tues had been lost to himself and to his country. What chance had Mr. Burke, who is an honour to this country; what chance had Mr. Fox, whose abilities are the objects of general admiration, of representing the cities of Bristol and Westminster, if they had not first displayed their abilities, by being returned. for private boroughs?

But to come nearer home, I will venture to assert, that you owe the emancipation of Ireland to those boroughs. I will venture to assert, that you are principally indebted for the restitution of your rights to the spirit, the abilities, the perseverance, and real integrity of the honourable gentleman near me; and I am supported, in this assertion, by the unanimous vote of this house, and the universal voice of the people at that time, though now I find he has lost some part of his popularity by the most virtuous action of his life: the preferring the real substantial interests of his country to an idle punctilio.... What chance had this gentleman, with all his abilities, of representing any but a private borough? Who were his principal assailants in this great revolution! members for rotton boroughs....I know but of one county member who took a distinguishable part on that occasion; I mean the right honourable gentleman who represents the county of Wexford, and who is justly entitled to the second place in the gratitude of the public. Had this mea'sure taken place but three years ago, which these people contended for as necessary to their freedom, it is probable that Ireland would not now be free; and that instead of wasting your time in this idle speculation, you would now be deploring the shackles imposed upon your trade, or the power assumed by the British parliament to make laws to bind this country. I shall conclude, conjuring the gentlemen who hear me, that they will not be such dupes as to believe, that by passing this bill they will satisfy the people. He must be a young politician indeed, and but little acquainted with the history of mankind, or the human heart, who thinks that a people can be satisfied with concessions. If it was possible that concessions could satisfy a people, would there, at this day, be a murmur in Ireland? Besides, people have acted fairly, on this occasion, they have told you that the passing of this bill will not satisfy them. This pretended reform is only the first of an alphabet of innovations, which the congress of Dungannon have voted, as necessary for the freedom of the people, and have determined to pursue; that they have been advised in the first instance to lay their shoulders to this particular object. If you yield to them in this point, they will attack you on some other, and so proceed from innovation to innovation, till they have subverted your constitution

VOL. III.

both in church and state; this is therefore the time to resist their encroachments.

Sir Hercules Langrishe.....I am glad this great question, which has so much engaged the public mind, and been agitated with so much industry from one extremity of the kingdom to the other, has at length been brought before parliament; and it is now our duty to give it a full, a free, and patient discussion. If the evil that it supposes has existence, and the remedy it of fers be adequate and safe, it will have many powerful advocates here. On the other hand, if it states defects that do not exist, and offers remedies that are neither safe nor applicable, it is better the House of Commons should decide against it at once, that the people may no longer be disturbed or deceived by it. And now let me say, if I wanted any new proof of the superior excellence of our happy constitution, that alteration was unnecessary and amendment impracticable, the plan of reform now read at your table would furnish ample testimony: for when two gentlemen of such distinguished abilities, assisted by deli berate assemblies in their own country, and enlightened by the oracles that have been consulted in another country; when gentlemen of such talents, so assisted, have at length produced such a plan of reform, I am justified in thinking that the task is beyond the strength of man. And convinced as I am, that our present constitution, in its present condition, is competent to every degree of civil liberty, I must also be convinced that amendment is a dream, and alteration would not be wisdom.

Consider now, Sir, the plan before you, consider it impar tially, and tell me, is it founded in any one principle which it professes? Does it tend to remove any one evil that it imagines? Does it meet any one of the ideas that have amused the people? No, not one! Is it a plan for an equal representation of the people? No; it leaves above three-fourths of the people as it found them, unrepresented. Is it a plan for a more equal representation of the people in parliament? No, it renders the representation much more unequal than it found it: for instance, a freeholder in one barony, by this bill, may vote for four, or six, or eight members of parliament; a freeholder in the next barony shall vote only for two members. Is this to render the representation of the people more equal? Good God! how the people are deceived! how they are abused!

Is it a plan for the more equal representation of property, the ancient and original title to representation? No, Sir, the reverse! If this bill as you see it were a law, a worthy and respectable gentleman in the county to which I belong, who has 4000/ per annum, landed estate in one barony, would thereby be entitled to vote for two members, and the servant who stands be hind my chair, who is possessed of a 40s. freehold in a neigh

bouring barony, shall vote for eight members of parliament. Is it a plan to enlarge the basis of legislation, by encreasing the number of the constituent body? No, Sir, it diminishes, it contracts, it strikes off thousands and tens of thousands of your electors; it disfranchises every freeman in the nation who does not hold by birth, servitude, marriage, or trade. It disfranchises every freeholder under 20. per annum, who does not reside. It demolishes the whole tribe of potwallopers; men entitled to vote in right of residence (the freest title the constitution knows) are to be extinct, unless they can call in to their aid a multitude of freeholders in general too great to be found. For instance, if a borough were to consist of 5000 Protestant inhabitants, entitled and accustomed to vote; no matter, they shall be extinguished unless they likewise have within their precints 70 or 100 resident voters, qualified according to this act, which no borough in Ireland has, and which few ever would have. But it effects a new creation to supply this general massacre; it confers a right to vote for those boroughs to others. To whom? To freeholders; persons who were entitled to vote for other members before, It is true, amongst those a class of freeholders is incorporated, (new indeed to the constitution) freeholders on terms for years; but the freehold required is of so large amount that their num bers will be small. Now let me ask, is it a plan to increase the number of your representatives? No, Sir, to diminish it! In the first instance, it decays and depopulates every borough, and almost every city in the kingdom. For I do believe not one of them contains within its precincts 100 voters qualified and registered according to this bill. I have heard of a clause of redemption for them. I only know what I see, and I see no such thing in this bill; and if such clause or schedule were inserted, it would, on the principle of the bill, impose conditions that must for ever exclude several of them from restoration.

And here I lament the destiny, though I admire the virtue of the town of Newry, who petitioned for this reform. With their 12,000 inhabitants, all entitled, if the were Protestants, to vote for members, yet they are all disfranchised unless they also contain within their precincts, 100 of another sort of voters, qualified according to this bill. (He applied the principle and effects to Drogheda, Waterford, Kilkenny, Limerick, Cork, &c. and concluded with the borough of Dungannon.) And here let me lament the fate of poor Dungannon, at once the pride and the reproach of her sons; Dungannon so late the centre of government, the head of legislation, the seat of empire, unless you have within your precincts (which I am sure you have not) 100 voters qualified according to this bill, you are decayed, depopulated, and extinct.. Will you not spare this town on

account of the righteous people that were found therein? I know not whether you have a redemption in store, but I know your redemption is not to be found in the bill on your table. What then can the friends of this bill, (if any such there be) what can they say of it? They cannot say it is a bill for an equal representation of the people. A bill for a more equal representation of the people, a bill for the more equal representation of property, a bill to widen the basis of legislation, to encrease the number of electors, to encrease the number of representatives: No such thing! quite the reverse! In the name of heaven what is its tendency? Is it a reform on any one settled principle? Does it, or would it correct acy one abuse? No, Sir, it is nothing but alteration; a transfer of election influence from one set of men to another, which would produce two or three years contest and confusion, and then, by corruption or compromise, the dominion would settle with the most powerful of the neighbourhood. The power would change hands, but the exercise of it would be the same. And is it for this mighty benefit that the ancient habits of the constitution are to be changed? For this your country is to be visited by jubilee of licentiousness, a saturnalia of anarchy for a few years, before it reposes again in the abuses you now complain of. Yet this is the great arcanum, the sacred mystery sent abroad, like the miracles of Mahomet. assisted by the sword, from the north to the south, from the east to the west, to subdue the obdurate, and multiply subscribers to the true iaith. I do not mean the least disrespect to any man in what I say of this plan of reform. I speak as I think of it. I think it all confusion and danger, and nothing else. And it shews me into what inconsistencies even wise men will fall when they attempt a reform, where reformation is unnecessary, what insupportable difficulties they encounter in an attempt to new model a constitution which has stood for centuries the admiration and envy of the world, and distinguished from all others by having preserved civil liberty on the earth at this day. Under those opinions, and with this veneration for the constitution, I will not so far admit its defects as to go into a committee to amend it. I will not carry into a committee this chaos of rude materials, out of which to create a new constitution, when I have one already formed so competent to human happiness. I will not go paragraph by paragraph through a plan of alteration, where alteration is not necessary. I will not keep the public mind longer in a state of suspence between free government and fruitless speculation, but endeavour to rescue public tranquillity from the designs or delusions of the visionary, the rash,

and the restless.

Much has been said, and much has been inferred concerning the petitions which are displayed on your table; but when gen

tlemen talk of those petitions, they forget that there are between two and three millions of inhabitants in this country. There are several petitions on your table for a reform, some against it. I have no doubt but the majority of your petitions is in favour of reform, because innovation is ever the most active. But it matters not on which side the majority lies; take them all together, they are but as a drop of water to the ocean of your population; they are as a unit in comparison to the numbers of your people. And if those persons, however respectable, petition for any great innovation, you have no right to conclude the multitude on the suggestion of the few; and even if it were possible to suppose (which it is not) that a majority of the people petitioned for an alteration of the constitution intrusted to you, you have not a right to comply; you have not, in that case, a right to indulge their desires, or inflict on them the accomplishment of their wishes. If you comply in what you think a public injury, you are an accomplice in the injury, and betray the interest of the people on the bribe of their own favours.

It is to be lamented by every man, who feels for the honour and the happiness of this country, that after the reputation we have acquired and the benefits we have obtained; acquisitions, limited only by the bounds of our own demands, and adequate to every degree of human happiness; we should offer our enemies a pretext for charging us with a light, an inconstant, and restless character; as if the accomplishment of our wishes was butthe beginning of our discontents, and unlimited demand the offspring of unlimited concession; that we were falling under the description Montesquieu gives of a people unworthy of liberty;

"A people grown impatient of the power they have delegated, "desirous to do every thing themselves, debate for the senate, "execute for the magistrate, and decide for the judges." That having obtained the best constitution in the world, we had not the patience to try it for one session of parliament; but in contempt of the high legislative assemblies, resolved ourselves in five hundred little parliaments in every corner of the kingdom, where we voted that constitution an unalterable grievance, and called aloud for a new one.

Were I at liberty to remonstrate with my countrymen, whom I love, I would ask them, do you enjoy freedom? They must answer in the affirmative. Have you commerce? Undoubted as the ocean that surrounds you. Are you in possession of all the blessings that can flow from the best and freest government? You are. Is it then wisdom, is it common sense, when you are sure of those, to throw them back into the ocean of uncertainty, commit them to the wilderness of speculation, or hazard