"buying the country gentlemen, by an offer to wrap them up in "the old cast-clothes of the aristocracy. A clumsey covering "and a thin disguise, never the object of your respect, frequently the subject of your derision; the country gentleman "must recollect how seldom he can procure even an audience "from that bench, except when he artificially deserts his 46 cause and his country. Place him on his native hills, and "he is a protection against the storm; transplant him to "the hot-bed of the castle, he degenerates and becomes a weed. "As to the aristocracy, I will not say you have alienated "every member of that body; but I do say, you have alienated "as great, as respectable, and as formidable a part of that body, 66 as ever stood in the phalanx of opposition; and you have not only given them every personal provocation, but every public topic, and every public provocation to raise on their side, the "interest, the feelings, and the voice of the community. You "have not, however, left yourselves without some part of the "aristocracy of the country, but that part you have endeavoured "to leave without any kind of reputation, by directing against "the aristocracy of Ireland in general, the whisper of your "castle, and the scurrility of your press, reducing all men to the "level of your own reputations. Thus, the result of your "project has been to render British government in this country, "as feeble and contemptible, as the tendency of your project "is to render the Irish constitution corrupt and dependant. "For the sake of both nations, therefore, we oppose it; but "how defeat this project? Certainly not by a plan of self-de"fence. It is a maxim of war, that the body that is ever "attacked, and only defends, must finally be subdued, it is then on a principle of self-preservation, that we resort to the good "old method of impeachment. We have long disputed about "this pension and that place, until inch by inch we are driven "into our trenches by a victorious enemy. It is now necessary "to change our system of action, and to come forth with the power of the constitution to punish the enemies thereof. We "call this house, whose foundation the minister now undermines, ec to witness that we are compelled to this, and that these men "have, by a multiplication and repetition of plunder, prodi"gality, corruption, insult, outrage and misdemeanours, brought forth at last the reluctant justice of the nation. The great influences, which the philosopher tells you are necessary to "bind together the moral system are wanting here. The in"fluence of opinion, of future and sublunary punishment: the "two first the minister disregards; be it our province to intro"duce into this region the last, that his majesty's ministers may "be sensible there is a vindictive justice, and that there is in "this country a power competent to inflict that justice upon 66 "them. Gentlemen come over to this country for a livelihood, "and they find servants who, like themselves, look to government for nothing but a livelihood, and this alliance, that does el not include an idea of public care or duty, they call an admi“nistration; but it is our task to interrupt this venal commerce "by impeachment. Had the people of England only condemned ship money, they had done nothing. No, they brought forth "to public punishment the projectors, they exhibited the male"factor at the bar of the nation. The injuries you have suf"fered, demand a spectacle of that kind; a state offender kneel. "ing at the bar of the lords, and impeached in the name, and on "the behalf of the commons of this realm. I therefore move ແ you, "That a select committee be appointed to inquire, in the most solemn manner, whether the late or present administra"tion have entered into any corrupt agreement with any person or persons, to recommend such person or persons to his ma"jesty as fit and proper to be by him made peers of this realm, "in consideration of such person or persons giving certain sums "of money to be laid out in procuring the return of members to "serve in parliament, contrary to the rights of the people, incon"sistent with the independence of parliament, and in violation of "the fundamental laws of the land." This very severe and pointed attack was resisted by the chancellor of the exchequer for want of evidence to ground any specific charge upon: simple assertion and common fame were totally insufficient: therefore, to the crime alleged, they pleaded not guilty, and put themselves upon their country to be judged by their actions. The prime serjeant found the motion of so extraordinary a nature, of such alarming magnitude and novelty, and introduced in so strange a manner, that no man could, consistently with the principles of justice, or the dictates of his conscience accede to it. When the attention of the house was bespoken for that day, gentlemen, according to the usual course of parliamentary proceedings, requested to know the intended subject of debate; all information was withholden, and a general reference made to the former debates. If the minister in either country should introduce a proposition of so much novelty without a previous information, there would be stronger ground than common fame to suspect an intention to surprize the house: if the measure be so self-evident, why had it been kept back, and introduced after five days preparation, with a reference to several authorities to support its propriety? And among others, one from the inauspicious reign of Charles I.; a reign, in which the other house of parliament was voted useless, and which terminated in the sacrifice of the king to hyprocrisy and faction. If any better authority could be produced, the honourable mem ber would have recurred to it: but even that precedent, as cited, did not go so far as to say, that the House of Commons of that day, instituted a committee to fish for evidence, whereon to ground an accusation: a species of proceeding, in his judgment, inadmissible. A very severe debate ensued, about the close of which, Mr. Grattan rose to reply; he was indignant, that it should have been said in debate, that the facts rested upon his simple assertion. "Will you," said he, "rest it on that? Will you main"tain it is only a simple assertion? I do not assert only, that, I "have heard it commonly said, and specially stated, the sums, "the persons, the circumstances; but I said I never heard it "out of these walls denied. It is a crime as generally known, "and as publicly reported, as any thing, which is not yet re"duced to special conviction; it is a crime we offer to prove; we come here to arraign the ministers of the crown. I will "read the charges which I make against them." He then read the following paper. "We charge them publicly, in the face of their country, with "making corrupt agreements for the sale of peerages, for doing "which, we say they are impeachable; we charge them with "corrupt agreements for the disposal of the money arising from "the sale, to purchase for the servants of the castle, seats in "the assembly of the people; for doing which we say they are impeachable; we charge them with committing these offences, not in one, nor in two, but in many instances, for which com"plication of offences, we say they are impeachable; guilty of "of a systematic endeavour to undermine the constitution in "violation of the laws of the land. We pledge ourselves to "convict them. We dare them to go into an enquiry. We "do not affect to treat them as other than public malefactors. "We speak to them in a style of the most mortifying and humi"liating defiance. We pronounce them to be public criminals. "Will they dare to deny the charge? I call upon, and dare the "ostensible member to rise in his place, and say on his honour, "that he does, not believe such corrupt agreements have taken place. I wait for a specific answer." After some pause, Mr. Secretary Hobart replied, that if he could think the right honourable gentleman had any right to ask him the question he had proposed, and were he alone concerned in it, he should find no manner of difficulty in answering him; but as it was a question, which related to the exercise of his majesty's undoubted prerogative, it would ill become him, upon the investigation of an individual, to say what were the reasons, which had induced his majesty to bestow upon any person those honours, which the crown alone could constitutionally confer. As to the charge that had been made, he could not avoid expressing some surprise, that gentlemen were not sufficiently alarmed by common fame at the end of Lord Northington's administration, to bring forward such a charge then. Common fame certainly did then report, that peerages had been notoriously granted in return for seats in the Commons House of parliament; yet the right honourable gentleman and his friends were in the confidence of that administration, and must be presumed to be informed of the fact. On which, Mr. Conolly remarked, that his right honourable friend had asked a plain, unequivocal, direct question, and the house was to judge whether he had received an intelligible and satisfactory answer. The division was 144 against, and 88 for the motion. Another strong attack was made on the system of the new police, in a very heated debate, that arose upon the order of the day (24th February) for going into a committee on the bill to continue an act passed in the 27th year of his present majesty, intituled, "An act for the better execution of the law and pre"servation of the peace within counties at large." *When Mr. Forbes moved the place bill to be read a second time, he shortly observed, that to expatiate on the necessity of the bill before the house would be idle, when it was recollected, that no less than one hundred and four persons, holding places or pensions, were members of that house. If authority were necessary to justify the bill, authority was not wanting; for more than fourscore years Great Britain had experienced its beneficial effects; it was a principle annexed as part of the conditions of placing on the throne the family of Brunswick; it was a principle interwoven with the revolution, and considered as essential to the preservation of the people's liberty; and if these reasons were not sufficiently strong, he would add one more since the last session of the Irish parliament, no less than fourteen new places had been created, and bestowed upon members of that House of Commons. The chancellor of the exchequer expected the honourable gentleman would have urged some new or strong argument for adopting so strong a measure as a total change in the principles of their government. The honourable gentleman had said, that they had the example of England before them; but in England tenfold precaution was necessary, because in England the patronage of the crown was ten times greater than it was in that country. The heat of this debate exceeded that of any one of the sessiont, and the opposition was the largest, viz. 96 against 143. 10 Par. Deb. p. 329. In this debate Mr. Grattan held the following strong language. 10 Par. Deb. 340. "Sir, I cannot avoid observing, that in this day's debate, gentle Another very long and interesting debate took place upon the legality of issuing FIATS for levying unascertained damages. One Magee*, the printer of a paper, whilst under a criminal prosecution at the suit of Mr. Higgins, was confined to gaol upon different fiats, signed by Lord Clonmel, to the amount of 78001. He had petitioned parliament; a committee had been appointed, and Mr. George Ponsonby moved," that it was the "men on the other side of the house have adopted a certain tone of power, I "presume in consequence of a very indecent and disorderly interposition on "the part of one, who does not belong to this house, though he has lately "interfered in its proceedings. Sir, I am not uninformed to what length that person went within these walls, even during the debates of this house; it "seems to me somewhat strange, that gentlemen on the other side should "dwell so much on the necessity of parliamentary decorum, when they "have been evidently spirited up by an interposition, which in itself was the 46 grossest violation of parliamentary decency. Sir, I have been told it was "said, that I should have been stopped, should have been expelled the com"mons, should have been delivered up to the bar of the lords for the expres"sions delivered that day. "I will repeat what I said on that day: I said that his majesty's ministers "had sold the peerages, for which offence they were impeachable. I said "they had applied the money for the purpose of purchasing seats in the "House of Commons for the servants or followers of the castle, for which "offence I said they were impeachable. I said they had done this, not in one "or two, but in several instances, for which complication of offences I said "his majesty's ministers were impeachable, as public malefactors, who had "conspired against the common weal, the independency of parliament, and "the fundamental laws of the land; and I offered, and dared them to put this "matter in a course of inquiry. I added, that I considered them as public "malefactors, whom we were ready to bring to justice. I repeat these "charges now, and if any thing more severe were on a former occasion ex"pressed, I beg to be reminded of it, and I will again repeat it. Why do you "not expel me now? Why not send me to the bar of the lords? Where is your adviser? Going out of the house I shall repeat my sentiments, that his "majesty's ministers are guilty of impeachable offences; and advancing to "the bar of the lords, I shall repeat those sentiments, or if the tower is to be “my habitation, I will there meditate the impeachment of these minis"ters, and return not to capitulate, but to punish. Sir, I think I know myself "well enough to say, that if called forth to suffer in a public cause, I "will go farther than my prosecutors, both in virtue and in danger." " * 10 Par. Deb. p. 363. One fiat for 40001. was issued against him on the affidavit of Mr. Daly, the manager of the Dublin theatre, who swore, that certain malicious paragraphs had appeared in Magee's newspaper, in conse quence of which he had suffered damages to the amount of 4000/.; particularly, that his four daughters and one son had suffered that loss in their future. prospects in life by the representations made in that paper that he gained a livelihood by gaming. Another fiat had issued for 8007. on an affidavit of one Brennan, who estimated his loss at that sum for having been accused of keeping a house of reception. A third issued for 1000/. on the affidavit of Miss Fanny Tracey, (the residuary legatee of Mr. Higgins) who swore, that she believed she had suffered to the amount of that sum by an insinuation in that paper, that she was better acquainted with a certain gentleman, than she ought to be. And a fourth had issued for 10007. on the affidavit of Mr. Higgins, that his character (quod vide, p. 256, vol. 2. in a note) had suffered to that amount, from certain malicious insinuations contained in Magee's papers. Magee's case was taken up very warmly by the public, and this failure in parliamentary relief, in which he had been very sanguine, tended to encrease the unpopularity of government, |