of the minister to counteract and counterbalance the representatives of the aristocracy; this anti-reform, or modelling of the legislature, was emphatically described and authoritatively confessed by a memorable declaration and scandalous justification; and the government was said to have paid for defeating the aristocratic influence a sum of half a million-a sum which would have bought fifty boroughs to be open to the people, and which the people were declared to have paid to procure a certain number of members in parliament to represent the minister.

The second period of anti-reforın was in 1789, when the same sum was declared as likely to be expended for the same purpose-for the purpose of buying more representatives of the then minister, to counteract the remaining strength of the representatives of the aristocracy; that is, when fifteen new parliamentary provisions were created to procure fifteen new ministerial representatives. Here is the other half million; and here are two anti-reforms, which have cost the nation as much as would buy one hundred boroughs, that is, all the boroughs; which (the fifteen new court representatives o 1789 being added to those of 1769, or about that period, and to the gradual additions since) make altogether from forty to fifty new additional representatives of administration, which is a number nearly equal to all the knights of the shire.

I have heard the word innovation. Would they who exclaim thus, call forty additional members to the counties innovation, and forty additional members to the ministers none? Is the extent of the principle of representation to more county members innovation, and the subversion of that principle in the instances I speak of none? Is a fuller and fairer representation of property on the principles of the constitution, innovation, and a fuller representation of the treasury none? The question is not now, whether you will admit the idea of a reform of parliament, but, having admitted and submitted to innovation in the shape of abuse, whether you will not now counteract that abuse in the shape of reformation? Gentlemen speak of a fixed constitu tion. Sir, these boroughs are not a fixed constitution, but floating property; a provision for younger children, a payment for debts, and a mortgage on the treasury for the family of the proprietor. The question is, then, whether a property which is now at market, shall be bought by individuals or opened to the people?-whether the minister shall, from time to time, buy such portions of your constitution as shall secure him at all times a majority against the people;

a reform shall so control that influence, as to secure to the people the chance of a majority in their own House of Parliament.

When I say this is a question, I am in error; it can be no question, or, at least, this is the only assembly in which it could be a question. Let not gentlemen complain of stirring the subject; they stirred, they decided the subject; they who negotiated the half million; they who created, in 1789, the memorable increase of court representation; they who confessed the half million; and they who devised the sale of the peerage. We are only the advocates for a reform of parliament, but they are the evidence of its necessity; they do not draw that conclusion themselves; no, but they are the evidences that force the conclusion upon you.

Gentlemen have talked of innovation; have they considered the date of boroughs when they talk in this manner? Many of these boroughs were at first free boroughs, perhaps one half of the whole was free by charter, and have been made close boroughs by its violation, and are in law extinct, and their members now sit in this House in the face of the law of the land as well as the principles of the constitution. We moved to go last session into an examination, but gentlemen were afraid; we wish to go now into an examination, and if they will venture, we have reason to think we can show you that many of those boroughs are dead in law, and their members sit here by intrusion.

We conclude this head by three observations: 1st, That in Ireland the erection of the majority of the boroughs was with a view to subvert her parliamentary constitution. 2nd, That the use made

of those boroughs since, by the sale of peerages, and by the procuring at each general election portions of the parliament, has tended to undermine that constitution. 3rd, That a great part of those boroughs have at this moment no. existence in law. therefore, conclude with Locke and Bolingbroke:

We,

"Things of this world are in so constant a flux, that nothing remains long in the same state; thus people, riches, trade, power, change their stations, flourishing, mighty cities come to ruin, and prove in time neglected, desolate corners; whilst other unfrequented places grow into populous countries, filled with wealth and inhabitants. But things not always changing equally, and private interest often keeping up customs and privileges when the reasons of them are ceased, it often comes to pass, that in governments where part of the legislature consists of representatives chosen by the people. that in tract of time this representation becomes very unequal and disproportionate to the reasons it was at first established upon. To what gross absurdities the following of custom, when reason has left it, may lead, we may be satisfied, when we see the bare name of a

town, of which there remain not so much as the ruins, where scarce so much housing as a sheep-cot, or more inhabitants than a shepherd, are to be found, send as many representatives to the grand assembly of law-makers as a whole county, numerous in people and powerful in riches; this strangers stand amazed at, and every one must confess needs a remedy”.

Speaking of the Revolution, Lord Bolingbroke adds:

"If it had been such, with respect to the elections of members to serve in parliament, these elections might have been drawn back to the ancient principle on which they had been established; and the tale of property which was followed anciently, and was perverted by innumerable changes that length of time produced, might have been restored; by which the communities to whom the right of electing was trusted, as well as the qualification of the electors and the elected, might have been settled in proportion to the present state of things. Such a remedy might have wrought a radical cure to the evil that threatens our constitution; whereas it is much to be apprehended, even from experience, that all others are merely palliative; and yet the palliative must be employed, no doubt, till the specific can be procured".

ANTI-UNION SPEECHES.

January 15, 1800.

MR. EGAN had just risen to speak, when Mr. Grattan entered the House, supported (in consequence of illness) by Mr. W. B. Ponsonby aud Mr. Arthur Moore.* He took the oaths and his seat, and after Mr. Egan had concluded, in consequence of illness being obliged to speak sitting, he addressed the House as follows:

SIR, The gentleman who spoke last but one (Mr. Fox) has spoken the pamphlet of the English minister-I answer that minister. He has published two celebrated productions, in both of which he declares his intolerance of the constitution of Ireland. He concur with the men whom he has hanged, in thinking the constitution a

* The reporters who have transmitted the account of the debates of the day, state, "Never was beheld a scene more solemn; an indescribable emotion seized the House and gallery, and every heart heaved in tributary pulsation to the name, the virtues, and the return to parliament of the founder of the constitu tion of 1782; the existence of which was then the subject of debate".

Р

grievance, and differs from them in the remedy only; they proposing to substitute a republic, and he proposing to substitute the yoke of the British Parliament; the one turns rebel to the King, the minister a rebel to the constitution.

We have seen him inveigh against their projects, let us hear him in defence of his own. He denies in the face of the two nations a public fact registered and recorded; he disclaims the final adjustment of 1782, and he tells you that this final adjustment was no more than an incipient train of negotiation. The settlement of which I speak consists of several parts, every part a record, establishing on the whole two grand positions. First, the admission of Ireland's claim to be legislated for by no other parliament but that of Ireland. Secondly, the finality imposed upon the two nations, regarding all constitutional projects affecting each other. On the admission of that claim, the first tracts of this adjustment are two messages sent by his majesty to the parliaments of the different countries, to come to a final adjustment, in order to remove the discontents and jealousies of the Irish; the second, the answer of the Parliament of Ireland to His Majesty's message, declaring, among other causes of discontent and jealousy, one great, capital, principal, and fundamental cause, namely, the interposition of the Parliament of Great Britain in the legislative regulation of Ireland, accompanied with a solemn protest against that interposition, and with a claim of right on the part of Ireland; not of the Parliament of Ireland only, but of the people of the realm, whose ancient and unalienable inheritance it was stated in that address to be-a perpetual exemption against the interference of the Parliament of Great Britain, or that of any other Parliament, save only the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. The third part of this adjustment was a resolution voted by the two British Houses of Parliament, in consequence of said address, transmitted by His Majesty for their consideration. There were two resolutions transmitted; the first, that the 6th of George I., containing the claim of interference by the British Parliament, should be repealed; the second, that the connection between the countries should be placed, by mutual consent, on a solid and permanent foundation. The third part of the covenant was, the address of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament upon the consideration of these two resolutions; which address does, among other things, accept of the proposition contained in the first resolution, and does expressly reject the second; for it says, that we conceive the resolution for unqualified and unconditional repeal of the 6th of George I. to be a nieasure of consummate wisdom.

I drew that address, and I introduced those words expressly to exclude any subsequent qualifications or limitations, affecting to clog or restrain the operations of that repeal, and the plenitude of the legislative authority of the Irish Parliament. The address adds the clause of finality; for instance, that, gratified in these particulars which it states, no "constitutional question between the two nations will any longer exist".

The next part was the measure adopted by the English Parliament upon the consideration of this address; and in that measure they accede to that address entirely and unequivocally; they embrace our proposition of unconditional and unqualified repeal; and they accordingly introduce a bill for that purpose; and thus they close the final adjustment; our address, though no part of their resolutions, becoming part of their covenant; as their bill of repeal, though no part of our acts, became part of our treaty.

Another instrument in the transaction is, the address to His Excellency the Lord-lieutenant, touching the finality of this measure, in which are these words "We have seen this great national arrangement established on a basis which secures and unites the interests of both kingdoms; the objects we have been labouring for have been accomplished".

The next is the declaration of the Irish government, touching the finality of that arrangement, "convince the people that every cause of past jealousy and discontent is finally removed, and that both countries have pledged their good faith to each other, and that their best security will be their inviolable adherence to this compact". There are two other parts which are material; the resolution of the Irish House of Commons, the 18th of June, declaring in substance, that the question was not now to be opened, and that the business was done, and in these words, that leave to bring in a bill of right was refused, because the right of legislation in the Irish Parliament in all cases had been already asserted by Ireland, and fully, and finally, and irrevocably acknowledged by Great Britain.

The next instrument was an address to His Majesty, to besecch him to appoint a day of public thanksgiving for the accomplishment of these great objects, as well as for his victories. Thus it appears,

that whatever idea might have been conceived in the second resolution of the 17th of May, 1782, it was totally and entirely abandoned. The minister of that time probably intended to make the best bargain he could for England, and therefore conceived it cligible to condition and qualify the acknowledgment of the independency of the Irish Parliament, by certain provisions respecting