THE ERA OF INDEPENDENCE—FIRST PERIOD.
The accession of the Rockingham administration to power, in 1782, was
followed by the recall of Lord Carlisle, and the substitution, as
Viceroy, of one of the leading Lords of the Whig party. The nobleman
selected to this office was William Henry, third Duke of Portland,
afterwards twice prime minister; then in the prime of life, possessed
of a very ample fortune, and uniting in his own person the two great
Whig families of Bentinck and Cavendish. The policy he was sent to
represent at Dublin was undoubtedly an imperial policy; a policy which
looked as anxiously to the integrity of the empire as any Tory cabinet
could have desired; but it was, in most other respects, a policy of
conciliation and concession, dictated by the enlarged wisdom of Burke,
and adopted by the magnanimous candour of Fox. Yet by a generous
people, who always find it more difficult to resist a liberal than an
illiberal administration, it was, in reality, a policy more to be
feared than welcomed; for its almost certain effects were to divide
their ranks into two sections—a moderate and an extreme party—between
whom the national cause, only half established, might run great danger
of being lost, almost as soon as it was won.
With the Duke of Portland was associated, as Chief Secretary, Colonel
Fitzpatrick, of the old Ossory family, one of those Irish wits and men
of fashion, who form so striking a group in the middle and later years
of King George III. As the personal and political friend of Flood,
Charlemont, and Grattan, and the first Irish secretary for several
administrations, he shared the brilliant ovation with which the Duke of
Portland was received, on his arrival at Dublin; but for the reason
already mentioned, the imperial, in so far as opposed to the national
policy, found an additional advantage in the social successes and great
personal popularity of the new secretary.
The critical months which decided the contest for independence—April
and May—passed over fortunately for Ireland. The firmness of the
leaders in both Houses, the energy especially of Grattan, whose cry was
"No time, no time!" and the imposing attitude of the volunteers,
carried the question. Lord Rockingham and Mr. Fox by letter, the new
Viceroy and Secretary in person, had urged every argument for
adjournment and delay, but Grattan's _ultimatum_ was sent over to
England, and finally and formally accepted. The demands were _five_. I.
The repeal of the 6th of George I. II. The repeal of the Perpetual
Mutiny Act. III. An Act to abolish the alteration or suppression of
Bills. IV. An Act to establish the final jurisdiction of the Irish
Courts and the Irish House of Lords. V. The repeal of Poyning's Law.
This was the constitutional charter of 1782, which restored Ireland,
for the first time in that century, to the rank and dignity of a free
nation.
Concession once determined on, the necessary bills were introduced in
both Parliaments simultaneously, and carried promptly into law. On the
27th of May, the Irish Houses were enabled to congratulate the Viceroy
that "no constitutional question any longer existed between the two
countries." In England it was proclaimed no less explicitly by Fox and
his friends, that the independency of the two legislatures "was fixed
and ascertained for ever." But there was, unfortunately, one ground for
dispute still left, and on that ground Henry Flood and Henry Grattan
parted, never to be reconciled.
The elder Patriot, whose conduct from the moment of his retirement from
office, in consequence of his Free Trade vote and speech in '79, had
been, with occasional exceptions, arising mostly from bodily infirmity,
as energetic and consistent as that of Grattan himself, saw no
sufficient constitutional guarantee in mere acts of Parliament
repealing other acts. He demanded "express renunciation" of legislative
supremacy on the part of England; while Grattan maintained the
sufficiency of "simple repeal." It is possible even in such noble
natures as these men had—so strangely are we constituted—that there was
a latent sense of personal rivalry, which prompted them to grasp, each,
at the larger share of patriotic honour. It is possible that there were
other, and inferior men, who exasperated this latent personal rivalry.
Flood had once reigned supreme, until Grattan eclipsed him in the
sudden splendour of his career. In scholarship and in genius the elder
Patriot was, taken all in all, the full peer of his successor; but
Grattan had the national temperament, and he found his way more readily
into the core of the national heart; he was the man of the later, the
bolder, and the more liberal school; and such was the rapidity of his
movements, that even Flood, from '79 to '82, seemed to be his follower,
rather than his coadjutor. In the hopeful crisis of the struggle, the
slower and more experienced statesman was for the moment lost sight of.
The leading motions were all placed or left in the hands of Grattan by
the consent of their leading friends; the bills repealing the Mutiny
Act, the 6th George I., and Poyning's law, were entrusted to Burgh,
Yelverton, and Forbes; the thanks of the House were voted to Grattan
alone after the victory, with the substantial addition of 50,000 pounds
to purchase for him an estate, which should become an enduring monument
of the national gratitude.
The open rupture between the two great orators followed fast on the
triumph of their common efforts. It was still the first month—the very
honeymoon of independence. On the 13th of June, Mr. Grattan took
occasion to notice in his place, that a late British act relating to
the importation of sugars, was so generally worded as apparently to
include Ireland; but this was explained to be a mere error of the
clerk, the result of haste, and one which would be promptly corrected.
Upon this Mr. Flood first took occasion to moot the insufficiency of
"simple repeal," and the necessity of "express renunciation," on the
part of England. On the 19th, he moved a formal resolution on the
subject, which was superseded by the order of the day; but on the 19th
of July, he again moved, at great length, and with great power of
logical and historical argument, for leave to bring in an Irish Bill of
Rights, declaring "the sole and exclusive right of the Irish Parliament
to make laws in all cases whatsoever, _external and internal_." He was
supported by Sir Simon Bradstreet, Mr. English, and Mr. Walshe, and
opposed by Grattan, who, in one of his finest efforts, proposed a
counter resolution, "that the legislature of Ireland is independent;
and that any person who shall, by writing or otherwise, maintain that a
right in any other country, to make laws for Ireland, _internally_ or
_externally_, exists or can be revived, _is inimical to the peace of
both kingdoms_." This extreme proposition—pointing out all who differed
from himself as public enemies—the mover, however, withdrew, and
substituted in its stead the milder formula, that leave was refused to
bring in the bill, because the sole and exclusive right of legislation
in the Irish Parliament in all cases, whether externally or internally,
hath been already asserted by Ireland, and fully, finally, and
irrevocably acknowledged by the British Parliament. Upon this motion
Flood did not think it advisable to divide the House, so it passed
without a division.
But the moot point thus voted down in Parliament disquieted and alarmed
the minds of many out of doors. The volunteers as generally sided with
Flood as the Parliament had sided with Grattan. The lawyer corps of the
city of Dublin, containing all the great names of the legal profession,
endorsed the constitutional law of the member for Kilkenny; the Belfast
volunteers did likewise; and Grattan's own corps, in a respectful
address, urged him to give his adherence to the views of "the best
informed body of men in the kingdom,"—the lawyers' corps. Just at that
moment Lord Abingdon, in the English House of Lords, gave notice of a
mischievous motion to assert the external supremacy of the English
Parliament; and Lord Mansfield, in the King's Bench, decided an Irish
appeal case, notwithstanding the recent statute establishing the
judicial independence of the Irish courts. It is true the case had been
appealed before the statute was passed; and that Lord Abingdon withdrew
his motion for want of a seconder; but the alarm was given, and the
popular mind in Ireland, jealously watchful of its new-born liberties,
saw in these attempts renewed cause for apprehension. In opposition to
all this suddenly awakened suspicion and jealousy, Grattan, who
naturally enough assumed his own interest in preserving the new
constitution to be quite equal to those who cast doubts on its
security, invariably held one language. The settlement already made,
according to his view, was final; it was an international treaty; its
maintenance must depend on the ability and disposition of the parties
to uphold it, rather than on the multiplication of declaratory acts.
Ireland had gone to England with a charter, not for a charter, and the
nation which would insist upon the humiliation of another, was a
foolish nation. This was the lofty light in which he viewed the whole
transaction, and in this light, it must be added, he continued to view
it till the last. Many of the chief English and Irish jurists of his
time, Lord Camden, Lord Kenyon, Lord Erskine, Lord Kilwarden, Judges
Chamberlain, Smith, and Kelly, Sir Samuel Rommilly, Sir Arthur Pigott,
and several others, agreed fully in Grattan's doctrine, that the
settlement of '82 was final and absolute, and "terminated all British
jurisdiction over Ireland." But although these are all great names, the
instinct of national self-preservation may be considered in such
critical moments more than a counterpoise to the most matured opinions
of the oracles of the law. Such must have been the conviction also of
the English Parliament, for, immediately on their meeting in January,
1783, they passed the _Act of Renunciation_ (23rd George III.),
expressly declaring their admission of the "exclusive rights of the
Parliament and Courts of Ireland in matters of legislature and
judicature." This was Flood's greatest triumph. Six months before his
doctrine obtained but three supporters in the Irish Commons; now, at
his suggestion, and on his grounds, he saw it unanimously affirmed by
the British Parliament.
On two other questions of the utmost importance these leading spirits
also widely differed. Grattan was in favour of, and Flood opposed to,
Catholic emancipation; while Flood was in favour of, and Grattan, at
that moment, opposed to, a complete reform of parliamentary
representation. The Catholic question had its next great triumph after
Flood's death, as will be mentioned further on; but the history of the
Irish reform movement of 1783, '84, and '85, may best be disposed of
here.
The Reformers were a new party rising naturally out of the popular
success of 1782. They were composed of all but a few of the more
aristocratic corps of the volunteers, of the townsmen, especially in
the seaports and manufacturing towns, of the admirers of American
example, of the Catholics who had lately acquired property and
recognition, but not the elective franchise, of the gentry of the
second and third degree of wealth, overruled and overshadowed by the
greater lords of the soil. The substantial grievance of which they
complained was, that of the 300 members of the House of Commons, only
72 were returned by the people; 53 Peers having the power to nominate
123 and secure the election of 10 others; while 52 Commoners nominated
91 and controlled the choice of 4 others. The constitution of what
ought to have been the people's house was, therefore, substantially in
the hands of an oligarchy of about a hundred great proprietors, bound
together by the spirit of their class, by intermarriage, and by the
hereditary possession of power. To reduce this exorbitant influence
within reasonable bounds, was the just and wise design to which Flood
dedicated all his energies, after the passage of the _Act of
Renunciation_, and the success of which would certainly have restored
him to complete equality with Grattan.
In the beginning of 1783, the famous coalition ministry of Lord North
and Mr. Fox was formed in England. They were at first represented at
Dublin Castle, for a few months, by Lord Temple, who succeeded the Duke
of Portland, and established the order of _Knights of Saint Patrick_;
then by Lord Northington, who dissolved Parliament early in July. A
general election followed, and the reform party made their influence
felt in all directions. County meetings were held; conventions by
districts and by provinces were called by the reforming Volunteers, in
July, August, and September. The new Parliament was to be opened on the
14th of October, and the Volunteers resolved to call a convention of
their whole body at Dublin, for the 10th of November.
The Parliament met according to summons, but though searching
retrenchment was spoken of, no promise was held out of a constitutional
reform; the limitation of the regular troops to a fixed number was
declared advisable, and a vote of thanks to the Volunteers was passed
without demur. But the proceedings of the Houses were soon eclipsed by
the portentous presence of the Volunteer Convention. One hundred and
sixty delegates of corps attended on the appointed day. The Royal
Exchange was too small to accommodate them, so they adjourned to the
Rotunda, accompanied by mounted guards of honour. The splendid and
eccentric Bishop of Derry (Earl of Bristol), had his dragoon guards;
the courtly but anxious Charlemont had his troop of horse; Flood, tall,
emaciated, and solemn to sadness, was hailed with popular acclamations;
there also marched the popular Mr. Day, afterwards Judge; Robert
Stewart, father of Lord Castlereagh; Sir Richard Musgrave, a reformer
also, in his youth, who lived to confound reform with rebellion in his
old age. The Earl of Charlemont was elected president of this imposing
body, and for an entire month Dublin was divided between the
extraordinary spectacle of two legislatures—one sitting at the Rotunda,
and the other at College Green, many members of each being members of
the other; the uniform of the volunteer sparkling in the Houses, and
the familiar voices of both Houses being heard deliberating and
debating among the Volunteers.
At length, on the 29th of November, after three weeks' laborious
gestation, Flood brought before Parliament the plan of reform agreed to
by the Convention. It proposed to extend the franchise to every
_Protestant_ freeholder possessed of a lease worth forty shillings
yearly; to extend restricted borough constituencies by annexing to them
neighbouring populous parishes; that the voting should be held on one
and the same day; that pensioners of the crown should be incapable of
election; that members accepting office should be subject to
re-election; that a stringent bribery oath should be administered to
candidates returned; and, finally, that the duration of Parliament
should be limited to three years. It was, indeed, an excellent
Protestant Reform Bill, for though the Convention had received Father
Arthur O'Leary with military honours, and contained many warm friends
of Catholic rights, the majority were still intolerant of _religious_
freedom. In this majority it is painful to have to record the names of
Flood and Charlemont.
The debate which followed the introduction of this proposed change in
the constitution was stormy beyond all precedent. Grattan, who just one
month before (Oct. 28th) had that fierce vituperative contest with
Flood familiar to every school-boy, in its worst and most exaggerated
form, supported the proposal. The law officers of the crown,
Fitzgibbon, Yelverton, Scott, denounced it as an audacious attempt of
armed men to dictate to the House its own constitution. The cry of
privilege and prerogative was raised, and the measure was rejected by
157 to 77. Flood, weary in mind and body, retired to his home; the
Convention, which outsat the House, adjourned, amid the bitter
indignation of some, and the scarcely concealed relief of others. Two
days later they met and adopted a striking address to the throne, and
adjourned _sine die_. This was, in fact, the last important day of the
Volunteers as a political institution. An attempt a month later to
re-assemble the Convention was dexterously defeated by the President,
Lord Charlemont. The regular army was next session increased to 15,000
men; 20,000 pounds were voted to clothe and equip a rival force—"the
Militia"—and the Parliament, which had three times voted them its
thanks, now began to look with satisfaction on their rapid
disorganization and disbandment.
This, perhaps, is the fittest place to notice the few remaining years
of the public life of Henry Flood. After the session of 1785, in which
he had been outvoted on every motion he proposed, he retired from the
Irish Parliament, and allowed himself to be persuaded, at the age of
fifty-three, to enter the English. He was elected for Winchester, and
made his first essay on the new scene, on his favourite subject of
representative reform. But his health was undermined; he failed, except
on one or two occasions, to catch the ear of that fastidious assembly,
and the figure he made there somewhat disappointed his friends. He
returned to Kilkenny to die in 1791, bequeathing a large portion of his
fortune to Trinity College, to enrich its MS. library, and to found a
permanent professorship of the Irish language. "He was an oak of the
forest," said Grattan, "too old to be transplanted at fifty." "He was a
man," said one who also knew him well, Sir Jonah Barrington, "of
profound abilities, high manners, and great experience in the affairs
of Ireland. He had deep information, an extensive capacity, and a solid
judgment." In his own magnificent "Ode to Fame," he has pictured his
ideal of the Patriot-orator, who finds some consolation amid the
unequal struggle with the enemies of his country, foreign and domestic,
in a prophetic vision of his own renown. Unhappily, the works of this
great man come down to us in as fragmentary a state as those of
Chatham; but enough remains to enable us to class him amongst the
greatest masters of our speech, and, as far as the drawbacks allowed,
among the foremost statesmen of his country.
It is painful to be left in doubt, as we are, whether he was ever
reconciled to Grattan. The presumption, from the silence of their
cotemporaries, is, that they never met again as friends. But it is
consoling to remember that in his grave, the survivor rendered him that
tribute of justice which almost takes the undying sting out of the
philippic of 1783; it is well to know, also, that one of Grattan's
latest wishes, thirty years after the death of Flood, when he felt his
own last hours approaching, was, that it should be known that he "did
not speak the vile abuse reported in the Debates" in relation to his
illustrious rival. The best proof that what he did say was undeserved,
is that that rival's reputation for integrity and public spirit has
survived even his terrible onslaught.