"sures, because if they did insult this country, they did not "less insult and violate the dignity of its chief governor. And "when your excellency shall return to the royal presence, and "lay before our sovereign the unhappy state of this kingdom, you will please to represent us as a nation unable to exist for "ten years under such a system of management as has unfortu"nately been pursued during your excellency's administration;

as a people not insensible to an earnest of a favourable dispo"sition shewn to us in some late acts respecting our trade, con"sidering that in process of time they may become a national "benefit; but you will please to inform his majesty, that our "condition is misunderstood, if it is thought that such acts do "atone for the total want of economy hitherto, or can support "us under future profusion. We entertain no doubt your ex"cellency will make such representation, conceiving the facts "to be melancholy truths, and the representation of them in"cumbent upon you as an indispensable duty, because the measures, which have perplexed our revenues, increased our debt, "and insulted our country, though we must suppose not agree"able to your sentiments, have all taken place under your ad"ministration."

66

So much analogy existed between the cases of Ireland and America, that it became the fashion both in and out of parliament to put them on a parallel, and to argue indifferently from one and the other: the American war never was popular either in Great Britain or Ireland; but in the latter of those kingdoms, the people assumed the cause of America from sympathy; in the former they abetted it upon principle. Government was seriously alarmed at the honourable light in which the American rebellion was generally viewed, and found it incumbent upon

The American dispute, which so much engaged the attention of every part of the British empire, most naturally attracted the consideration of the citizens of Dublin. In 1775, the Earl of Effingham, finding that the regiment in which he served was destined to act against the colonies, thought it inconsistent with his character and unbecoming of his dignity to enforce measures with his sword, which he had condemned in his legislative capacity. He therefore wrote a letter to the secretary at war, resigning his command in the army, and stating his reasons for it. This conduct rendered that nobleman extremely popular, and the city of Dublin, at the Midsummer quarter assembly, voted public thanks to Lord Effingham, "for having consistently with "the principles of a true Englishman refused to draw his sword against the "lives and liberties of his fellow-subjects in America." Soon after an address of thanks, in fuller terms, was presented to him from the guild of merchants of Dublin: the latter also presented an address of thanks to the several peers, who (as they said)" in support of the constitution, and in opposition "to a weak and wicked administration, protested against the American Re"straining Bills." This address, with the several answers of the lords to whom it was presented, appeared at that time in the public papers, and produced a very strong sensation throughout the nation. The sheriffs and commons of Dublin had for some time endeavoured to obtain the concurrence of

them to discredit and debase the cause of America to the utmost. Lord Harcourt, in closing the session, assured the parliament, that it must give sincere pleasure to every friend of Ireland to reflect, that whilst a great part of his majesty's dominions in America was torn and convulsed by a most unnatural rebellion, that kingdom wisely and affectionately persevered in its duty, enjoyed the blessings of tranquillity and abundance, and cultivated the arts of peace, and the improvements of commerce, agriculture, and manufactures. This flattering picture of the country, however admired by some, evidently bore no resemblance to the original. The fiscal resources, and financial state of a country's credit, ever weigh heavy in the scale of national prosperity. The expences of the two preceding years ending at Lady-Day, 1775, exceeded the revenue by 247,7971. Os. 10d. The national debt then amounted to 931,690l. 1s. 9žd. and the pensions for the same time to 158,6851. 4s. 81d. Parliament had again recourse to the ill-judged plan of raising 175,000l. by another tontine, although they had already felt the inconveniency and disadvantage of that mode of borrowing. The greatest part of the subscriptions to the first tontine had been made out of the nation, so that not only the expence of agency was incurred for the payment of the annuities in London, but the amount of those annuities being remitted out of the kingdom became an additional drain to its specie, and consequently an increase of the evil arising from absentees.

The first octennial parliament had scarcely lived four years, when the British cabinet found it expedient, that it should be dissolved. This parliament had during the last session in two instances opposed their mandates, and when summoned to attend the House of Peers, the commons through their speaker

the then lord mayor and board of aldermen, in a petition to the throne, against the measures pursued with respect to the colonies, but were answered by the latter, upon their first application, that the matter was of the highest importance, and therefore expedient. Upon a subsequent occasion, however, a committee of six aldermen, with as many of the common council, was appointed to draw up a petition and address; which after several weeks preparation or delay, being at length accomplished, the petition was arrested in its further progress, by a negative from the lord mayor and aldermen. Upon this disappointment, the sheriffs and commons entered into resolutions, which they prefaced as follows: Anxious to preserve our reputations, from the odium, that must remain to all posterity on the names of those, who in any wise promote the acts now carrying on in America; and feeling the most poignant grief, as well on account of the injured inhabitants of that country, as on that of our own brave countrymen, sent on the unnatural errand of killing their fellow subjects: "Resolved, That it is the duty of every good citizen to exert his utmost abilities to allay the unhappy disputes, that at present disturb the Bri"tish empire." "Resolved, That whoever would refuse his consent to a "dutiful petition to the king, tending to undeceive his majesty, and by which "it could be hoped that the effusion of one drop of subject-blood might be prevented, is not a friend to the British constitution."

made a just but ungracious and ineffectual representation of the state of the nation. These symptoms of independency alarmed government, and created a diffidence in the steadiness of those, who had enlisted under their banners. They looked to more steady submission in a future parliament, and dissolved the present. Mr. Pery was re-elected speaker by a majority of 141 to 98. The lord lieutenant did not meet the new parliament, which was convened in June, 1776, pro forma, and by several prorogations went over to the 14th of October, 1777.

It has been already mentioned, that in the session of 1775 a message from his majesty had been sent to the commons, requiring the use of 4000 men out of the army of Ireland for foreign service, and proposing to replace them by foreign Protestant troops, without any expence to that country. The first part of the proposal was complied with, but the acceptance of foreign troops refused. The engagement for the disposal of the public money, included in the foregoing message, without the consent or knowledge of the British House of Commons, rendered this subject a matter of discussion in that body. On the 15th of February, 1776, Mr. Thomas Townshend (afterwards Lord Sidney), there introduced it as a breach of the privileges of that house, and stated his complaint in the following words: "That the Earl of Harcourt, lord lieutenant general and gene"ral governor of Ireland, did, on the 23d of November last, in "breach of the privileges, and in derogation of the honour and "authority of that house, send a written message to the House "of Commons of the parliament of Ireland, signed with his "own hand, to the following effect;" having then recited the message, he moved that a committee be appointed to enquire into the matter of the said complaint, and to report the same, as it should appear to them, to the house. This gentleman supported his motion with great ability, and was equally well supported by his friends. They maintained, that the privileges of the house, though applied to themselves individually, or collectively in a more refined sense, were the indubitable right of all the commons of England, who had one general interest in them. That though each of these were an object of consideration, they all sunk to a very inferior degree of importance, when at all placed in opposition to, or compared with that inestimable privilege, the power of granting money, of holding the purse of their constituents, and of guarding it from the hands of violence, art, or fraud. This was a trust of the first magnitude, which, in fact, included every other; for while that was preserved inviolate, the crown would remain under the constitutional control of parliament; but whenever that was wrested by open force, defeated by indirect means, or done away by fraud, the liberties and privileges of the people would be for ever annihilated.

They pointed out the wise, commendable, and well-founded jealousy shewn by the commons, when at any time, even the other house had interfered in the smallest degree with that great pri vilege; but that when any attempts of this sort were made by the crown, or its ministerial agents, they immediately caught the alarm; and however they were before divided, had, at all times, uniformly united, as if actuated by one soul, in resisting the smallest encroachment upon their power of granting or refusing their own money and that of their constituents. They said, that the message in question presented facts, and contained matters of the most suspicious and alarming nature. That if the conditions it held out had been accepted, the parliament of England would have been pledged to that of Ireland for the payment of 8000 men, only to have the use of 4000; so that Ireland was to be bribed into an acceptance of this insidious bargain, by retaining her usual estab lishment as to number, while she was to be eased of one third of the burthen. That such a proposition could only have originated from the worst designs, as the absurdity, they said, was too glaring to be charged to any degree of folly. But that the nature of the bargain was a matter of little consequence, when put in competition with that double violation of the constitution, that daring temerity, of engaging for the payment of sums of money, and venturing to propose the introduction of foreign forces, without the consent of parliament. Some gentlemen went as far as to say, that no doubt could be entertained of the designs, from whence these propositions originated. One was an experiment on the Irish parliament, to try if it could be induced to consent to the reception of foreign troops, thereby to establish a precedent, which might be afterwards applied to other purposes. The other had also its fixed object: it was a scheme, they said, however deep, formed on very simple principles, and went directly to vest in the crown a virtual power of taxing, as oppor tunity might serve, both Great Britain and Ireland. In Ireland, the minister was to be taught to ask some favour; then England was to be pledged. In England again, when such circumstances occurred, as rendered the attempt impracticable, Ireland was to be taxed, to maintain the supremacy of the British legisIn the mean time, it prepared the minds of the people, and habituated them to such notions, as would by degrees be the means of reducing the parliament of each to be the mere instrumental agents of the crown, without the least degree of will or independency whatever. Administration seemed in an odd situation upon this attack. The matter was serious; the offer of introducing foreign troops without the previous consent of parliament, indeed to introduce them at all as a permanent part of our establishment, could not be a matter of indifference to the constitution and safety of this kingdom. On this occasion,

no small marks of the want of concert and system appeared in the grounds, upon which this measure was explained and defended in the debate. The minister disavowed those specific instructions, upon which it was supposed the message must have been founded; but acknowledged his general co-operation, in matters relative to the government of Ireland. Both he, and another lord, then lately come into administration, disclaimed all responsibility whatever, for the conduct of his majesty's servants in that kingdom. They said in general or separately, that the viceroy might have mistaken, or exceeded his instructions; that he might not have conveyed his meaning in the clearest terms; but that there was no relation between the British ministry and the king's servants in that country, which rendered the former in any degree accountable for these matters, and consequently they could not be affected by any censure grounded upon them. Some of the gentlemen in opposition considered. the business as of somewhat a less dangerous nature, from the schemes not being carried into execution. They held, that the spirit and magnanimity of Ireland, in rejecting the foreign troops, and in refusing to accept the offer for lessening her own burthen by throwing a part of it upon Great Britain, had already obviated the mischievous tendency of that measure; so that the only object of censure now remaining, was the evil intention from which it originated. They also held, that the whole weight of the censure would fall upon the lord lieutenant, who was merely ministerial in the business, while those who were really culpable would not only pass untouched, but very possibly, from some crooked motive of policy, might rejoice in the illplaced effect. After very considerable debates, the question being put, near twelve at night, the motion for a committee was rejected upon a division, by a majority of 224 to 106. A motion was then made for laying the votes of the Irish commons, of some specified dates, and relative to this business, before the house, which passed in the negative without a division. This was succeeded by the following motion, "That it is highly "derogatory to the honour, and a violent breach of the privi "leges of this house, and a dangerous infringement of the "constitution, for any person whatever to presume to pledge his "majesty's royal word to the house of the parliament of Ireland: "that any part of the troops upon the establishment of that "kingdom shall, upon being sent out of that kingdom, become "a charge upon Great Britain, without the consent of this house, "or for any person to presume to offer to the House of Com"mons of the parliament of Ireland, without the consent of this "house, that such national troops, so sent out of Ireland, shall "be replaced by foreign troops, at the expence of Great Britain."