grant as an answer to solicitation; that he might say to the importunate-Sir, you have claims-your reliance on our economy gives you just pretensions to expect public money, but our hands are bound-here is the act of parliament. This would save the right honourable gentleman the fear of offending, and the trouble of thinking.—Sir, in the course of these objections, gentlemen have not forgotten to insist on the possibility of unforeseen exigencies, as a reason against an obligation on the Irish minister, in ordinary years, to confine himself to his own estimate of expense and revenue. I believe the English constitution does not warrant the objection-extraordinary emergencies (another word for reasons of state) should not be set up as a pretence for extraordinary powers in the crown. This principle is peculiarly applicable to the case of money; therefore it was that ship-money was held illegal, though it was insisted that the crown should have a power of levying money in great emergency; the same principle which condemns the practice of unforeseen emergency, in support of a latitude to lay the foundation of taxes without the consent of parliament, by the reserved power of exceeding in

come.

"Sir, this objection of unforeseen emergencies is peculiarly unseasonable now, because it happens to be falsified by his majesty's speech from the throne, which felicitates his people on the prospect of complete tranquillity. Had gentlemen reason to apprehend any danger, foreign or domestic, war or rebellion, I suppose they would have taken some precautions; but I ask, what is there, in the general complexion of the times-what is there, in your sequestered situation, to justify this pretence of unforeseen emergency?-this affectation of state mystery? A latitude not for exertion, but expense. What wars have you wage? What enemies have you to overwhelm? Against whom do you point the thunder of your arms? No, no, your emergencies are of a different kind-the gentle solicitation, the fond importunity, and the kind reply on the subject of public money. These are your wars, these are your emergencies. Who would have imagined to have seen, in the course of this debate, that faded cockade of the Castle, confidence, advanced on the side of the court-confidence in the Irish minister in the uncontrolled expenditure of Irish money?-What, after all your experience, to prefer confidence to this resolution, requires, in my opinion, a

most robust conscience and a most infirm understanding. Desirous as we all are to pay every respect, and with every predilection in favour of our present viceroy, a young man of a very noble unsuspicious nature, exposed perhaps to much importunity: yet who can answer for his continuance? This confidence, then, must extend to all his successors, whoever they be, of whatever cast, party, principle, or capacity-but even that won't do. This confidence must extend to all the secretaries of all the future lord lieutenants. In the last seven years we had seven lord lieu tenants and eight secretaries. The confidence must then be extended to the lords and commons of Great Britain, or rather to the king's commission, on a pure and perfect persuasion, that whom the king shall appoint, the Lord illuminates; and where the purse is bestowed, there is the virtue and there is the economy. This will not do; it is not sufficient that viceroys should be gods-Irishmen must be angels, and importunity and solicitation cease; and in that event I submit to the force of the argument of confidence, as something not according to reason, but above it.

"I have troubled you long; but before I sit down I must observe, that the success of your manufactures is much interested in this motion. Gentlemen are not to be informed, that the great commercial resources which Ireland possesses is not capital, but a comparative exemption from the weight of taxes. The increase of your expenses must operate therefore as a diminution of your commercial resources, and not only increase the undue influence of the British minister in the Irish parliament, but hinder the competition of the Irish manufacturer in his own market. The nature of the new taxes tends the rather to excite the apprehension, because some of these taxes are registers; taxes on licences to sell leather, soap, candles, &c. being in themselves of very small product, I fear them as a key to a more general taxation, and the more earnestly do I wish, therefore to stop the growth of expense. I think this is a good opportunity; for I think the new grants give you a right to insist on establishing a great principle of economy. When we make new grants, let us make points for Ireland; and while we are are generous to the crown, let us pay some attention to the interest of the people. Do not let any man suppose that the point of stopping the further accumulation of debt is gained already, because you are not called on for a loan for 1786; the reason being, that you borrowed

200,000l. in 1785, and that you got one half year's produce of the new taxes. I make no doubt that the resolution, though rejected to-night, will have a good effect. The principle must be carried. Government must at least live within its income; but then it is to such exertions, and to the urging such resolutions, you must attribute such an event.”

The principle of the first resolution moved by Mr. Connolly, being unequivocally admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was unanimously agreed to.

The question being put on the second resolution, there appeared,-Ayes-73-Noes-149.

42

SPEECH OF MR. GRATTAN,

IN THE

DEBATE ON PENSIONS.

PREFATORY OBSERVATIONS.

On the 20th February, 1786, Mr. Forbes moved for leave to bring in a bill "to prevent persons holding places or pensions under the crown from sitting or voting in the House of Commons." It is impossible to make mention of the name of this venerated and beloved friend of Irish independence, without recording our acknowledgment of the great and important services which he has rendered his country;-indefatigable in the performance of his legislative duties-gifted with great talents, and possessed of extensive information-he always enlightened his audience on every subject he discussed, and often successfully communicated to his countrymen a portion of that spirit which animated and directed his judgment in debate.

Mr. Grattan, in his celebrated letter to lord Clare, in the year 1800, thus speaks of this distinguished Irish senator:

“Mr. Forbes-a name I shall ever regard, and a death I shall ever deplore; enlightened, sensible, laborious, and useful— proud in poverty, and patriotic-he preferred exile to apostacy, and met his death.-I speak of the dead-I say nothing of the living, but that I attribute to this constellation of men, in a great measure, the privileges of your country; and I attribute such a generation to the residence of your parliament." Even such a man as Mr. Forbes, thus described by him who best knew his merits, and to whose superiority every Irishman with whom he acted bore equal testimony, could not escape the deluge of calumny, which swept away every man and every principle that was good or valuable in our island.-The slaughter of such characters was essential to the completion of the grand, though remote object of putting down the country: and every corrupt hand which could wield a quill, was engaged in the honourable

service of defaming and traducing our Forbes's, our Daly's, our Flood's, and our Burgh's;-their names, however, now live in the hearts of the people they instructed and protected, while their calumniators are forgotten, or remembered only to be execrated.

66

"Irishmen of the present day," says our admired oratormay go to the graves of these honourable dead men-they may raise up their tomb-stones, as their calumniators threw them down; they will feel it more instructive to converse with the ashes of the one, than with the compositions of the other."

On the 6th March, 1786, Mr. Forbes moved the house to re solve, "That the present application and amount of pensions on the civil establishment, are a grievance to the nation, and demand redress."

On the discussion of this motion, it appeared, that in the year 1757, the annual charge of pensions was only 45,000l. per annum; and that, in that year a resolution passed the house, to the following effect, "That paying so great a sum in pensions, was an imprudent disposition of the public revenue, and a grievance which ought to be redressed."

In 1785, the pension list amounted to 95,000l. which exceeded the whole amount of the civil establishment.

From 1757 to 1785, every establishment, civil and military, greatly increased-the patronage of the crown was extended, and the national debt amounted to more than two millions.-The pension list of Ireland exceeded that of England. The commerce-the revenue, and the resources of the former, bore no competition with those of the latter." It was idle, therefore," said Mr. Forbes, "to talk of the independence of the Irish parliament, whose members received wages from the crown." On this debate, Mr. Grattan made the memorable declaration, which seemed to have given such pain to the delicate feelings of ministers:--"Should I affirm," said Mr. Grattan, "that the pension list is not a grievance, I should affirm, in the face of my country, an impudent, insolent, and a public lie!" This motion, so essen tial to the purity and independence of parliament, was lost.-On this occasion, Mr. Grattan occupied the attention of the house

but for a short time.

On the 13th March, Mr. Forbes presented his bill, to limit the amount of pensions, which was received, and read a first time: