minister, "with my civil war in Ireland, my sale of the peerage, my proscription of the Catholics, my military government. Let me use the name of England, the power of England, and the arms of England, and involve the fate of England, to tread down Ireland; but do not let the Parliament of England question me in this abuse of her name, this prostitution of her power, and this felonious application of her arms." Thus the ministry of England set up the constitution against the empire, and the empire against the constitution. On all questions of trade and constitution they argue with you as with a secondary country; they bear down the particular interest of Ireland by advancing the general interest of the empire; they bear down Irish constitution by the pretext of British connection. Having rendered British connection less popular by such artifice, and having created an alarm in certain British senators for the state of the connection, and having thus induced them to move the King to advert to the connection; they then set up the constitution, the constitution they have destroyed, against the connection they have endangered! They are in the double and destructive habit of setting the name against the substance, the name of liberty against any interference for its recovery, the name of the connection against such measures as would render the connection potent and popular; they make each destructive to itself, and both destructive to one another. This kind of doctrine, it is their doctrine, it is his doctrine, would produce a minister perfectly uncontrollable and irresponsible; to Ireland irresponsible from absence, to England from sophistry; physically irresponsible to one country, sophistically irresponsible to the other; that is, an enemy to both. Such a minister would be a monster, the spring of every executive action, and with the executive power of both; in fact (though not in right) the creator of your executive, the salient source of every water of bitterness that has overflowed this country. He who decides in effect your religious questions, your reform questions, your commercial, your financial questions, has decided them most wickedly; is only to be assailable by the curses of the people! Such a minister is a tyrant!

Doctor Duigenan replied; but the order of the day was carried without a division, and his motion consequently was lost.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

MR. W. B. PONSONBY PROPOSES HIS RESOLUTIONS on reform.

May 15. 1797.

ON this day, Mr. W. B. Ponsonby, in pursuance of notice, brought forward his motion on reform. The resolutions he submitted were as follows:

"Resolved, That it is indispensably necessary to a fundamental reform of the representation, that all disabilities, on account of religion, be for ever abolished, and that Catholics shall be admitted into the legislature, and all the great offices of state, in the same extent, &c. as Protestants now are.

"That it is the indispensable right of the people of Ireland, to be fully and fairly represented in Parliament.

"That in order that the people may be fully enabled to exercise that right, the privilege of returning members for cities, boroughs, &c. in the present form, shall cease; that each county be divided into districts, consisting of 6000 houses each, each district to return two members to Parliament.

"That all persons possessing freehold property to the amount of forty pounds per annum ; all possessed of leasehold interests, of ; all possessed of a house ; all who have resided for a cer

the annual value of

of the value of tain number of years in any great city, or town, following a trade; and, all who shall be free of any city, &c. by birth, marriage, or servitude, shall vote for members of Parliament.

"That seats in Parliament shall endure for

years."

number of

[The blanks were left to be filled up by the discretion of the House.]

Mr. Pelham moved the question of adjournment. The original motion was opposed by Mr. Denis Browne, Mr. Marcus Beresford, Mr. Jephson, Sir Hercules Langrishe, Sir Frederick Flood, Mr. C. Osborne, and Mr. W. Smith. They argued that, in the present situation of the country, it was not prudent to agitate the question; a dangerous conspiracy existed, and part of the kingdom was in a state of rebellion, and this must be put down before any such subjects could be discussed; but, even if these measures, reform and Catholic emancipation, were yielded, the people would not be satisfied; revolution was the real object of the United Irishmen, and reform and emancipation were mere pretences.

It was supported by Mr. Stewart, Sir John Freke, Mr. G. Ponsonby, Mr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Hoare, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Grattan. They said that the discontents of the people had been, in a great degree, occasioned by the resistance of government to constitutional and conciliatory measures; government had tried

violent remedies, they had resorted to the most severe laws, until they ended by suspending all law, and introducing a military system. The people had called for reform, and, if a wise and moderate reform was granted, one great argument would be taken from the discontented. With respect to the Catholic question; of the policy of this measure there could be little doubt. If these two modes of conciliation were adopted, the people would be gratified, and if they were withheld, the discontents would naturally increase. The convention bill, said Mr. Curran, was passed to punish the meetings at Dungannon, and those of the Catholics; the government considered the Catholic concessions as defeats that called for vengeance, and cruelly have they avenged them. But did that act, or those which followed it, put down those meetings? On the contrary, it concealed them most foolishly. When popular discontents are abroad, a wise government should put them into an hive of glass; you hid them. The association at first was small; the earth seemed to drink it as a rivulet, but it only disappeared for a season. A thousand streams through the secret windings of the earth, found their way to one course, and swelled its waters, until at last, too mighty to be contained, it burst out a great river, terrifying by its cataracts. This was the effect of our penal code; it swelled sedition into rebellion; and what else could be hoped from a system of terrorism. You have tried to force the people; but the rage of your penal laws was a storm that only drove them in groups to shelter. I know I am censured heavily for having acted for them in the late prosecutions; I feel no shame at such a charge, except that, at such a time as this, to defend the people should be held out as an imputation upon a King's counsel, when the people are prosecuted by the state. I think every counsel is the property of his fellow-subjects. If, indeed, because I wore His Majesty's gown, I had declined my duty, or done it weakly or treacherously; if I had made that gown a mantle of hypocrisy, and betrayed my client, or sacrificed him to any personal view, I might, perhaps, have been thought wiser by those who have blamed me; but I should have thought myself the basest villain upon earth.

Mr. Fletcher (afterwards Judge), said that the plan proposed did not innovate on the constitution, but went to correct abuses of modern introduction; the greater part of the boroughs in Ireland were created by the House of Stuart for the purposes of patronage; and unless the essence of the British constitution be corruption, the reform of that House cannot subvert it.

Mr. GRATTAN observed: That the gentlemen who object to the motion, rely on a cavil, which supposes the motion admitted the Roman Catholics into the church, as well as the state and the Parliament. They know the motion does no such thing; it propounds that disabilities should cease, and then it expresses what those disabilities are, viz. "disabilities

to sit in Parliament, or hold offices of state." It states a general principle of concord, and applies that principle to the only points to which it is applicable, civil, military, and political situations; and the objection can have no other view than to excite an apprehension in the church, and create false alarm under pretext of religion. Of the same kind is that other objection which would excite an alarm for the rights and privileges of cities and corporate towns. What are the rights and privileges of cities and corporate towns to return members to serve in Parliament? nothing; except in a few cities and towns no such right exists. The proprietors of boroughs have taken that right away; they have made public right private property; they have left indeed to the town the name of the return, and have imposed on the town the hardship and insult of their own nomination. These are the persons who now call out for the rights and privileges of cities and corporate towns; persons who would not be in this House if they had not usurped those rights and those privileges, and who now object to this plan, not because it abolishes, but because it restores to cities and towns those rights which they themselves abolished, and do not like to restore. We have considered the state of towns and cities, and find there are not twelve which are free; and with regard to such, instead of abolishing the right of representation, we have by the plan greatly extended it; for in large and free cities, instead of two members, the return would be more. For instance, in Dublin, it would be perhaps eight; in Cork, perhaps four; in every city or town which contained 5000 houses, two; in every city or town which contained less, the proportion of representation would be according to the proportion of houses, in which cities or towns every person having a house of a certain value for a certain time, as well as every person exercising a trade for a certain time, would have a vote. So that this plan, which the objectors say excludes great towns and cities, not only includes them in a greater proportion of elective power than at present, but includes within the limits of such places, several descriptions of persons who were before totally excluded; includes not only more commercial towns, but includes what the borough system excluded, commercial property and commercial population. We had two ideas with respect to certain great towns and cities, one was to preserve them as they are, the other to extend over them the operation of the plan; the latter was thought preferable, because it increased the number of representatives for such great cities and towns. If, however, gentlemen wish to except them they may. If they

do, I shall persist to think it necessary, however, to add to the present number of representatives for such great towns and cities.

I beg to observe, that there is a special provision for the university in the plan, which, by accident, is omitted in the paper. Gentlemen then proceed to object to the plan on other grounds, or rather attempt to excite an alarm with respect to it on no ground at all. Gentlemen say, it establishes an aristocracy; the same gentlemen say, it establishes a democracy; that is, an alarm at all events is to be created, whether at democratic or aristocratic encroachment. How it can at once establish an aristocracy and democracy, they who make the double objection will explain. But, making the double objection, it would be unnecessary to reply to either, if the inconsistent men who so contradict themselves, were alone concerned; but for the subject it is proper that both objections should be canvassed. And, first, that of aristocracy; the plan proposed that no district should send members to Parliament, which did not contain a number not less than 5000 houses; is that aristocracy? In such a district every person having a tenure for a certain time and to a certain amount, having a house of a certain value and term, exercising a trade for a certain time and resident, must have a vote; so that the number of voters could hardly be less than from 3 to 5000; is that aristocracy? The number of votes in the city of Dublin at the last election, did not exceed 3000; the electors in many of the counties did not amount to so many. To suppose a district containing such a number, capable of becoming the borough of an individual, is a very improbable supposition, and contains in it another supposition, viz. that there is in some landed proprietors a gigantic property; which, however, if so, must have influence in any plan of reform; an influence not arising from the nature of the plan, but from the extent of the property. What then do gentlemen complain of? Do they call for an Agrarian law as the companion of a reform; or do they call for such a reform as shall prevent land and property from having their constant and invariable influences? Who are the gentlemen that complain of aristocracy? The representatives of twelve burgesses, or of certain noble lords. They complain of the aristocratic nature of a plan which extends the right of election, from a borough of twelve burgesses, to a district of 5000 voters. Would then 5000 voters, or 3000, or 4000, be the private friends, or companions, or servants of a great patron? No. What then can be the motive of such an objection on the part of the borough proprietors? What,