terms which had been gained by the latter might be considered as one of those giant strides in advance, which is made, from time to time, by the spirit of the age, and which antiquates all the legal formalities by which it could be constitutionally resisted. As long as human affairs continue to progress, these advances will be made good; and should they retrograde, as legal barriers had not prevented the people from incroaching upon the crown, so they could not prevent the crown from incroaching upon the people. These, or such considerations, indisposed many to accede to Mr. Flood's proposition for a renunciation, on the part of Eng land, of any assumed right to legislate for Ireland; but when the decision in the King's Bench in England, before adverted to, was made known, this indisposition, it must be acknowledged, rapidly disappeared, and his powerful and lucid reasoning produced an effect upon the public mind that equalled his most sanguine expectation :

"The repeal of a declaratory law," he said,* (unless it contains a renunciation of the principle,) is only a repeal of the declaration, and not of the legal principle. The principle remains in full force unless it be renounced. This is universally true, and it is strengthened in this case by this circumstance. Many acts have been made by the British parliament binding Ireland, some of them before the declaratory law of George the First. Now, whilst one of these remains, there is an exercise and a proof of the right, stronger, by much, than the declaratory law. A simple repeal, therefore, of the declaratory law, is no vindication of your legislature. But it is argued, that because, in your address, you declare that the British parliament had no such right, therefore the repeal, joined to this, will be equal to a renunciation by England. But what man in his senses can believe that our renunciation of the British claim can be equal to her own renunciation of it? Or that, in any controversy, an assertion of a party in his own favour, is equal to the admission of his antagonist? If Britain renounces it, no other power on earth can pretend to maintain it. But if all the rest of the world were to deny her preten

sions, yet as long as she maintains it, our rights are unvindicated, and our constitution is in danger. Will any man say, that if I ask a thing on a particular principle, that therefore, if I obtain it at all, it must follow that I obtain it on my own principle? There is no such inference in law, in logic, or in reason: it would only appear that the two parliaments had agreed in one point, that of the bare repeal; but it never would appear, without an express renunciation, that they agreed in the renunciation also; and we know the fact to be, that they do not agree with us in that principle. But, let us suppose that, after such a simple to put this argument to a decisive proof, repeal, at a future day the British parliament should revive the principle, and make a law for us; suppose that Ireland should remonstrate upon this; suppose she should read that paragraph of her address, and quote the British repeal of the declaratory law, and should argue from both that England had for ever renounced her claim, do you think that England would listen to such an inference, or that any reasoner in Europe would allow the force of your argument? Would she allow you to piece your address to her act of parliament? If you questioned her declaratory act, would not she question your declaratory address? Would she not appeal to the language held by her own members? Would she not appeal to words upon your own journals? Would she not appeal to the silence of her law of repeal, and to your acquiescence under that silence? Would she not say that that was, virtually, a national relinquishment of any idea of renunciation; so that the principle remained not only unrenounced, but the equity of it impliedly admitted by Ireland, at a moment when she was the ablest to contest it?

But I shall be asked, (though the repeal of the declaratory law should be simple and imperfect,) whether I think that England will ever revive the claim? I answer, I cannot be certain that she will, neither can I be certain that she will not; and I ask in return, whether any man will be surety that she will not; and if any man is weak enough to say that he will be so, I will tell him that this nation will not be weak enough to accept of his surety, for no mortal is ade

to them. At an early period of my life, on a question of embargo, in consequence of a proclamation founded on an English act of parliament, I brought the criminal gazette within these walls, and at your bar I arraigned the delinquent. The house was alarmed, and I withdrew my motion on the proclamation being withdrawn. If you ask why I did not pursue it to a formal declaration of right? I answer, (for I wish to be answerable to you for every part of my life,) that the time was not ripe for it. The first spring of the constitution is the elective power of the people. Till that was reinforced, by limiting the duration of parliaments, nothing could be done. The people wanted constitutional privilege. Till the fabric of usupation, founded on the law of Poyning, had been shaken to its foundation, little could be done. The parliament wanted conscious dignity. Till the people were armed, the nation wanted military power. These were necessary antecedents. The public mind wanted much cultivation. The seed, too, was necessary to be sown; and if I have not been wanting to the preparation of the soil, may I not be permitted to watch over the harvest? To that harvest, too, as well as to every other, a prosperous season was necessary; and that season presented itself in the American war. When, therefore, in that season, and in the sunshine of his own abilities, the Rt. Hon. Gent. brought forward a declaration of rights in Lord Buckingham's government, after the administration had amended his proposition for the purpose of defeating it, I stepped forward, in office as I was, and at the hazard of that office, and rescued the principle from the disgrace of a postponement, or from the ruin of a rejection. In this session, too, I hope that my humble efforts have not been peculiarly wanting. In ability I will yield to many; in zeal, to none; and if I have not served the public cause more than many men, this at least I may say, I have sacrificed as much for it. Do you repent of that sacrifice, if I am asked? I answer, no. Who could repent of a sacrifice to truth and honour; to a country that he loves, and to a country that is grateful? Do you repent of it? No. But I should not rejoice in it, if it were only to be attended with a private deprivation, and not to be accompanied by all its gains to my country. I have a peculiar right, therefore, to be solicitous and ardent about the issue of it, and no man shall stop me in my progress.

"Were the voice with which I utter this, the last effort of an expiring nature; were the accent which conveys it to you the breath that was to waft me to that grave to which we all tend, and to which my footsteps rapidly accelerate, I would go on. I would make my exit by a loud demand of your rights. And I call upon the God of truth and liberty, who has so often favoured you, and who has of late looked down upon you with such a peculiar grace and glory of protection, to continue to you his inspirings; to crown you with the spirit of his completion; and to assist you against the errors of those that are honest, as well as against the machinations of all that are not so."

This is, surely, a splendid senatorial effort; and the concluding paragraph, as well as the allusion to America in the former part, rises to the sublime. The whole is conceived and executed in a style of the severest and the most But his motion, elevated grandeur. which was to refer the question of the validity of simple repeal to the judges, was rejected without a division. Grattan's star still maintained itself lord of the ascendant. The reasonings of Flood, however, rapidly propagated themselves through the country. The most eminent legal authorities assented to the correctness of his legal positions. The Volunteers caught the alarm. He was addressed by one body after another, until all Ireland seemed to be converted to his opinion; and "simple repeal" was scouted as utterly inadequate and delusive. It would be well for his fame if he was as temperate in not abusing as he was skilful and determined in gaining this victory.

But the armed association of the Volunteers was now the pride and the hope of Ireland. To the powerful

demonstration of national zeal and unanimity, made by this great body of military citizens, many ascribed the relinquishment of those principles of domination, which heretofore characterized the policy of England; and Flood fully succeeded in persuading them, that all that had been as yet accomplished, amounted to no more than a respite from tyranny, and that until the power of legislating for Ireland, both internally and externally, was expressly renounced, the nation must ever be exposed to a capricious invasion of its independence. When once suspicion has been excited in a

sanguine people, the quickness and violence of their resentment is fully proportioned to their generous credulity. Grattan now found that the tide of his popularity was rapidly upon the ebb; and as the reasonings of Flood, which were so logically conclusive, and by which so many others were convinced, were never regarded by him as any thing better than the cavilings of moody discontent, he exhibited, in dealing with the question, a peevish exasperation, which caused him to lose considerable ground with many of his former ardent admirers. In truth, he could no more be compared with Flood in discussing a principle, than Flood with him in diffusing a sentiment; and, as formerly he had the advantage in competing with Flood in his element, so now Flood had the advantage in contending with him upon his own. The crocodile had before caught the lion in the water, the lion now got the crocodile on dry land. Accordingly, his triumph was so complete, as to blot out every trace of previous humiliation. Addresses and congratulations continued to pour in upon him from all parts of the country, until the national determination was so fully manifested, that the minister could no longer resist it. He wisely judged that it would be highly impolitic to contend for the shadow after he had parted with the substance; and prudently resolved to anticipate any formal demand of the Irish House of Commons, by passing through the British legislature, early in the ensuing session, an act of renunciation.

Mr. Flood, in his reply to an ad. dress from the Connaught volunteers, used some words at which Mr. Grattan

took offence. A challenge ensued, and the parties were prevented meeting only by the interference of the civil powers. Both were men of the coolest and most determined courage; and it is to be feared, that had they met in the field, the consequences would have been fatal. Better was it, therefore, to have reserved the explosion of their mutual hate for the terrific wordy conflict which afterwards took place between them in the Irish parliament.

This occurred upon the 28th of October, 1783, upon occasion of a motion by Sir Harry Cavendish, recommending retrenchment. Flood

laboured under severe illness, and supported the views of the mover; at the same time adding some words which slightly modified his motion, as he conceived it did not go far enough. He did not utter a word at which any one should have taken offence. Grattan's speech in reply was an effusion of splenetic personal maliguity. He sneered at Flood's affectation of illness, taunted him by implication with apostacy, and openly upbraided him with inconsistency he was now recommending economy, whereas, he said, he was no enemy to profusion, when he accepted office in Lord Harcourt's administration. When he concluded, Flood rose, and said—

have no doubt of the propriety of my "The right honourable member can saying a word in reply to what he has delivered. Every member in the house can bear witness of the infirmity I mentioned, and, therefore, it required but little candour to make a nocturnal attack upon that infirmity. But I am not afraid of the right honourable member; I will meet him anywhere, or upon any ground, by night or by day. I would stand poorly in my own estimation, and in my country's opinion, if I did not stand far above him. I do not come here, dressed in a rich wardrobe of words to delude the people. I am not one who has promised, repeatedly, to bring in a bill of rights, yet does not bring in that bill, or permit any other person to do it. I am not one who threatened to impeach the Chief Justice of the King's Bench for acting under an English law, and afterwards shrunk from

that business. I am not the author of the simple repeal. I am not one who, after saying the parliament was a parliatheir voices subservient to my interest. ment of prostitutes, endeavoured to make

I am not one who would come at mid

I am

night, and attempt, by a vote of this house, to stifle the voice of the people, which my egregious folly had raised against me. I am not the gentleman who subsists upon your accounts. not the mendicant patriot who was bought by my country for a sum of money, and then sold my country for prompt payment. I am not the man who in this house loudly complained of an infringement made by England, in including Ireland in a bill, and then sent a certificate to Dungannon that Ireland was not included. I never was bought by the people, nor ever sold them. The gentleman says he never apostatized; but