The volunteers de

mand Parliamentary reform.

legislature, but was not the less under the dominion of a close oligarchy, factious, turbulent, exclusive, and corrupt. And how could it be otherwise? The people, with arms in their hands, had achieved a triumph. "Magna Charta," said Grattan, 66 was not attained in Parliament; but by the barons, armed in the field." But what influence had the people at elections? Disfranchised and incapacitated, they could pretend to none! The anomalous condition of the Parliament and people of Ireland became the more conspicuous, as they proceeded in their new functions of self-government. The volunteers, not satisfied with the achievement of national independence, now confronted their native Parliament with demands for Parliamentary reform.2 That cause being discussed in the English Parliament, was eagerly caught up in Ireland. Armed men organized a wide-spread political agitation, sent delegates to a national convention, and seemed prepared to enforce their arguments at the point of the bayTheir attitude was threatening; but their cause a hollow pretence. The enfranchisement of Catholics formed no part of their scheme. In order to secure their assistance in the recent struggle for independence, they had, indeed, recommended a relaxation of the penal laws: a common cause had softened the intolerance of Protestants; and some of the most oppressive disabilities of their Catholic brethren had been removed: * but as yet the patriots and volunteers had

onet.

Speech of Mr. Fox, March 23d, 1797. He stated that " a person of high consideration was known to say that 500,000l. had been expended to quell an opposition in Ireland, and that as much more must be expended in order to bring the legislature of that country to a proper temper."— Parl. Hist., xxxiii. 143; Speech of Mr. Spring Rice, April 23d, 1834; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxii. 1189; Plowden's Hist., ii. 346, 609.

1 Irish Debates, April 16th, 1782, i. 335.

2 Plowden's Hist., ii. 28; Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 93–134; Grattan's Life, iii. 102-146.

8 Plowden, ii. 56.

4 Viz. in 1778 (17 & 18 Geo. III. c. 49, Ireland), and in 1782; Plowden's Hist., i. 555, 559, 564, 579; and supra, p. 330.

no intention of extending to them the least share of civil or political power.

motion for

Mr. Flood was the organ of the volunteers in the House of Commons, a patriot second only to Mr. Grattan Mr. Flood's in influence and ability, and jealous of the pop- reform, Nov. ularity and preeminence of his great rival. In 29th, 1783. November, 1783, he moved for leave to bring in a bill for the more equal representation of the people. He was met at once with the objection that his proposal originated with an armed association, whose pretensions were incompatible with freedom of debate; and it was rejected by a large majority.1

Renewed,

Failure of

reform.

Mr. Flood renewed his efforts in the following year; but the country party were disunited; the owners of boroughs were determined not to surrender their March 13th, 20th, 1784. power; the dictation of the volunteers gave just offence; and the division of opinion on the admission of Catholics to the franchise was becoming more pronounced. Again his measure was rejected. the cause of The mob resented its rejection with violence and fury; but the great body of the people, whose rights were ignored by the patriots and agitators, regarded it with indifference. The armed agitation proceeded; but the volunteers continued to be divided upon the claims of the Catholics, to which their leader Lord Charlemont was himself opposed. An armed Protestant agitation, and a packed council of borough proprietors, were unpromising instruments for reforming the representation of the people.*

1 Ayes, 49; Noes, 158. Irish Debates, ii. 353; Fox's Mem., ii. 165, 186; Grattan's Life, iii. 146, et seq.; Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 135. 2 March 13th, 20th, 1784; Irish Deb., iii. 13; Plowden's Hist., ii. 80. Ayes, 85; Noes, 159.

8 Plowden's Hist., ii. 105; Moore's Life of Lord E. Fitzgerald, i. 189, 198; Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 129.

4 For a list of the proprietors of Irish nomination boroughs, see Plowden's Hist., ii. App. No. 96.

Mr. Pitt's commercial measures, 1785.

A close and corrupt Parliament was left in full possession of its power; and Ireland, exulting in recent emancipation from British rule, was soon made sensible that neither was her commerce free, nor her independence assured. The regulation of her commerce was beyond the power of the Irish legislature : the restrictions under which it labored concerned both countries, and needed the concert of the two Parliaments. Mr. Pitt, wise and liberal in his policy concerning Ireland, regarded commercial freedom as essential to her prosperity and contentment; and in 1785, he prepared a comprehensive scheme to attain that object. Ireland had recently acquired the right of trading with Europe and the West Indies; but was nearly cut off from trade with England herself, and with America and Africa. Mr. Pitt offered liberal concessions on all these points, which were first submitted to the Parliament of Ireland, in the form of eleven resolutions.1 They were gratefully accepted and acknowledged; but when the minister introduced them to the British Parliament, he was unable, in the plenitude of his power, to overcome the interests and jealousy of traders, and the ignorance, prejudices, and faction of his opponents in the House of Commons. He was obliged to withdraw many of the concessions he had offered, including the right of trading with India and the foreign West Indies; and he introduced a new proposition, requiring the English navigation laws to be enacted by the Parliament of Ireland. The measure, thus changed, was received with chagrin and resentment by the Parliament and people of Ireland, as at once a mark of English jealousy and injustice, and a badge of Irish dependence. The resolutions of the Irish Parliament had been set aside, the interests of the country sacrificed to those of English traders, and the legislature called upon to register the injurious edicts

1 Feb. 7th, 1785; Irish Deb., iv. 116; Plowden's Hist., ii. 113, n. 2 Debates, Feb. 22d, and May 12th, in Commons; Parl. Hist., xxv. 311, 575. In Lords, June 7th; Ibid., 820.

of the British Parliament. A measure, conceived in the highest spirit of statesmanship, served but to aggravate the ill-feelings which it had been designed to allay; and was abandoned in disappointment and disgust.1 Its failure, however, illustrated the difficulties of governing the realm through the agency of two independent Parliaments, and foreshadowed the necessity of a legislative union. Another illustration of the danger of divided councils was afforded, a few years later, by the proceedings of the Irish Parliament. on the regency.2

measures

A few years later, at a time of peril and apprehension in England, a policy of conciliation was again adopted Liberal in Ireland. The years 1792 and 1793 were of 1792-3. signalized by the admission of Catholics to the elective franchise and to civil and military offices, the limitation of the Irish pension list, the settlement of a fixed civil list upon the crown in lieu of its hereditary revenues, the exclusion of some of the swarm of placemen and pensioners from the House of Commons, and the adoption of Mr. Fox's protective law of libel.5 Ireland, however, owed these promising concessions to the wise policy of Mr. Pitt and other English statesmen, rather than to her native Parliament. They were not yielded gracefully by the Irish cabinet; and they were accompanied by rigorous measures of coercion. This was the last hopeful period in the sep1 Irish Debates, v. 329, &c.; Plowden's Hist., ii. 120-136; Tomline's Life of Pitt, ii. 69-92; Lord Stanhope's Life of Pitt, i. 263-273; Beresford Corr., i. 265.

2 Supra, Vol. I. 162; Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 168-188; Grattan's Life, iii. 341, et seq.

3 Supra, p. 330 (1792-3); Plowden's Hist., ii. 407; Moore's Life of Lord E. Fitzgerald, i. 205, 216, 217.

4 Supra, Vol. I. 213; Plowden's Hist., ii. 146, 188, 279.

5 Supra, p. 122.

6 Plowden's Hist., ii. 471. In 1805 Mr. Grattan stated that this policy of conciliation originated with ministers in England; but being opposed by the ministry in Ireland, its grace and popularity were lost. — Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., iv. 926; Moore's Life of Lord E. Fitzgerald, i. 218; Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 294-300; Grattan's Life, iv. 53-114.

arate history of Ireland, which was soon to close in tumults, rebellion, and civil war. To the seething elements of discord, social, religious, and political, – were now added the perilous ingredients of revolutionary sentiments and sympathies.

The United Irishmen, 1791.

66

The volunteers had aimed at worthy objects; yet their association was founded upon revolutionary principles, incompatible with constitutional government. Clamor and complaint are lawful in a free state; but the agitation of armed men assumes the shape of rebellion. Their example was followed, in 1791, by the United Irishmen, whose original design was no less worthy. This association originated with the Protestants of Belfast; and sought "a complete reform of the legislature, founded on the principles of civil, political, and religious liberty." These reasonable objects were pursued for a time, earnestly and in good faith; and motions for reform, on the broad basis of religious equality, were submitted to the legislature by Mr. Ponsonby, where they received ample discussion.2 But the association was soon to be compromised by republican leaders; and seduced into an alliance with French Jacobins, and a treasonable correspondence with the enemies of their country, in aid of Irish disaffection. Treason took the place of patriotism. This unhappy land was also disturbed by armed and hostile associations of peasants, known as "defenders" and "peep-of-day boys."4 Society was convulsed with violence, agrarian outrage, and covert treason.

1 Plowden's Hist., ii. 330-334, and App. No. 84; Report of Secret Committee of Lords; Lords' Journ., Ireland, vii. 580; Madden's United Irishmen; Moore's Life of Lord E. Fitzgerald, i. 197.

2 March 4th, 1794; May 15th, 1797. Plowden's Hist., ii. 452, &c.

men.

8 In 1795, the Irish Union Societies were formed out of the United IrishThe correspondence appears to have commenced in 1795. — Plowden's Hist., ii. 567; Report of Secret Committee of Commons, 1797; Irish Debates, xvii. 522; Grattan's Life, iv. 259, &c.; Moore's Life of Lord E. Fitzgerald, i. 164-166, 256-260, 273, et seq.; ii. 9, et seq.; Life of Wolfe Tone, i. 132–136, ii. 14, et seq.; Report of Secret Committee of Commons, Ireland, 1797; Comm. Journ., Ireland, xvii. App. 829; Castlereagh Corr., i. 189, 296, 366, &c.; Cornwallis's Corr., ii. 338.

4 Plowden's Hist., ii. 335; Moore's Life of Lord E. Fitzgerald, ii. 6.