hearse. What concern first suggested, reason afterwards con firmed. Do I lament that pension? Yes;-because in it I lament the mortality of noble emulation-of delightful various endowments and above all, because I feel the absence of him who, if now here, would have inspired this debate, would have asserted your privileges, exposed the false pretences of prerogative, and have added one angelic voice to the councils of the nation.

"Having considered the pension list as a grievance, I shall now trouble you with some observations on the remedy, namely, the bill which my friend proposes on the spur of the present expense, grounding himself on the example of England. In opposition to this bill, some gentlemen of this house have come forth in the rusty armour of old prerogative, and have stated this attempt to reform abuses by bill, as an invasion of the sacred rights of the crown.-Sir, I apprehend that parliament may, and ought to remedy abuses, even though they are not in themselves illegal. On this principle it was that the judges' bill was passed; on this principle the habeas corpus bill in Ireland was passed; and on this principle many of the best laws in England have passed. Abuses which obtain under colour of law, are best rectified in parliament.

"When the commons of England had returned to their house, from a decisive answer given by Charles I. to the petition of right, they began to consider the state of the nation in all the various management of the king's prerogative; a message was delivered through the speaker, from the king, to admonish them not to cast reflections on his government, or to enter into the affairs of the state. Sir Edward Coke observed, on that message: "It is the business of this house to moderate the king's prerogative. Nothing which reacheth to abuse, that may not be treated of here." This principle is particularly applicable to cases of money, over which you, by special privilege, preside; and still more applicable to cases of your own revenues, because they are appropriated. A right honourable member has contradicted this; he says, that however the new customs and excise may be appropriated, yet that the old customs are under no appropriation whatsoever; and he says further, that formerly the king had a right to them by common law; and he states that they amount to 200,000l. per annum; but the right honourable mem

Der is not warranted, either by the laws or constitution of his country, in the doctrine which he has ventured to advance.Charles I. thought, indeed, like the right honourable member, that the king was entitled to tonnage and poundage by common law; but the parliament of England differed from both, and resolved such levies to be illegal, and the persons who, thinking like the member, had been concerned therein, to be delinquents. Nay, the old customs to the king makes an exception; and the qualification of a grant in any degree, usually bespeaks the poverty of the granter; the member therefore seems not to have adverted sufficiently either to the statute law or the constitution of his country. The statute of Charles II. which grants the new customs, and which also the member does not appear entirely to understand, seems to consolidate the new and old customs, and appropriate both to one and the same purpose.-After reciting the old grant, and establishing a common book of rates, it says,— "And for the better guarding and defending of the seas,"-and then it proceeds to grant the new customs: the words "better guarding and defending of the seas," bespeak the appropriation both to one and the same purpose, and is a term of connection between the old and new customs, making them a common fund for the defence of the seas.-But I might yield all this-I might allow that the hereditary revenue is not appropriated—that the act of customs does not mean the guarding the seas, nor the act of excise the pay of the army. Yet is the hereditary revenue the estate of the nation, of which the first magistrate is but a trustee for public purposes. It is not the private property of the king, but the public revenue, and any diversion thereof is a crime. The great Duke of Buckingham was impeached for such a crime; one article of his impeachment was the grant of several pensions to himself and his friends out of the revenue, and one criminal pension in the schedule, was a charge on the old customs of Ireland. At an earlier period the Duke of Suffolk was impeached, and one charge was the grant of pensions to himself and his friends. At an earlier period, in the reign of Richard II. an Earl of Oxford was impeached for grants to himself and his friends; the crime is called interception of subsidy; whereby the realm was left undefended, and grants like yours for the defence thereof, wasted on individuals, while the people were doubly taxed, as you are, to make up the wanton deficiency.

"Thus does it appear, that in cases concerning pensions by prerogative, the commons have interfered; though prerogative in those cases might plead that the revenues out of which these grants arose, were wholly appropriated; but a public grant appropriates itself to the public use; and the parliament that proceeds either to punish or control the diversion thereof, does not invade the prerogative of the crown, but exercises the privilege of the commons, in guarding the inheritance of the nation. In reforming such abuses, you may proceed in your inquisitorial capacity, as the greatest inquest of the nation, by impeachment, or in your legislative capacity, by bill; the latter is the milder method-my friend adopts it; and proceeds rather to reform than to punish. You tell him that we have submitted to this grievance for a long time. It is true; but a course of toleration and impunity, neither constitute innocence, nor draws out the sting of a grievance; it is true, you have submitted to this grievance for a long time. Hence the many erroneous arguments of this night. The public inheritance has been so diverted to private purposes, by a series of ministers, that we have forgotten the proprietor in the misapplication of the property, and talk of the estate, as of the private patrimony of the king-Hence these prerogatives of rapine! these rights of plunder! the authority of the king to be robbed by his own servants of the common stock !— Hence it is, that gentlemen have set up the shadow of prerogative as a centinel to public robbery.

"When gentlemen call this bill an attack on the prerogative of the crown, they are answered by the principles of the constitution; but they are also answered by a precedent of the most decisive nature; and that precedent is this very bill, which is now the law of England. By the law of England, no pensioner for years, or during pleasure, can sit in parliament; and by the law of England the amount of pensions is limited. The first law passed at the time of the Revolution, and was improved in the reign of queen Anne. The latter passed in 1782, with the entire concurrence of these very persons who now constitute this administration; and yet the argument of prerogative would have been stronger in England, because there a civil list had been granted to the king, and the subsequent limitation of pensions on that list, seemed a revocation of the powers of the grant. On what authority then, or pretence, do gentlemen call a measure which

they supported as necessary for England, an invasion of the rights of the crown, when proposed for the benefit of Ireland? What pretence have they for such partial doctrine of unequal measure? As if that was infringement in Ireland, which, in England was constitution; or, as if what was moderation in the people of England, would be in those of Ireland, arrogance and presumption.

"This leads me to another objection, on which gentlemen much relied, that this bill is an innovation--a new constitution; to admit the undue influence of the crown in parliament, and to control the excess of expense-an innovation! It is an encroachment most certainly, an encroachment on corruption, an invasion on the ancient privileges of venality; it is the old constitution encroaching and innovating on long established dishonest practices and accumulating expenses. All these expenses and practices, it seems we have already sanctified; we voted, the other night, that neither in their excess or application were they a grievance. Sir, I will not presume to censure a vote of this house, but I may be permitted to explain that vote; we could not mean, by that vote, that the present pension list was no grievance, for there was no man in debate hardy enough to make such an assertion; no man considers what that pension list is; it is the prodigality, jobbing, misapplication, and corruption of every Irish minister since 1772. To say that such a list was not, either in its excess or application, a grievance, was to declare, that since that period (that is, above half a century,) all your ministers were immaculate, or rather, indeed, that God had governed you himself, and had never sent you a minister in his anger.

"I declare I could not affirm the innocence of the list, because I should be guilty of affirming what I conceive to be false. Do gentlemen think otherwise?-Let them take their catalogue in one hand, and place on their heart the other; let them look this nation in the face, and in that posture declare, that the present Irish pension list is not, either in its excess or application, a grievance! They could not do it; they have voted what they would not say. I dissented from their vote, but I went along with their conviction."

SPEECH OF MR. GRATTAN,

ON THE

NAVIGATION ACT.

PREFATORY OBSERVATIONS.

On the 5th of March, 1787, Mr. Grattan desired to be informed what was meant by a bill, for which leave had been given the 23d of last February, under the title of "A bill for the improvement of Navigation," and whether that bill was to go farther than the registry of ships. The Attorney-general (Mr. Fitzgibbon) replied, that the intent was to insert a clause in the bill, declaratory of its being in force in this kingdom. "Then,” said Mr. Grattan-"I find this bill is to enact the navigation law, a law of greatest anxiety to the British minister, a law intended to confer equal benefits, and impose equal restraints, but so considered by Britain, as to confer benefits on herself and exclude Ireland. This was a principle of the propositions, and a very old complaint-England sent plantation goods to Ireland, and refused to receive them from us, under colour and construction of one and the same law-the act of navigation. This law, it seems now, gentlemen begin to suspect is not valid in Ireland, and it is now proposed by them to be enacted here, subject to the hostile construction; and it is to be brought on, on Wednesday, to be passed, I suppose, with the usual expedition."

On the 20th of March, the Attorney-general's new bill was debated; on which occasion, Mr. Grattan moved an amendment, which, in his opinion, went completely and effectually to prevent any future misconstruction of the navigation act, whose original principle and object was equality of advantage to every part of the British empire. This celebrated act (which Blackstone describes as the most beneficial statute for the trade and commerce of England) was first framed in the year of Cromwell, 1650, with a narrow partial view-being intended to mortify our Sugar