procedure adopted by Mr. Fox was simply to repeal the 6th George I., because it was apprehended Parliament could not be induced to a renunciation of the legal right to legislate as she had done." The writer maintains the view of Flood, that an act of renunciation was necessary-a mere repeal of a declaratory law insufficient.

Their

The session of Parliament ended, the Volunteers and the public generally differed from Grattan, and agreed with Flood-there must be an act of renunciation of right on the part of England. The rival orators tried to fight a duel with the pistol, were arrested, and failed, and returned to Parliament to fight a duel with the tongue. There was a great disparity in years between them. Flood had been twenty years in Parliament when Grattan was only seven. feelings were excited-I think Grattan's most; and when, upon a motion for retrenchment by Sir H. Cavendish, Flood, in October, 1783, spoke in favour of it, alluding to his bodily infirmity, Grattan said he would not occupy the time of the House by apologising for infirmity, or the affectation of infirmity, "I shall not speak of myself, having never aposta→ tized." He then twitted Flood, amongst other misdeeds, with having voted 4,000 men to butcher our brethren in America. He "thought the motion for retrenching ill-timed."

Flood arose instantly, and delivered his celebrated reply, summing up all Grattan's shortcomings in the most bitter manner:-"I do not come here, dressed in a rich wardrobe of words, to delude the people. I am not the gentleman who subsists on your accounts. I am not the mendicant patriot who was bought by my country for a sum of money, and then sold my country for prompt payment. I never was bought by the people, nor ever sold them. I object to no man for being in office a patriot in office is more the patriot for being there. There was a time when the glories of the great Duke

of Marlborough shrank and withered before the right honourable gentleman-when palaces superior to Blenheim were to be built for his reception-when pillars and pyramids were to be raised and adorned with emblazoned inscriptions sacred to his virtue; but the pillars and pyramids are now sunk, though then the great Earl of Chatham was held inferior to him. However, he is still so great that the Queen of France, I dare say, will have a song made on the name of Grattan."

The satire of Grattan, I fear, would not to-day be considered as delicate or courteous :

"But it is not the slander of the bad tongue of a bad character that can defame me. I maintain my reputation in public and in private life; no man who has not a bad character can say I ever deceived him; no country has ever called me cheat. I will suppose a public character, a man not now in this House, but who formerly might have been here.

suppose it was his constant practice to abuse every man who differed from him, and to betray every man who trusted him. I will suppose him active; I will begin from his cradle, and divide his life into three stages: in the first he was intemperate, in the second corrupt, and in the third seditious. Suppose him a great egotist, his honour equal to his oath, and I will stop him and say, 'Sir, your talents are not so great as your life is infamous; you were silent for years, and you were silent for money. When affairs of consequence to the nation were debating, you might be seen passing by these doors like a guilty spirit, just waiting for the moment of putting the question, that you might hop in and give your venal vote; or at times, with a vulgar brogue, apeing the manners and affecting the infirmities of Lord Chatham; or, like a kettledrummer, lather yourself into popularity to catch the vulgar; or you might be seen hovering over the dome,

like an ill-omened bird of night, with sepulchral notes, a cadaverous aspect, and broken beak, ready to stoop and pounce upon your prey. You can be trusted by no man; the people cannot trust you—the ministers cannot trust you; you deal out the most impartial treachery to both. You tell the nation it is ruined by other men, while it is sold by you. You fled from the embargo-you fled from the Mutiny Bill -you fled from the Sugar Bill. I, therefore, tell you, in the face of your country, before all the world, and to your beard, you are not an honest man!""

If all this invective was unpremeditated, the politicians of that time had a wonderful talent for abusing each other. The abuse is too gross, too personal, too offensive to please; and it was quite proper to send the police after the right honourable gentlemen to overtake them before one or other lay dead in the Fifteen Acres. Flood was caught by Alderman Exshaw; Grattan escaped, and was ready for the fray. A few days subsequently, Flood claimed to be heard in his vindication. There was a natural indisposition to allow a renewal of the quarrel. He exclaimed: "The meanest criminal in the land is entitled to be heard in his defence; refuse me, if you dare." He was then allowed to proceed, and delivered a dignified and masterly defence of his past conduct, with an account of his life. It is even now worth perusing, because it presents a picture, not only of the man, but of the Irish House of Commons and of the time. Immediately after Flood sat down, Grattan rose; but the adjournment was carried, and nothing more was heard of this memorable dispute.

When I was a student in the University, I had the honour of being acquainted with the late Peter Burrowes-then a fine, hearty old gentleman, who was full of genial humour and kindness, especially to young men. He had made a

noble figure himself in the Irish Parliament, and had afterwards at the Bar distinguished himself on great occasions. I heard him tell of young Emmett, whom he had defended, and of his dying speech, with tears in his eyes. Burrowes had been an early friend and admirer of Flood, whom he described as a very dignified and stately speaker, with an impressive manner and lofty air. He said Flood had a false palate, which he was obliged to introduce into his mouth before he rose to speak, and this may have affected his voice, and caused what Grattan described as 66 a sepulchral note." His nose seems to have been short: this his rival called "his broken beak;" his face pale, which made "the cadaverous aspect." There is a portrait of Flood in the dining-hall of our University; it answers the description we have of his person. Grattan's portrait adorns, in volunteer uniform, the same honourable place. The statues of Pitt and Fox are not far asunder in Westminster Abbey. As we behold these perishable memorials of the great dead men of our country, we may exclaim, how deplorable that talents so vast, eloquence so splendid, genius so transcendent, were not employed in the cause of a common country, instead of being perverted to personal quarrels and party disputes! To differ in opinion is the right of freemen; but life is too short and too precious a trust to be wasted in personal recriminations and passionate invective. If in the exciting discussions of the age, I incline to Pitt, it is not because I do not admire Fox; and if I am rather disposed to side with Flood, it is not that I fail in my homage to the genius of Grattan. May their patriotism inspire the youth of our land to love. and serve their country-may the improved temper of the times, a better education, and a more Christian spirit, teach our youth to avoid what was mischievous in their grand example!

A biography of Flood was written by a relative, Mr. Warden Flood. An admirable sketch was drawn of him in the University Magazine by the late Rev. Samuel O'Sullivan. Peter Burrowes wrote: "I had indulged the vanity of myself recording to posterity the history and personal qualities of perhaps the ablest man Ireland ever produced-indisputably the ablest man of his own time." I regret we have not such a biography; for no one can write worthily of a great character but one who has in himself elements of greatness, and such there were in Burrowes. You may be aware that Flood, while he was a Member of the Irish House of Commons, was elected also into the British Senate. In a recent valuable publication, I mean "The Life of Pitt, by Lord Stanhope," it is said that Flood tried his powers with indifferent success in the debates upon Fox's India Bill. The speech on Parliamentary Reform is also unfavourably mentioned. There is, however, a speech of Flood's not noticed by Lord Stanhope, which, spoken in reply to Pitt's plan for a commercial treaty with France, possesses, apart from its very questionable policy, a high order of merit. Lord Stanhope details the anecdote in which Grattan is made to account for the comparative failure of Flood in the British Senate. "He misjudged," said Grattan ; "when he transplanted himself to the English Parliament; he forgot that he was a tree of the forest, too old to be transplanted at fifty." I thought the words were, "He was an oak of the forest, too old to be transplanted." Lord Stanhope adds, with the severity of an English critic: "Of this truth, which Grattan states in so solemn a strain, Grattan himself, at a still later period, was to be a conspicuous example." I have read the orations of these two celebrated orators of my country-I have heard the foremost orators of the Imperial Senate, and I venture to think Grattan and Flood could not have failed in that assembly, although their success would