intimidation. The magnanimity of the act was acknowledged with gratitude and rejoicings, by the Parliament and people of Ireland.

independ

ence.

But English statesmen, in granting Ireland her independence, were not insensible to the Difficulties difficulties of her future government; and friend endeavoured to concert some plan of union, by which the interests of the two countries could be secured.2 No such plan, however, could be devised; and for nearly twenty years the British ministers were left to solve the strange problem of governing a divided state, and bringing into harmony the councils of two independent legislatures. Its solution was naturally found in the continuance of corruption; and the Parliament of Ireland,-having gained its freedom, sold it, without compunction, to the Castle.3 Ireland was governed by her native legislature, but was not the less under the dominion of a close oligarchy,-factious, turbulent, exclusive

I Fox's Mem., i. 393, 403, 404, 418; Lord J. Russell's Life of Fox, i. 290-295; Grattan's Life, ii. 289, et seq.; Court and Cabinets of Geo. III., i. 65.

2 Address of both Houses to the king, May 17th, 1782; Correspondence of Duke of Portland and Marquess of Rockingham; Plowden's Hist., i. 605. The scheme of a union appears to have been discussed as early as 1757.-Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, i. 107. And again in 1776; Cornwallis Corr., iii. 129.

See a curious analysis of the ministerial majority, in 1784, on the authority of the Bolton MSS. Massey's Hist., iii. 264; and Speech of Mr. Grattan on the Address, Jan. 19th, 1792; Irish Deb., xii. 6-8; and Speech of Mr. Fox, March 23rd, 1797. He stated that a person of high consideration was known to say that 500,0007. 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 23rd, 1834; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxii. 1189; Plowden's Hist., ii. 346, 609.

6

and corrupt. And how could it be otherwise? The people, with arms in their hands, had achieved a triumph. Magna Charta,' said Grattan, was not attained in Parliament: but by the barons, armed in the field.'1 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

The volunteers demand

Parlia

mentary

reform.

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 organised a wide-spread political agitation, sent delegates to a national convention,3 and seemed prepared to enforce their arguments at the point of the bayonet. Their 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:*

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.

3 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. 110.

but as yet the patriots and volunteers had no intention of extending to them the least share of civil or political power.

motion for

Nov. 29th,

Mr. Flood was the organ of the volunteers in the House of Commons,—a patriot second only Mr. Flood's to Mr. Grattan in influence and ability, reform, and jealous of the popularity and pre- 1783. eminence of his great rival. In 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.'

Renewed,

13th, 20th, 1784.

the cause of

Mr. Flood renewed his efforts in the following year but the country party were disunited; the owners of boroughs were de- March termined not to surrender their power; the dictation of the volunteers gave just offence; and the division of opinion on the admission of Catholics to the franchise was becoming Failure of more pronounced. Again his measure was reform. rejected.2 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

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.

which their leader Lord Charlemont was himself opposed.1 An armed Protestant agitation, and a packed council of borough proprietors, were unpromising instruments for reforming the representation of the people.2

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 laboured 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. They were gratefully accepted and acknowledged: but when the minister introduced them to the British Parliament, he was unable,

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

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

3 Feb. 7th, 1785; Irish Deb., iv. 116; Plowden's Hist., ii. 113, n.

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 was called upon to register the injurious edicts 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. 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, four years afterwards, by the proceedings of the Irish Parliament on the regency.3

2

1 Debates, Feb. 22nd, and May 12th, in Commons; Parl. Hist., xxv. 311, 575. In Lords, June 7th; Ibid., 820.

2 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.

3 Supra, Vol. I. 194; Hardy's Life of Lord Charlemont, ii. 168188; Grattan's Life, iii. 341, et seq.