Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER V.

Parliamentary Reform-State of representation - History of Irish boroughs-Wm. Ponsonby supports Reform-Mr. Grattan moves for a committee-Mr. Corry's amendment-Mr. Grattan's resolutions -Sir John Parnell's carried-Mr. Toler's motion-Stewart (Lord Castlereagh) speaks in favour of it-Measure lost-Bad effect in Ireland-British Corresponding Societies - Artifices of Mr. Dundas (Lord Melville)-Formation of United Irishmen-Counter association by the Duke of Leinster-Parties in Ireland-Disposition of her governors, and conduct of Lord Clare-French Revolution-Death of Louis XVI.-War with England-Defenders-Report of Lords' Committee Catholics cleared of the charges against them-Proclamation by Government-Lord Edward Fitzgerald's speech-Volunteers dispersed-Their cannon seized-Arms and Gunpowder BillSir Simon Butler and Oliver Bond imprisoned by the House of Lords -Convention Bill-Place, Pension, and Barren Land Bills-The hereditary revenue yielded by the King-End of Session, 1793—List of placemen.

THE other important question that engaged the attention of Parliament this year was the reform in the representation. This subject had greatly agitated both kingdoms of late; but as regarded Ireland, it had lain dormant in Parliament since 1784, when Mr. Flood had a second time proposed his bill on the subject. The resolutions of the people, their requests and remonstrances, were alike unheeded, and a deaf ear had been turned to their complaints; but the injurious impression made by the armed convention of 1783 had either been effaced or forgotten, and the question was now revived with a greater likelihood of success. It was, however, taken up rather late, and was supported with insincerity by the Government.

It is to be observed, that in the Irish represen

116

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

[CHAP. V. tation, the people formed no part of the Constitution; there was no such body as what the French called "Tiers etat," and what the British Constitution called the Commons. The Irish had a king, a chamber of nobles, and another chamber, elected by the nobles, and supported by the Government and the Crown; and the result of this combination amounted to the establishment of a court cabinet over Ireland, and the transfer of legislation to England.

The detail of the state of Irish representation at this time is curious, very mortifying, not very interesting. Of 300 members of Parliament, 200 were chosen by 100 individuals; so that of these, each individual had on an average two representatives. Near 50 of the 200 were elected by 10 individuals; so that, of these, each man had five representatives. This oligarchy was as little the representative of property as of population. 200 of these members were returned by persons whose property did not average above 4000l. a-year;this, too, in a country whose grants were above 3,000,000l., and whose rental was calculated at 6,000,000. They received in stipend from the Crown an income bearing a great proportion to their own property; so that they were an oligarchy taxing for their own provision, and representing nothing but their dependency.

In addition, the Minister had found out the art of buying their boroughs, as well as pensioning their persons. He even trafficked, as has been already stated, the seats of one house to purchase those of another; and by this double operation, the people, without perceiving it, bought the Parliament for the Minister, against themselves! In fact, the Irish Minister was nothing more than the agent of the cabinet of England; and the result of the whole machinery appeared to be a complete

CHAP. V.] STATE OF THE REPRESENTATION.

117

transfer to Great Britain of legislative power, founded on the abuse of every principle, political or moral, on the subversion of the parliamentary constitution of the country, and on the suppression of all native influence, popular or proprietary,and of public liberty, as well as virtue.

Such a state amounted to a constitution which was not a representation either of property or of population; nor of property and population mixed;

-nor was it an aristocracy (which is not the best constitution); nor an oligarchy (which is a bad constitution); nor a despotism (which is perhaps the worst constitution); -but it was the despotic power of another country.

In support of such a state of representation, nothing could be advanced. It could not stand upon its antiquity; on the contrary, it was a recent and an audacious innovation. Forty of the boroughs,—that is, near one-third of the representation, and near one-half of the boroughs,-were made by James I. for the avowed purpose of overturning the parliamentary constitution of Ireland. Afterwards, 37 boroughs were created-one by Anne, two by James II., and the remainder by the two Charles's; so that 148 members-nearly half the House of Commons, and more than half of its efficient members-were fabricated since the accession of the House of Stuart, and by the House of Stuart, the worst house that ever governed England, and, except James II., the worst princes of that house.

The fabrication of those boroughs was for the purpose of subverting the constitution of Parliament, by modelling the representation to the destruction of Irish influence, and the domination of a Court influence in the Irish Parliament. The causes that moved, and the circumstances that attended the creation of 40 of these boroughs by

118

HISTORY OF IRISH BOROUGHS.

*

[CHAP. V. James, are related by the historian." It was to model Parliament and destroy the constitution of the realm, by introducing the influence of the Crown into Parliament, in order to oust the people. He states that a number of new boroughs were created, most of them inconsiderable, and many of them too poor to afford wages to their members; that such an accession of power could not fail to encourage the administration to act without reserve, and pursue the dictates of their own passion and resentment. The representatives of these boroughs were the clerks of attorneys, and the servants of the Lord Deputy.

Such was the history of one-third of the representation and one-half of the borough constitution. The remainder were created, except the few of James II. and Anne, by the two Charles's, for the avowed purpose either of conferring personal favour on individuals, or establishing a Court majority in Parliament. This appears from the tenor of the grants, or from the historians and memorialists of the time. Thence it is that the rotten boroughs were justly called abuses in the Constitution. But the mischief was under-rated for they were gross and monstrous violations, recent and wicked innovations,—not the abuses of the Constitution, but its abolition. So that, with the assistance of a Court Parliament, the King introduced into the realm influence, not civilization, and tampered with and tainted the gentlemen of the country with the arts of venality, and gave the Irish ideas of vice, but not of refinement.

It was in vain to expect that an oligarchy, or a constitution of boroughs, could hold out against the Crown. A few individuals of a nobler nature might distinguish their name, and sacrifice their emolument; but oligarchy must ever be a slave, * See Dr. Leland's History of Ireland.

CHAP. V. WM. PONSONBY SUPPORTS REFORM. 119

-an expensive and circuitous despotism,-a little garrison in the enemy's country, certain to be besieged by the King, and certain to sell the fort, and march out of the old walls without the honors of war. The Irish people were turned out of the House by the family of the Stuarts, to give way to 148 borough members; and they were afterwards obliged by Government to pay, it was stated,* half a million to those very borough members, in order to make them vote against the country. The people were first annihilated by an oligarchy; and when that oligarchy, in the course of years, began to amalgamate, and incorporate somewhat with the country, so as, by certain accidental combinations,† to give the public voice some chance of influence in the House of Commons, that oligarchy was bought in detail to detach it from the common interest, and the people were turned even from the threshold of their own house by a host of placemen and pensioners, who had deserted to the Minister from the nation and the oligarchy, and who afterwards voted new loans and taxes to provide for the wages of their own apostacy.

Such was the state of the Irish Parliament, against which the people so often protested, and which they strove in vain to remedy. At length, on the 14th of January, 1793, Mr. Wm. (afterwards Lord) Ponsonby announced his intention of submitting to the House a motion for reform in the representation of the people. Support from this quarter was remarkable; and after he had spoken, Mr. Conolly rose, and to the still greater surprise of many, declared that he also meant to support the measure, observing that, in 1783,

* See Vol. I. Also Lord Clare's Declaration, 1789, ante Vol. III. p. 388. + Volunteers of 1779 and 1782.

« PreviousContinue »