their petitions, praying to be relieved against it, as an oppressive, a corrupt, and therefore an execrable establishment.

True it is also, my lords, they have been guilty of those triumphant processions, which the learned counsel have so heavily condemned. The virtue of the people stood forward to oppose an attempt to seize upon their representation, by the exercise of a dangerous and unconstitutional influence, and it succeeded in the conflict; it routed and put to flight that corruption, which sat, like an incubus, on the heart of the metropolis, chaining the current of its blood, and locking up every healthful function and energy of life. The learned counsel might have seen the city pouring out her inhabitants, as if to share the general joy of escaping from some great calamity, in mutual gratulation and public triumph.*-But why does the learned counsel insist upon this subject before your lordships? Does he think such meetings illegal? He knows his profession too well, not to know the reverse.-But does he think it competent to the lord lieutenant and council of Ireland to take cognizance of such facts, or to pronounce any opinion whatever concerning the privileges of the people? He must know it is not.--Does he then mean that such things may be subjects of your resentment, though not of your jurisdiction? It would have been worth while, before that point had been pressed, to consider between what parties it must suppose the present contest to subsist. To call upon the government of the country to let their vengeance fall upon the people for their resistance of unconstitutional influence, is surely an appeal not very consistent with the virtuous impartiality of this august assembly. It is only for those who feel defeat, to feel resentment or to think of vengeance.

But suppose for a moment, (and there never ought to be reason to suppose it,) that the opposition of the city had been directly to the views or the wishes of the government; why are you, therefore, called upon to seize its corporate rights into your hands, or to force an illegal magistrate upon it? Is it insinuated that it can be just to punish a want of complaisance, by an act of lawless outrage and arbitrary power? Does the British con

The cavalcadings here spoken of took place on the election of Mr. Grattan and lord H. Fitzgerald, who had been returned for the city of Dublin in opposition to the court candidates, one of whom was alderman Warren then at the head of the police establishment.

stitution, my lords, know of such offences, or does it warrant this species of tyrannical reprisal? And, my lords, if the injustice of such is without defence, what argument can be offered in support of its prudence or policy? It was once the calamity of England to have such an experiment made by the last of the Stuarts, and the last of that unhappy race because of such experiments. The several corporations of that country were stript of their charters: and what was the consequence? I need not state them; they are notorious; yet, my lords, there was a time when he was willing to relinquish what he had so weakly and wickedly undertaken; but there is a time when concession comes too late to restore either public quiet, or public confidence; and when it amounts to nothing more than an acknowledgment of injustice; when the people must see, that it is only the screen behind which oppression changes her attack, from force to fraud, from the battery to the mine. See then, my lords, how such a measure comes recommended; its principle injustice, its motive vengeance, its adoption sanctioned by the authority of a tyrant, or the example of a revolution.

My lords, the learned counsel has made another observation which I cannot pass without remark; it is the last with which I shall trouble you. He says, the commons may apply to the law, and bring an information in quo warranto against Mr. James, though you should give him your approbation; that is, my lords, your judgment does not bind the right, it only decides the possession of the office. To this I answer, that in this case, to decide on the possession is, in fact, to decide the contest; and I found that answer on the high authority of the noble lord, who was pleased to say, that "when the city had spent three years in the king's bench, she would probably grow sick of the contest."* I was not surprised, my lords, to hear an expression of that regret which must arise in every worthy mind; and I am sure the noble lord sincerely felt at the distress of a people reduced to defend those rights which ought never to have been attacked, and to defend them in a way by which they could not possibly succeed. The truth is, as the noble lord has stated, the time of Mr. James's mayoralty would expire in a year, and the question of law could not be terminated in three; the present contest, therefore, can

* The lord chancellor.

not be decided by law. How then, my lords, is it to be decided? Are the people to submit tamely to oppression, or are they to struggle for their liberties? I trust, my lords, you will think they have not done any thing so culpable as can justify the driving them to so calamitous a necessity; for fatal must that struggle be, in whatsoever country it shall happen, in which the liberties of a people can find no safety but in the efforts of vindictive virtue; fatal to all parties, whatsoever may be the event. But, my lords, I feel this to be a topic on which it is neither my province nor my wish to expatiate, and I leave it the more willingly, because I know that I have already trespassed very long upon your patience, and also, because I cannot relinquish a hope, that the decision of your lordships this day will be such as shall restore the tranquillity of the public mind, the mutual confidence between the government and the people, and make it unnecessary for any man to pursue so painful a subject.

The lord lieutenant and privy council confirmed the election of the commons, in the person of alderman Howison, for lord mayor.

SPEECH OF MR. CURRAN,

ON MOVING THAT IT IS THE EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TO ORIGINATE MONEY BILLS.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 16, 1783.

MR. CURRAN. While I reflect that the motion I am now going to make is of the utmost importance to the honour, and even existence of this house, and that I have given full notice of my intention, I am much surprised at the little regard that seems intended to be paid to it, as is manifest from the emptiness of those benches. -This, sir, is not a question of party; I never did, nor ever will attach myself to party; and though I mean to move the resolution from this side of the house, yet it concerns both sides equally: it goes to assert the privileges of the people of Ireland represented in this house of commons; and I say every party, and every description of men in this house is equally concerned in supporting it. I say it is the sole and exclusive right of the commons of Ireland to originate and frame money bills in such manner as they shall think proper; and the resolution I intend to propose is only to vindicate this privilege from the encroachments of a neighbouring assembly, which has lately, by certain resolutions, invaded this right, this palladium of the constitution, which I trust every man in the house will think himself bound to defend.

I am sorry to say that the constitution of Ireland is so young, that I need not go back to a very remote period, to prove that the exclusive right of originating and framing money bills has always resided in this house; but for thirty years back it certainly has; and in England, from whence we derived our constitution, it always has been the practice. The peers and the crown possess an undoubted right of rejecting such bills in toto; but in the commons alone resides the power of originating or

framing them; the very mode of giving the royal assent to such bills demonstrates that the commons alone are the source from which they flow. His majesty thanks his faithful commons, accepts their benevolence, and wills it to be so; and this mode obtains both in Britain and here. To whom should the people of Ireland look for the redress of grievances, for the encouragement of arts, for the promotion of commerce, but to their representatives in this house? What powerful engine has this house, by which it can obtain the redress of grievances, the encouragement of arts, or the promotion of commerce, but by including those objects in the bill of supply? And if the right be once given up, or wrested from the commons, they cease to be the patrons and representatives of the people; another assembly will assume that power, and the people will learn to look for that encouragement and support from the aristocratic, which they now receive from the democratic branch of the state; and this house will become a very cypher, and its members, instead of possessing the power of encouraging arts, rewarding merit, or, in a word, of serving the country, will become the humble solicitors of another assembly.

From the reign of Henry the third, the power of annexing the redress of grievances to money bills has been the constitutional privilege of the commons of England; the practice of inserting such clauses as the commons have deemed proper, has obtained in Ireland for more than thirty years, and, to any person acquainted with our constitution, must, at the slightest view, appear to be their inherent right: I cannot therefore suppose this house will be silent when this privilege is invaded by another assembly; no man entertains a higher opinion of that assembly than I do, and I am persuaded that so great is their lordship's wisdom, that when this matter is duly considered by them, they will see the impropriety of two resolutions which appear upon their journals of the fourth and fifth of the present month, to this effect, "That all grants made to private manufacturers ought to be made in separate acts, and that enacting clauses in bills of supply, the matter of which is foreign to the bill, is unparliamentary, and tends to destroy the constitution of this kingdom." That the illustrious assembly to which I allude has passed such a resolution is notorious, and cannot be denied; it is inserted in their journals, and has been seen by many members of this house: the formality