On the 13th of November, 1781, a very warm and important debate took place in the Irish House of Commons respecting the mutiny bill. Mr. Grattan made a motion for bringing in heads of a bill to explain, amend, and limit an act to prevent mutiny and desertion in the army;* which was seconded by Mr. Flood.

the expense of your military establishment alone is equal to the whole of your revenue? Do you call this prosperity? Do you call running in debt prosperity! I do not now speak to retard your proceeding in business. I do not intend to divide the house upon the question; nor am I at all ambitious of applause; but I thought, and still think, that my proposal of going into a committee on the state of the nation, where some mode of retrenchment might be devised before we granted a supply, was a moderate, a reasonable plan; and I did hope, that after twenty years experience of my conduct, I should not be told in this house, that I was urged on by disappointed ambition. I have been gratified by almost the highest and most lucrative office that my sovereign can bestow; and the secretary knows whether ever I requested any favour of him. Is this then disappointed ambition? It cannot be supposed, that I am not satisfied, because I am not invited to take a lead upon the treasury bench, for I do not wish to take a lead upon that bench. There is no man in the kingdom to whom the words of disappointed ambition, are less applicable than to me. 'Tis a hard measure indeed, if, after twenty years service, I meet with such treatment. The house can testify, that before I entered into office, I was uniform in my desire of extricating the nation from debt; when in office, I attempted to do it even by the disagreeable expedient of proposing new taxes; and if now I am about to lose my employment, which I regret only as it deprives me of the power of serving my sovereign, shall I be told that I am actuated by disappointed ambition, because I do not wish that the nation should run in debt more? My ambition has been, when out of office, not to be factious: and when in office, not to be venal,

*This great patriotic orator thus prefaced his motion; (1 Parl. Deb. p. 51.) he said, that in the 18th century, however astonishing it must appear, he rose to vindicate Magna Charta, sanctified as it was by the authority of 600 years. He called upon gentlemen to teach British privileges to an Irish senate. He quoted the laws of England, first, because they were laws; secondly, because they were franchises; and they were the franchises of Irishmen as well as Englishmen. He was not come to say what was expedient, he came to demand a right; and he hoped he was speaking to men, who knew and felt their rights, and not to corrupt consciences and beggarly capacities. He begged gentlemen to tell him why, and for what reason, the Irish nation was deprived of the British constitution? He said, that the limitation of the mutiny bill was one of the great hinges of the constitution; and ought it then to be perpetual in Ireland?

No man could doubt as to the point of right respecting the army; he would even resort to the question of necessity. We want not an army as Great Britain does; for an army is not our protection. Was your army your protection when Sir Richard Heron told you, you must trust to God and your country! You want it not for defence. You want it not for ambition. You have no foreign dominions to preserve, and your people are amenable to law. Our duties are of a different nature. To watch with incessant vigils the cradle of the constitution, to rear an infant state, to protect a rising trade, to foster a growing people. We are free, we are united. Persecution is dead. The Protestant religion is the child of the constitution; the Presbyterian is the father. The Roman Catholic is not an enemy to it. We are united in one great national community. What was our situation formerly? We were a gentry without pride, and a people without privilege. The British constitution lay upon the ground like a giant's armour in a dwarf's custody.

On this occasion some few of the more independent members of the ministerial party sided with the opposition; the division being 77 for and 133 against the motion. Of this circumstance Mr. Eden took notice, by expressing his concern to differ that day in opinion from some gentlemen, with whom he wished and hoped in general to concur; but it was a consolation to differ on a point of mere speculative reasoning, and not of permanent importance. As a servant of the public, and filling a very responsible situation, he was determined, at all times, to guard against the enthusiasm of the day, whatever it might be; and to preserve coolly and respectfully the even tenor of his way, on such principles, as seemed to be calculated for the advantage of the

At length the nation asserted itself, and though the declaration of rights was not carried, which I proposed as a measure safe and innoxious; yet our spirit made us a nation. British supremacy fell upon the earth like a spent thunderbolt. The minister feared to look at it. The people were fond to touch it.

Yet though we have no necessity for an army, and have asserted our freedom, we have followed that assertion by erecting martial law, and a perpetual dictator for ever. I laugh at the argument, that this law is the charter of our freedom. Is the 6th of George I. repealed? Why does not the minister come forward and declare our rights? No, all is mystery, all is silence. Besides, the present mutiny law is defective, no enacting part, and articles of war are, become the law of the land; by which there is no safety left either to England or Ireland. We have suffered an armed prerogative to issue out of a claim of right.

Besides, the power of the purse is given up already by the hereditary revenue, that original sin of your ancestors, which visits you from generation to generation. This is the very alarming consideration to those, that love liberty better than the profits of office. Yet we have added the tide of power to the sink of influence, and have bid majesty to govern by either. The power of the purse you have long lost. You have now lost the power of the sword. The question is, will men prefer a biennial to a perpetual mutiny bill? Will men lay their hands upon their hearts and decide the question?

Suppose that a company of British merchants should petition an English parliament to restrain your trade again, and that the requisition should be acceded to; what would you do without any resources to support your rights; without a navy? You could not resist such a mandate; and every idea of coping with such tyranny would be in vain, when you have resigned the sword. When two thirds of your revenue are granted in perpetuity, the power of parliament cannot preserve the free trade of the kingdom. Be assured that England will never grant to your meanness what she refuses to your virtue. the infancy of this very act, why did not the advocates of its present form come forward, and propose it a perpetual mutiny bill? No, they knew such language would ill suit the ears of parliament, as it then stood disposed in the public service.

In

He then resorted to the other argument with regard to the unity of discipline, &c. which having stated, he said, if you are competent to regulate your commerce, why not competent to regulate your own army? Commissioners have been sent to America, to offer a branch of the British empire, in arms against the parent state, unconditional terms to tax themselves, and regulate their own army. Two of the commissioners have been sent over to govern this kingdom. Will his excellency, or the right hon. gentleman his secretary, say, that Ireland is not entitled to the terms offered to America? That the loyal and affectionate sister of England is not entitled to the indulgence, holden out to the enemy of England, to the ally of France? It is impossible.

public. He concluded with saying, that having doubts on the foundation of the question, and no doubt of its present unimportance, he would resist the motion. He had found the mutiny law recently established on solemn discussion, and by large majori ties; the execution of it had passed immediately through his hands, almost from its commencement, and he had found it full of expediency, and void of mischief. It was the act of a session, of which all within those walls ought to be proud, it was the act of a session, to which all out of those walls ought to feel reverence and gratitude.

The heads of the new mutiny bill were most violently supported by the heads of the patriotic party, and as violently opposed by the ministry. Much intemperate language passed in the house, but the proportion on the division remained nearly the same; on that which took place upon this question on the 29th of November, the numbers were 66 to 146. On which occasion, just as the question was about to be put, Mr. Eden rose, and said that he gave that interruption, not from any anxiety about the decision, which was easy to be foreseen. It had been avowed, he said, that the object of the bill then proposed, was substantially the same as that which had recently been negatived by a large majority it would therefore be an unmanly and unworthy idea, if it could be supposed, that the house would adopt a bill under one title, which upon the fullest discussion had been rejected under another. His anxiety was on another point; he was anxious for the order of parliament, and especially when that order entrenched on the barriers of the constitution. Where would be the end of parliamentary discussion and debate, if points fully agitated and decided, might be thus resumed in the same session? Where would be the safety of the constitution, if the practice should be established, that a measure rejected to-day upon a fair hearing, might be brought forward again to-morrow, or whenever the disappointed party on either side of the house could frame a majority to carry it either by surprize or by influence? He wished for a decision on the point of order; if however it should not be agreeable to the speaker to give that decision, he would not urge it; but having stated the objection, would give his negative to the question. Upon which Mr. Grattan replied: It is very odd, that the same chorus of voices, which formerly said, this was not a mutiny bill, should now admit that it is; but rest their defence on its not being like to that of England. The right hon. member thinks, that without a flagrant violation of the rules of parliament, he cannot now bring in the heads of a bill proposed; but I desire he will consider, that those heads are only to explain and amend. The right hon. gentleman says, he has no anxiety as to the fate of this question. I am

sorry he has no anxiety. I am sorry he can state this to parlia ment. But is this security founded in the potency of the arguments that were used on a former night? If it be, it was not even then asserted that a perpetual mutiny bill is better than a limited one; for even then his friends gave up the principle. I have a note, a faithful record of that night's proceeding, and I find, that no man in the house said it was better; but though it may be against established form, yet I think the powerful arguments that have been used should plead for another hearing. If gentlemen be not afraid that the public mind should receive constitutional truths from one side of the house, and perceive the contemptible shifts of the other side, they will not oppose the motion. There is not a man in the house, but knows that it is the wish of, there is not a man but knows, that the nation will be gratified; that the nation will carry this law as it carried the octennial bill; that bill, which was debated session after session, but which at last was conceded to the voice of the people.

Mr. Flood asserted, that the example of parliament in reconsidering the absentee bill was a sufficient precedent, and should be followed. That bill, he said, had been reconsidered, and Mr. Malone, that most experienced senator, though before he came to the house, he had declared against the propriety of reconsideration, yet afterwards made a most animated speech in favour of it; but common sense (says he) tells us we should seldom consider any subject so seldom as once; why, therefore, should we stifle a matter of such importance? Do gentlemen think that suppressing the evidence of truth will give content? Do they think that they are of so much consequence, that their mandate will quiet the people? I would, said he, speak upon this subject till I fell prostrate upon your floor, had I any hope of being successful; but if what has already been offered should fail of its effect, how shall I hope to change your resolution?

Upon the receipt of the melancholy news of the surrender of Lord Cornwallis's army to the French in America, Mr. (afterwards Lord) Yelverton rose in the House of Commons on the 5th of December, 1781, and thus addressed them:

* "I had determined this day to bring on a motion, which I think it my indispensable duty, at a proper time to pursue; a motion of which I will never lose sight, until a mode of legislation, utterly repugnant to the British constitution shall be done away; but the melancholy intelligence received from America has, for

* 1 Parl. Deb. p. 124. This speech of Mr. Yelverton is so fraught with true patriotic and constitutional spirit, and so pointedly appropriate to the union of the two kingdoms, that I cannot forbear calling the attention of the reader to its relevancy to the then as well as since existing circumstances of Ireland.

the present, diverted my attention from that object, and turned my thoughts into another train; and I think it but decent to defer the consideration of Poyning's law, and for the present devote my whole faculties to the momentous situation of the public affairs of the British empire.

I have always looked upon the true interest of Great Britain and Ireland as inseparable, and I thank Heaven we have now more reason to say so than ever. Great Britain cannot experience a misfortune which we shall not feel. She cannot gain an advantage which we shall not partake. It would then ill become the approved generosity and unshaken loyalty of the Irish people, to remain in silent apathy, or sullen insensibility on so great an occasion, when Britain, surrounded with enemies, and struggling with magnanimity against a warring world, becomes the object of admiration of every generous mind. But when, as Irishmen, we consider our connexions with England, what ought to be our feelings? We are called upon to testify our affection, and unalterable attachment to that country, and to convince foreign nations that we do not despair of the commonwealth, but that the British empire still has power and resources to render her formidable to her numerous enemies, and to convince them that the.. dismemberment she has suffered, has only served to draw the remaining parts into closer union and interest.

I will therefore move, that an humble address be presented to his majesty, to express our unalterable loyalty and attachment to his majesty's royal person, family, and government, and to assure his majesty that in the present critical situation of affairs, when his majesty's dominions are exposed to a powerful and dangerous combination of enemies, we think it peculiarly incumbent on us to declare our warmest zeal for the honour of his majesty's crown, and our most earnest wishes for the British empire.

That conscious that our interests are become inseparably united with those of Great Britain, we feel that the events of war involve both countries in a common calamity; and to entreat his majesty to believe, that we hold it to be our indispensable duty, as it is our most hearty inclination, cheerfully to support his majesty to the utmost of our abilities, in all such measures as can tend to defeat the confederacy of his majesty's enemies, and to restore the blessings of a lasting and honourable peace."

Several friends of Mr. Yelverton's conceiving, that his motion would commit them into an approbation and support of the American war, on that account alone declined supporting it: the question however being put, the motion was carried by a majority of 167 against 37.

On the 7th of the month Mr. Grattan being called to by the house, rose to state to them the financial situation of the countrys