66

in the same manner as in Great Britain." The ordinary reader might interpret this to mean on the part of England :—We freely extend to Ireland the full enjoyment of all our trade to these localities, subject to existing laws and restraints. Our benefits being equal, it is a condition, that should we, on whom the burden rests of our mutual and conjoint protection, find it necessary, in the interests of both, to vary those laws or restraints that you, Ireland, will co-operate with us, and adopt such changes in order that our reciprocal benefits may still continue to be the same. Ireland thought otherwise. She did not dissent from the modifications in the propositions, for these were matters for compromise or arrangement. But to be called on to re-enact English laws! Never! Grattan declared such a proposal to be a revocation of the Constitution." The country was up in arms: all other English injustice was as nothing to this. Merchants and manufacturers raised an outcry which found an echo from the disaffected populace-we have asked for bread, you have given us a stone! The treachery of England was too manifest. Petitions poured in from all quarters against the proposed change. [App. 15.] Flood out-Grattaned Grattan; he described the resolutions "as an infamous attack on Irish Independence." "Freedom of Constitution was necessary to freedom of trade,” "Liberty is the nurse of Commerce" were the commonplace expressions of the time. Appeals were made to the passions rather than to the judgments of those who found in the new opening for agitation a fresh opportunity for political display. It was to no purpose that Orde protested that England had no such designs as were imputed to her. The debate lasted all night, and, on the morning of the 13th of August, at nine o'clock, the utmost the Government could command for leave to bring in the Bill was 127-108.

When the result of the division was known, popular indignation rose to fever heat. Flood was for revolution rather than submit. An interval of two days was spent in meetings, remonstrances and revilings. On the 15th, when the Bill came on for discussion, Flood moved, "we hold ourselves bound not to enter into any engagement to give up the sole and exclusive right of Parliament

to legislate for Ireland in all cases, externally, commercially, internally." It was in vain the Attorney-General declared that the Bill was in no way opposed to the free constitution of Ireland, or that the House was reminded it was asked to do no more than that which was its annual practice in every session since the Colonial trade was granted,—in reciting the British Act, and re-enacting it. To no purpose did he declare that every advantage which British subjects possessed was offered equally to Ireland, or that the House was reminded that without English protection their means of trading would be worthless. He spoke to the Irish Commons and Irish people in language of which, it is to be regretted, they had small experience-words of sober remonstrance and truth. His observations led to personal retort and individual insult, according to existing practices, to be settled outside the House. The division evidenced a diminished majority in comparison with that which had permitted the introduction of the Bill, and Mr. Orde announced the measure would be withdrawn.

Thus was another occasion, critical in the history of the country, permitted to pass. The public ecstasy, that is the satisfaction of political agitators, knew no bounds. The Constitution was saved. England's propositions were rejected, and Ireland's opportunity was lost.

In the debates on the Commercial question, Mr. D. Brown's observations, when Mr. Orde moved the adjournment of the House, ought to be quoted: "He seemed to think the arrangement impracticable. This arrangement, Sir, has suggested in the other country an idea, that I am almost afraid to mention to this House -A Union! Good God! Sir, what union could we have with Great Britain, but union of debt and taxation-a union depriving us of liberty, and ruinous to our country?"

:

Parliament re-assembled on the 19th of January, 1786. Mr. Conolly, on the 9th of February, brought forward his motion for a general review of taxation. The House was in no mood to enter on the question, and it was lost by 134-78. A sense of disappointment was experienced in the House. It had won a victory, but how much had it lost? Many asked the question.

Why a measure against which so much feeling was expressed was capable of being carried, was also a subject of inquiry. Mr. Forbes believed the answer was to be found in the presence in Parliament of Members holding places and pensions. On the 6th of March he brought forward a motion respecting the pension list, which he declared exceeded that of Great Britain by several thousands, and amounted to £96,000 a year. On the 13th, he presented a Bill to limit their amount, and stated that in the two previous years pensions had increased by £16,000. Members who were above necessity, others above corruption, and some who had no hopes of purchase, supported his Bill. The Attorney-General opposed it on the grounds of prerogative, which, it is to be presumed, in his view, included a capacity for the purchase of votes. The pension list was declared to be a grievance; the pensioners however, voted for its continuance, and after a discussion, in which Mr. Grattan declared, "If he should vote that pensions were not a grievance, he should vote an impudent, an insolent, and a public lie;" the Bill was thrown out on its second reading by 134-78. The arguments of "Prerogative" in its support, were at least audacious, recollecting that, by the 6th of Anne c. 7, § 25, any member of the English Parliament, not being an officer in the army or navy, accepting a new commission, who accepted any office of profit under the Crown, vacated his seat thereby, unless it be one created prior to 25th October, 1705; and by 22 Geo. III., c. 45, disqualification attended those holding contracts with the Crown. There is but one explanation of arguments, supported neither by law nor facts;-the depraved state of public feeling which rendered the Government desirous of adopting a Machiavellian doctrine, and of retaining their capacity to do evil that good might

come.

To duly estimate the action of Parliament on the next matter brought under their consideration, it is necessary to review the social condition of Dublin at this period. The City was practically under the rule of mob-law. Associations publicly sat, in defiance of all authority, to dictate to members and others their conduct. in public matters. Were their dictates not attended to, destruction of property, or injury to the person, most certainly followed. A

tarring and feathering" committee inflicted punishment less permanent in its effects than that of the "Houghers :"-" Slashers," or armed ruffians, whose object it was to disfigure, exercised a terrorism over the quiet citizens, whose sole protection against such outrage were a few local constables, generally the companions or friends of the offenders. The recent riots had demonstrated the necessity of some force intermediate between the military and people, which might be under the control of the civil magistracy. With this object, the Attorney-General on the 17th of March, 1786, introduced a "Police Bill,"—" for the better execution of the law in the City of Dublin, and the parts adjacent." It proposed to supersede the authority of the Mayor and Aldermen of the city, and to appoint seven, afterwards reduced to three, paid magistrates, and forty constables, mounted or on foot as occasion required, and gave them authority to enter and search houses where there was reason to believe arms were concealed. This exceptional power was a necessity of the times. It was known that the liberties of the city had many houses in which nightly meetings of the most treasonable character were held. That rebellion and disaffection were openly preached, and that weapons of various kinds were being collected to arm the populace, to whose aid, against the English Government, foreign assistance was even then being negotiated for. In supporting the Bill, the Attorney-General stated "that the Catholic rabble had become possessed of the arms of the Volunteers, that when the mob. outraged the House of Commons, the Mayor, though warned of the approaching riot, was powerless to prevent it." Under such circumstances, it might have been expected men of independence would have considered true liberty to consist in freedom of action, undismayed by fears of subsequent injury :—the Irish patriots thought otherwise. Grattan offered uncompromising opposition to the measure, and declared, "that under pretence of preserving the peace of the city, it was an attempt to destroy its Independence.” His arguments were addressed to the prejudices and passions of the people, through the medium of the senate. He moved that the Bill be committed that day three months. His motion was lost by 139-37. So many places were to be filled, and the offices

were consistent with a seat in the House; as many incorruptible patriots were anxious to serve the Crown, the places were not disposed of, and the efforts of the Government deserved their support. Baffled in his opposition, Mr. Grattan moved "that the Commissioners should not sit in Parliament." The aphorism of Flood prevailed, that "a patriot in office was more useful to his country," and the motion was lost by a large majority, including the votes of so many desirous to serve her in the new police. Mr. Grattan next attempted to limit the power of the Lord Lieutenant in the appointments; in this also he was defeated. The Bill was carried in spite of his opposition, and additional instruments were thereby afforded for strengthening the hands of the Government.*

There is no doubt this last division was a trial of strength, and satisfied the Opposition that defeat awaited any further effort to embarrass.

It was intended by the Government that, should the Police Bill prove a success in the Metropolis, its provisions would be further extended. The opposition it had received was not encouraging. In the meantime necessity for action was urgent to repress outrages throughout the country. The social condition of the Irish peasant has been already mentioned. His abject poverty had nothing to redeem it. His landlord, if resident, was so embarrassed that he could afford neither encouragement nor assistance. If absent, his agent was but a machine to exact the uttermost farthing of rent as it became due. Added to this, the burden of tithes pressed heavily on the people. Many of the rectors were pluralists and non-residents. The major part of their revenues was derived from those professing the Roman Catholic faith. Is it to be wondered at that an organised resistance prevailed to prevent the levy of tithes, which came with the double stigma of being a premium for clerical extortion, as well as a tribute to an alien faith? A Bill was introduced for the better protection of the clergy in the south. In the course of its discussion it became evident that the exaction of tithes was

26 Geo. III., c. 24.