you how she has grown, and read you the accounts I have taken for the last fourteen years. I have divided them into two periods, seven years each. In the first seven years, commencing with 1801, Ireland exported to Great Britain 4,300,000 quarters of corn, and her growth, or increase in the course of that time, was 2,300,000 quarters. In the same period of fourteen years, foreign nations sent to Great Britain, in the first seven years, 6,000,400 quarters of corn; and in the last seven years, 4,200,000 quarters, and there was a decrease of 2,200,000 quarters. Thus Ireland has doubled her quantity; and foreign nations, in the same period, have declined one-third; and Ireland was coming into their place, as they are now coming into the place of Ireland.

On the progress of Irish husbandry, I beg leave to say a few sentences. Lord Pery was the father of Irish agriculture. In the depth and extent of his sagacious and prophetic intellect, he conceived for his country a project, which was nothing less than the creation of tillage. His plan was to bring the market of the capital to the door of every farmer in the remotest part of the island, and he did so by granting an inland bounty on the carriage of corn to Dublin. He found Ireland, in the article of corn, a country of import; he put in practice his plan-she ceased to import. She began to export; she began to export much; she proceeded to export more-she became a country of great, of growing, and of permanent export. The public care of Mr. Foster, and his vigorous mind, followed Lord Pery, and by a graduated scale of export, furthered the growth of tillage. Then came my right honourable friend (Sir John Newport), whose presence represses the ardour I feel to dwell on the imperishable honours annexed to his name and his measures. He finished the work by his bill of unlimited export; and Ireland, who was fed by imported corn in the middle of the last century, has, in the last war, fed herself on a scale of doubled population -supplied Great Britain with above two millions worth of corn; and sent near another million to supply your expeditions, and to feed foreign nations. It is an infirmity in the argument of the gentlemen of the other side of the question, that Ireland should have made no part of their calculation, and that, in contemplating the resources of the British empire, they should have overlooked one-third of the King's dominions.

*

I hope you will think that the gentlemen have not made a case strong enough to incline you to reduce your people to a state in which they must depend on foreign nations for their food.

I beg to return to that part of the subject which is comprehended in the denomination of Ireland. You know it was the policy of your ancestors to destroy the manufactures of Ireland; and it was the tendency of the Union to direct her capital to gross produce. Have you, thus, driven Ireland out of manufacture, and do you now propose to drive her out of tillage? You recollect that for ages Ireland has excluded the manufactures of other countries, and has given an exclusive preference to yours. Ireland desires, and desires of right, that, as she prefers your manufactures, you may prefer her corn. Do you propose that Ireland should prefer the British manufacturer, and that the British manufacturer should prefer the French husbandman? You know that Ireland owes 137,000,000l., the principal debt of the war; that the interest is 6,500,000.; that her revenue is not 5,500,000%.; and that her deficit to pay the interest is above a million a year. Do you mean that she should supply that deficit by giving up her agriculture? You know that of her interest, 4,500,000l. is paid to you. How? By her produce. When you propose that she should desert or diminish her husbandry, you shake your funded security. Again, you are aware that in rent to absentees, Ireland pays not less than two millions annually, and pays it out of her produce. When you propose to diminish-when you do not propose to augment that produce, you shake your landed security. Again, in the respective traffic of the two countries, the account stands so:-Ireland pays to Great Britain for commodities, at the current price, a large sum, about 4,500,000l., for interest; for the rents of absentees 2,000,000.- altogether about 16,000,000l. annually. The exportation of Ireland is about 17,000,000, of which 2,900,000l. is the export of corn. When you propose to diminish her produce in corn, nay, when you do not propose to increase it, you propose that she should not pay you that balance. Again, are you unapprized that the population of Ireland is not less than 6,000,000, and that a great proportion of that number are connected with tillage; if you go out of tillage, what will you do with that population? Will you, with the opposers of this

measure, consign that people to famine and to tumult, or, with the supporters of the measure, hand them over to plenty and to peace?

Again, in addition to these reflections, will you consider that the question before you is not merely a means of subsistence, but a measure of empire. England clothes Ireland-Ireland feeds England; and both live with one another, and by one another; the two nations are bound together by law, but there is something stronger than law; they are grappled together by the iron fangs of necessity, and not only legally united, but physically identified; and this is the very soul of your connexion. In the relationship of these two countries, mutual want is public concord -that intercourse which makes them physically dependent on one another, makes them physically independent of their enemies, and thus forms the strength of your empire as well as its abundance.

Sir, I am for this resolution. I am for it, because it is decisive, not ambiguous-because 80s. is a preference which the farmer will understand. Do not send him to your averages; for while you perplex the farmer with your calculations, the plough is at a stand. Sir, I am for the measure, because it gives strength to your funds-credit to your landed interest-identification to the people of the respective countries, and physical independence on the foreigner. I am for it, because it is an increase of your ways and means; because it promises plenty, where alone it can be relied on, namely, in your home market; and, with that plenty-cheapness; but that cheapness which is steady, and pays your farmer while it feeds your manufacturer, instead of that extravagant fluctuation which alternately ruins both; and I am for this measure, because it secures us against the policy suggested by its opponents, and reducible to three propositions-an abandonment of tillage; a relinquishment of your power to supply your own consumption; and a dependence on foreign markets for bread.

Such were Mr. Grattan's opinions on this question, which has so puzzled statesmen and political economists. They were founded on Irish considerations, as her interests were paramount in his mind. Great opposition was made to the

measure the cry of cheap bread and big loaf was prevalent and predominant among the populace of London-tumults and outrages were the result. The houses of the Ministers, and the chief supporters of the Bill, were attacked and considerably damaged. Mr. Ponsonby's was assailed; but the populace were misinformed as to Mr. Grattan's residence-he escaped, and wrote as follows:

MR. GRATTAN TO HENRY GRATTAN, JUN.

London, March 8, 1815.

MY DEAR HENRY,-Much rioting has taken place here, and some mischief. It is very shameful; the mob went to the houses of individuals and did great damage. I passed through them on foot, but looked so little like a gentleman, that they mistook me for one of themselves. "T is over-the mob will do no more mischief, I think; though its hard to say. But the Bill will pass. Yours

ever,

The Bill passed by 235 to 38.*

H. GRATTAN.

A new doctrine has now arisen. Free Trade is in the ascendant, and those who formerly were for protection are against all duties, without regard to character, conduct, or consistency. The Prime Minister (Sir Robert Peel) takes the lead in this revolution.—Note by Editor.

CHAPTER XV.

Buonaparte's return from Elba.-Question of War.-Mr. Grattan supports it. His speech, and remarks on Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke.-Lord Grey opposes it. Remarks on the conduct of the Opposition; on Lord Castlereagh and the Tory Party.-Catholic Question brought on by Sir Henry Parnell.-Feeling on the subject.-Mr. Grattan speaks.-Distress in Ireland. Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald's letter.-Sir J. Newport's motion as to Ireland.-Effects of the Union.-National Bankruptcy.-Consolidation of the Exchequers.-Sir John Newport's letter to Mr. Grattan.-Catholic Question. Mr. Bellew.-Sir H. Parnell's letter.-Catholic Committee apply to Mr. Grattan to support their claims (1817).—Sir James Mackintosh's remarks on debate (note).-Death of Ponsonby and Curran.— Mr. Grattan's letter to Lady Charleville.-Window Tax.-Discontent of Citizens of Dublin.-Mr. Grattan elected for Dublin, fifth time.-Attacked when chaired.—His reply to addresses then.-Proposes Catholic Question, 1819.-Letter to Judge Day.-Lord Holland's letter.--Diary of his illness and death.

THE return of Napoleon aroused Mr. Grattan from his retreat at Tinnehinch. He hated tyranny, especially a military tyranny. He had witnessed its effects in his own country, and all his apprehensions for her safety now returned. The obstinacy of the British Government as regarded the Catholics filled his mind with renewed uneasiness; and he beheld, in the restoration of Buonaparte, danger to Ireland, and insecurity to Great Britain.

On the 25th of February, 1815, Napoleon left Elba, with 1000 men, and landed at Cannes, and

The author was abroad after the battle of Paris, in 1814, and had an opportunity of witnessing the state of parties and the sentiments of the people they were by no means so favourable to Buonaparte as were reported in England. His brother was at Elba when Buonaparte left it, and was the first to communicate the intelligence of his departure to the British officer at Piombino, whose want of vigilance was most unpardonable.