Polestown Castle, and other members
of this family, had supported Grattan in 1782, and the
motion of Free Trade in the previous session; they
now supported Flood on Reform ; hence there was a
working minority in 1783.

GRAND NATIONAL CONVENTION

For Parliamentary Reform^ assembled at the Rotunda in

Dvblin^ November J 1783.

Mr. Grattan, the brilliant and eloquent patriot of

1779, 1780, and 1782, was a languid reformer; he re-

j^ed to accept Mr. Flood's pWx oi t^iotm. ^^ ^i.

151

r " he was for reform, but not that reform ; " these are
his words ; he would not co-operate, yet he would not
origmate a Bill. He had just resigned the nomination
borough of Charlemont, and Mr. Hardy for the first
time sat for that borough in his stead. Mr. Grattan,
who accepted the Dungannon Convention for his basis
on the ^^ final adjustment^^^ could scarcely refuse to ac-
knowledge the same basis and the same authority on
the present occasion.

Delegates were now named by that very body (the
Dungannon Standing Committee) for the province of
XJlster : the other three provinces named their delegates.
The question naturally arose, how far officers of an
aimed force, though Members of Parliament, could
legally sit in convention on measures to be proposed to
Parliament, then in session? This momentous ques-
tion was laid before the Lawyers' Corps of Volunteers,
men well experienced in constitutional law. It was
resolved, clearly and emphatically, — That delegates
from the Volunteers, being Members of Parliament,
could sit and determine on such measures as might be
conducive to the welfare of Ireland to be introduced
into Parliament. No delegate (and several were
lawyers) seemed to doubt the legality of their pro-
ceedings, for in 1779, on "free trade" being voted, the
Volunteers marched in procession. In 1782 they did
likewise, being a civil and voluntary force, embodied
by untoward circumstances. Lord Charlemont had
not received a hint of the impropriety, much less the
illegality, of a convention in co-session with the Par-
liament. Lord Charlemont was, however, an irresolute
politician and an incapable general: he had neither
foresight nor energy, nor that political perception
which decides clearly and firmly on great emergencies.
Mr. Flood was now the most eminent leader and able
statesman of Ireland, wanting neither in the courage to

Sropose reform nor intrepedity to maintain his position.
[r. Brownlow, who was at the head of the independent
party of the country gentlemen, %u^^Qt\fc^^x,^\Ri^5s..

152

" A few of tie members of the House of Commons
" had declined their election to the Convention, but
" some of the ablest and most respectable members
" performed their duties alternatehr in both assemblies.
" The Lord-Lieutenant and his rrivy Council at the
" same time held their sittings at the Castle, exactly
" midway between the two parliaments ; they received
" alternate reports from each, and, undecided whether
" the strong or the passive system were least, or rather
" most, fraught with danger, they at length wisely
" adopted their accustomed course, and determined to
" take advantage of the chances of division, and of the
" moderation and ductility of Lord Charlemont.

«It was artfuUy insinuated to his lordship, by
" the friends of government, that the peace of the
" country was considered to be in his hands — that he
" had accepted a situation of the most responsible
" nature — and that if he did not possess sufficient in-
" fluence to curb the Convention, he ought at once to
" resign the trust, and thereby give the parliament a
" ground for declaring the immediate dissolution of its
" unconstitutional rival." ("Barrington's Memoirs.")

The proceedings of the Convention were carried on
with the utmost regularity. The rules and orders, and
customs of Parliament were adopted, and the meetings
were held and continued without any material in-
terruption. But when such an assembly had been
delegated for the purpose of requiring the Parliament
to purify itself, and remodel its constitution, it could
not be expected , that every member would possess
similar views or similar feelings, or perhaps, observe the
most uninterrupted order and discipline m discussions.

The Earl of Bristol, Bishop of Derry, one of the
most eminent politicians of the day, joined in council
with Mr. Flood, at this time member for Enniskillen ;
by this means he took to his council the man of all
others best adapted to give weight and dignity to the
measure of parliamentary reform. Lord Charlemont

153

supported reform most sincerely. Mr. Grattan's favourite
scheme, as he said^ to begin with, was an " internal '*
reform. He partially accomplished that object by the
Place Bill, whilst by one of its clauses, he most cer-
tainly lost both the parliament and the constitution.

The Bishop and Mr. Flood soon gained a full as-
cendancy in the Convention, and many men of the very
first rank, fortune, and influence took part in its de-
liberations. Numerous plans were proposed; and
reform, of all others the most diflicult of political
measures, was sought to be promptly decided. After
much deliberation, a plan of reform, framed by Mr.
Flood and approved by the Convention, was directed
by them to be presented to parliament forthwith, and
the sittings of the Convention were made permanent
till parliament had decided the question. Mr. Flood
obeyed his instructions, and moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to reform the parUament.

The measure of reform was, abstractedly, patriotic
and noble. Its object absorbed every consideration
but its attainment ; yet so many persons of character,
fortune, and influence were in both assemblies, that a
discreet and prudent deliberation might possibly have
devised means of averting so dangerous a crisis.

The Government resolved to risk a direct assault
upon the Volunteers by refusing leave to bring in
Mr. Flood's Bill, because it had originated from their
deliberations. Strong lan^age was used, but with
some precaution, even by Mr. i elverton, who had been
a zealous Volunteer, but was now the Attomev-GeneraL
His eloquence was splendid; but the bold, restless,
arrogant spirit of Fitzgibbon, ever prone to ofiend, to
irritate, and to pervert, in a speech replete with the
most unnecessary invective, unwarrantable fury and
abuse, assailed the Convention, the Volunteers, and the
Bill, with every epithet and allusion that could bring
the Government and the Volunteers into a state of
direct hostility. Had his efibrta beea ^xQr^rss&^ ^^eiSo^

154

success, British connection would probably not have
been of three months' duration.

The House felt the danger of his conduct, and he
was not supported in his philipics. Mr. Curran called
Mr. Fitzgibbon an incendiary; Mr. D. Daly termed
Mr. Flood a demagogue. The debate became quite
unprecedented in pomt of violence and party re-
crimination, but the good sense of some members
endeavoured to moderate the partisans. The Bill was
rejected by 158 to 49; 138 of the majority were
placemen, and the very persons on whom the reform
was intended to operate. It is very remarkable, that
it was 138 placemen that rejected the Reform Bill in
1783, and that it was the same number of placemen
who carried the Union Bill in 1800, whkh^ if the
Beform had succeeded^ never could liave been passed.

Upon this very decision ultimately depended the
existence of Irish independence. The Volunteers were
insulted, — their Bill was rejected without a hearing, —
their intentions were calumniated, even their name was
reprobated, their services were forgotten ; and that very
corruption which they sought to reform, thus had its
full revenge. (Barrington's " Memoirs of the Union,"
Vol. ii. p. 202, quarto. )

Hence the great subject of Reform in Parliament was
frustrated, opposed, and rejected, at a moment when it
was most urgent ; when neither " free trade," nor the
"final adjustment" of Grattan, nor the "Act of Re-
nunciation" of Flood, could have a complete success
without Reform in Parliament. So long as the House
of Commons was composed, to the extent of one-half,
of the proxies of certain Peers, and official nominations
of Government, no measure purely of an Irish cha-
racter could be certain of success.

On this momentous question 99 members absented

themselves I — a plain proof of the necessity of Reform.

One hundred and fifty-eight members voted against the

Bill, most of whom were either proxies or official men ;

the 49 who voted with Mr. YlooQi, \)£i^ TCksyq^x^ %3Dl4w

155

Mr. Brownlow, the seconder, may be said to have been
the independent members out of a constituted legislative
body of 300 members !

The plea of rejection of Reform because it emanated
from a military body, that body being Volunteers, who
originated all the measures from 1779 to 1783, and
triumphed, seemed, and does seem, frivolous, improvi-
dent, and impolitic, on a measure of the first necessity,
' — a Bill, the details of which were similar to those of
Mr, Pitt for England, — a measure of political salubrity.
The loss of Mr. Flood's Reform Bill was the loss of the
Constitution of Ireland.

Eleven Commercial Propositions of Mr. Pitt, 1784—
Twenty-one Commercial Propositions proposed
BY Mr. Orde, 1785.

Byrne's Irish Parliamentary Debates^ from WoodfaWs
Notes — BarringtorCs Memoirs of the Union.

When the supreme measure of reform was negatived
by a conspiring party, parasites of power and personal
influence, Mr. Pitt easily perceived how readily he could
practice the old Roman maxim — " divide and subdue "
—and his own^ plans and external politics demanded
such an imperial sway. The enormous taxation im-
posed on England, was required no less by the
exigencies of the public service, than by the new
diplomacy carried into efifect by Mr. Pitt.

Commerce is always the fruitful source of supply,
but the commerce of England had already done much ;
and to increase this branch of national wealth was, and
is, the great and paramount duty of every minister.
The financial system of England was not flourishing,
and to stimulate the merchants and increase their
affluence were the surest means of adding com-
mensurately to the income of the nation. While the
financial condition of England >N\5a ^\i^\5cML%\^^ ^^siaar

156

factory, the commercial development did not promise
the emporium of the world. Ireland, on the contrary,
had no embarrassments ; a rising trade, no national debt
or burden — no excessive taxation — no social grievance
that a reformed local legislature could not remove ; in
fact, prosperity had taken root, and Ireland required
onlv time, self-control, and the purification of her
legislature, to make her independent and happv- Ireland
h^ at this era her nobUity and gentry^ident, ex-
pending their incomes derived from the soil amidst
their tenantry, and in the capital of their native land.
Mr. Pitt saw this rapid change ; but he was not the
statesman that could view this prosperity with com-
placency. Commerce has ever been co-eval with the
grandeur of a state. He was a man of too large am-
bition, too tainted with the " avarice of power," not to
grasp at an opportunity to make all nations and all
interests subordinate to his own.

The commerce of the world is a great conquest, and
a monopoly of incalculable results. The cupidity of
the Saxon merchants, then- natural predUection for the
accumulation of wealth, would readily adhere to and
support such a policy. The commerce of Tyre and
Sidon filled a page of Eastern history ; their merchant
princes lived in ivory palaces; their dyes, and their
embroidered vestures, marked an era of luxury in the
East. The Syro-Phcenician colonies spread along the
southern shore of the Mediterranean, and established
a new commerce and a new city, which was destined
to be the rival of Rome in importance, and carry into
her bosom Phoenician and Greek art, and where the
Queen of Sheba was to be surpassed in Orient splendour
by a queen whose beauty was the type of excellence,
and whose genius marked a new era in the history of
the world. Such was Carthage, a name synonjrmous
with that commerce which shaped its course westward
through the pillars of Hercules to the ocean. Com-
merce carries in her lap the most precious gifts to
nations, — wealth, peace, and \iai^iglvii«e& % \svA tSvare are

157

two attendant evils, cupidity and avarice. The one
desires the treasure of others, the second loves to
hoard, to hive up, for an unknown future.

Statesmen who direct the affairs of a nation from a
desire to be famous, look with eagerness to such mighty
resources as commerce produces, bringing the riches of
all time, as it were, to one centre. It is not difficult to
conceive with what fixed purpose Mr. Pitt followed out
his' scheme.

The Pitts, father and son, were men of grasping and
ambitious temperaments, men whose minds were con-
stantly occupied with meditating how that "avarice of
power " should be satisfied. Both saw in antiquity the
greatest and grandest efforts of small states becoming
renowned. There also they found men whose minds
attained the highest standard of human capacity. It
was said of Lord Chatham, that Athens and her great-
ness seemed to him the proper contemplation of the
English statesman ; his pastime was with Thucydides
and Plutarch; but in this, it was the wonderful
maritime power of Athens, and her admirable states-
manship and diplomacy, that arrested the mind of
Chatham.

Of his son, it was the correlative ambition, the
maritime commerce of the world, that struck him, and
was his daily meditation. With commerce he had
finance ; with finance he could subsidise the world, and
enchain it, too. Such was the younger Pitt. Both
were haughty, arrogant, cold, and reserved; both
understood perfectly how to govern England, to be
profuse in expenditure, and to dictate terms in all
external relations, whether it were with Spain or France
it mattered not ; all other powers could be subsidised.
Chatham knew nothing of Ireland, and wished to know
nothing of a country beneath his ambition. When
addressed by Mr. Flood on several occasions respecting
measures for Ireland, he invariably replied — ne was
wholly ignorant of the countnr. He knew full well, to
dictate was to be obeyed. Ttoa Wi^Vj isiesN^vet ^'w^

158

the son of the Rev. Mr. Pitt, vicar of an insignificant
parish. His son indeed saw clearly, without finance
ne could not be profuse : to unite the fiscal and com-
mercial sources oi revenue of Ireland with England was
his aim. Both these eminent statesmen could not
regulate the common expenditure of their household ;
the public had to pay their debts, as well as give them
a public funeral. Such is the inconsistency of the
human character ; what the Englishman denounces and
derides in the Irish gentleman, he excuses in the English
statesman. To serve such a country is both renown
and wealth.

Ireland had but recently obtained external legislation
which enabled her to extend her trade ; she had ob-
tained an Act of Renunciation of the British Legislature,
by which Ireland was henceforth freed from all in-
terference direct or indirect. A country like Ireland,
whose physical geography was so favorable to external
and internal trade, that only a century ago had her
trade, though limited, free. She was now coming forth
with new-born energy. To arrest her onward course, or
at least to centralise it by a treaty of navigation, was a
dexterous policy to onewno saw no kingdom but England
in the horoscope of his fortune. Mr. Pitt consequently
sent Mr. Orde to Ireland, first, with eleven propositions
whereon to base his circumventive policy. The colossal
project of Mr. Pitt was examined and contemplated
by him with all that calm and perseverance pecuUar to
his uninteresting nature. It was the subjugation to
commercial and fiscal control, all portions of the empire
and even its dependencies. He had seen but ten years
before the design of his own relatives, the Melvilles, and
even of his father, to subject the American colonies to
both the above forms of revenue ; they failed to impose
the fiscal regulations rather by their mismanagement and
'ant of adroitness, than either the disposition or the
the Americans of 1774 to resist. Franklin,
h the dignity and discernment of a politician,
the invasion oi tVe iiT^\, ^imd^V^^ oC

159

government, but dictums and theories are often neglected
when a Minister is arrogant and the State powerful.
The Colonists profited rather by the blunders of
statesmen and the incapacity of generals, than by their
Strength. Mr. Pitt had meditated on this catastrophe
to Great Britain — ^loss to her revenue — ^loss to her
military reputation. He had seen that Ireland, flushed
by colonial success, had demanded and obtained, in
1779, commercial concessions, moved by Lord North
himself and recommended by the King. He had seen
that these concessions, though few in number, had given
a great expansion to trade in Ireland, and that Ireland
was capable of great things if left to exercise her own
energies; and that in the short space from 1779 to
1785 she had rapidly advanced; that the parliament, or
rather the nation, was not likely to recede from its high
position under the guidance of Mr. Flood, whose views
were completely in favour of Ireland. Mr. Flood, too,
was the personal friend of several who were of the
Committee that had drawn up the concessions of 1779 ;
and Lord Beauchamp, Lord Temple, and Mr. Charles
Townshend supported Mr. Flood's Irish policy. Hence
Mr. Pitt sent to Ireland as Secretary, Mr. Orde, whose
professional knowledge of commerce, his quiet diplo-
matic ease, and his conciliatory manner, were best
adapted to a very formidable scheme of commercial
unity. Mr. Orde, therefore, was chosen from many for
his superior skill in forms of negociation ; and we have
now the advantage of his own memoirs to understand
clearly the question. Mr. Orde presented first eleven
propositions, drawn with a frank acknowledgment of
the independence of Ireland as a sovereign state, and
there was nothing to object to the style, or even the
tradal advantage of the scheme, he therefore intro-
duced his Bill with flattering terms and diplomatic
amenity. Mr. Flood opposed these propositions on the
broad basis of " Free Trade ; " no such reciprocity treaty
was essential to benefit either kingdom — ^that e^&K V^sb^

160

the power to legislate for their internal interests as
might be.

Second, — ^That the commercial, fiscal, and financial
state of both kingdoms were widely different. That
Ireland only so far back as 1690 had been deprived of
all her trade, internal and external ; therefore the re-
newal of her conmierce dated only from 1779, and she
was in no capacity to enter on a reciprocal treaty of
commerce. That a weaker state can never engage m a
treaty with a stronger, without endangering her in-
dependence.

Third, — That fiscal regulations being a branch of
revenue, and that revenue being part of the sovereign
power of state, no part of it can be subject to the in-
terference of another state.

Lastly, — ^That a reciprocity treaty of this sort might
endanger the harmony, but never contribute much to
the advantage of either kingdom under the same
Crown, since commerce always found its equilibrium in
demand and supply.

Mr. Flood was supported by Mr. Brownlow, and
most of the country gentlemen of independence. Mr.
Grattan never was a good debater, and seldom argued
the details of measures ; he, therefore, took part in a
limited way in these propositions. Though it would
not be possible to controvert arguments so clear and
positive as those offered by Mr. Flood, then at the head
of the opposition in the Irish Parliament, nevertheless
Mr. Pitt persisted in leaving on the table of the House
of Commons of England a Bill containing twenty-one
propositions, which elaborated with practical skill all
the changes, values, and transits that trade is subject
to. Mr. Orde was instructed to introduce a similar
Bill into the Irish legislature. The English Bill passed
without hindrance, but the Irish one suffered defeat,
and ultimately a complete overthrow. The last night
the debate continued the entire night, and till nine
o'clock the following morning, when a division was

161

taken for Mr. Orde's motion — ^for leave to bring in a
Bill, 167 ; for Mr. Flood, 106.

Mr. Flood then moved a " Declaration of Rights,*'
when a division less favourable to Mr. Orde was
announced, and the Treaty of Commerce was signally-
defeated, as unnecessary and impolitic for Ireland.

The details of this attempt to recall the concessions
of England are on record ; its importance, as a simple
measure, has ceased, but its bearing strondly on the
question of a Union (being, in fact, its eldest sister)
rendered some account of it essential

Mr Pitt, for a short time, affected to relinquish the
idea of opposing the commercial interests of Ireland.
It was determined to let the Irish take their own
course, and patiently to await till circumstances might
enable them to act more decisively against their
independence.

Mr. Pitt was obliged to rest upon his oars ; his own
bark was tempest-tossed, whilst that of Ireland was
running rapidly before a prosperous wind. This was
the state of Ireland after the Proposition tempest had
subsided.

The King had all along been strongly impressed by
the loss of the American colonies ; he loved prerogative
and hated concession; under cover of his amiable
domestic virtues he exercised a greater share of pre-
rogative of personal interference than William III.
after victory. His mind became afflicted, and Mr. Pitt
well knew that the loss of America had sunk deeply
into the royal mind, and that from the moment the
Renunciation Bill had been passed, his Majesty wished
for any favourable opportunity of repealing it. The
Union was the remedy, and discord was the element
of Union.

162

LUVACT OF GsOBffiB IILy 178&

Question of Begency — Opposite opinion of Pitt and

Address of Gratian to the Begent fatal to Irish legis-
lative independence — Consequent ooOmon of Ae Par-
liaments of England and Irdandj 1789.

The prerogative of the Grown had always been a
disturbing: power to the fi*ee action of the estates of the
realms for Centuries. King George HL had an extra.
ordinary appetency for this sort of irresponsible power
without a particle of genius, or even large capadty for

Eublic affairs. He saw two visions — Oligarchy and
democracy, both horrible spectres to him ; to confine
thcin was above hb strength, and his mind failed in the
attempt. George III. had indeed to contend with
merely the phantom of an oligarchy ; but such as it
was, it forms the only apology oflfered for a very strained
use of royal influence everywhere, without any bene-
flcial result. Mr. Pitt was tne instrument of this royal
authority, and it will take more than the graceful com-
pihition of Earl Stanhope to excuse the Minister who
maintained his position by a national extravagance
without parallel m the history of the world.

On the mental alienation of the King, a regency was
inevitable ; but to confer equal powers and equal pre-
rogatives on a Prince whose cnaracter was tainted
throughout, and who might possibly make but an in-
different use of the same royal authority, if intrusted
to him, Mr. Pitt therefore moved the House for a
committee to examine precedents; a duty which at
least postponed the delegation of most important
functions to an untried authority. Mr. Fox, on the
contrary, was for conferring at once the prerogatives
and attributes of royalty to the Prince, — ^his pupil in
politics, and his companion in the pursuits of pleasure.
In the meantime the Irish Legislatures had by large
majoritiea decided on their mode of acting. Mr. Grattan
took the lead in the momeuto\>E ci^^^sv^^^jii ^1 the

163

Regency, with an ardent and spontaneous feeling much
to be admired in the exercise of virtuous acts, but
altogether the most fatal attribute in the affairs -of
state. Without precedent and without deliberation, he
moved an address to the Regent, conferring on him
without reserve all the royal prerogative and attributes
of the monarch. The words of the Address are very
remarkable: — "Under the style and title of Prince
" Regent of Ireland, in the name and on behalf of His
" Majesty, to exercise and administer according to the
" laws and constitution of this kingdom, all regal
" powers, jurisdiction, and 'prerogatives to the Crown
" and Government thereof belonging."

In the Commons the Address was moved by Mr.
Grattan, and was carried without a division. It was
moved in the Lords by the Earl of Charlemont, and
was carried by a majority of only 19. Contents, 45 —
non-contents, 26. Most of the minority recorded their
protests.

For presenting the Address to the Regent, a deputa-
tion was named, composed of the Duke of Leinster and
Lord Charlemont; the Commons, Messrs. Connolly,
J. O'Neil, W. B. Ponsonby, and J. Stewart. In the
Commons, the number upon Mr. Grattan's Motion for
thus transmitting the Address, were, for the Motion,
130 ; against it, 74.

This movement, however generous and loyal, pre-
cipitated the great question, the ^^ casus omissus of
1782 — the possible collision of two independent legis-
latures on the prerogatives of the Crown — on the
investiture of the royal authority in cases of regency —
on the question of peace or war. Mr. Grattan had not
foreseen such a contingency ; but since he assumed the
lead, he ought to have been equal to the task. Franklin
did not so negociate for the American colonies ; nor
Pym, Selden, and Vane for the Commonwealth of
England.

Mr. Grattan carried his address to the feet o€ <fcA.
Be^enf, but in doing so, \ie Y^^d^\\»Xfc^^^S>sv^^5r\«^

164

throw of the Irish Parliaments. Diplomacy as well as
good policy, clearly pointed out the duty of awaiting
the decision of the Committee appointed by Mr. Pitt
to investigate the Records of the House of Commons
of England for precedents. It was neither wise, nor
politic, nor statesmanlike in Mr. Grattan, to precede
the Parliaments of England in a question so momentous
as the Regency, when the concurring opinions of both
kingdoms were most essentially required.

It has already been remarked by Barrington, " that
" he did not always foresee the probable results of his
" projects."

During the Regency movement in Ireland, Mr. Flood
was in England, being then member for one of the
Cinque Ports, which he called into political existence,
it being one of the borough ports previously deprived
of representation.

Mr. Peter Burrowes, then a young lawyer, was em-
ployed on this duty at Mr. Flood's expense, and he
succeeded in establishing the right of the borough to a
member. Mr. Flood was at the same time also member
for the Irish borough of Enniskillen, and therefore
member in both Parliaments.

It is fortunate in the present^ day of strong con-
servatism, the result of combined influences and
apprehensions wholly personal, to find two writers of
distinguished talent, both Irishmen, enter the historical
field on the enlightened liberal side, and counterbalance
the inactive and narrow views of the other side. Mr.
May, the continuator of Hallam, and Mr. Massey, the
follower of Lingard, have produced works both re-
creative to the mind, and expanding with the times.
Before Mr. Knight had published his great and useful
compilation of the histories of England, revised and
corrected, placed in analytical compartments — Finance
—Military— Civil and Commercial— before we had only
innrtjr statements, which required a large information to

•^ Lord Macaulay liaa sme^ \>xokeiL the ice, and
'^n us a new vemon o£ o\&l \}cieai<^ ^ojOisS^

165

brilliant and instructive. The royal prerogative, as
exercised by George III., has been ably exposed by
Mr. May. It was then the personal influence of the
Bang in various complicated forms, which Mr. Massey
explains by stating it was exercised to destroy a
grasping oligarchy, anxious to name their own ministers,
and place in olSBlce their own minions. The undue
exercise of royal prerogative and the occasional pre-
dominance of the oligarchy had been the striking evil
of the British Monarchy for seven hundred years.

The restoration to health of the King was followed
by the resumption of the parliamentary powers of Mr.
Pitt. This sudden transition was a surprise to aU

Earties. The Irish Commons and some of the Lords
ad already committed themselves by precipitating an
Address to the Prince Regent not in accordance with
the views of the minister. Mr. Pitt, from this incident,
appreciated the very probable difficulties that might
arise, either on a recurrence of the malady to the
monarch, or on the many questions of a delicate
character, on prerogative — ^peace or war — offensive and
defensive alliances — all of the first moment in affairs
of state.

The Marquis of Buckinghamshire refused to forward
the Address ; it was therefore, in a measure, irregular.
The Viceroy even declined to countenance the pro-
ceedings of the Irish Legislature. Mr. Grattan and
thirty-two members, however, drew up a very strongly
worded paper called a " Round Robin " — a very obvious
menace to the Irish Executive. The policy of this
transaction cannot be too much condemned.

Mr. Pitt determined after this serious coincidence, to
extinguish the Irish Parliament as an impediment to
his supreme administration. In the memoirs of Lord
Auckland, Lord Colchester, Lord Sidmouth, and the
correspondence of Lord Castlereagh, we have abundant
evidence of the means taken to neutralise the legislative
independence of Ireland. Sir Arthur Welkdft.^^-^Vsssfc.
Chief Secretary, was one oi XJcia tdlc^\» ^rJ^^ ^^siS

166

peremptory agents in wholesale corruption. It is
singular, too, that in later times he was always ready to
change his principles for the sake of " earpediency ' — a
convenient mode of acting, which the laurels of the
hero may cover, but cannot elevate him as a statesman.
The pencil of Gainsborough has softened the austere
features of Mr. Pitt, and the memoirs of Earl Stanhope
may elevate the minister who weakened the oligarchy
and strengthened the King ; but certainly the kingdom
of Ireland gained nothing by his administration.
While he consulted Salamanca and Valadolid on the
value of Catholic allegiance, he gave a franchise to
electors who could not enjoy the use of it.

The Invectives op Flood and Grattan.

November^ 1783.

When a distinguished lawyer comes forward to give
lectures on the philosophy of history, on political
vicissitudes, on great pubhc characters, and on the
" Life and Death " of institutions, we expect an
eloquent dissertation, at once useful, comprehensive,
and delineative, instead of the invectives of eminent
men, which can have no instructive tendency, and even
to be understood rightly and fairly, must be accom-
panied by lengthened explanations as to the origin of
" a duel of words," which embraced the conduct and
capacity of both orators on questions of transcendent
national importance.

It was not so much a ^^ personal quarrel or dis-
putation," as a vital difference of principle on inter-
national law on a great national transaction.

Grattan felt hurt and humiliated at the result of his
narrow interpretation of " final adjustment." Flood,
on the contrary, gave the broadest latitude to his views
with a frankness that could not be misunderstood ; he
was in the ascendant consequently when Grattan pro-
rate J these invectives, and no doubt was prepared.
All nation^ rise and decline alteTnaX^^ \ Y^^^^^vm

167

must go on, as the law of Nature. It would be but a
poor contentment to the great spirits of antiquity, to
tell them how short a period their grand efforts on
government endured. ^ ^

It was the clear and well defined scheme of Mr.
Molyneux and Mr. Flood to have an independent
legislature for Ireland as a sovereign state. A Charter
h^ been granted, and a ^^ modus ' had been given, so
£eu* back as the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we
wanted nothing now but permission to exercise freely
the functions of that constitution. The inventive
genius of Mr. Grattan, indeed, wanted to make a new
charter and a new constitution. He said, with much
vanity and much ostentation, "I consider the Dun-
^* gannon Convention of 1780 an (original transaction;^^
and with a metqnomy he knew well how to employ, he
added, ^^ Magna Charta tvas not obtained in parliament^
" but hj the barons in the field."

Kothmg in history could be more dissimilar. The
two hundred delegates met in a church at Dungannon ;
they were not barons, they suggested nothing new ;
they propounded^ nothing : their scheme was simple,
direct, and positive, — ^to disenthral the kingdom from
the dominancy of another, to caU into active energy
institutions that had long existed, dormant but not
extinct. Ulster was but a province, setting example to
other provinces.

The politics and events of the epoch ^ave it life, not
Grattan ; it was not an ^^ original transactumy^ it was one
called into the active service of the State by the
national will, first openly expressed at Dungannon.
Grattan indeed woula gratify his vanity by calling a
few resolutions a new Charter — an original transaction.
He expressed himself in the House of Commons, many
years f^er, in these words, ^^ Not long ago the meeting at
^^ Dungannon was considered a very alarming measure,
" but I thought otherwise. I approved, yet I con-
^^ sidered the meeting at Dungannon an origuuiZ tv<s8N^
^^ action. As such only \t -^w^ xQa^Vst A ^s^^g^sM^

168

^* What more extraordinary transaction than the
" attainment of Magna Charta? It was not attained
" in parliament, but by the baronSj armed in the field.
" A great original transaction is not founded on
** precedent, it contains in itself both reason and
" precedent. The Revolution had no precedent ; the
" Apostles had no precedent."

What figures of amplification ! What Pelion upon
Ossa haa tne orator heaved ! In the above pompous
and ambiguous words we have a very fair sample of
the legislator and orator. A comparison between
Dungannon and Runnymede, conducted by the most •
famous names in England of 1215. A transaction
that regulated the Anglican Church, as in the epoch of
Henry I. ; that regulated the baronial, civil, and
military jurisdiction, and feudal service; that re-
gulated the laws of vassalage; abolished the cruel
laws on minors and marriage, — ^placed a limit to
baronial courts ; that forbid the levy of monies, except
through the mandate of the ^^dondlium ordinarium
regnif which we find carried out in the reign of
Henry III. by the great Earl of Pembroke, Regents
This magnificent Reform — ^for Reform it was in
Church and State, which embraced within its purview
both England and Ireland — the modesty of Grattan
compares to his Dungannon Charter 1

It was in fact a " Declaration of Rights," and no
more. It may be a question whether he fulfilled the
Inission he was called on to complete. Does his
Address to the King in 1782, or his Declaration of
Rights the same year, fiJl up the measure of expecta-
tion ? He defined his principles and policy distmctly
on the 15th and 16th of April, 1782. Was this the
Dungannon Charter? Distinctly not. He wrote to
his historian, Barrington, in 1819, a form of apology
for ^ his errors, a retraction of his words, but an un-
hesitating appropriation of the appellate judicature
wd external legislation, wYiieYi \vi^ ^Ixeiue in 1782 did
^ot include. Let me go \)aek \.o \ll^w '^^aX, iii^

169

Grattan do then ? He consulted ^ith Mr. Daly, and
they produced a motion on " Imports and Exports " in
so unskilful a manner, that of necessity it was revised,
and only passed in an amended form.

In 1783 and 1785 he would take no part in Reform,
because it was not his Bill ; yet we find his incapacity
for legislation again proved in his Place Bill of 1794-
On the Commercial Propositions of 1785 we see no
breadth of judgment or capacity for legislation. On
the Regency question he was grievously wrong, and
led astray his countrymen and Irish Legislature. Did
he show any capacity to control, to lead, to legislate
for Ireland from 1794 to 1800? His boast was, that
" he tended the cradle of his Constitution, and followed
" it to the grave." A childish boast, which ought to
have produced a pang of humiliation. On the other
side his private virtues were many. He never accepted

Elace : and in Ireland a man is said to be honest when
e is not in office. Lord Clare, in a remarkable
pamphlet, accuses him of deserting the cause of the
Volunteers, and other departures from his Dungannon
Charter. Which Barrington denies and repels. He
certainly seemed to mediatise between Dungannon and
the government of the Duke of Portland in 1782.

Thus stood Grattan before he delivered his first in-
vective.

I must now place his political opponent in the front.

Mr. Flood does not appear to have been actuated by
any ill-will towards Grattan. We find that the diit-
sentiment and estrangement was but of a year's growth.
Thb is clear from Flood's letter to Charlemont, and by
the following public expression of thanks to Grattan,
where Flooa is called to the chair at the delegated
meeting of one hundred and thirty corps of Volunteers.
They would not call to the chair on so important an
occasion any but a friend to Grattan; but in the
sequence of events he temporised, and thus raised that
political tempest which he, with all U\& li&aif^^)^cs:^%
eloquence, could not a)l%y.

170

At a meeting of the delegates from one hundred and
thirty-nine corps of the Volunteers of the province of
Leinster, at Dublin, 17th April, 1782, Colonel Henry
Flood in the chair,

" Resolved unanimously^ — ^That we feel ourselves called
" uj^on to declare our satisfaction in the unanimous
" sense of the House of Commons expressed in favour of
" the rights of Ireland, in their address to the King
" yesterday, as amended by Colonel Grattan, and that
"we will support them therein with our lives and
" fortunes.^

" Resolved mwmmxmsly^ — That the thanks of this
" Meeting be given to Colonel Grattan for his extra-
" ordinary exertions and perseverance in asserting the
" rights of Ireland."

" Resolved unanimously^ — That the following thirteen
" Commanders of Corps be appointed a standing Com-
" mittee of Delegates from this province, to correspond
" and commune with all the other provincial committees
" or delegates of Ireland, to wit : Earls of Granard and
" Aldborough, Sir William Parsons, Colonels Talbot,
" Lee, Pamell, Burton, Lyons, Grattan, Mood, Captains
" R. Neville, Gorge, Smyth."

The mission of Grattan was the manumission of
Lreland. The Dungannon Convention demanded no
less. The fanciful expression of Grattan — " an original
" transaction " — meant no less. Was, then, the simple
repeal of a declaratory law, and a limited Mutiny Bill,
what he called ** a final (Adjustment " between the two
kingdoms — was this an original transaction? No^ it
was a complete departure from the Dungannon reso-
lutions. He halted, he hesitated, he forgot, or he set
aside the example he so vainly cited — " the barons in
" the field." Did Langton so act ? Did the great Earl
of Pembroke so act? The original transaction of
Grattan descends to the pitiful expedient of a simple
repeal — " a final adjustment " derided from the outset*.

Flood, learned in constitutional history, matured by
twenty yesm^ experience, was. constrained to amen4 the

171

crude legislation of his opponent, by amending the
^^ final adjustment :^^ — 1. By a completely fipee external
legislation. 2. By a final appellate jurisdiction. 3. By
a British Act of Renunciation. These were the
gravamen of offence against Grattan's capacity to
conduct "a final adjustment^" much less "an original
" transaction^''^ which he claimed. Here was the cause
of quarrel ; to be corrected or rebuked excited the ire
of Grattan, which when roused, was scar<cely less fierce
than that of Achilles. Flood was right in argument
and the construction of international law ; Grattan was
victorious by the votes of the House of Commons.
War was now openly declared between these great
competitors, nor did Demosthenes and jEschines con-
tend with higher genius or for a nobler object

The contrast of their genius and their character was
not less remarkable than their poUtical opinions. The
person of Grattan was short and compact^ his head
oval, yet the chin curiously protrusive ; his keen grey
eyes; W his face slightly marked by smaU-pox, weri
animated and lit up by intellect. His mouth was large,
gave utterance to a thin, dry voice, every word and
accentuation being distinct. His manner was ungraceful,
his arms being long, and his dress not well defined.
His health was not strong, and his new and unblemished
public life gave a laudable interest in fiivor of the
orator, now thirty-three years of age.

The person of Flood, on the contrary, was tall, slightlv
attenuated; his eyes were blue and sight strong ; his
countenance clear, his hair brown, his nose, whicn had
suffered some injuries, was depressed at the bridge, and
therefore had the defect which his opponent took ad-
vantage of. His broad and well-defined forehead gave
an impressive and intellectual effect to his bearing.
His gesture was good and highly energetic. His
graceful manner and elegance of dress produced on the
whole a dignified and on some occasions a grand effect.
It was no small danger to enter into a contest with a
man so perfectly armed. Mr. Flood was then just fifty
years of age.

172

As an orator, Grattan had heard the first men ; he
had studied the best orators, he had fed his imagination
with the choicest flowers, and his improvisation was
easy and attractive. His use of the antithesis gave a
firm and logical consistency to what he affirmed. His
use of the figures of amplification and invocation, which
he did with marvellous effect, was followed by admira-
tion and delight. His "rich wardrobe of words"
permitted him to lend a new and finished costume to
all his topics. In invectives he did not so much exceL
His passion was superior to his reason, and then he let
loose the phials of his wrath against his opponent He
was vain, more than ambitious ; he was opinionated,
rather than informed.

In this manner Grattan threw down the gauntlet to
his opponent, at the very opening of a debate on re-
trenchment of the Civil List. " Ido not rise to excuse
** myself by the affectation of infirmities, for I never
" apostatised ; no one ever called me cheat, nor did
" ever any one call me a bad character."

These epithets were enough to arouse a timid man,
and much more than was requisite to awaken the
energy, pride, and indignation of Flood. He rose and
instantly delivered, with that dignity and majesty of
style and gesture, one of the finest specimens of in-
vective in the English language. It embraced the con-
duct of Grattan from Dungannon to the end of the
session in July, 1782. The transactions traced were
within the reach of every member's memory ; not a
point was exaggerated, not an incident untrue. It rose
in lofty and satirical disdain, till it razed the whole
fabric of Grattan.

Grattan then rose and repeated that long prepared
essay, which for scurrility is only to be compared with
the worst style of Greek oratory. He was not content
to draw out of the twenty-two years of public life of
his opponent, but he brought forward "a fictitious
" character ; " an artful stratagem which allowed him to
proceed with a seeming deference to the House (for the

173

Speaker had more than once interfered, but the House
demanded that they should go on). Grattan then
continued and finished his portrait^ and ^}osed by
transmuting the personal pronoun to apply to Flood
himself; he did so with an intense and vindictive
hatred.

The scene closed by a public challenge from Flood —
" I fear not the honourable member, r will meet him
" anywhere by d^y or night ; I would stand poorly in
" my own estimation or that of my country, if I did
" not stand far higher than him." Here he stopped for
a moment, and the Speaker, Mr. Pery, taking advantage
of the pause, expressed himself in these words : " It was
" with pain and regret I heard the altercation between
" the right honorable members, which I should not
" have allowed to proceed but from the express wishes
" of the House." Mr. Flood then left, and thus ter-
minated the great duel of words which has been
frequently cited or referred to in a partial, and generally
in a most unfau-, manner. Mr. Montgomery, member
for Cavan, instantly carried a message to Grattan ; and
by the injudicious interference and disclosure of Sir
Frederick Flood, Bart., Mr. Flood was arrested, and
bound to keep the peace before the Chief Justice in a
penalty of twenty thousand pounds.

The Oratory of Flood. — For many years previous to
the appearance of Grattan, Mr. Flood was rightly
considered the Demosthenes of Ireland; and con-
sidering the difference of language, nation, laws, and
customs, he presented much of the spirit and style of
Demosthenes. Familiar from study and practice with
all forms of rhetoric and the figures most adapted
to public occasions, he used them with wonderful
discrimination ; for the figures that might be used in
the House of Commons on a niemorable subject, would
be out of place elsewhere. Mr. Flood was admitted by
the most capable admirers of the highest order of
eloquence to be a perfect master, not only from the
aptitude of his nature but from the most rigid culture

174

of his faculties. Grattan himself took him as a model ;
he wrote to a friend, in 1773 : '^ We passed a pleasant
" time at Flood's ; we discoursed, we declaimed ; your
^' humble servant execrable. Flood as fine as anything
** I ever heard."

Grattan had not then entered "the battle of life.**
He said again, " Mr. Flood, my rival, as the pamphlet
" calls him ; I should be unworthy of such a rival, if in
" his grave I did not do him justice. Like Hercules,
^* with small things he trifled, and was miserable ; but
" give him the thunder-bolt, and he had the arm of
** Jove.^ His oratory adapted itself to the debate, and
for this very reason he was most formidable ; always
armed and prepared, he could scarcely ever be taken at
a disadvantage. All energy, " all soul,^ his thoughts
were grand rather than figurative ; he passed easily to
the sublime and solemn, particularly in his perorations.

It is true, we have but the fragments of Flood, while
we have the careftilly conned speeches of his con-
temporaries ; but they are like the leaves of the sybil,
—.they are wisdouL

Demosthenes spoke on the laws and institutions
of the Athenians; he excited their love, honour,
and devotion in the Philippian orations, at a period
when the Athenians were in the highest culture of
refinement. He was extolled, he was crowned, he
breathed in marble. Flood, the denouncer of the laws
of Poynings, of Phillip and Mary, and t3rrannies of
Viceroys, worse than laws, asserted freedom, national
honour, and independence : his course was arrested ;
he died before that very temple he had so admirably
aided to construct, in his fifty-ninth year.

Two days after Grattan delivered his invective, Mr.
Flood claimed the right of reply on the ground of an
interrupted debate. He then delivered one of the
most lucid, simple, and brief statements of political
conduct and college life to be found in the lives of
public men. A justification so easily tested, so noble,
so true, yet much inferior to his great charactw, that

175

he must be forgetful of principle and honour who
stands up at the present day to insinuate, by any
inflection of language, to insult the memory of a
statesman who wronged no one but himself.

When Pulteney made his invective against Sir Robert
Walpole, Pulteney, violent though his expressions were,
kept within the lunit of the political life of his adver-
sary ; Walpole's re ply w as not comparable with that of
Flood to Grattan. When we reflect for a moment on
the position of Mr. Flood, bom, as it were, and attended
with Fortune's best gifts ; of high family himselfj con-
nected with the strongest family interests of the period,
equal to any position, repeatedly ofiered such marks of
favour as were eagerly sought for by others, yet he
abandoned all for the service of his country. How
noble, how excellent was such a public man I

Statue of Demosthenes.

When standing before the statue of Demosthenes in
the Pio-NoNiAK Gallery in the Vatican, it was im-
possible not to be struck with admiration at the tall,
attenuated figure; the broad and thoughtful brow;
the easy attitude — the arms extended and meeting in
front, with the scroll of an oration between his hands ;
the folded vesture. It was impossible not to feel an
indescribable pleasure on beholding this precious ex-
cellence of Grecian art, possibly the finest statue of
the Prince of Orators. He is represented as about to
address the Athenians — ^his calm and majestic front,
his eyes resting on the crowded arena, his mouth com-
pressed, his small receding chin concealed by a beard
of scanty proportions, ouch was Demosthenes: all
soul, all intellect How few are really orators; how
incomparable is a eift so rare I Oratory is the enic of
thought Homer had his rival in Demosthenes ; Virgil
in Cicero — the highest order of genius in both. The
noblest faculties are required to form the perfect

176

orator ; his mind as well as his body must be under
control, a discipline of thought and a discipline of the
passions must accompany the gift of eloquence. Then
the ideas must be enriched by information, for every
art and science ; every wonder or beauty of nature ;
the incidents of life, our hopes and fears, our virtues
and vices, glory, honour, and immortality, dishonour
and infamy ; the love of country, her laws and institu-
tions ; all the circumstances of the pride of life ; the
dignity and glory of the past, the possible infamy and
degradation of the future; the example of mighty
achievements ; the emulation produced by their history
— all these come within the illustration of the orator.
But as oratory is the epic of thought, so are the occa-
sions rare for its exercise, and few are the men so
wonderfully gifted. The Attic people and the most
distinguished men of Greece assembled to hear the
Phillipian orations of Demosthenes. All the Ionic and
iEgean Greeks- came to Athens to hear the rival orators
^schines and Demosthenes. What a surprising na-
ture must these people have possessed, that idiomatic
eloquence of language was sufficient to bear away the
crown 1 What are we to think of Hyperides, whose
grandeur of thought and beauty of language were
onlv surpassed by his sublimity of action ; who, when
he nad used every effort, then withdrew the veil from
the vestal Phren6, and exposed her innocent form
before her inexorable judges when outraged virtue had
been accused ; the sacred figure of the vestal crowned
the orator with success, and Phrenfe before the Archons
is immortalised. What are we to think of that sur-
passing instance of the orator Alcibiades — general,
statesman, and orator combined ? The people of Catena
seeing the approach of the Athenian fleet, demanded
who was the commander. Being told that Alcibiades
was he, the Sicilian city sent a deputation to request
he would address them in the amphitheatre outside the
city. The Athenian chief readily conceded. The
captivatwg grsi.Qe of his person, the surpassing beauty

177

of his eloquence, the Attic correctness of his words,
— the interest with which he engaged the Cateneans to
join the confederacy — absorbed in the idea, charmed
by the grace, dignity, and descriptive art of Alcibiades,
they forgot the^ir deserted city and port, which the
Athenian forces took possession of.

The Lectures before me refer in a light and insignifi-
cant manner to the beauest of Mr. Flood to the
University of Ireland. Yet, what more munificent
proof of a great patriot could be evinced than the
object of that bequest ? To establish in the national
seat of learning a Chair and Professorship of the
ancient dialects of his native land ; to collect from the
remotest parts of Europe remains of the Celtic and
Runic tongues; to trace their origin, their affinities,
and the monuments of the most distant eras of Irish
or Erse history; to examine and unfold the Brehon
laws, which had been so long the rule of conduct and
of government before the conquest of Henry II.; to
make familiar to the learned and unlearned that lan-
guage which St. Patrick and St. Columba had used as
a means of converting from Paganism to Christianity
the inhabitants of the sacred isle— what nobler object
could a great patriot think of more worthy of his un-
tiring eflPbrts ? To raise a monument, not to himself
but to the glory of his country; to draw to her the
respect and consideration of the learned philolodbst
ana the enquiring philosopher, who could find in her
antiquities a source of interesting literature, of sacred
memorials before the decline and fall of the Roman
Empire. It is true this grand design was frustrated,
but the honour of such an exalted purpose was
Mr. Flood's. The law of mortmain was pleaded as
a bar to the acceptance of the University, being a cor-
porate body, and the statute being still in force against
the Irish Cfollege, though Oxford and Cambridge were
freed from its application.

Mr. Flood was not alone in his patriotism ; his father
had set the example, and other members followed, if

178

not with the full sunshine of genius, at least with a
large and unshaken fidelity to the popular principles
of the eighteenth century in Ireland.

The Right Hon. Warden Flood, Lord Chief Justice
of the King's Bench, was a person of enlarged views
and brilliant talents, he had represented in early life
the county Kilkenny in Parliament. From his liberal
opinions he was presented with the freedom of the
city of Cork. Both his sons were in Parliament.
Mr. Warden Jocyline Flood was Member for the borough
of Callan, and his son Henry succeeded him in the
representation of Kilkenny. Mr. Warden Flood, LL.D.,
had successively represented the boroughs of Baltinglass
and Longford; he was a person of high attainments,
and wrote a valuable work on tenures in Ireland,
under the name of " Molyneux, Junior," a work only
second to the celebrated essay on the Constitution of
Ireland. This distinguished member of the family
was likewise presented with the fi'eedom of the city
of Cork.

Sir Frederick Flood, Bart., had represented in Par-
liament Wexfordshire for many years, and for which
county he was Custos Botubrum. In early life he was
remarkable for his active capacity. Mr. Francis Flood
and Mr. John Flood were both in Parliament. These
members of the Flood family were as independent in
fortune as in poUtics, and are deserving of more than a
passing notice, connected as they were with some of
the strongest interests in Ireland during the last
century. The Lord Chief- Justice was married to a
lady of remarkable beauty and accomplishments, and
of a singular taste for literature, and took a prominent
position at the Vice-regal Court, then maintained
with considerable splendour. Mr. Warden Flood had
married a lady who, derived through her Celtic

J;enealogy, claimed to be allied to the Geraldii^es, to be
escended from the last Earl of Desmond, and by
consequence related to the Ear\a of Kildare and Dukes

179

of Leinster. In her Celtic pedigree she was Princess
of Munster.

Sir Frederick Flood had allied himself with the
sixteenth Earl of Anglesey^ by his marriage with Lady
Juliana Annesley; and, secondly, with the eldest
daughter of Lord Waterpark. Mr. Francis Flood,
with the daughter of Mr. Villiers Hatton, of Clonard,
Wexfordshire, representing the distinguished Chan-
cellor, Sir Christopher Hatton, K.G.; and Mr. John
Flood, the daughter of Sir Hugh Compton, Bart. :
so that in the last century this family represented a
very powerful and commanding interest.

The great statesman, whose character and services I
have been most anxious to protect, though married to
Lady Frances Beresford, daughter of the Earl of
Tyrone, never made use in any political sense of the
influence of that family, but acted wholly independent

"Mve been drawn, into fti, brief notice of tbe fonner

importance and position of the Warden and Hatton
branches of the Mood family, of the County Kilkenny,
since I find Mr. Whiteside has put forward a number
of names which in no wise contributed to the support
of the Parliaments of Ireland, and by consequence to
the independence and dearest interests of their country.

POBTRAIT OF Mb. FlOOD.

In connection with this subject is the allusion made
by Mr. Whiteside to Mr. Flood's personal appearance.
I may venture to assert, the learned lecturer is as little
happy in his portrait painting as he is in attributing
all benefits in the political well-being of Ireland to the
union of the legislatures.

The portrait of Mr. Flood in the Universily Hall of
Dublin is in no way a resemblance. It has been
generally supposed that the six portraits in the Dining
Hall were executed by contract^ and ft<«ssL '^^ ^^^ssafc.
execution of them img\it xf^j^i \ife %\»g^^M^ ^sm*^

180

Mr. Flood had a clear countenance, blue eyes, rather
full, brown hair, rather what is called the oaxon type
of features. A broad and massive forehead, but powder
being the mode of the day, it concealed the colour of
his hair; his nose, which had been straight, was much
depressed in the bridge, owing to an accident ; and
G rattan, who was anxious to take from him any
superfluous pride of place or personal appearance, called
him the ill-omened bird with cadaverous aspect and
** broken beak," which was certainly not complimentary.
Mr. Flood's paleness was rather the result of indis-
position than natural colour. He had a clear tint
rather than a pallid one.

His dress was usually a light brown coat, which was
the fashion of the day. He was what might be termed
a well-dressed man in the fuUest sense of the expression,
and his whole figure was highly imposing.

Mr. Whiteside is not more skilful than Grattan in
drawing likenesses.

There is extant a singularly correct portrait of Mr.
Flood, representing him as addressing the House of
Commons of Ireland; and as the picture includes
Grattan and several other distinguished persons, it
would be worthy of being copied for the University.

The vindication of the constitutional rights of Ireland
to have a Parliament which might freely exercise the
functions of a legislative body was no more than what
Mr. Molyneux had done in 1692. I have endeavoured
to defend those principles with the spirit of that dis-
tinguished Irishman and the energy of Flood. It is
plainly evident that Ireland was quite equal to the
duties imposed by an independent legislature, had she
been permitted to do so without interference. That
was the great desideratum of the most disinterested
patriots and statesmen of Ireland; but the contending
interests in the country arising from absentees and
English connections combined to destroy unity of action
and of object The Irish people, the Celtic, Danish,
nd Norman Catholics, were too weak as a political

body, and too impotent as a military one to resist the
Protestant ascendancy after the victories of William.
Ireland, beaten and trodden under foot, had no longer
strength to withstand the formidable array of obstacles
erected against her advance in social life. Gradually
the politics of Great Britain, both external and internal,
mad!e it still more difficult, till at last Mr. Pitt found it
necessary to suppress even a Protestant Parliament in
Ireland. The way he did it, and the means and agents
he employed, will be the subject of a future essay. The
decline and fall of the Irish Parliament commenced in
1790 to 1800, a Decade which may well occupy a
separate Part in an Historical Review; for in European
history there is no instance — ^not even the partition of
Poland — ^so ignoble and so corrupt as the mode by
which Mr. Pitt eflfected the union of the legislatures,
pr an instance more extraordinary than the assumption
of a small Protestant minority of an ancient Catholic
kingdom selling her sovereign power and legislative
capacity.

Ireland, for whom so many men of genius, such as
Molyneux and Flood, had toiled and strived with in-
domitable perseverance and without reward, was to
become the bye-word among nations as without
nationality or spirit.

It mav hereafter be a question how far a Union of
the Legislatures so contracted could be binding in in-
ternational law. Ireland was then, and is now for the
most part, a Roman Catholic nation ; and this part of
the population were driven to civil war or insurrection
by the international Government from 1790 to the falL
Nothing is so' easy as to triumph, and nothing moie
tempting than to exult over fallen institutions and
great statesmen ; all things become little and of inferior
moment before that sort of wisdom which some men
boast of on subjects gone by; on nationalities no longer
in existence ; on men grand and majestic in their con-
ceptions, disinterested even to a fault ; what are they
to this new-bom wisdom of yesterday ? The past of

182

Ireland is reproduced in tliese lectures mereljrto excite
the jocose ridicule, the contemptuous sneer, or the
ribald anepdote — a Sir Boyle Roche or a Mr. Barrington
are the merrvmen of one end, while " Tottenham in
his boots," the hacks of the "servile senators" and
the " Pipe water committee " travesty the other. We
shall see oy the aid of official papers recently published
who were the vendors of their national representative.
It may indeed be doubted whether a chivalrous and
national spirit could ever be revived, seeing that the
mercenary appetency of the upper and middle classes of
sociel^ is so great that the pubUc press has become a
speculation — ^when money is preferable to honour, and
principle recedes before success. To examine how Sir
Arthur Wellesley and Lord Castlereagh exercised their
official sway in Ireland would be instructive, if in-
struction could be useftd to Irishmen of Celtic,
Norman, and Danish extraction.

BND OP SECOND PABT.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Historical review of the Irish parliaments, from the epoch of Henry ii. to the Union"

See other formats