Being now in possession of the ring, Bramintes made it his whole business to discover family secrets, to be guilty of treacherous and infamous actions, of murders, of listening to the king's secret counsels, and of rapaciously robbing every body. His invisible crimes amazed every one. The king finding that all his secrets were discovered, knew not how to account for it: but the boundless prosperity of Bramintes, as well as his haughtiness, made him suspect that he was master of his brother's ring. To discover this, he made use of a stranger, an enemy's subject, to whom he gave a great sum of money. This man, in the name of his king, offered him vast riches and honours, if by his spies he would give him intelligence of all the king's counsels.

Bramintes promised, and went with him to receive a great sum, as an earnest of his reward: he boasted that he had a ring which made him invisible. The next morning he was by the king's order arrested, the ring taken from him, and in his pockets were several papers found, which sufficiently proved his crimes. Rosimond came to court to beg his brother's pardon, which was denied him; Bramintes was put to death; and the ring proved a greater misfortune to him than it had a happiness to his brother.

To comfort Rosimond, the king returned him the ring, as a treasure of infinite value: but the afflicted Rosimond did not think so. He returned to meet the fairy in the wood, and when he saw her he said, "Take back your ring; my brother's fate has taught me what at first I did not comprehend, though you told it me: keep this unhappy instrument of my brother's death. he might still have lived, nor overwhelmed my

Alas!

father's age with grief and shame; he might still have been wise and happy, perhaps, had it not been in his power to gratify his desires. O how dangerous it is to be more powerful than other men! Once more take back your ring; woe to the next man to whom it shall be given! The only favour I beg of you is, that it may never be possessed by any one for whom I have a value."

FENELON.

INSTRUCTIONS FROM CONSTITUENTS.

I HAVE heard the right honourable gentleman, the attorney general (Mr. Scott,) censure a doctrine which I conceive to be a great and fundamental part of the constitution, and a most powerful instrument of national redress; I consider a member of parliament to be a trustee, the delegate of his constituents; their instructions he is, to a certain degree, as much bound to respect as the servants of the crown are the royal authority; and if the member deviates from the intentions of his constituents, they are authorized to associate against him for the purpose of reprobating his proceedings. The greatest events have been produced by the wholesome interposition of the people: it has proved the greatest basis on which constitutional measures have depended. Where a representative is disposed to act against the public interest, the constituents might and should agree with one another, not to return that man to parliament, and not to intrust him with their rights again. One member of this House may think this doctrine surprising, another member may think it illegal, yet I will persist to maintain it, and if ne

cessary I shall strive to carry it into execution; the right to instruct, and to back instructions by further association, not to return the obdurate member, are one and the same; both are the rights of the constituent, to be reserved certainly for great occasions, and upon great occasions always to be exercised. I advance no doctrine but what the constitution can justify. Suppose, when the Peti tion of Right was agitating, a constituent had said to his representative, Sir, this is a measure of the last consequence; I hope you will support it: suppose that member should refuse; in that case, have not I a right to declare in writing with my brother electors, that I will vote against that member upon all future occasions? Is a free trade less an object to Ireland, than the petition of right was to England? or were the people more called upon to de ter individuals from selling the country in the case of violated liberty than of usurped trade? I do not understand what gentlemen mean by asserting that the elector threatens his representative: sup pose great numbers in the House to be under the influence of government, would it not be expedient to counteract that dishonest influence by the strong impulse of the people, not in order to take away the liberty of acting, but to oppose the tide of corruption by the tide of the people?

REPLY TO MR. CORRY.

GRATTAN,

Has the gentleman done? Has he completely done? He was unparliamentary from the begin ning to the end of his speech. There was scarce a word he uttered that was not a violation of the privileges of the House; but I did not call him to

order-why? because the limited talents of some men render it impossible for them to be severe without being unparliamentary. But before I sit down I shall show him how to be severe and parliamentary at the same time. On any other occasion I should think myself justifiable in treating with silent contempt any thing which might fall from that honourable member; but there are times when the insignificance of the accuser is lost in the magnitude of the accusation. I know the difficulty the honourable gentleman laboured under when he attacked me, conscious that, on a comparative view of our characters, public and private, there is nothing he could say which would injure me. The public would not believe the charge, I despise the falsehood. If such a charge was made by an honest man, I would answer it in a manner I shall do before I sit down. But I shall first reply to it when not made by an honest man.

The right honourable gentleman has called me "an unimpeached traitor." I ask, why not "traitor," unqualified by any epithet? I will tell him; it was because he dare not. It was the act of a coward, who raises his arm to strike, but has not courage to give the blow. I will not call him villain, because it will be unparliamentary, and he is a privy counsellor. I will not call him fool, because he happens to be chancellor of the exchequer. But I say, he is one who has abused the privilege of parliament and freedom of debate, to the uttering language, which, if spoken out of the House, I should answer only with a blow. I care not how high his situation, how low his character, how contemptible his speech: whether a privy counsellor or a parasite, my answer would be a blow. He has charged me with being connected with the

rebels: the charge is utterly, totally, and meanly false. Does the honourable gentleman rely on the report of the House of Lords for the foundation of his assertion? If he does, I can prove to the committee there was a physical impossibility of that report being true. But I scorn to answer any man for my conduct, whether he is a political coxcomb, or whether he brought himself into power by a false glare of courage or not. I scorn to answer any wizard of the Castle throwing himself into fantastical airs. But if an honourable and independent man were to make a charge against me, I would say, "You charge me with having an intercourse with rebels, and you found your charges upon what is said to have appeared before a committee of the Lords. Sir, the report of that committee is totally and egregiously irregular. I will read a letter from Mr. Nelson, who had been examined before that committee; it states that what the report represents him as having spoken is not what he said. [Mr. Grattan here read the letter from Mr. Nelson, denying that he had any connexion with Mr. Grattan, as charged in the report; and concluding by saying, "never was misrepresentation more vile than that put into my mouth by the report."]

From the situation that I held, and from the connexions I had in the city of Dublin, it was necessary for me to hold intercourse with various descriptions of persons. The right honourable member might as well have been charged with a participation in the guilt of those traitors, for he had communicated with some of those very persons on the subject of parliamentary reform. The Irish government too were in communication with some of them.