it appeared founded in right; and the unanimous and persevering spirit, with which it came back to that house, proved it too firmly riveted in the hearts of the people, to be easily erased by an abrupt and unusual mode of refusal. It contained not his sentiments alone, but the sentiments of the nation, declared both publicly and privately in every capacity. He was therefore anxious to return to that kingdom, that he might be in his place, in order to stand forward in promoting the measure. He admitted, it would be thought by certain gentlemen injurious to their private interest, if the constitution were restored to its original security; but they must also admit, that it was contrary to every principle of right and justice, that individuals should be permitted to send into that house, two, four, or six members of parliament, to make a traffic of venal boroughs, as if they were household utensils. It seemed a point agreed upon in England, that a parliamentary reform was necessary; he should mention, he said, the opinion given by Lord Chatham, upon whose posthumous fame the present administration so firmly stood defended by the nation, though that great and illustrious man had been neglected for ten years by the public, and so large a portion of his valuable life suffered to be lost to the community. What were his sentiments on that important matter? His words most strongly enforced its necessity in his answer to the address of the city of London, in which he said, that a reform in parliament was absolutely necessary, in order to infuse fresh vigour into the constitution, and that rotten boroughs ought to be strucken off. A decision in England had established that doctrine. Lord John Cavendish, the late Chancellor of the exchequer, supported it; and the borough of Shoreham's measure was intended to be made general. Much argument had been drawn against the measure from the people's overawing that house; but he asked gentlemen, if they had not known many benefits to have resulted from the people's interference with their representatives? Let them go back to Lord Carlisle's and some other administrations before him; was not parliament, in direct opposition to the sentiments of the people; and had not they reason to change their opinions in subsequent administrations, when the sentiments of the people without doors overturned those of people within. They recovered your authority, continued he; do you restore them their priviliges. They were a body of men, that ought always to be mentioned with respect in that house, while it continued to enjoy the consequence it had acquired from their exertions. That he would endeavour to give a concise account of what the nation expected. That the people should have a real, and not a nominal re presentation. That the unjust privileges of boroughs should be abolished. That the election of their representatives should be in the body of the people. And that corruption should be checked in the elected as well as the elector. It was to be expected, from the natural impetuosity of the Irish, that the volunteers should violently engage in every pursuit, that tended to keep up their consequence, and extend the cause of liberty, which they had long identified with the necessity of arming. The generality of them unquestionably were sanguine for a reform of parliament. They were spirited up by Mr. Flood, and his friends, loudly and strongly to urge their claims of reform and were on the other hand buoyed up with the conviction, that parliament dared not to refuse or resist them. The great contest, was on the second reading of Mr. Flood's bill on the 20th of March, 1784. Mr. Monk Mason began the debate, and in a set and able speech, drew together all the general and particular objections at any time made against attempts at reforming the popular representation in parlia ment.* : Sir Boyle Roche said, the design of the bill was to transfer the franchise of election from the few to the many; or, in other words, to deprive the present possessors of the patronage of boroughs, and give it to another set of men: while they were endeavouring to gratify one set of men, they should not act as tyrants to another. This bill would be a proscriptive act against the Roman Catholics, who would be all turned out of their farms to make room for forty shilling freeholders. The Roman Catholics were a brave and loyal people; their loyalty had been proved in the fire of adversity; they required only that portion of liberty, which the legislature should deem consistent with the happiness of their fellow subjects. But if the constitution were to be broken up, and a new one to be formed, they had as much right to an equality of representation as any other set of men. He would, therefore, make an amendment, "That Protestants be expunged from the bill, and the words persons of any religious denomination, inserted in their "stead." The Speaker informed them, that the amendment, till the question before the house," whether the bill should be committed," was decided, was premature. This objection to the bill was also urged by Major (now Ge neral) Doyle, who said, "But, Sir, the greatest objection to this, is the grievous oppression, that will be thrown upon In order that the reader may have before his eyes at one view the grounds of opposing this attempt at reform, Mr. Mason's speech is given at full length in the Appendix, No. LXXI. "three-fourths of as loyal subjects as his majesty can boast of, "I mean the Roman Catholics of Ireland; an enlightened par"liament had done away the illiberal prejudices of former ages; "and should they, in the very act of renovation, re-rivet those "chains, from which that parliament freed them? That would operate cruelly against the Roman Catholic tenant; for no "sooner would his lease expire, than he, his wife, and helpless "children, would be set adrift to make way for the Protestant "freeholders, to augment the influence of the petty bashaw "of the barony: the proposed extension of the right of suffrage, "excluding the Roman Catholic, was adding insult to injury; "they brought the cup of liberty to his parched lips, but, like "Tantalus, precluded him from the taste." Mr. Grattan so far differed in his patriotic efforts to serve his country from Mr. Flood, that until they had procured a constitution, he was indefatigable and foremost in every exertion, that could tend to promote the cause of civil freedom: he had laboured incessantly till the year 1782; and when Great Britain had, with superior wisdom and liberality, called upon Ireland to state her own terms, and had most magnanimously granted them without stint or cavil, for a time he appeared to rest upon his oars he never receded from the principles he avowed: though his enemies objected to him, that the relaxation of his fervour was an effect of the donation of 50,000l. There never was any personal cordiality between Mr. Grattan and Mr. Flood; the purity of Mr. Flood's patriotism appears to have been much questioned, from the recency of its birth, the doubtfulness of its parentage, and his intemperance in the indulgence of the novelty. On this important debate, Mr. Grattan was the only member of the house who did not exceed his usual powers. He temperately observed, that the question before the house was, whether the bill should be committed? And that question should be decided by the principle of the bill, and not by any defect in its clauses. He believed that bill never would be carried into effect; but a bill might be formed by correcting all its defects, still preserving its principles. The committee was the place to make alteration or improvement. That the bill was an innovation on the constitution, he denied; the fundamental principles of the constitution were abused by the corruption of boroughs, and if they were so, reformation had become necessary. That bill went to first principles; it was an innovation upon abuse; but a renovation of the constitution. What was the octennial bill; what were the election laws, but innovations upon abuses, and renovations of first principles? Their forefathers were not so apprehensive of innovation the great charter was an innovation upon tyranny: the bill of rights was also such an innovation; but they were both restorations of the people's rights. : It was said, that the bill would increase both the oligarchical and democratical factions of the state; that was impossible; the power of the commons and of the people, were the same; and he was a bad man, who would wish to separate them. It was not three hundred gentlemen sitting in parliament, that were the commons of Ireland, but those gentlemen and their constituents together: it was that alliance, that gave strength and longevity to the constitution, which long ago would have fallen under tyranny, if not supported by the people; that was the cause why the constitution of England had not fallen, as that of France had done, for want of such an invigorating principle. Another argument was, "that we ought not to disfranchise those persons, who at present enjoy the right of voting in boroughs; but could that be called a franchise, which was used as a private property, either to be sold or given away? Besides, they imposed no hardships on those people, but what the law had already imposed; for the law of the land disallowed the selling seats in parliament. He had declared his approbation of the principle of the bill, and would vote to have it committed; so far would he go, and no farther: he would not commit the parliament, nor give their consent to any act or resolution, or expression injurious to the commons, because that would be to discredit their authority, and impeach the law-makers; and what had they been contending for, but the supremacy of their parliament? He acknowledged their constitution had some defects, but such as it was, it was the best existing; and though it might be a proper subject for reform, it ought not to be the subject of calumny. Mr. Pitt had set a proper example: animated with his father's patriotic spirit, he wished to invigorate the constitution of his country, to supply it with strength, and remedy its infirmities; but he felt a dutiful respect, which restrained him from any violent or rash proceeding. He knew, that if by any excess of the reformer, a reform were once lost, every hope must perish with it. Gentlemen had intimated, that discontents might prevail among the volunteers and the people, if that measure should be rejected; he doubted not there might be some little ebullition; but nothing less than a miracle could convince him, that they would ever violate the public peace and good order; they were restrained by the constitution they possessed, and by the fame, which they had acquired. When he declared that opinion of the volunteers, he knew he spoke before men, who in conjunction with them, had done more than the barons at Runnymede, or the convention parliament; men who had acquired more by wisdom and discretion, than others with the sword. He did not like the distinction, which said, the people, and not parliament, acquired the great objects, for which that country lately contended: the distinction was not just or true; they were acquired by an happy concurrence and union of both. Who acquired the free trade? The House of Commons. Who acquired the repeal of the 6th of George the Ist? The House of Commons. Who restored the appellant jurisdiction? The House of Commons. Who framed an Irish mutiny bill? The House of Com mons. In a word, who obtained all, that could be demanded or desired? The House of Commons, backed, not bullied, by the volunteers; supported, but not intimidated. The volunteers never did, nor never would attempt to overawe that parliament, under which they formed: that parliament, which they had pledged their lives and fortunes to support. As the principle of the bill went to a reform, he would vote for having it go into a committee; the defective clauses might there be altered, as was done in the case of the bill for relieving their Catholic fellow-subjects, which he had the happiness to support. The right honourable gentleman who introduced that bill, being convinced of its imperfection, consented to a total alteration of its form, retaining its principle and spirit; the same thing might be done with this bill; and he sincerely wished it the same effect. About four o'clock on Sunday morning, the question, whether the bill should be committed, was put, and on a division, the numbers were.... Thus, for the present, was put an end to the grand question of reform in parliament. The majority of 74 was too decisive not to deter the partisans of reform from attempting any thing further upon the subject. Two other objects of great national importance were brought before parliament that session; the regulation of the revenue, by Mr. Grattan, and the improvement of commerce, by Mr. Gardiner: the first on the 31st of March, the last on the 2d of April.† The backwardness of the parliament in seconding the wishes of several of the armed associations, and their assumption of a The specches of Mr. Grattan and of Mr. Beresford, lay open the whole system of revenue in Ireland at that time, and are to be seen in the Appendix, No. LXXII. Mr. Gardiner's speech is given in the Appendix, No. LXXIII. as a most valuable piece of historical information on the commerce of Ireland. |