With respect to trade and to treaties, where is the security, if the Parliament is removed, that either will be protected by the imperial Parliament? Ireland has as much influence as her wealth and her population entitled her to. The honourable gentleman said that the power of this country was great in the scale of war, and, that to get rid of that power the country must give up her Parliament. If this country could not control Great Britain in making or carrying on war, it was because the population of England was ten millions, and that of Ireland only four. Suppose the King of England to reside in Ireland, would not the Parliament of England still have more power than that of Ireland, because the physical force of the country would continue. How does the noble lord mean to supply the weakness of this country, and give it more strength? by taking away the Parliament ! Three hundred men of fortune and independence in Ireland were not sufficient to control the country in matters that concerned the country alone, and, therefore, let the three hundred men be reduced to one hundred, and let those hundred men be sent to England, and then what will be consequence? Why, there will be no power at all. It has been denied that the country possessed any constitution; it is now asserted that the country had a constitution; and it is asserted that the country is so powerful, she ought to give up her constitution. It was endeavoured to be imposed on the people of Ireland, that they ought to be satisfied with any constitution. If the constitution be not sufficient for all the purposes of power, which I deny, it is no constitution; it may require some alterations, but the great object of the people of Ireland ought to be to preserve it, and uphold that independence which the minister would put to the sword. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, and made other quotations from Mr. Grattan's pamphlet, and attacked him on the subject of his speeches and writings, which, he said, had assisted to excite the rebellion. He concluded a violent personal attack, by charging him with having associated with disaffected characters. Mr. GRATTAN replied: Has the gentleman done? Has he completely done? He was unparliamentary from the beginning to the end of his speech. There was scarce a word he uttered that was not a violation of the privileges of the House; but I did not call him to order why? because the limited talents of some men render it impossible for them to be severe without being unparliamentary. But before I sit down I shall show him how to be severe and parliamentary at the same time. On any other occasion I should think myself justifiable in treating with silent contempt any thing which might fall from that honourable member; but there are times when the insignificance of the accuser is lost in the magnitude of the accusation. I know the difficulty the honourable gentleman laboured under when he attacked me, conscious that, on a comparative view of our characters, public and private, there is nothing he could say which would injure me. The public would not believe the charge. I despise the falsehood. If such a charge were made by an honest man, I would answer it in the manner I shall do before I sit down. shall first reply to it when not made by an honest man. But I The right honourable gentleman has called me "an unimpeached traitor." I ask, why not "traitor," unqualified by any epithet? I will tell him; it was because he dare not. It was the act of a coward, who raises his arm to strike, but has not courage to give the blow. I will not call him villain, because it would be unparliamentary, and he is a privy counsellor. I will not call him fool because he happens to be Chancellor of the Exchequer. But I say he is one who has abused the privilege of Parliament and freedom of debate, to the uttering language, which, if spoken out of the House, I should answer only with a blow. I care not how high his situation, how low his character, how contemptible his speech; whether a privy counsellor or a parasite, my answer would be a blow. He has charged me with being connected with the rebels: the charge is utterly, totally, and meanly false. Does the honourable gentleman rely on the report of the House of Lords for the foundation of his assertion? If he does, I can prove to the committee there was a physical impossibility of that report being true. But I scorn to answer any man for my conduct, whether he be a political coxcomb, or whether he brought himself into power by a false glare of courage or not. I scorn to answer any wizard of the Castle throwing himself into fantastical airs. But if an honourable and independent man were to make a charge against me, I would say, "You charge me with having an intercourse with rebels, and you found your charge upon what is said to have appeared before a committee of the Lords. Sir, the report of that committee is totally and eggregiously irregular." I will read a letter from Mr. Nelson, who had been examined before that committee; it states that what the report represents him as having spoken, is not what he said. Mr. Grattan here read the letter from Mr. Nelson, denying that he had any connection with Mr. Grattan as charged in the report; and conclud ing by saying, "never was misrepresentation more vile than that put into my mouth by the report.” From the situation that I held, and from the connections I had in the city of Dublin, it was necessary for me to hold intercourse with various descriptions of persons. The right honourable member might as well have been charged with a participation in the guilt of those traitors; for he had communicated with some of those very persons on the subject of parliamentary reform. The Irish government too were in communication with some of them. The right honourable member has told me I deserted a profession where wealth and station were the reward of industry and talent. If I mistake not, that gentleman endeavoured to obtain those rewards by the same means; but he soon deserted the occupation of a barrister for those of a parasite and pander. He fled from the labour of study to flatter at the table of the great. He found the lords' parlour a better sphere for his exertions than the hall of the four courts; the house of a great man a more convenient way to power and to place; and that it was easier for a statesman of middling talents to sell his friends than a lawyer of no talents to sell his clients. For myself, whatever corporate or other bodies have said or done to me, I, from the bottom of my heart, forgive them. I feel I have done too much for my country to be vexed at them. I would rather that they should not feel or acknowledge what I have done for them, and call me traitor, than have reason to say I sold them. I will always defend myself against the assassin; but with large bodies it is different. To the people I will bow: they may be my enemy — I never shall be theirs. At the emancipation of Ireland, in 1782, I took a leading part in the foundation of that constitution which is now endeavoured to be destroyed. Of that constitution I was the author; in that constitution I glory; and for it the honourable gentleman should bestow praise, not invent calumny. Notwithstanding my weak state of body, I come to give my last testimony against this Union, so fatal to the liberties and interest of my country. I come to make common cause with these honourable and virtuous gentlemen around me; to try and save the constitution; or if not save the constitution, at least to save our characters, and remove from our graves the foul disgrace of standing apart while a deadly blow is aimed at the independence of our country. The right honourable gentleman says I fled from the country after exciting rebellion; and that I have returned to raise another. No such thing. The charge is false. The civil war had not commenced when I left the kingdom; and I could not have returned without taking a part. On the one side there was the camp of the rebel; on the other, the camp of the minister, a greater traitor than that rebel. The strong hold of the constitution was no where to be found. I agree that the rebel who rises against the government should have suffered; but I missed on the scaffold the right honourable gentleman. Two desperate parties were in arms against the constitution. The right honourable gentleman belonged to one of those parties, and deserved death. I could not join the rebel- I could not join the government - I could not join torture-I could not join half-hanging-I could not join free quarter-I could take part with neither. I was, therefore, absent from a scene where I could not be active without self-reproach, nor indifferent with safety. Many honourable gentlemen thought differently from me: I respect their opinions; but I keep my own; and I think now, as I thought then, that the treason of the minister against the liberties of the people was infinitely worse than the rebellion of the people against the minister. I have returned, not as the right honourable member has said, to raise another storm I have returned to discharge an honourable debt of gratitude to my country, that conferred a great reward for past services, which, I am proud to say, was not greater than my desert. I have returned to protect that constitution, of which I was the parent and the founder, from the assassination of such men as the right honourable gentleman and his unworthy associates. They are corrupt-they are seditious and they, at this very moment, are in a conspiracy against their country. I have returned to refute a libel, as false as it is malicious, given to the public under the appellation of a report of the committee of the Lords. Here I stand ready for impeachment or trial: I dare accusation. I defy the honourable gentleman; I defy the government; I defy their whole phalanx : let them come forth. I tell the ministers I will neither give them quarter nor take it. I am here to lay the shattered remains of my constitution on the floor of this House, in defence of the liberties of my country. * * In consequence of the altercation between Mr. Grattan and Mr. Corry, a meeting took place, of which the following is the statement, as authenticated by the signatures of the seconds, General Cradock and Captain Metge. Tuesday Morning, 18th February 1800. In consequence of what passed in debate in the House of Commons early on Monday evening, the 17th inst. Major-general Cradock, on the part of Mr. Corry, waited on Mr. Grattan, in the Speaker's chamber, and proposed a meeting immediately on the rising of the House, to which Mr. Grattan The motion was supported by General Hutchinson, Mr. Martin, Mr. Alexander, Colonel Coote, Mr. Ross Mahon, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Berresfod, Mr. W. Smith (afterwards Judge), Mr. P. Hutchinson, Sir Boyle Roche, Mr. William Johnson, Mr. Browne, Dr. Duigenan. It was opposed by Mr. W. Tighe, Mr. Balfour, Sir John Parnell, who moved that the chairman should leave the chair, Mr. Foster (the Speaker), Mr. Dawson, Mr. Egan, Mr. Peter Burrowes, Mr. G. Ponsonby, Mr. Ogle, Mr. Goold, Colonel Barry, and Mr. O'Donnell. In support of the measure it was urged, that the existing constitution of the Irish Parliament could not last; it had not proved competent to preserve the national tranquillity; it had ceased to be public right, and had become private property: the security of the country would be increased by the measure; and the claims of the Catholics would be attended to in the imperial Parliament, without the risk of separation. Doctor Browne explained the reason for the change in his sentiments. The violence during the late insurrection, and the conduct of government, had so disgusted. and shocked him, that he thought it better to trust to the superintendance of the British Parliament. General Hutchinson stated, that Ireland had been misgoverned for centuries; that reformation seemed impossible; and that all hopes of improvement and national greatness were at an end; and that the conduct of a united Parliament would be more wise, fair, and honourable towards Ireland. It was urged by the members who opposed the Union, that the countries were concluded by the settlement of 1782; that the Union was a base surrender of their liberty and independence; and that the inducements that were held out to the Catholics were only meant to deceive them. With respect to the calculations of the Chancellor assented. At day-light the gentlemen proceeded to the field, and the ground being taken, the parties fired according to agreement by a word, when Mr. Corry was wounded in the left arm; the gentlemen presented their second pistols, but neither firing on the word, they remained in that situation. After a short pause, the seconds demanded what was the matter; and having given the word again, the gentlemen presented a second time, but without firing, each calling on the other to fire, it being evidently the intention of each party not to fire the second shot at the other. Mr. Corry proposed aloud to Mr. Grattan that both should give their honour to fire together, upon the word being given again, to which Mr. Grattan agreed, and at the word,they both fired together accordingly, after which they quitted the ground, the Sheriff having been some time in the field using his efforts to prevent the proceedings. In passing from the ground, Mr. Grattan enquiring with anxiety of General Cradock, whether Mr. Corry was much hurt; in consequence of such enquiry, and their mutual conduct in the field, General Cradock observed to Mr. Metge, that it was to be regretted that the parties had separated without some exchange of compliment: to which Mr. Metge replied immediately, it was his entire wish that it should take place. Mr. Grattan then proceeded to the house where Mr. Corry was engaged with his surgeon, and they exchanged mutual civilities. JOHN FRANCIS CRADOCK. |