200,000l. in 1785, and that you got one half year's produce of the new taxes. I make no doubt that the resolution, though rejected to-night, will have a good effect. The principle must be carried. Government must at least live within its income; but then it is to such exertions, and to the urging such resolutions, you must attribute such an event."

The principle of the first resolution moved by Mr. Connolly, being unequivocally admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was unanimously agreed to.

The question being put on the second resolution, there ap peared,-Ayes-73-Noes-149.

SPEECH OF MR. GRATTAN,

IN THE

DEBATE ON PENSIONS.

PREFATORY OBSERVATIONS.

On the 20th February, 1786, Mr. Forbes moved for leave to bring in a bill" to prevent persons holding places or pensious under the crown from sitting or voting in the House of Commons." It is impossible to make mention of the name of this venerated and beloved friend of Irish independence, without recording our acknowledgment of the great and important services which he has rendered his country;-indefatigable in the performance of his legislative duties-gifted with great talents, and possessed of extensive information-he always enlightened his audience on every subject he discussed, and often successfully communicated to his countrymen a portion of that spirit which animated and directed his judgment in debate.

Mr. Grattan, in his celebrated letter to lord Clare, in the year 1800, thus speaks of this distinguished Irish senator:

"Mr. Forbes-a name I shall ever regard, and a death I shall ever deplore; enlightened, sensible, laborious, and useful— proud in poverty, and patriotic-he preferred exile to apostacy, and met his death.-I speak of the dead-I say nothing of the living, but that I attribute to this constellation of men, in a great measure, the privileges of your country; and I attribute such a generation to the residence of your parliament." Even such a man as Mr. Forbes, thus described by him who best knew his merits, and to whose superiority every Irishman with whom he acted bore equal testimony, could not escape the deluge of calumny, which swept away every man and every principle that was good or valuable in our island.-The slaughter of such characters was essential to the completion of the grand, though remote object of putting down the country: and every corrupt hand which could wield a quill, was engaged in the honourable

service of defaming and traducing our Forbes's, our Daly's, our Flood's, and our Burgh's;—their names, however, now live in the hearts of the people they instructed and protected, while their calumniators are forgotten, or remembered only to be execrated.

"Irishmen of the present day," says our admired orator"may go to the graves of these honourable dead men—they may raise up their tomb-stones, as their calumniators threw them down; they will feel it more instructive to converse with the ashes of the one, than with the compositions of the other."

On the 6th March, 1786, Mr. Forbes moved the house to re solve, "That the present application and amount of pensions on the civil establishment, are a grievance to the nation, and demand redress."

On the discussion of this motion, it appeared, that in the year 1757, the annual charge of pensions was only 45,000l. per annum; and that, in that year a resolution passed the house, to the following effect, "That paying so great a sum in pensions, was an imprudent disposition of the public revenue, and a grievance which ought to be redressed."

In 1785, the pension list amounted to 95,000l. which exceeded the whole amount of the civil establishment.

From 1757 to 1785, every establishment, civil and military, greatly increased-the patronage of the crown was extended, and the national debt amounted to more than two millions.-The pension list of Ireland exceeded that of England.-The commerce-the revenue, and the resources of the former, bore no competition with those of the latter." It was idle, therefore," said Mr. Forbes, "to talk of the independence of the Irish parliament, whose members received wages from the crown." On this debate, Mr. Grattan made the memorable declaration, which seemed to have given such pain to the delicate feelings of ministers:"Should I affirm," said Mr. Grattan, "that the pension list is not a grievance, I should affirm, in the face of my country, an impudent, insolent, and a public lie!" This motion, so essential to the purity and independence of parliament, was lost.—On this occasion, Mr. Grattan occupied the attention of the house but for a short time.

On the 13th March, Mr. Forbes presented his bill, to limit the amount of pensions, which was received, and read a first time;

and on a motion being made, that the bill be read a second time, on the succeeding night, Mr. Curran, (now master of the Rolls) distinguished himself in an eminent degree, by a display of that sarcastic wit, and a happy exertion of that fancy, which fascinated every hearer, captivated the attention, and excited the admiration of every party, on either side of the house. The speech he delivered on this occasion, appearing to the editors, to be faithfully and correctly reported, they would feel it an act of great injustice to that celebrated orator, and inflexible Irishman, to deny to the readers of this volume, the pleasure which they have experienced in the perusal of one of the happiest efforts of that caustic humour, which consumed, while it enlightened, and planted a thorn in the bosom of the administration, which could not refuse their admiration of its powers.

On this very interesting question, Mr. Curran addressed the chair. (See p. 73, ante.)

Mr. Grattan now rose, and spoke as follows:

"Sir, the gentlemen who have urged the most plausible argument against the bill, have not taken the trouble to read it. They say, that it gives up the control of parliament over such pensions as shall not exceed the limits of the bill. No such thing--your control cannot be given up without express words; but here there are express words to save it: here, aware of such a pretence, and that no colour should be given for such an objection, the preamble states the nature of the pensions which are to have any existence at all, "such as are allowed by parliament." This objection being answered by the bill, I must advert to another, which has nothing to say to the bill.

66

'A right honorable member has declared the bill to be the most exceptionable that ever came into parliament; and his reason for this most extraordinary declaration is most singular indeed," because it restrains the ministers of the crown, and leaves the pension list open to both houses of parliament."-From thence he infers that a practice of profusion will ensue, and from hence you would infer that the pension list was not now open to the addresses of both or either of the houses of parliament; but the fact is, that the evil he deprecates, now exists; that the bill does not give, but finds and leaves a power to both houses of parliament to address on such subjects. As the matte 3 R

42*

now stands, both or either of the houses of parliament may ad dress for such charges, and the minister may also impose such charges with such addresses. You are thus exposed to the two causes of expense, the power of address in us, and the unlimited power of pensioning without address in the minister; and the right honorable thinks you will increase profusion by removing one of its causes ;-the principal cause-the notorious cause-the unlimited power of the minister, the most constant, operative and plentiful source of prodigality. In the same argument he adds, that the power of parliament, in disposing of the public money, ruined this country, when there was a redundancy in the treasury, by serving the purposes of jobbing aristocracy. According to him, then, the greatest evils which can befal this country are a surplus in the treasury, and a restraint on the prodigality of the minister. A prosperity which produces redundancy, and a constitutional bill which restrains the unlimited grants of the crown, is his receipt for the ruin of Ireland. In the course of this argument my right honorable friend has spoken of economy. Sir, a friend of mine the other night moved a resolution on the principle of economy, "that your expense should not exceed your income;" his motion was founded on an obvious maxim, that in ordinary years a government should be restrained by its own estimate of expense and revenue; his motion was rejected on two idle arguments: That unforeseen emergencies might arise, was one argument; but neither the complexion nor situation of the times warranted the apprehension of danger, and therefore the argument, if it had no corruption in contemplation, was fictitious and idle. The other argument against my friend's motion was, that the maxims of economy were adopted already by the present administration.-On what foundation, fact, or authority, such an argument was advanced, the catalogue of pensions can best determine. Those pensions are not words, but facts. I always conceived that the public treasure was, like the people's liberty, to be guarded rather by law than confidence; and I thought the new taxes a good opportunity for establishing such a safeguard. I thought that such a confidence, without such a safeguard, would encourage administration at last into acts of profusion; but I could not think the act of profusion would accompany the professions of economy and the grants of the people. I could not foresee that peculation would attend the birth of the tax. I will