without representation; that Ireland had no parliamentary constitution till the time of James I.; that the creation of the dependency of the crown for supply on the Commons, was a pernicious precedent; that the remedy for our present free constitution, and the only security for the connection, was to put in the place of the British Parliament the commanding influence of the British cabinet over the Irish legislature. Couple this with a declaration, that half a million had been resorted to some years back to buy the Commons of Ireland; couple that with the declarations continued in this pamphlet, that, for the last seven years, a noble minister of the Crown had perseveringly recommended the abolition of the Irish Parliament, and an union in its place; couple all this together, and the result of the pamphlet will be the most complete and ample justification and panegyric of that opposition, who for a course of years have, with honest perseverance, reprobated that minister's administration. I will not say it is a justification of rebellion, but it is the best defence I have seen; it amounts to a direct charge, for those last fifty years, on the aristocracy, and on the Commons, of faction, of plunder, of breaches with England, and of acts of separation; and it particularly condemns the Parliament for those very measures on which she must rest her credit and authority with the people; and further, it charges, that before any rebel was in the country, a leading minister in the cabinet was himself, and has been for eight years, a secret adviser against the parliamentary constitution of Ireland, of course, against the fundamental laws of the land; to such a work, containing three fabrications, four capital departures from matter of fact, together with the disparagement of his country, and of almost every honest public character for the last fifty years, I do not think it necessary to say more.

I conclude, therefore, by repeating what I have already solemnly declared, that

It is not fact that we excited the Catholics.

It is not fact that we persecuted the Catholics.

It is not fact that we adopted the Catholic measures after the place bill and pension bill had passed, and in quest of new matter of opposition.

It is not fact, that I ever declared or wrote that the adjustment of 1782 emanated from Dungannon.

It is not fact, that I ever compared the Parliament that accomplished that adjustment to the Parliament of

1613.

It is not fact, that I ever declared that the Catholic would be most powerful, if these nations were separated.

It is not fact, that I ever abandoned to popularity the draft of a bill for vesting in the Parliament of England a power of imperial legislature.

It is not fact, that I ever saw, agreed to, or heard of, any such draft.

It is not fact, that I ever agreed to an alliance with any English party, to oppose any plan of national concord.

It is not fact, that I ever entered into any alliance, offensive and defensive, with them, however I might esteem their persons, and prefer their principles.

Here are ten assertions made by the author; he is publicly called upon to establish them.

I have said thus much to defend my country and myself, in opposition to this publication, that takes the name of a minister who has the support of the governments of both countries, and with respect to whom I have no advantage, except the cause, my own personal superiority, and another recommendation which I possess in common with almost every honest subject in Ireland, and with the Irish nation herself, the advantage which the calumniated has over the calumniator. I might avail myself of many more vulnerable parts in those publications, and press the supposed author personally, as he has pressed others; but, considering his situation more than he has done himself, I consign him to judges more severe than I could be, and to him the most awful, and, on this side the grave, the most tremendous SCIENCE!*

HIS COUNTRY AND HIS CON

APPENDIX.

EXTRACT FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE (MR. HUTCHINSON'S) SPEECH, IN 1793.

"BUT what was the history of the representation in this country? He could inform gentlemen with some accuracy, having thought it his duty, when he took a more active part in public business, to extract from all the borough charters at at the Rolls-office their material contents. The number of representatives, in the thirty-fourth year of Henry VIII., was one hundred; to this number Mary and Elizabeth added about forty-eight, but of these there were nineteen counties, of

*This was singularly prophetic. After the Union, Lord Clare repented of his conduct, and I have heard a near relation of his declare, that, in his latter days, he bitterly reproached himself for the part he had taken in that Note by Editor.

measure.

which Elizabeth had established seventeen, a mode of representation worthy the character of that great princess. In the first Parliament of James I., held in 1613, the members of the House of Commons were two hundred and thirty-two: the last creation of a borough was by Queen Anne, who created one only. For the difference between the number of representatives at the accession of James, and the present number of three hundred, the House of Stuart is responsible. One half of the representatives were made by them, and made by the exertion of prerogative; of those, James made forty at one stroke; most of them at the eve of a Parliament, and some after the writs of summons had issued. The Commons, in that Parliament, expressed their doubts whether those boroughs had the power of returning members to sit in Parliament, and reserved that subject for future consideration. Complaints were made to James of those grants, but what was his answer? "I have made forty boroughs; suppose I had made four hundred the more the merrier." Charles I. followed the example of his father in exercising this prerogative, but not to so great an extent. Complaints were also made to him, and he gave assurances that the new corporations should be reviewed by Parliament. The grants made by these two monarchs appear, by the histories and correspondences of those times, to have been for the purpose of giving the Protestants a majority over the Roman Catholics. The grants by Charles II., James II., and Queen Anne, proceeded from motives of personal favour; thus it would appear, if the facts were investigated, that one half of the representation of Ireland had arisen from the exertions of prerogative, influenced by occasional motives, disputes among religionists, and inducements of personal favour, but had not been derived from any of those sources which had produced the English constitution. Had he the honour of being a member of the British House of Commons, he would never touch the venerable fabric of their representation; but, in this kingdom, the part of the representation universally complained of, had originated in party or private motives, and he did not believe there was one prescriptive borough in the whole kingdom. He believed some boroughs were called so, but, he believed, unjustly; eleven of the grants which had been mentioned, did not appear at the Rolls-office, but most of these were modern in the time of the House of Stuart."

APPENDIX.