memory, before it should be mixed with other ideas, or debilitated by them."

Practice made this martial listener perfect, just as Boswell remembered and recorded volumes of the ponderous talk of Doctor Johnson; and what does the impartial critic say of the Irish orators of the middle of the last century? First, he says: "I cannot but observe that there is scarce one native of this country, in the Parliament of England, that is not a speaker of some distinction." Then, with the courtesy and frankness of a soldier, he writes- "Let me add, that in my travels through many nations, during an absence of seven years from my country, I came into no kingdom where I did not find natives of Ireland in every profession, and almost in every art, who had been preferred to eminent stations merely by their merit, having entered the country under all the disadvantages of aliens, without money and without friends."

We are so unaccustomed to such compliments that I could not deny myself the pleasure of transcribing the polite sayings of a literary soldier. He then declares the debates he heard in College-green would "do honour to any age or nation." As Parliamentary debates were not, at that period, allowed to be printed, one reporter gives an opening speech to Mr. A., who is replied to by Mr. B., who is answered by Mr. P., who is refuted by Mr. Q. An Appendix, however, now enables the reader to discover the orator's name. friendly annalist records one hundred and one debates that he heard in the same number of days. He reminds his readers that "the Irish Parliament assembles but six months in a revolution of two years; that an indispensable attendance in the courts of law prevents many members from being constantly present, and that the whole number is comparatively few."

The

I read the two volumes of these forgotten debates with

interest. They deserved the praise bestowed upon them. The country gentlemen of that time appear to me to have been eloquent, cautious, judicious, and well-informed; the lawyers equal to their work, but their legislative labours were light; the minister, respectful to the House, and effective in discussion. The general impression left on my mind was pleasing; and I came to the conclusion, that if the theatre on which our predecessors figured had been wider, and the subjects they were called upon to discuss grander, they would have played their parts successfully with or against the foremost men of their age. But when we examine the questions discussed, we are obliged to admit their general insignificance. A few national questions were dealt with, through a device then practised by permission of the Privy Councilnamely, a motion for leave to bring in, not a Bill, but Heads of a Bill. A private member, I have already explained, could not, under the operation of Poynings' law, move directly to bring in a Bill, as any member in the English Parliament could then and now do at pleasure; so the Irish senator (his superiors in the Privy Council winking at his folly) evaded the positive law, by only asking leave to introduce heads of a projected Bill. Then, if the House approved, the Minister might prevail on the Privy Council of Ireland to take up the measure, and to the heads add tails; then to send the same over to the Council of England, to be approved. Then, having obtained permission from the Privy Council in London, the very Bill, so allowed, might be presented by the Irish Privy Council to the Irish Parliament. In their consideration of national questions, the most important was that moved by Lucas, namely, the long duration of Parliaments; his speech moving to limit the life of a Parliament to eight years is very good. He certainly had truth on his side, when he contended that an Octennial Bill was more necessary in Ireland than in

England, because Ireland had no such barrier against ministerial influence as the Place Bill in England. There had lately been a revolution (Lucas argued): how absurd it was to maintain that the people had a right to make and change a king, and yet had no right to change their representatives, to whom they delegated their power of keeping the King from being independent of his people. I wonder how the Privy Council would have answered that practical argument. It prevailed, and the Octennial Bill was carried. There is an admirable proposition to increase the salaries of curates, introduced in an unanswerable speech; but, unlike the Octennial Bill, it was not carried. The evil, which exists now as it existed then, however, may be abated by the promotion of every man who deserves it. As an example of the kind of questions which occupied the attention of the Commons, I give the following:

"The Honourable E. S. represented that great inconveniency and danger frequently rose to the subjects of this kingdom from the neglect of the masters of ships trading to England, who neither provided a proper number of hands to navigate the vessel, nor a sufficient quantity of necessaries to serve the purposes of life, if the ship happened to be a few days longer on her voyage than usual, by bad weather, which frequently drove her out of her course, particularly candles and fresh water. He said he was himself a passenger very lately on board the Lively, and that the terror they felt from the danger of the storm was nothing in comparison with their suffering for want of water, and their dread of perishing by thirst. He therefore prayed that he might have leave to bring in the heads of a Bill to prevent such evils for the future."

We are initiated into the mental and bodily labours of members by the speech of a right honourable gentleman,

upon the motion of a member that, in consequence of the increase of business, Monday should no longer be kept a holiday. He said "That he thought it of more importance to appoint the House to meet earlier, that it might not be obliged to sit so late, for that the attendance of that House till seven or eight o'clock at night was a very great fatigue, and as long as this continued, he thought one day in the week little enough for relaxation." I know not what that oppressed senator would think of our present hours, and of our imperial labours. A petition of Margaret Ashworth, widow of Thomas Ashworth, late of Donnybrook, Linen, Cotton, Calico and Paper Printer, deceased, praying aid to enable her to carry on these manufactures, was presented and read. Mr. J. M. moved it might be referred to a committee. Then arises a discussion on the principle of political economy involved in grants, for such purposes, of public money. A sensible speech having been made by Sexton Perry, the mover of the petition said he thought it was very hard he should be the first that was refused, and that he did not see why he should not have his job done as well as another. A sharp discussion then arises on the use of the word "job,” and of the immorality of jobs in general-whereupon, Mr. R. F., (being either Mr. Robert French, M. P. for Carrick, or Mr. Robert Fitzgerald, M. P. for Dinglecourt,) made a very amusing speech, which affords a fair specimen of the talent which abounded in the House of Commons at this time: "This monosyllable is the name of a certain illegitimate child of Public Spirit, whom the world has agreed to call Job. He is well known in this House, and I am sorry to say has not been ill received in it. Let me give an account of his descent and family, character and qualifications. Self-interest was the father by whom Public Spirit has a numerous issue, distinguished by the name of Job. Many of them have come

over hither from a neighbouring kingdom, and have with great success played both upon our weakness and our virtues. They very often assume their mother's name, and pretend that their father was Integrity, a gentleman of very honourable descent, who, having of late times been much neglected by persons of power and interest, has fallen into misfortune, and having been long in obscurity, nobody knows where he is. Of late, they (Jobs) have condescended to amuse themselves with great guns, haubitzers, and mortars; with powder, ball, fire, and smoke; with warlike peace and peaceful war. As to the places where they are to be found-they love good company, and associate much with those in whom you, gentlemen, place great confidence. They are found at the Treasury Board, the Linen Board, the Barrack Board, and, in short, at every other board. Nor are they ever to be missed at Grand Juries, or societies that have the disposal of money."

Having searched these volumes fairly, with gratitude to the reporter, and admiration for our forefathers, I can pronounce no other judgment upon the Irish House of Commons of a century ago, than that, while it was composed of gentlemen of ability, it resembled more a parish vestry, or a corporation assembly, than a national Parliament. I may add, that the Dublin Water Bill is a larger question than nine-tenths of the subjects of those provincial debates. Yet was the Parliament progressing towards independence.

Before separating from our gallant soldier, I ought to add, that he subjoins to his reports an inquiry, how far the restrictions laid upon the trade of Ireland by British Acts of Parliament were a benefit or a disadvantage to the British dominions in general, and to England in particular, for whose separate advantage they were intended.

If our hero wrote this essay, I can only say he had studied more than the art of war. He selects and summarizes all