told him also of the opinions of their fellow-patriots; but Grattan vehemently cried: "No TIME!-NO TIME!" and Lord Charlemont was obliged to write a letter to the English Government," that they (the Irish leaders) could not delay-that they were pledged to the people-that they could not postpone the question-for that it was public property." Such were the words dictated by Grattan.

At length the 16th of April, 1782-the most memorable day in Irish history-arrived; and Grattan, to the surprise of all who knew his physical weakness, appeared in his place in Parliament. His looks told his sufferings: he was emaciated and careworn; and an ordinary man in his state would not have been fit to enter, much less to address, a public assembly. But Grattan was no ordinary man; and he electrified his audience with a speech distinguished, in the words of an English critic, "for its fire, sublimity, and immense reach of thought." Lord Charlemont used often to say when alluding to that day, "if ever spirit could be said to act independent of body it was on that occasion." The speech was in every respect equal to the occasion; and Grattan won universal admiration by the power of mind and character he showed when moving his resolutions of Independence. He stated the three great causes of complaint upon the part of Ireland: the Declaratory Statute of George the First; the Perpetual Mutiny Bill; and the unconstitutional powers of the Irish Privy Council. The repeal of the two statutes, and the abolition of the sway of the Privy Council were the terms on which he would support Government.

His resolutions were triumphantly carried. Chief Secretary Fitzpatrick found it useless to make resistance. The House of Lords concurred with the House of Commons in the famous Address to the King, stating "that the Crown of England is an Imperial Crown, but that Ireland is a distinct Kingdom, with a Parliament of her own, the sole Legislature thereof." The English Government then placed the Resolutions before the King, who directed copies to be laid before the British Parliament; and on the 17th of May the English House of Commons resolved itself into a Committee for the consideration of the whole question. Mr. Fox determined to yield with a good grace. He stated that he would rather see Ireland wholly separated from the Crown of

England, than kept in subjection by force. "Unwilling subjects," he said, "are little better than enemies." He then moved a repeal of the 6th George the First, and his motion was adopted by Parliament.

The Irish Parliament then met upon the 27th of May; and the Lord Lieutenant officially noted in his speech the concurrence of the English Government with the resolutions of the Irish Parliament. Mr. Grattan moved the Address in answer to the Speech, and only two members voted against the Address. Notices of several Irish bills were then given by Grattan, Yelverton, and Forbes; and the Irish Parliament entered upon its independent existence.

Thus was carried the Revolution of 1782-in the achievement of which Henry Grattan played a part that would preserve his memory in history, even if his eloquence had not immortalized his name. In the 36th year of his age he stood before the world as the leading statesman in a national Revolution, pregnant with vast consequences to the authority of England, and to the politics of Ireland. Aided by a number of able men, and backed by a national army, he had brought about the most singular state of political relations between the countries. His ideas His ideas may be simply stated thus:-First, he wished that Ireland should own the Sovereign of England as her King. Secondly, that she should deny the legislative power of England upon Irish matters. Thirdly, that the Irish should live in affection with England, while they should preserve a passionate nationality. And such also were the views of his contemporary statesmen. On one important point, however, Grattan widely differed from many of the leading patriots. He was the earnest and unswerving supporter of the whole claims of the Catholics-he was for their emancipation from the odious bondage in which they had been held. As a matter of sentiment he was in favour of religious liberty and freedom, and also, as a matter of opinion; for, looking at the whole question as a statesman, he saw that it was utterly absurd to suppose that Irish Independence could exist, when half the country was enslaved. It reflects much credit on his political sagacity that he prophesied the Union, unless the Catholics were emancipated by the Irish Protestants, who in those times monopolised all political power. Upon the great

question of the liberty of the Irish Catholics, Grattan was completely right from first to last; and it must be admitted that his devotion to their cause was not merely the cold dictate of political prudence, it was also the impulse of his manly, generous nature. Throughout his whole life, and in all seasons, to the cause of the Irish Catholics, he "clung (to use his own words) with desperate fidelity."

In return for Grattan's services a vote of £100,000 was proposed in Parliament, for the purpose of giving him an estate. His first impulse was to decline the grant; he disliked to receive public money for services which had been voluntarily offered to his country. Yet if he declined an estate his difficulties were considerable. His patrimony was far from being sufficient to support the station to which he had raised himself. He could not turn to the bar after having devoted so much time to politics. He should therefore be compelled either to retire from the public scene, or to become a placeman. His uncle, Colonel Marlay, so strongly represented to him the nature of the latter dilemma, that Grattan acquiesced in the wisdom of becoming independent of party. He consented to accept half of the sum voted to him by Parliament; and probably then formed his inflexible resolution never to take office, as during his long life he repeatedly declined official position, though tendered him by various administrations.

66

The second period of Grattan's Irish Parliamentary life commenced with the agitation of the question of " Simple Repeal." Mr. Flood had evidently been much mortified with the splendid success of Grattan, and felt considerable chagrin at having been surpassed by his political pupil: he seemed to have resolved on recovering his former popularity, even at the expense of destroying Grattan's reputation. His conduct from first to last in the events of '82 was very singular and inconsistent: at first he had dissuaded Grattan from bringing on the question of Irish right, and affected a part of caution and moderation; but when independence had been declared by the Irish, and assented to by the English Parliament, he suddenly became the boldest-most vehement—and anti-English of all the Irish patriots. He declared that England's repeal of the 6th George the First effected nothing for Ireland, and contended that "simple repeal" of

that statute was not enough to effectuate Irish independence, unless the English Parliament passed a special act positively renouncing all claim to legislate for Ireland.

It should have been an object of supreme importance to have avoided vexatious questions and idle discussions, and to have united all Irish parties in a vigorous support of the new constitution of the country. Mr. Flood, however, succeeded in completely discrediting the Revolution of 1782, and in making the Irish public suppose that nothing effectual had been accomplished by Grattan. With childish credulity they attached extravagant importance to the idle doubts of Mr. Flood, and placed faith in scandalous calumnies which the malignant and envious propagated against the character of Grattan, who was held up to public odium as a mercenary adventurer "bought by that country which he had sold for prompt payment." In two months, from being the idol of the nation, he had sunk to be the object of public reprobation—the victim of slander and falsehood.

It is an easy thing now to dispose of the idle question of Simple Repeal. In truth, there was nothing whatever deserving of attention in the point raised by Mr. Flood. The security for the continuance of Irish freedom did not depend upon an English act of Parliament. It was by Irish will and not at English pleasure that the new constitution was to be supported. The transaction between the countries was of a high political nature, and it was to be judged by political reason, and by statesmanlike computation, and not by the petty technicalities of the courts of law. The Revolution of 1782, as carried by Ireland, and assented to by England (in repealing the 6th George the First), was a political compact-proposed by one country, and acknowledged by the other in the face of Europe: it was not (as Mr. Flood and his partisans construed the transaction) of the nature of municipal right, to be enforced or annulled by mere judicial exposition.

The question of Simple Repeal was two-fold in its nature— legal and political. Mr. Flood contended, in his own words, "that the simple repeal of a declaratory law (unless it contains a renunciation of the principle) is only a repeal of the declaration and not of the legal principle" (June 11th, 1782). No such

position as Mr. Flood here asserted could be maintained by sane lawyers unless (as was the case in 1782) several of them had their minds inflamed by spleen, or excited by fanaticism. If a legal principle survives the repeal of a declaratory law, where does it exist? How is it operative? In what case can it be applied? It may have a metaphysical existence in the head of an abstract speculator, or a fanciful politician, but where does it exist in tangible shape? A legal principle is cognizable; but when the law containing a principle is erased from the statute book, where is the principle to be sought for? In truth, if Mr. Flood's mode of construing the effects of a repeal of a statute were correct, a most fatal analogy would be established for those high prerogative lawyers who favour constructive doctrines of all crown law. Several of the worst laws of the Stuart times were annulled by simple repeal: if the views put forward by Flood were right, these principles still survive. Innumerable laws were swept from the statute book by Romilly and Mackintosh, but do the principles of those enactments remain ?

Again, treating Mr. Flood's question according to the principles of Irish constitutional law (as it existed in June 1782), his views were ridiculous and inconsistent. What was the principle of the Revolution of 1782 other than "that Ireland was a distinct kingdom from England, with an Imperial Crown, but a Parliament of its own, the sole legislature thereof"? These are the words of the Declaration of Rights, unanimously assented to in the Irish House of Commons. The Revolution asserted the supremacy of the Irish Parliament in Ireland"the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland should alone make laws for Ireland." How truly absurd then to have sought Irish liberty by a renunciatory act of the English Parliament! Seeking for an English law on such a subject was calling in question the right and power of Ireland to legislate for herself. As Mr. Grattan aptly said, "we went to the Sovereign with and not for a charter."

As a question of legal security and British constitutional law, the absurdity of Mr. Flood's views were admirably exposed by Grattan. "What is the authority of the Parliament of England? Omnipotence within the realm of England.