User:Jnestorius/Constitution of 1782

The Constitution of 1782 was a group of Acts passed by the Parliament of Ireland and the Parliament of Great Britain in 1782–83 which increased the legislative and judicial independence of the Kingdom of Ireland by reducing the ability of the Kingdom of Great Britain to make laws and hear court cases relating to Ireland. These changes were promoted, under the name legislative independence, by the Irish Patriot Party, a loose alliance with Henry Grattan as its leading orator. The Parliament of Ireland as it existed after 1782 is often called Grattan's Parliament in his honour. The Constitution did not create a responsible executive, as the Dublin Castle administration remained under the control of a Lord Lieutenant sent over by the British government.

The significance of the label "Constitution" is contentious:

• it may refer to the changes of 1782 or the overall dispensation as existing after the changes
• it may be considered as the constitution of the Kingdom as a whole, or be restricted to the constitution of the Parliament.

The changes did not amount to a revolution, and much of Irish politics was unchanged after as compared to before 1782. Some commentators described it as "the adjustment of 1782".

Background

Main articles: Poynings' Law and Irish Patriot Party

The Kingdom of Ireland, and its predecessor the Lordship of Ireland, were separate from the Kingdom of England and its successor the Kingdom of Great Britain. There was a personal union with both kingdoms having the same monarch, but it was an unequal union in which the Dublin Castle administration was directed from the English royal court. In 1495, a session of the Irish Parliament summoned by Edward Poynings passed several laws. One, commonly called Poynings' Law, formally recognised the pre-existing practice of applying statutes of the Parliament of England to Ireland. Another prohibited the Irish Parliament voting on any bill until the bill had been approved by the English Privy Council. After the Tudor reconquest of Ireland in the subsequent century, Poyning's Law was controversially interpreted as applying not merely to English statutes extant in 1495, but also to later Acts. Ireland remained unsettled by periodic uprisings until the Williamite War in Ireland ended with the Flight of the Wild Geese in 1691.

In the eighteenth century, the Protestant Ascendancy was divided between, on the one hand, an élite "court party" of aristocrats and those employed by the state and, on the other hand, a growing Patriot Party of intellectuals and middle-classes. The Patriots' grew frustrated at the perceived corruption and indolence of the administration, and English meddling. The court party was mostly Church of Ireland while the Patriots included many dissenters and some Catholics beginning to prosper as the penal laws were slowly eased.

After the and the Jacobite Rising of 1715, Dublin Castle responded to worries about Catholic and Jacobite plots by suspension habeas corpus and other security measures prohibited in Britain by the 1689 Bill of Rights. The British Parliament invoked Poynings' Law to pass the Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719, which gave the British House of Lords an appellate jurisdiction over Irish court cases. In Britain a standing army was illegal, and an annual mutiny act had to be passed by Parliament, without which the army would have no funding. In Ireland, a mutiny bill along similar lines was introduced in 1780 and passed in both houses of the the Irish Parliament. However, the British Privy Council invoked Poynings' Law to amend the bill and remove its one-year time-limit, thereby making it a "perpetual mutiny act" and removing the ability of the Irish Parliament to cut off funding.

The growing middle class of Irish Protestants was increasingly frustrated by the restrictions on Irish trade enforced by the British Parliament. Dissenters not members of the established Church of Ireland were discriminated against by Penal Laws. Discontent grew in a manner similar to that of the Thirteen Colonies in North America, where the War of Independence began in 1775. The Irish Volunteers, a militia formed to replace soldiers sent to the American war, became a force agitating for political reform, holding conventions in 1781 and 1782 and passing resolutions demanding changes.

zzz Charles Ivar McGrath p.324 lists causes: US independence, Irish free trade, volunteers, Protestant support for Catholic relief, and "the long-standing and ongoing political manoeuvring in parliament".

Enactments

"The date of the independence of the Irish parliament is taken, as it is to be supposed all your repeal votaries are aware, from the 20th of June, 1782, when a bill which passed the British parliament for the repeal of the declaratory act of George I. received the royal assent".

Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment:"Historical Investigations and Interpretations Unit A2 2 Option 3: Ireland 1778–1803" (PDF). eGuide: History. Belfast: Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment. 27 April 2017. 2. Grattan's Parliament 1782–1800 (a) The Constitution of 1782 p.9.

The so-called Constitution of 1782 was not a single document or piece of legislation, but rather comprised a series of Acts and constitutional adjustments that – at least in theory – put the Irish Parliament on a par with its Westminster counterpart. Among the more prominent of the changes introduced was the repeal of the Declaratory Act of 1720 ... and the modification of Poynings’ Law of 1494.

Notes

I'm trying to get a list of the acts which comprise the "Constitution"; different sources give different ones.

Summary numbers

• Charles Francis Sheridan (son of Thomas Sheridan) 1781 "the Three Great National Questions" are "Declaration of Right, Poynings' Law, and the Mutiny Bill".
• J.T. Ball (1889) Historical review of the legislative systems operative in Ireland p.137 lists #1,2,3
• Alan J Ward "Const. backgr. to the N.I. crisis" in Northern Ireland and the politics of reconciliation p.34 lists only #1 and #2
• An Atlas Of Irish History p.86 only #1 and #2
• "The Irish Peerage and the Act of Union" TrRHistS v.10 p.301 says the Irish House of Lords "recovered from its British counterpart the appellate jurisdiction in all Irish cases" -- which Act was that? p.172 says 1720 gave BHL appelate jurisdiction
• James Kelly 1993 p.18 "Before the end of May [1782] the constitutional changes that gave the Irish parliament legislative independence were approved." [cites James Kelly Prelude to Union pp.33–40]
• NHI Vol.5 pp.228- has more on p.233
• Lecky Hist Irl 18C Vol.2 p.249- esp
  • p.315, called "Constitutional legislation" in the Table of Contents:

    Acts were at the same time passed repealing the greater part of Poyning's law, confirming a large number of British statutes relating to Ireland, limiting the Mutiny Act, and establishing the right of final judicature in Ireland, and the independence of the Irish judges. [fn 21 & 22 George III. c. 43, 47, 48, 49, 50.]

  • pp.334-340, "Character, merits, and dangers of the Constitution of 1782" [the Table of Contents]

    Much had indeed been gained: the independence of the judges, the control of the army, the appellate jurisdiction of the Irish House of Lords, the extinction of the power of the Privy Council to originate, suppress, or alter Irish legislation, the renunciation of the power of the British Parliament to legislate for Ireland, the full and repeated acknowledgment of the doctrine that the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland had alone the right to make her laws.

• The Fenian Ideal And Irish Nationalism, 1882-1916 p.169 specifically excludes #3
• The Making of Ireland: From Ancient Times to the Present p.243 #1, #2, IHL final ct appeal, indep Ir judges
• Ireland: A History p.190 suggests Flood's agitation for #3 was mischievous and Grattan was happy with #1 and #2
• Connolly #2 #3 #1 Connolly, S. J. (2008). Divided Kingdom: Ireland 1630–1800. Oxford: OUP. ISBN 978-0-19-156243-3. Retrieved 20 February 2020. The resulting settlement—the repeal of the declaratory act, followed by the renunciation act, and the modification of Poynings's Law by Yelverton's act—left a number of apparent contradictions.
• History of the Irish Parliament 1692-1800
  • Print version, Vol.1 p.151 says that "on 22 Feb 1782 Grattan moved a Declaration of Rights" in the Commons, and "During the next six months a series of Act were passed to form the Const of 1782". It lists #4, 5, 6, 1, and 2.
  • (See also Longer quotes section below)
• Routledge says under "Constitution of 1782":

  repeal of legislative authority of British Parliament and passing of Yelverton's Act to end the power of the chief governor and council of Ireland to originate or alter bills; only bills enacted by Irish parliament to be transmitted to the King. Perpetual Mutiny Act replaced by biennial act and Irish judges granted same tenure as English.

• Thomas D'Arcy McGee:

  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.

• Charles Ivar McGrath (p.324) mentions #1 "key Irish statute", #6, #7, #8; and #2, #3 GB ones
• JC Beckett 1964 says the "most important oi the Irish acts" were #1 #8 and #6, and also mentions #2.
• "key constitutional developments" include treason, habeas corpus, judicial tenure [in discussion of laws slow to be enacted in Ireland, which happen to have been enacted in 1782]
• Ward 1994 pp. 19–20 lists #2, 1, 8, 5, 3.

For review

• James, Francis G. (Winter 1983). "Historiography and the Irish Constitutional Revolution of 1782". Eire-Ireland. 18 (4): 6–17.
  • As far as I recall, this is about the view from 1782 back over earlier history, not about the view of 1782 from later.
• James, Francis G. (October 1987). "Illustrious or Notorious? The Historical Reputation of Ireland's Pre-Union Parliament". Parliamentary History. 6 (2): 312–325. doi:10.1111/j.1750-0206.1987.tb00737.x. ISSN 0264-2824.
• Eighteenth-Century Ireland / Iris an dá chultúr: JSTOR 30005306 JSTOR 30070870 JSTOR 30071247 JSTOR 30070835 JSTOR 30070595 JSTOR 30070925 JSTOR 30071440
• Irish Historical Studies
  • Scarcity and Poor Relief in Eighteenth-Century Ireland: The Subsistence Crisis of 1782-4 JSTOR 30008004
  • XVII Earl Temple's Viceroyalty and the Question of Renunciation, 1782-3 JSTOR 30005306
  • Anglo-Irish Constitutional Relations in the Later Eighteenth Century JSTOR 30006356
  • The Irish-Portuguese Trade Dispute, 1770-90 JSTOR 30008588
  • Government, Parliament and the Constitution: The Reinterpretation of Poynings' Law, 1692-1714 JSTOR 20547426
  • Henry Grattan, the Regency Crisis and the Emergence of a Whig Party in Ireland, 1788-9 JSTOR 30006972
  • The Trasformation of the Society of United Irishmen into a Mass-Based Revolutionary Orgisation, 1794-6 JSTOR 30008756
  • Charles James Fox and Ireland JSTOR 30006939
  • The Foxite Whigs, Irish legislative independence and the Act of Union, 1785-1806 JSTOR 20720317

First paragraph is summary of shift in historiography: used to be thoiught very important; now (2009) seen as modest and temporary aberration; list of usual tension points.

• Powell, Martyn J. (October 2002). "British Party Politics and Imperial Control: The Rockingham Whigs and Ireland 1765–1782". Parliamentary History. 21 (3): 325–350. doi:10.1111/j.1750-0206.2002.tb00237.x.
• doi:10.2307/3678995
• Small, Stephen (2002-11-07). Political Thought in Ireland 1776-1798: Republicanism, Patriotism, and Radicalism. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780199257799.
• Kelly, James (2007). Poynings' Law and the Making of Law in Ireland, 1660-1800. Four Courts Press. ISBN 9781846820786.

Poynings' Law

• Charles Ivar McGrath pp.322-4 summarises
• The Early Interpretation of Poynings' Law, 1494-1534 JSTOR 30005898
• The History of Poynings' Law: Part I, 1494-1615 JSTOR 30006408
• The History of Poynings' Law, 1615-41 JSTOR 30005611
• Hayden, Mary T. (1925). "The Origin and Development of Heads of Bills in the Irish Parliament". The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland. 15 (2): 112–125. ISSN 0035-9106. JSTOR 25513369.
• Government, Parliament and the Constitution: The Reinterpretation of Poynings' Law, 1692-1714 JSTOR 20547426
• Kelly, James (2007). Poynings' Law and the Making of Law in Ireland, 1660-1800. Four Courts Press. ISBN 978-1-84682-078-6.
• Kelly, James (2016). "The Privy Council of Ireland and the Making of Irish Law 1692–1800". In Donlan, Seán Patrick (ed.). The Laws and Other Legalities of Ireland, 1689-1850. Routledge. pp. 47–74. doi:10.4324/9781315556222-10 (inactive 2022-06-09). ISBN 978-1-317-02599-3. Retrieved 20 April 2020.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of June 2022 (link)

Misc

• • National Festivals, the State and 'Protestant Ascendancy' in Ireland, 1790-1829 JSTOR 30008025
  • The Newtown Act of 1748: Revision and Reconstruction JSTOR 30005420
  • Parliaments and Great Councils in Ireland, 1461-1586 JSTOR 30005995

Longer quotes

Porritt CHAPTER LIV. POYNINGS' LAW.

[p.424]

Four Restraint 8 f

NOTWITHSTANDING the continuous imitation of the House of Commons at Westminster, only from 1783 to the Union was procedure in the Irish House identical with that of the English Chamber. From 1497 to 1782 the Irish Parliament was restrained by Poynings' law. In this period it was as much under the control of the Crown or of Government as the Parliament of Scotland during the existence of the Committee of Articles. In the Privy Councils of Ireland and England, for both had their place in the working of Poynings 1 law, Ireland for four centuries had its Committee of Articles, and until the Revolution of 1688 Parliament had no continuously recognized power to originate legislation. Bills were submitted to it by the administration. These it could accept or reject ; but Parliament was so hedged about by Poynings' law, and later legislation explaining or supplementing Poynings' law, that only measures which had originated with Government could be submitted to either House with any hope or expectation of their becoming enactments.

Power of the Lord Deputy.

Until Poynings went over to Ireland as Lord Deputy in 1494, Lord Deputies had enjoyed the same power as the sovereign. They had made war and peace. They had given the royal assent to bills without referring them to England. They had exercised all the privileges of sovereignty [1 Cf. Mountmorres, i. 48 ; Yelverton's Speech on the Repeal of Poynings' Law, June 6th, 1782, Parl. Reg., i. 387; Ingram, Hist, of the Legislative Union, 3, 4, 5. ]. Though at times, previous to the reign of Henry VII, prohibitions were conveyed to the Lord Deputy against the royal assent being given to specific bills passed by the Irish Parliament which had not been examined in England, there was no general enactment binding the Lord Deputies ; and it [p.425] had sometimes happened that there were differences as to policy between the Government in Ireland and the Government in England, which led to enactments which were agreeable neither to the English Government nor to the Anglo-Irish colony of the Pale [1 Cf. Ingram, Hist, of the Legislative Union, 3, 4.].

Poynings' protection of the Pale'

Before Poynings advent as Lord Deputy the Anglo-Irish had often suffered from the jobbery or injustice of the Irish Government, which was able to manipulate Parliament, dictate the laws, and impose taxes on the colonists at will. The treason of deputies had frequently drawn general and severe punishment on the subjects [2 Cf. Ingram, Hist, of the Legislative Union, 3, 4.]. Hampering as Poynings' law was to the Irish Parliament in the last century and a half of the old representative system, when it was first enacted and for nearly a century afterwards it was regarded by the English in Ireland as a protection against legislative oppression which had heretofore been attempted by the viceroys [3 Cf. Gilbert, Hist, of the Viceroys of Ireland, 455, 456.]. By the Irish it was an unfelt restraint, since the statutes of the Irish Parliament were not even nominally enforced beyond the Pale [4 Cf. Froude, i. 35. 5 10 Henry VII, c. 4.].

The Wording

If the wording of this famous Act be accepted as expressing the truth, it was passed at the instance of the Commons. " At the request of the Commons of the land of Ireland," reads the Act as it found its way on to the statute book, "be it ordained, enacted, and established... that no Parliament be holden hereafter in the said land but at such season as the King's Lieutenant and Council there first do certify to the King, under the great seal of that land, the causes and considerations, and all such Acts as to them seemeth should pass in the same Parliament, and such causes, considerations, and Acts affirmed by the King and his Council to be good and expedient for that land, and his license thereupon, as well in affirmation of the said causes and Acts as to summon the said Parliament under the great seal of England, had and obtained. That done, a Parliament to be had and holden after the form and effect afore rehearsed, and if any Parliament be holden in that land hereafter contrary to the form and provisions aforesaid, it be deemed void and of none effect in law 6 ."

Suspension

On two occasions in the reign of Henry VIII, for the Parliaments of 1537 and 1542, and on these occasions only, Poynings' [p.426] law was suspended [1 28 Henry VIII, c. 4 ; Mountmorres, i. 49. ]. In the reign of Elizabeth the Irish Government repeatedly urged the suspension of the law ; but the English in Ireland still looked upon it as a safeguard, and vigorously and successfully opposed the movements for the suspension of the Act [2 Ingram, Hist, of the Legislative Union, 5.]. Corroboration of this feeling of the English in Ireland towards Poynings 1 law is to be found in the Act passed in 1569 for safeguarding it. In this Act [3 11 Eliz., c. 18.] it was recited that, before Poynings 1 law, Acts were passed in the Irish Parliament " as well to the dishonour of the prince as to the hindrance of their subjects"; and to put the law in less danger of attack it was enacted that thereafter there " be no bill certified into England for the repeal or suspension of the said statute," unless the same bill be first agreed on in a session of Parliament in Ireland "by the more number of the Lords assembled in Parliament, and the greater number of the Commons House."" After the Revolution, when heads of a bill were passed for transmission to England, it was necessary that they should have gone through one only of the Houses. The Act of Elizabeth's reign suggests that some such procedure was in use before 1569, and that it was in the power of one House to petition for the suspension of Poynings" 1 law. Otherwise, why an Act making a majority in both Houses necessary to an appeal to England for relief from that law ?

Amendment

Between the suspensions of the Act in the reign of Henry VIII and the agitation for its suspension in that of Elizabeth, an Act [4 3 and 4 Philip and Mary, c. 104.] had been passed to end doubts and ambiguities which had arisen in connection with the law. By this Act of 1556 the law of 1497 was re-enacted. Though under the earlier law no Parliament was to be called in Ireland until the measures which it was to pass had been sent to England and returned under the great seal, yet " as many events and occasions may happen within the time of the Parliament, the which may be thought meet and necessary to be provided for, and yet at or before the time of the summoning of Parliament was not thought or agreed upon," it was now provided that after Parliament had assembled the Lord Deputy might send over other measures to be certified, and that these measures might "be agreed and resolved upon by the three estates of the said Parliament," anything contained in Poynings' law notwithstanding. This amending Act of 1556 gave Lord Deputies more latitude in [p.427] framing legislation. It enabled them to meet emergencies that might arise while Parliament was in session ; but, as heretofore, only Government measures could be submitted to Parliament, and no initiative in legislation lay with unofficial members of the House of Commons.

Commons 1D

In the Parliament of 1613-15 the Commons showed a desire to do something more than pass the bills which had been returned to the Lord Deputy from England. In 1615 the Lords complained that the Commons were evincing too much legislative activity; and in answer to this complaint the Commons drew up an address to the Lord Deputy. " They humbly appeal to your lordship," reads a paragraph in this address, " whether they propounded any Act of Parliament any further than to have some necessary bills to consider of by your lordship and the Council, and with your approbation to be transmitted into England, then to be allowed of or disallowed of afterwards in both Houses before they can pass the royal assent [1 H. of C. Journals, i. 58. ]."" This address of the Commons of 1615 suggests a beginning of the usage followed from the Revolution until 1782, whereby unofficial members were permitted to introduce heads of a bill, carry them through the Commons, and afterwards present them to the Lord Lieutenant, with a request that they might be transmitted by the Irish Privy Council to England, to be submitted to both Houses if re-transmitted, and if passed to receive the royal assent in the same way as bills which had originated with the "administration.

Measures the^Jom mons.

Earlier in the session of 1615 the House of Commons had presented an address to the Lord Deputy, which supports the idea that the House was moving towards some initiative in legislation, The Commons acknowledged " that the sole power and authority to transmit such bills into England as are to be propounded in Parliament doth rest in the Lord Deputy and Council." But while making this acknowledgment the Commons desired "to be as remembrancers unto his lordship and the rest, touching the following Acts which they humbly offered as meet to be transmitted, with such other Acts as his lordship shall think meet to be propounded in the next session [2 H. of C. Journals, i. 47.]." Ten measures were put forward by the Commons. One was for the repeal of the statute against " the bringing in of Scots and marrying of them "; another for the repeal of the laws against marrying with the Irish. A third was an Act against the plurality of wives ; and a fourth was against [p.428] an Irish form of extortion known as " rahUl." Moreover, in this address of 1615 it was suggested to the Lord Lieutenant that he should use the services of twelve members of the House who were named "in the penning of these Acts [1 H.ofC. Journals, i. 49.]."

Commons press for Larger Powers.

Obviously, as early as the first Parliament of James I. the disintegration of Poynings 1 law had begun. In the Parliament of 1634-35 the Commons again suggested measures for transmission to England [2 H. ofC. Journals, i. 128.]. In 1641, in the Parliament of 1639-48, the House of Commons sent a committee to England to move the King " for the passing of a bill for further explanation of Poynings 1 Act " for such an amendment of the law, as would permit the House of Commons by its committees to draft bills and transmit them to England [3 H.ofC. Journals, i. 167 ; cf. Froude, i. 184.]. In the Parliament of 1661-66 there were again suggestions from the Commons to the Lord Lieutenant for legislation. Twice in 1662 the Commons, headed by their Speaker, waited on the Duke of Ormonde ; first to " supplicate his Grace that particulars... may be put in a bill... and, with all the speed an affair of that importance may admit, transmitted to England in accordance with Poynings 1 law [4 H.ofC. Journals, Aug. 25th, 1662, i. pt. H. 566.]; and the second time " with the heads and proposals of bills [5 H.ofC. Journals, Feb. 13th, 1662-63, i. pt n. 617-]."" In the same Parliament there was also a committee " to consider the manner and method of preparing and drawing heads of bills in order to the transmission of them into England according to Poynings" 1 Act [6 H. ofC. Journals, i. pt. ir. 630.]" a committee of which there would have been no need if only bills originating with the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council were submitted to Parliament. *

Procedure by Heads of a BUI.

In spite of these repeated efforts of the Commons, not until 1692 does there seem to have been perfected and permanently adopted the usage which, from then until 1782, enabled the House of Commons to take part in the initiation of legislation. The first evidence after 1662 of the developement of the system of introducing heads of a bill occurs in connection with what would to-day be called in Parliament a private bill. In 1692 Francis Echlin was about to marry a Papist. His estates were already settled on his eldest son ; but the latter, fearing that Papist influence might lead to an attempt on the part of his father to cut the entail, sought a Parliamentary settlement of the estates. Echini's petition was sent to a committee, and was reported favourably to the House, [p..429] which passed a resolution declaring " that the House doth agree with the said committee, that the several heads in the report mentioned shall be heads of a bill to be presented to the Lord Lieutenant in Council, in order that a bill may be prepared and transmitted to England [1 H. of C. Journals, Oct. 22nd, 1692, n. 22, 23.]." Three days afterwards the same procedure was followed with a public bill, empowering judges on circuit " in a summary and cheap way to determine all differences between person and person in the matter of debt not exceeding ten pounds, and in matters of damage not exceeding five pounds/' There was in this case a report from a committee ; the adoption of the report by the House ; and finally an instruction from the House to the committee to draw up heads of a bill [2 H. of C. Journals, Oct. 25th, 1692, n. 26.].

A Loophole Law.

In this way, in the first House of Commons after the Revolution, an opening was found only a small one it is true, but none the less an opening through Poynings 1 law which was never afterwards closed, and which was widened in the eighteenth century, as the developement of popular interest in Parliament made it less possible for the Privy Council in Dublin to cushion a bill which the Commons had presented to the Lord Lieutenant for transmission to the Privy Council in England.

Commons ^on^of 1 " Money Bills,

It is significant of the spirit of the times that the House of Commons which achieved this success asserted itself also in another important matter. It rejected a money bill which had originated in the Privy Council, and entered on its Journals " that the reason why the said bill was negatived is that the same had not its rise in this House [3 H. ofC. Journals, n. 28.]."" For this action Parliament was immediately prorogued, and afterwards dissolved. It incurred the displeasure of Sydney, the Lord Lieutenant, who, before he dismissed the Commons, rated them soundly for their presumptuous behaviour in presenting such reasons for rejecting a money bill [4 Cf. Whiteside, 112, 113.]. Subsequent Houses of Commons followed the precedents of that of 1692 in regard to the initiation of legislation and to money bills. Other Lord Lieutenants besides Sydney came into conflict with the House over money bills ; and every Irish administration, from that of Sydney to that of Harcourt, had to deal with legislative proposals in the form of heads of bills which had their origin not with Government, but with the House of Commons acting independently of Government and not infrequently in opposition to it.

Procedure lished. Stages of Heads of a Bill.

[p.430] Lord Lieutenants from the Revolution to the reign of Queen Anne might have ignored legislation which had originated in the House of Commons. They might have insisted on a strict interpretation of Poynings 1 law and the amending Act of 1556, which gave the Government exclusive power to originate bills. But they connived at the practice. They were willing to humour the House of Commons so long as it did not demand too much. In some cases they were willing to give the bills the endorsement of the Privy Council and, by a liberal interpretation of the amending Act of 1556, concede to the House of Commons an irregular but acknowledged part in promoting and framing legislation. The arrangement was clearly in the nature of a compromise. The administration conceded to the House a power of originating legislation, which was withheld from it by the Acts of 1497 and 1556 ; and the Commons accepted this concession, instead of following the example of the Commons of the Parliament of 1639-48 and agitating for an enactment which would give them the power of originating legislation, not as a favour from the administration, but as a right; and from the Parliament of 1703-13 measures originating as heads of a bill were usually as numerous as bills originating with the Government. How firmly the new practice based on this compromise was established by the time that the first Parliament of Queen Anne^s reign assembled may be seen from a standing order of the House of Commons in 1703. It ordained " that no heads of any private bill be brought into the House but upon a petition preferred to the House; nor until the matter of such petition and the nature of the heads hath been reported by a committee with their opinion thereon [1 H. ofC. Journals, n. 112. ]."

As the result of the developement in procedure due to this compromise, there were from 1692 until 1782 two distinct classes of bills in the Irish Parliament. The first were government bills ; their stages in either the Commons or the Lords were the same as those of a bill at Westminster. In the second class were the bills which had not originated with Government. In regard to these the stages were more complex and numerous. At the first stage in a non -government bill the member responsible for it asked leave of the House to introduce heads of a bill. The next stage was to present to the House, in accordance with its order, the heads of a bill, practically the bill itself, and to these heads there were appended the names of two or three members who were prepared [p.431] to support the measure. The heads were then read a first time, and ordered for second reading. If the House accepted them at second reading a day was fixed for committee ; and before the House went into committee, instructions could be moved, as was possible when 'a government bill went into committee. Procedure in committee was the same as on a government bill. From committee the heads of the bill were reported to the House, and afterwards came up for third reading. Then, instead of the heads of the bill being sent to the House of Lords, they were carried to the Lord Lieutenant with a request that they might be transmitted by the Privy Council in Ireland to the Privy Council in England [1 Cf. H. of C. Journals, vin. 457, 495, 505 ; ix. 133.].

Carried to ri

In the case of an important bill on which the House had been unanimous, it would desire the Speaker to attend the heads of the bill to the Lord Lieutenant. This usage of sending the Speaker with a bill began almost as soon as the procedure was established ; for on March 7th, 1704, the Speaker reported "that this House with their Speaker attended his Grace, the Lord Lieutenant, at the Castle last night at five o'clock ; that he presented to his Grace heads of a bill for regulating elections of members to serve in Parliament, and that his Grace was pleased to answer in these words : ' Gentlemen, I will lay these heads of a bill before the Council Board in order to be transmitted into England [2 H. ofC. Journals, H. 443.].' " Sometimes when a bill was carried to the Castle the Lord Lieutenant was less non-committal as to his own attitude towards it. In 1745, for instance, when heads of a bill for annulling marriages celebrated by Popish priests were carried to Chesterfield, who was then Lord Lieutenant, he answered, " I will transmit this bill, and recommend it in the strongest manner to his Majesty [3 H. of C. Journals, iv. 469.].'" The bill which Speaker Brodrick of the Parliament of 1703 carried to Ormonde, the Lord Lieutenant, became law, and was the first bill affecting the representative system which originated under the new procedure.

Heads of a l . t

If extra weight were desired to be given to heads of a bill originating in the House of Commons, and the measure was one with which a majority of the Lords were in sympathy, the heads of the bill were carried through their several stages in the Upper House [4 Cf. H. of C. Journals, x. 363, 368.]. Only infrequently, however, was the House of Lords in this way associated with a bill ; and the usage in connection with heads of a bill did hot require that before presentation to the [p.432] Lord Lieutenant they should have gone through both Houses. When a bill was re-transmitted from London it went back to the House in which it originated. There it was read a first time, a second time, went through committee, was reported from committee, was ordered to be engrossed, then read a third time, and ordered to pass. If it had originated in the Commons it was next sent to the Lords, where its stages were the same ; and if passed by the Lords it received the royal assent in the usual form [1 Cf. H. of C. Journals, xi. 133.].

The Privy Councils and Legislation.

The Privy Council in Ireland could cushion the heads of a bill. j t cou [^ transmit them to England as it received them, or it could alter them before transmission. In England the Privy Council had the same three courses open to it. Both councils frequently altered heads of bills. The part of the Privy Councils under Poynings' law is made clear in Boulter's correspondence with Newcastle, who was Secretary of State for the Southern Department from 1724 until 1746 [2 Doyle, n. 562.]. Irish gentlemen were always anxious to be of the Privy Council. In 1727 Boulter, continuously alert against the possibility of the creation of an Irish interest, was apprehensive that the Privy Council might become too large, and be in danger of getting beyond English control. " We have a very strong report here,' 1 he wrote to Newcastle on March 10th, " that there is an addition likely to be made to the Privy Council here. As they are already sixty, we find it pretty difficult to carry on the King's service there as we could wish ; and if the number be increased, it will be still more difficult. I am afraid the weight and power of the Privy Council is not sufficiently understood in England, which makes me beg leave to acquaint your Grace that the approval or rejection of the magistrates of all the considerable towns in this kingdom is in the Council here ; and that, as the correcting or rejecting of any bills from either House of Parliament is in them, if they are increased much more the Privy Council of England may have more trouble from a session of Parliament here than they have at present. I can assure your Grace the English interest was much stronger at the board four years ago than it is now [3 Phillips, Boulter Letters, n. 307, 308.]."

Alterations in England

Boulter feared that if the Council were unmanageable, it would j^ ] ess eas y f or ne administration to cushion or alter a bill than when the English interest was dominant. In 1735 Boulter was apprehensive concerning a bill, apparently a government measure, [p.433] which had been transmitted. He feared that alterations might be made in England. It was a bill for the improvement of Church lands. " As what is enacted in this Act," he wrote to Newcastle, " is wholly different from any law in England, I must recommend it to your Grace's protection, that it may not be thrown out by the gentlemen of the law on your side by reason of their not knowing the necessity and use of it here."" Then, in a letter four pages long, Boulter explained to Newcastle the object of the bill and its importance to Ireland ; and concluded by beseeching the Secretary of State that the bill might be returned without alterations such as might defeat the intention of any of the clauses [1 Phillips, Boulter Letters, n. 148.]. Sir Jonah Barrington, in reviewing the history of the Irish Parliament before 1782, states that a bill sent to England frequently came back " so changed as to retain hardly a trace of its original features, or a point of its original object [2 Barrington, Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation, 7.]. 11 While this may be too sweeping a generalisation, there is a better authority than Barrington for the statement that in one instance a bill returned to Ireland was altered in seventy-four places. These alterations were due to the bill having been successfully revised by the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, and by a chamber counsel who was associated with these English law officers in overhauling bills passed by the Irish Parliament [3 Cf. Gilbert, Hist, of Dublin, in. 110.]. It is also a well-known fact in Irish Parliamentary history that the septennial bill passed in 1767 was altered to an octennial bill in London [4 Cf. Plowdeu, n. 107.].

Young's Ob-se jr w

The fact that Irish bills had thus to run the gauntlet of the Privy Councils was evident to Arthur Young, when in 1766 he was a visitor in the gallery of the House of Commons, and was comparing the Commons in Dublin with the Commons at Westminster. " I heard many very eloquent speeches,"" he wrote, " but I cannot say they struck me like the exertion of the abilities of Irishmen in the English House of Commons, owing perhaps to the reflection, both on the speaker and auditor, that the Attorney-General of England with a dash of his pen can revise, alter, or entirely do away with the matured results of all the eloquence and all the abilities of this whole assembly [5 Young, Tour in Ireland, i. 20.]."

While in Dublin and in London a bill could be altered in a Limited score of places and hacked out of all recognition, when it was [p.434] returned to the House in which it had originated the House might reject the bill but could not amend it [1 Mountmorres, i. 59.]. Committee stage was a farce, and nearly useless. It was a burlesque on committee procedure at Westminster ; and it is difficult to imagine members of the House of Commons maintaining a senatorial dignity and gravity when the chairman of committees took the chair at the clerk's table, and a bill was proceeded with paragraph by paragraph, without it being possible for the committee to alter so much as a single word. The only conceivable use of committee stage was to afford an additional opportunity of getting rid of a bill. If Government were opposed to a bill it had another chance of killing it in committee ; and if the promoters of a bill regarded the alterations made in it by the Privy Councils to be such as made it better policy that the bill should fail, rather than that it should go on the statute book in its emasculated form, they also had an additional opportunity of making an end of it in committee. And it sometimes happened that the administration desired to defeat a bill which the Privy Council in Ireland had, from the exigencies of the situation, been compelled to send over, and which for the same reasons had been re-transmitted by the Privy Council in England. Boulter understood the value of all the opportunities which procedure under Poynings 1 law gave the administration. " In the method of our Parliament," he wrote to Newcastle in 1733, "no bill can be carried by surprise, because, though the heads of a bill may be carried on a sudden, yet there is time for a party to be gathered against it by the time a bill can pass the Council here and be returned from England, when it is again to pass through both Houses for their approbation before it can pass into law [2 Phillips, Boulter Letters, n. 111.] . 1 '

Impotency of the Lords.

In the case of heads of a bill originating in the Commons the \){\\^ as it was re-transmitted, had to go through both Houses. Yet although the House of Lords might never have seen the heads of the bill, it had the option only of accepting or rejecting the measure. It had no power of amendment. In respect of such legislation the position of the Irish lords was similar to that of the House of Lords at Westminster in respect of money bills, except that, as most of the Irish lords who troubled themselves with Parliamentary business were of the Privy Council in Dubljn, they could insist in Council on alterations in the heads of a bill before they were transmitted to the Privy Council in England.

Transmission

[p.435] The transmission of heads of a bill to England was at first an act of grace on the part of the Lord Lieutenants. At the end of the seventeenth century they connived at this mode of partly circumventing Poynings 1 law. It consequently lay with the Lord Lieutenants to determine the conditions under which bills not originating with Government should go over. A rigid interpretation of Poynings 1 law would have left the House of Commons without any power of originating legislation, and if some part were conceded to the Commons it was within the power of the administration to set its metes and bounds. At this time the Privy Council had to sanction, if it did not actually frame government bills which were to be introduced in Parliament ; and what was more natural on the part of administrations, constituted as they were and animated by the motives which usually actuated them, than that they should retain the power of finally shaping the legislative measures which were framed in the Commons, and which usually the Commons were anxious should be transmitted ? When the House, through its Speaker or through any delegation chosen to represent it, appeared before the Lord Lieutenant with heads of a bill for transmission, it went into his presence as a suppliant. It went with a petition for a viceregal favour, not to demand something to which it had a well-ascertained and established right.

A Struggle !"*!? **. Council,

It was under these conditions, all favourable to the Privy Council and adverse to the House, that the Privy Council in Ireland exercised the power to alter heads of a bill before transmitting them. But almost from the first the Commons resented the exercise of this power. As early as 1707 the House attempted a stand against the unrestricted alteration to which heads of a bill were subjected before they were transmitted to England. An address to Queen Anne was proposed, praying for a reform of Privy Council procedure in relation to heads of a bill. In this petition it was represented that, by alterations made at the Council Board in bills which were transmitted, and by the non-transmission of heads of bills, the House of Commons had been greatly prejudiced ; and with a view to a remedy, the Queen was asked to " be graciously pleased to take the same into her royal consideration [1 H. ofC. Journals, n. 561.]. 11 It is doubtful whether this proposed address of 1707 reached the Queen ; for a communication to the throne, unless carried by the Commons direct to England, after the manner of the address of [p.282] 1641 to Charles I, could not reach the sovereign except through the Irish Privy Council ; and as late as 1757 it was a grievance with the Commons that they were denied the right of addressing the throne in their own words [1 Cf. H. of C. Journals, vi. 45.].

Struggle resumed in 1713.

No change was made in Privy Council procedure as the result of this agitation of 1707. The Council continued to cushion or to alter heads of bills, as seemed to it expedient. In 1713 there was another agitation, and leave was asked in the House of Commons for the introduction of heads of a bill " for the better regulating the manner of preparing and transmitting heads of bills, in order to be laid before the Queen and Council of Great Britain [2 H. of C. Journals, n. 752,, 753.]." But to have tied down Lord Lieutenants and Privy Council by Act of Parliament would not have suited either the administration in Dublin or Government in England. The existing system, although not as favourable to complete government control of Parliament as a strict interpretation of the Acts of 1497 and 1556 would have been, still gave Lord Lieutenants ample leeway, and enabled them to treat legislation which had not originated with the administration as the exigencies of Irish politics demanded. To relieve tension the administration could appear to make a concession to a demand of the House, and afterwards, as Boulter's letter to Newcastle indicates, so manoeuvre as to resume all that it had conceded. An Act of Parliament compelling the administration to send over to England all bills of independent origin, on the lines of that contemplated in 1713, would have greatly reduced government opportunities for Parliamentary manoeuvring. Moreover, when the bill of 1713 was proposed, there was in Ireland no popular interest in politics or in Parliament, no power outside Parliament to compel the administration to heed a demand of a minority in the House, however large or threatening. There was no public opinion in Ireland until Swift aroused the country over the question of Wood's halfpence in 1724 [3 Cf. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, New York, 1872, 61.]; and the bill to dislodge the Privy Council from the place it had under Poynings"* law shared the fate of the proposed address to Queen Anne in 1707.

Committees of Comparison.

For nearly fifty years after the abortive bill of 1713 there were no further bills or addresses to the Crown affecting the rights of the Commons in legislation. But in 1713, and from then onwards until 1757, when Poynings 1 law was again assailed by bill, the impatience of the House at the restraints imposed upon it was [p.437] manifested by the appointment of committees, charged with the duty of comparing the bills which came back from England with the heads of the bills as they had passed the House [1 Cf. H. of C. Journals, iv. 40.]. These committees could serve only one purpose. They kept the House accurately informed of the nature and extent of the alterations made by the Privy Councils in Dublin and in London.

The Struggle

In 1757, this period of comparative calm came to an end, and there was then begun the movement which finally led to the repeal of Poynings' law. It was not continuous from 1757 to 1782 ; but it had its beginnings on an ample scale, and from this time there was not an Irish administration which was not confronted with an agitation for freeing the Irish Parliament; with protests against money bills, because they had originated in the Privy Council and not in the House of Commons ; or with movements for constitutional reform. From 1757 to 1782, in fact from 1757 to the Union, Ireland was asserting itself politically, and the House of Commons occupied a new, larger, and more commanding place in the national life.

Prelimi- " a " es * e

There was some preliminary skirmishing before the attack was made on Poynings 1 law in 1757. The clerk of the Council was ordered to lay before the House the heads of all bills which had passed in the two preceding sessions of Parliament ; and the Clerk of the Hanaper was ordered to lay before it the transcripts of all bills which had been transmitted during the same period [2 Cf. H. of C. Journals, vi. 43.]. With this material before it the House was able to ascertain not only how many bills had been cushioned, but also the alterations in the bills transmitted which had been made by the Privy Council in Ireland.

Opening an Attack on 7 J roynmgs Law.

Following the compliance with these orders [3 Cf. H. ofC. Journals, vi. 44.] a resolution was proposed, " that it is at this time necessary to declare that every member of this House has an undoubted right to declare his opinion in this House concerning the construction of Poynings" 1 Act, and to move for leave to bring in the heads of a bill to explain, alter, or repeal the same, without incurring any pains and penalties."" As originally drafted there was a clause in the resolution affirming that any threat to deter any member from asking leave to introduce a bill to repeal Poynings' law was a breach of the privileges of Parliament [4 H. of C. Journals, vi. 45.]. In the debate on the resolution, however, this clause was eliminated; and on a division the resolution [p.438] was rejected by one hundred and forty-three votes to forty-three [1 H. of C. Journals, vi. 45.]. The attitude of the administration towards this new movement against Poynings 1 law is sufficiently indicated by the statement in the Journals that the Solicitor-General was one of the tellers for the noes.

Popular

Much ingenuity was displayed in bringing and keeping the i ues tion before the House ; for after this resolution- had been voted down a motion was proposed that leave be given for the introduction of a bill explaining Poynings 1 Act, a motion which was defeated by one hundred and two votes to seventy-five [2 H. ofC. Journals, vi. 51.]. Following this second defeat a resolution was offered, affirming that the Commons of Ireland had, and always had had, a right to petition the throne, " and express their sense of any national grievance in their own words [3 H.ofC. Journals, vi. 54.] ."" Failure attended all these movements, but they made the session of 1757 memorable in the history of the agitation against Poynings 1 law; for the attack on it was more strenuously pressed in this session than at any previous time since 1641, when the agitation, begun in Ireland, was carried to the throne in England. Moreover, and equally significant, it has to be noted that by the closing years of the reign of George II an intense popular interest had been developed in the contests in the Irish Parliament. This new interest, which may be dated from 1753 [4 Cf. Gilbert, Hist, of Dublin, HI. 101.], manifested itself in the thronging of people to the House of Commons when money bills and Poynings 1 law were being discussed; in ovations for members who were on the patriotic side and in hostile demonstrations against members who took the unpopular side. These unfriendly demonstrations became so threatening that in the eventful session of 1757, when Speaker Ponsonby and the group which was associated with him were acting in opposition to Primate Stone, the House found it necessary to pass a resolution declaring that such demonstrations constituted a breach of Parliamentary privilege, "a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour [5 H. ofC. Journals, vi. 157.]. 11

A New Standing

Interest in the Irish Parliament began ten years earlier than in England ; for not until George III came into conflict with Wilkes were there any popular outbursts in London comparable with those in Dublin which marked the closing years of the Parliament of [p.439] 1727-60. In the sessions immediately following the many-sided attack on Poynings' law in 1757 committees of comparison sedulously kept watch on the alterations in heads of bills in Privy Council, and kept tally of the number of bills which were either cushioned in the Council in Dublin, or not re-transmitted by the Privy Council from England [1 Cf. H. of C. Journals, vi. 232 ; vir. 260, 340.]; and in 1764 added importance was given to these committees by a standing order that " no bill shall pass in this House until a committee of this House shall compare the transmiss with the original heads of the bill, and report if any and what alterations have been made therein to the House [2 H. of C. Journals, VH. 357.]." Samuel Lucas, who was both a municipal and a Parliamentary reformer, the founder of the Freeman's Journal, the Wilkes of the Irish House of Commons, was foremost in the movement which culminated in the standing order of 1764 [3 Cf. H. ofC. Journals, vn. 260.].

Flood leads . e &

Parliament at this time, it must be remembered, was meeting only in alternate years. In 1766 war on Poynings 1 law was renewed. A motion for leave to introduce a bill assailing it was defeated by eighty-five votes to fifty-eight [4 H. ofC. Journals, vm. 111. ]. Flood, the first great orator of the Irish Parliament, told for the ayes. He had come into Parliament in 1759 as member for Kilkenny; and at the general election of 1761 was returned for the borough of Callan in the county of Kilkenny. Flood had promptly put himself in opposition to Primate Stone ; and in 1766 he was leader, of the party in the House which was agitating to abridge the corrupt influence of Government and to establish the independence of Parliament [5 Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 68.].

Flood's law

Nine years after this movement of 1766 against Poynings' Flood succumbed to the influence by assailing which, early in his Parliamentary career, he had achieved national fame. In 1775 he made terms with Lord Harcourt, who had succeeded Lord Townshend as Viceroy ; and by the conditions which he then asked he evidenced the value that he placed on the " cordial support " which he was to give the administration. These terms, as recalled by Buckinghamshire in a letter to North written in October, 1779, were " an office for life in addition to the vice-treasurership, or one in value equal to the latter for life; the exclusive patronage of the county of Kildare, including the nomination of sheriffs, and that Government should influence the [p.440] Agar family to give up the borough of Callan [1 Buckinghamshire to Lord North, October 25th, 1779, Addit. MSS. 34523, Folio 266.]," the borough which Flood in 1775 still represented in Parliament. In 1761 he had had a hard fight there against the Agar interest a fight followed by a petition, which had resulted in the unseating of a member of the Agar family who had been his opponent [2 Official List, pt. n. 665.]. From 1775 until 1781 Flood held the highly lucrative office of vice-treasurer, and was of the Privy Council [3 Cf. Beatson, Political Index, in. 327.]. By the time that he was again quite free from any connection with the administration, once more taking an independent line, and desirous of associating himself with the movement of which he had been the leader in 1766, Grattan, who excelled him as an orator, was at the head of the movement for the independence of the Irish Parliament, and Flood's popularity beyond the walls of the House of Commons was almost of the past. Still, in spite of the eclipse of his fame and popularity after 1775, in the early years of the reign of George III, and while the regime of the undertakers still survived, Flood was the leader of the movement against Poynings' law and gave to its service an eloquence the like of which had not been hitherto heard in the House of Commons.

Government 1766

No detailed reports of the debate on the motion of 1766 and Floods assa jl m g Poynings' law seem to have survived; but, apart from the majority against the motion, there is an entry which sufficiently indicates the attitude of Lord Hertford's administration towards any relaxation of the restriction by which the House of Commons was bound down. Hely-Hutchinson, Prime Sergeant, was a teller for the noes [4 Cf. H. o/C. Journals, vin. 111.].

In the closing days of this session, when Flood was leading the Nationalists, who were then agitating for Parliamentary freedom, there was a final attack on the administration. It was usual at the end of the session for the House to vote an address of thanks to the Lord Lieutenant. When the customary vote to Lord Hertford was brought forward in 1766 the Nationalists proposed the insertion of a paragraph lamenting "that some of the best laws proposed in this session of Parliament have not succeeded [5 H.ofC. Journals, vin. 151.]." They regretted in particular the failure of bills for establishing qualifications for members of the House of Commons, and for limiting the duration of Parliaments, over which there had [p.441] been much strenuous but futile debate [l H.ofC. Journals, vnr. 151.]. The resolution failed as a matter of course ; for it carried with it a condemnation not only of Poynings 1 law, but of the corrupt system by which the administration was in control of the House of Commons. It gave the Nationalists, however, a final opportunity of a demonstration against the existing Parliamentary system, and enabled them to wind up with eclat the longest session since the Revolution. Grievances, great and small, had been agitated. Flood and Lucas and the independent members when defeated on one motion had promptly confronted the House with another, and had shown a quick-wittedness, a pertinacity, and a resourcefulness in Parliamentary attack which fell short in nothing of that shown by the Irish members at Westminster under the leadership of Parnell.

The Last Sixteen ^itat'

From the defeat of Flood's bill in 1766 until 1782 the movement for the freedom of the Irish Parliament was interwoven with other reform movements. In these sixteen years the Nationalists were agitating for a Septennial Act ; for annual sessions of Parliament ; for a mitigation of the penal code; for an Act making the judges irremovable ; for an overhauling of the pension list ; for a mutiny Act ; for Parliamentary reform ; and for the freedom of Irish trade from the restraining laws imposed in the interests of England which had grievously hampered Ireland all through the eighteenth century. All these agitations, all the movements of this period of Ireland's political awakening, form part of the general political history of the country in the eighteenth century. The successes and the failures have been told in detail by Lecky and Froude, and it is not my intention to follow in detail even the struggle against Poynings' law. Success attended the demand for a Septennial Act in 1768. Ten years later the penal code was humanised. In 1779 the Acts prohibiting the Irish people from exporting their woollen and glass manufactures were repealed, and the colonial trade was thrown open to Ireland [2 Cf. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 83.].

Five De- re

Even before the Parliament at Westminster in 1780 had passed the necessary complementary Act to make Irish trade free, Grattan, now the leader of the Nationalists, had thrown himself into the movement for the freedom of the Irish Parliament, and the administration in Ireland, and Government in England, in the closing weeks of 1779 and the opening weeks of 1780 were confronted with five Irish demands. All of them were, in the [p.442] opinion of Lord North, " immediately destructive of the constitution,'" and all likely " most essentially to weaken his Majesty"^ Government in Ireland." North was greatly disturbed at the unofficial accounts which he had received of affairs in Ireland. He had learned " that constitutional questions will be agitated immediately after our Act for opening the trade between our colonies and Ireland shall be passed " ; and that the points intended to be submitted to the Irish Parliament by the opposition in the session of 1780 were : a total or partial repeal of Poynings 1 law ; a bill to make the tenure of judges in Ireland quamdiu bene se gesserint ; a money bill for twelve months only to secure annual sessions ; a land tax upon absentees ; and an Irish mutiny bill. " All these questions,"" North wrote to Buckinghamshire, at this time Lord Lieutenant, " if not quashed in Ireland, have a direct tendency to bring on all those evils which we have been labouring to avoid."" If these were pressed England could not give way, "and a fatal quarrel is too likely to ensue." Finally North was most anxious to hear from Buckinghamshire that "after having gone through the lists of both Houses of Parliament "" he was sure " that a clear majority will resist any question which may create uneasiness between the two kingdoms [1 North to Buckinghamshire, January 16th, 1780, Addit. MSS. 34523, Folio 336.].""

Popular

A month later, when several of these bills had been introduced in the Irish Parliament, or notices given of their introduction, North was still more alarmed. " The language said to be held by Mr Grattan and others against the usual supplies till the constitution of Ireland is as free as her trade, but above all the total silence and acquiescence of every servant of Government, except the Attorney-General all these circumstances," he wrote to the Lord Lieutenant on February 18th, 1780, "combine to spread the idea through Great Britain that opposition is as strong and Government as weak as they were before the holidays." " We hear," he added, " this language held by many persons in Ireland ; we read the treatises published in the Irish papers ; we learn that the associations of every kind increase instead of diminishing ; and we are apprised from every quarter that it is a general intention to procure at the assizes instructions not to vote for the usual supply until all the constitutional grievances, as they are called, shall be redressed [2 North to Buckinghamshire, February 18th, 1780, Addit. MSS. 34523, Folio 339.]."

[p.443] Eighteen Irish counties instructed their representatives in Grattan's Parliament to support the demand that Ireland's constitution should be as free as her trade [1 Grattan, Speeches, 64.]. The volunteers forty thousand men in arms were known to sympathise with the movement ; and on the 19th of April Grattan proposed the resolution which for all time was to associate his name with that brief period of the Irish Parliament which lies between 1782 and the Union. The resolution declared " that no person on earth save the King, Lords, and Commons, has a right to make laws for Ireland [2 Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 111.]." It was aimed at Poynings 1 law, and also at the Act of the British Parliament of 1720, declaratory of its right to legislate for Ireland [3 6 Geo. \, c. 5.]. In a speech, fervent and eloquent, Grattan reminded the House of the support which the movement was receiving beyond the walls of Parliament. He pictured the impotence of England, "at war with ten millions of French, eight millions of Spanish, three millions of Americans, three millions of Irish," and declared that the opportunity as well as the spirit of the people prompted the demands that were then being made for Parliamentary independence, and for the freeing of Ireland from the unconstitutional power of an English Attorney-General and an English Parliament [4 Grattan, Speeches, 45.].

The Fate of the Motion

Only Scott, the Attorney-General, and Fitzgibbon, afterwards Lord Clare, upheld the Irish Parliament as it was. Fitzgibbon objected that a revival of Irish nationality meant a nationality not of the Irish Protestants but of the Catholic Celts. It meant the undoing of the work of Elizabeth, James, and Cromwell. It meant the overthrow of the Irish Church, and in some shape or other a struggle for the recovery of the land [5 Cf. Froude, n. 258,, 259.]. After a debate which lasted until six o'clock in the morning of the 20th of April, the House adjourned without a division, and it was agreed that the proceedings should be passed over without being entered in the Journals [6 Cf. Froude,, 11. 259.]. The administration had a majority ready to vote down the resolution [7 Cf. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 81 ; Grattan, Speeches, 62.]. But how loose was its hold on these members, how much ground there was for the forebodings of North's letter of the 18th of February to the Lord Lieutenant, is shown by Buckinghamshire's letter to Lord Hillsborough, then Secretary of State for the Southern Department, describing the crisis which his administration [p.444] had weathered. " It is with the utmost concern," Buckinghamshire wrote, "I must acquaint your lordship that, although so many gentlemen expressed their concern that the subject had been introduced, the sense of the House against the obligation of any statutes of the Parliament of Great Britain within this kingdom is represented to me to have been almost unanimous [1 Froude, n. 259 ; cf. Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 112.]."

A Change of Government in England.

At the end of the session of 1780 Buckinghamshire returned to England, and was succeeded as Viceroy by the Earl of Carlisle. The next session of the Irish Parliament opened on the 9th of October, 1781. Ten days later came the defeat of the British forces at Yorktown. News of this catastrophe to the British arms in America reached England on November 25th. Parliament in England assembled two days afterwards. Popular meetings in London and Westminster calling for an end to the war quickly followed the news from America ; and in Parliament, after a proposed address to the King to stop the war had been defeated by only one vote, the Government was obliged to accept a resolution asserting the hopelessness of reducing America; and on March 20th, 1782, the Duke of Portland succeeded the Earl of Carlisle as Lord Lieutenant in Ireland.

Government Instructions to Carlisle.

Carlisle, who had succeeded Buckinghamshire in December, 1780, was instructed, before the meeting of the Irish Parliament in 1781, so far as possible to divert it from all constitutional questions, and to oppose with all his power any attempt to carry a declaration of independence or the repeal of Poynings 1 Act [2 Cf. Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, iv. 566.]. But soon after Parliament met, Barry Yelverton, a lawyer who has been described as the Goldsmith of the Irish bar [3 Cf. Diet. Nat. Biog., uni. 315], and who had been in the House since 1774 acting usually with the opposition, gave notice that he would bring in a bill amending Poynings 1 law.

The Volunteers and Parliamentary Independence.

Before Yelvertons bill came up in the House the volunteers met in convention at Dungannon. Grattan in his speech of 1780 had dwelt on the sympathy of the Irish volunteers with the movement for Parliamentary independence. When the Convention met at Dungannon the volunteers in a body formally associated themselves with the agitation. Grattan, Flood, and Charlemont were the animating spirits of the Convention ; and through the exertions of Grattan one of the Dungannon resolutions expressed the [p.445] gratification with which the volunteers had witnessed the relaxation of the penal code in 1778. At this time the Catholics were still disfranchised. Grattan and Charlemont were not in favour of their enfranchisement, and long combated their inclusion in any scheme of Irish Parliamentary reform. But the resolution which Grattan drafted for the Dungannon Convention brought the Catholics into sympathy with the movement for the legislative freedom of Ireland ; and, to quote Mr Lecky, " showed that the old policy of governing Ireland by the division of her sects had failed, and that if the independence of Parliament were to be withheld it must be withheld in opposition to a nation united and in arms [1 Lecky, Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland, 112.]."

Attacks on Law U inT782

Flood and Yelverton made independent movements against Poynings' law in the early part of the session of 1782. Flood moved for a committee in a speech three and a half hours long, in which, as a lawyer, he insisted that the power of the Irish Privy Council to alter heads of bills was no part of the original intention of Poynings 1 law, and rested on an erroneous decision of the judges in 1692. By a vote of one hundred and thirty-five to sixty-six the House rejected Flood's motion [2 Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, iv. 570.].

Yelverton's

Yelverton, also a lawyer, entirely dissented from Flood's contention. The purport of his bill was to restrict the Privy Council to sending over to England heads of bills without alteration ; and Carlisle, in his correspondence with Lord Hillsborough while Yelverton's bill was going through committee in the House of Commons, urged that it should be accepted by Government [3 Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, iv. 571. ]. Carlisle regarded the bill as taking " a middle and lenient course " as a measure which had a friendly tendency and an honest meaning, and as holding out a favourable and dignified opportunity to Great Britain "at least to cut down this plant from which nothing wholesome will ever be gathered [4 Lecky, England in the Eighteenth Century, iv. 572.]."

A Change of Government

By March 14th, when Parliament adjourned until April 16th for the Easter recess, Yelverton's bill had passed all its stages in the House of Commons and had been transmitted to London. It reached London during the crises which preceded the downfall of the North administration, and was followed by letters from Carlisle in which he strongly urged its retransmission. Carlisle was ready [p.446] to be guided by his Majesty's command and by the wisdom of his Council, but he declined to answer for the consequences of the non-return of the bill [1 Froude, n. 317.]. Yelverton's bill, which it is impossible to conceive as meeting and silencing the demands which Ireland was then making and was in a position to enforce, was not re-transmitted ; and when Parliament met again on the 16th of April Portland had succeeded Carlisle as Lord Lieutenant, and almost his first official act was to communicate to the House of Commons, through Hely-Hutchinson, Irish Secretary of State, an intimation that the Rockingham administration was prepared to make concessions to the demands of Ireland. " I have it in command from his Majesty," read Portland's message, " to inform this House that his Majesty, being concerned to find that discontents and jealousies are prevailing among his loyal subjects in this country, upon matters of great weight and importance, his Majesty recommends it to this House to take the same into their most serious consideration, in order to such a final adjustment as may give mutual satisfaction to his kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland [2 H. of C. Journals, x. 335.]. 11

Grattan's Address of Thanks.

The news that there was to be some concession had become known before Parliament met. A large body of volunteers, armed and uniformed, was dra\vn up in front of the Parliament House on the day the session was resumed, and it was through their parted ranks that Grattan passed to move the address of thanks to his Majesty in reply to the message to the House. In this address full of expressions of loyalty to England, but audacious in its statement of Ireland's demands the principle of Grattan's resolution of April 19th, 1780, was reaffirmed, and the King was assured that " his Majesty's Commons of Ireland do most sincerely wish that all bills which become law in Ireland should receive the approbation of his Majesty under the Great Seal of Great Britain, but that yet we do consider the practice of suppressing our bills in the Council of Ireland, or altering the same anywhere, to be a just cause of discontent and jealousy [3 H. of C. Journals, x. 335.]."

Ireland's Opportumty.

There was much correspondence between Dublin Castle and London after the House had adopted the address. The burden of Portland's letters was " that all sects, all sorts and descriptions of men" were at this juncture calling on Great Britain for a full and unequivocal satisfaction ; that the Irish people now knew and felt their strength ; that they knew it was not in the power of Great [p.447] Britain to send over such an armed force as would compel them to relinquish their claims; and that, having the example of the American colonies an example of the fatal consequences of coercive measures they were in no fear that Great Britain would attempt a second experiment of tjiat nature [1 Froude, n. 330, 331.].

Her Deter- on ra

Lord Shelburne, afterwards Marquis of Lansdowne, had succeeded Lord Hillsborough as Secretary of State. He urged Portland that in such contentions as those then existing between Ireland and Great Britain men usually asked for more at the beginning than they expected to get. He was consequently hopeful that the Irish Parliament would in some degree recede from its extreme demands ; from the demands which had been embodied in the address to the Crown moved by Grattan on the 16th of April [2 Froude, n. 332.]. To this reasoning Portland answered that every day's experience convinced him not only of the impossibility of prevailing on Ireland to recede from any one of the claims set forth in the address, but of the danger of new ones. "The wishes of the people," Portland wrote on May 6th, " are fixed ; and reasoning among ourselves as to what is for or against their interests is now as much too late as it has been fruitless and delusive in respect to other countries [3 Froude, n. 335.]."

The King's ai

Within a day or two after this letter from Portland reached London George III was as alarmed concerning Ireland as North had been in the closing weeks of his administration. " The affairs of Ireland," the King wrote from Windsor to Lord Shelbume, on the 14th of May, 1782, "are terribly embroiled [4 Addit. MSS. 34523, Folio 366.]." There had been no improvement in Ireland in the interval between the adoption of the address and the date of the King's letter. On the contrary, the position was aggravated, for Grattan threatened that if legislative independence were not conceded Ireland would take it herself; and the Government had to yield unconditionally [5 Froude, n. 340.].

Surrender Announced.

The surrender was announced to the Irish Parliament on the 27th of May, when, in reply to the address of the House of Commons of April 16th, the Lord Lieutenant delivered a speech from the throne in the House of Lords. " His Majesty," he said, "has further given it to me in command to assure you of his gracious disposition to give his royal assent to Acts to prevent the suppression of bills in the Privy Council of this kingdom, and [p.448] the alteration of them anywhere, and to limit the duration of the Act for the better regulation and accommodation of his Majesty ""s affairs in this kingdom [1 The Mutiny Act passed in 1780, and then made perpetual. Cf. Lecky, iv. 555.] to the term of two years. These benevolent intentions of his Majesty, and the willingness of his Parliament of Great Britain to second his gracious purposes, are unaccompanied by any stipulation or condition whatever; the good faith, the generosity, and the honour of this nation afford him the surest pledge of a corresponding disposition on your part to promote the harmony, the stability, and the glory of the Empire [2 H. ofC. Journals, x. 350, 351.]."

The Reply of

In the address acknowledging this concession the House of Commons assured his Majesty that it would immediately prepare bills to carry into execution the desires of his Majesty's people and his own most benevolent purposes [3 H. of C. Journals, x. 351.]. On May 29th a thanksgiving day was ordered ; and before the bill for the repeal of Poynings 1 law was introduced the House of Commons made an order that steps be taken for purchasing an estate and building a mansion for Grattan [4 H. of C. Journals, x. 354.]. The thanksgiving day was to mark "the union, harmony, and cordial affection which has been lately brought about between those two kingdoms, whose interests are inseparably the same, by the wisdom and justice of his Majesty and his Council, in confirming and re-establishing their mutual rights [5 H. of C. Journals, x. 354.]. 11

Repeal of Poyiiings' Act.

Leave was given on May 29th to bring in heads of a bill to regulate the manner of passing bills and to prevent delays in summoning Parliament ; and it was ordered that Mr Yelverton, Sir Benjamin Chapman, and Mr Forbes bring in the same [6 H. of C. Journals, x. 356.]. By the 7th of June the heads of the bill had passed all their stages in the House of Commons, and were carried to the House of Lords [7 H. of C. Journals, x. 363.]. The Lords on June 13th signified their concurrence without amendment, and asked the Commons to name members to accompany Lord Charlemont and the Earl of Mornington with the heads of the bill to the Lord Lieutenant [8 H. of C. Journals, x. 368.]. Yelverton, George Ogle, and Dennis Daly were named by the Commons for this service. The heads of the bill went over to England and were promptly returned; and the bill was then quickly passed through its stages in the two Houses, and became law on the 27th of July, 1782 [9 H. of C. Journals, x. 385 ; 21 and 22 Geo. Ill, c. 47.].

Passing of ^

The last motion under the old form of procedure was made on the 19th of July, when leave was given to Newenham, one of the foremost advocates of Parliamentary reform in the House, to bring in heads of a bill for a more equal representation of the people in Parliament [1 H. of C. Journals, x. 378.]. This bill was not further advanced in the memorable session of 1782. It was brought in again in 1783, and was one of the earliest bills, if not actually the first introduced by a private member under the new and much less complex form of procedure [2 Cf. H. of C. Journals, xi. 36.]. It again failed : for the Government in England firmly held that the concessions made in 1782 were sufficient, and insisted that the account must be considered closed, and must never again be opened on any pretence whatever [3 Cf. Letter from Fox to Lord Northington, Nov. 1783, Grattan, Memoirs of the Life of Henry Grattan, in. 106.]. Entries of the appointment of committees of comparison, which had been frequent in the Journals since 1731, disappear after 1782; and for the next seventeen years the Irish Parliament had all the constitutional powers of the Parliament of Great Britain, and procedure on a bill, except for the innovation which made it possible to divide the House on the principle of a bill when in committee, was identical with procedure at Westminster. After more than two centuries of imitation the Irish House of Commons, in matters of procedure, became a replica of the British House of Commons.

Reform in ^- es P" se to Agitation

There remains to be noted one significant fact in connection with the repeal of Poynings 1 law. It was the first great constitutional change made in either Ireland or England in response to an agitation in which Parliament, the people, and the press all had a part. In England in the eighteenth century two Acts of Parliament, the Act of 1753 for the naturalisation of Jews, and the Act of 1788 for the registration of freeholders in counties [4 26 Geo. II, c. 26 ; 27 Geo. II, c. 1 ; 28 Geo. Ill, c. 36 ; 29 Geo. Ill, c. 18.] passed in one session of Parliament were repealed in the next in response to outside agitation. But England had to wait until 1832 before, as the result of agitation in Parliament, in the constituencies, and in the newspaper press, any sweeping change, any reform comparable with the repeal of Poynings"" law was made in the constitution.

History of the Irish Parliament 1692-1800

• (See also Summary section above)
• Print version: I should also look at the index of bills, for those listed as "Constitutional" in the relevant session(s).
• Online version 1. THE CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION:

  The American war had left Britain in a vulnerable position, shaken by the loss of the American colonies and by the early 1780s uncertain what the relationship of the mother country to its dependencies should be. At the same time, it was genuinely anxious to pacify Ireland. Irish agitation reached its height in 1781–2, and the result became known as the constitution of 1782. Amid great excitement, Poynings' Law was amended by 21 & 22 Geo. III, c. 47, an act sponsored by Barry Yelverton (2268 ), afterwards Lord Avonmore. It declared that 'the Lord Lieutenant or other chief governor or governors and council of this kingdom ... do and shall certify such bills and none other, as both Houses of Parliament shall judge expedient to be enacted in this kingdom ... without addition or dimunition, or alteration.' This was the cornerstone of a group of acts that included 21 & 22 Geo. III, c. 50, which declared that judges should hold office, as in England, during good behaviour (quam diu se bene gesserint) and not at the behest of the sovereign (durante bene placito regis). Two British statutes – 22 Geo. III and 23 Geo. III, c. 28, repealed and then, in face of Irish suspicion, formally renounced English jurisdiction over the Irish law courts.

  Poynings' Law was amended but not obliterated by the 1782 Act. Irish bills still required the Royal Assent and essentially this was given by the king in the British Privy Council. Thus the power of the British Privy Council to reject Irish bills continued even after the final amendment of Poynings' Law in 1782. For instance, in 1788 Lord Lieutenant Buckingham wrote to his brother, W. W. Grenville, that 'this messenger carries over the last transmiss of bills, and I am obliged to desire that one of them, For preventing sheep stealing, may not be returned. It is always good to keep up the practice of rejecting in the English Privy Council.' Similarly the British Attorney General and Solicitor General continued to give a report on Irish bills, although their fees were occasionally attacked in the Irish House of Commons.

Robert Campbell: Principles of English law founded on Blackstone's Commentaries (1907)

Principles of English law founded on Blackstone's Commentaries (1907) pp.9-15, esp pp.13-14 : But the Irish Parliaments were from the outset so constituted that English influence predominated; and, in the tenth year of King Henry VII., the Irish Parliament passed a statute (10 Hen. VII. c. 22) commonly called (after its promoter, the English Deputy of the time) "Poyning's Act." By this Act, after a recital of the benefits derived by England from her statute law, it was enacted that "all statutes late made within the realm of England, concerning or belonging to the common and public weal of the same, from henceforth be deemed good and effectual in the law, and be accepted, used and executed within the land of Ireland at all points at all times requisite according to the tenor and effect of the same." By another of the series of Irish Acts, sometimes referred to as "Poyning's Laws" (10 Hen. VII. c. 4), explained and confirmed by an Act in 1556 (5 Ph. & M. c. 4), the mode of summoning Parliaments in Ireland, and their legislative powers, were so regulated as to bring them into complete subservience to the English Government, exercised by the King in Council. It was long a subject of controversy whether the English or British Parliament had any power, by a statute made subsequently to Poyning's Act, to legislate for Ireland. Such a power was frequently asserted in England, and the assertion was embodied in a declaratory Act in the year 1719 (6 Geo. I. c. 5). The power was always strenuously denied in Ireland; and the controversy remained acute until the year 1782, when the British Government and Parliament found it convenient to concede the claim to legislative independence made on the part of Ireland; and certain concessions were made by the Irish Parliament on the other side. By the Act of the British Parliament (1782) 22 Geo. III. c. 53, the Act of 6 Geo. I. c. 5 was repealed; and by an Act of the Irish Parliament (21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 47, Ir.) the independence of the Irish Parliament to initiate, as well as to carry out legislation for Ireland, was declared. By a simultaneous Act of the Irish Parliament (21 & 22 Geo. III. c. 48) it was enacted that effect should be given in Ireland to all previous statutes in England or Great Britain, so far as relates to enactments (1) affecting private title to land in Ireland, (2) concerning commerce, where equal restraints are imposed upon, or equal benefits given to, the subjects of England and Ireland, (3) concerning the seamen of both countries, or (4) concerning the style or calendar of the year, the making of oaths, etc., and the continuance of offices, etc., on a demise of the Crown. To give full effect to the concession of the independence of the Irish Parliament, it was, however, considered not enough to repeal the Act of C Geo. I. ; but, further, by an Act of the British Parliament of the following session (23 Geo. III. c. 28), on the recital that "doubts had arisen whether the provisions of the Act (22 Geo. III. c. 53) were sufficient to secure to the people of Ireland the rights claimed by them to be bound only by laws enacted by His Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom, it was declared and enacted that the right claimed by the people of Ireland to be bound only by laws enacted by His Majesty and the Parliament of that Kingdom in all cases whatsoever ... should be established and ascertained for ever".

ODNB

ODNB, "Henry Grattan": Grattan made several unsuccessful efforts, notably on 22 February, to get the Irish parliament to endorse motions calling for legislative independence. It took the fall of Lord North's ministry in March to create the circumstances that made it possible. ... With political and public opinion strongly supporting unconditional concession, Grattan knew he was in a strong position and ... moved a third time for a declaration of rights in the House of Commons on 16 April 1782. ... His motion to amend the anodyne address favoured by the administration was approved unanimously. This greatly reinforced his contention that the government must accede unconditionally to his demands for the repeal of the Declaratory Act, the amendment of Poynings' law, an annual mutiny bill, and the enhancement of the independence of the judiciary. In return, Grattan emphasized his commitment and that of Irish protestants generally to maintain a close connection with Britain. ... By way of reciprocation, the Irish House of Commons took the highly unusual step on 31 May of awarding him £50,000 ‘in testimony of the gratitude of this nation for his eminent and unequalled services to this kingdom’

J. G. Swift MacNeil: The constitutional and parliamentary history of Ireland till the union (1917)

The constitutional and parliamentary history of Ireland till the union (J. G. Swift MacNeill, 1917)

Isaac Butt's speech at 1873 Home Rule Conference:

I have now to ask the attention of the Conference to the change which was made in the position of the Irish Parliament by that which has been somewhat inaccurately called the Constitution of 1782. In the proper sense of the word there was no new Constitution established in that year. Grattan and the Volunteers compelled England to renounce the claim of legislating for Ireland, and it was solemnly declared that no power on earth could make laws to bind Ireland except the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance and the value of that great achievement. It placed the liberties of Ireland in the keeping of her own Parliament ; it removed the galling sense of subjection and dependence ; while its immediate practical importance was chiefly felt in freeing the trade and commerce of Ireland from restrictions which the claim of the right to legislate for Ireland had enabled the English Parliament, under one pretence or other, to impose. The commercial as well as the civil freedom of the country was placed under the guardianship of the Irish Parliament itself. The truth is, that in the purely internal affairs of Ireland the instances of direct and actual interference by English legislation had been but few and comparatively unimportant.

The only change which was then made in the Parliamentary constitution of Ireland was by a modification in the Law of Poynings. The Irish Parliament was authorised to consider and to pass Bills without the previous sanction of the English Privy Council. But that assent the approval of the English Privy Council was still made necessary to their becoming law. In all other respects the Parliamentary system of Ireland was left untouched. The absolute dependence of the Crown of Ireland upon that of England was absolutely reaffirmed. The House of Commons was elected exactly in the same manner as before, and its legal and constitutional powers were unchanged.

It is strange, Sir, how little the real constitutional history of this period is understood. There are many persons I know who have been under the impression that in 1782 all control over Irish legislation in the English Privy Council was removed. Far from it ; the consent of the Sovereign under the Great Seal of England was still necessary before any measure could become law. This arrangement was expressly made part of the Declaration of Rights moved by Mr. Grattan in the Irish House of Commons. On the i6th April, 1782, Mr. Grattan moved the Address to the King which denied the power of the English Parliament to make laws for Ireland. But, after solemnly making that denial, and after affirming the inseparable annexation of the Crown of Ireland to that of Great Britain, on which connection, in the words of the address, ' the interests and happiness of both nations essentially depend,' that address proceeded

To assure his Majesty that his Majesty's Commons of Ireland do most sincerely wish that all Bills which become law in Ireland should receive the approbation of his Majesty under the Great Seal of Britain, but that yet we consider the practice of suppressing our Bills in the Councils of Ireland, or altering the same anywhere, to be a just cause of jealousy and discontent.'

These are the words of the celebrated Declaration of Rights the claim of the legislative independence of Ireland solemnly put forward by Mr. Grattan and the Irish Parliament of 1782. In reply to this address, the Duke of Portland, on the 2yth May, conveyed to both Houses of the Irish Parliament a message from the King, telling them that in addition to the renunciation by the British Parliament of the claim to bind Ireland

The concessions so graciously offered by our Sovereign are the modification of Poynings' Law, and not only the abridgment of the Mutiny Bill in point of duration, but the formation of it on the model of the English Mutiny Bill, and prefacing it with a Declaration of Rights.'

Nothing can be more distinct than the deliberate intentions of the men who led the Irish Nation in 1782 to retain a portion of the subjection to the English Privy Council in which the Law of Poynings placed the Parliament of Ireland. The restrictions of that law had been imposed by an Act of the Irish Parliament. An Act of the Irish Parliament could remove them. Accordingly, a Bill was brought in by Mr. Yelverton, modifying the Law of Poynings. Mr. Flood alone objected to that Bill as falling short of that which Ireland had a right to demand. The measure of Mr. Yelverton provided that the Bills which passed both Houses of the Irish Parliament should be certified by the Lord Lieutenant under the Great Seal of Ireland to his Majesty, and should not pass until they were returned under the Great Seal of Britain. It also provided that they should be returned without alteration, but it left untouched the requirement of Poynings' Law that Irish Bills must be sent over to England and returned with an approbation certified under the Great Seal of that country that it is approved of by the advice of English Ministers and the English Privy Council. This provision was wholly distinct from the constitutional necessity of obtaining the royal assent. That assent was subsequently given by the Lord Lieutenant in the name of his Majesty in the Irish House of Lords. The certifying of the Bill under the Great Seal of England was a condition precedent to the King of Ireland giving his assent. Mr. Grattan pointed this out very clearly in the Regency debates. Lord Clare illustrated it very strongly, but not more strongly than truly, by the statement, that if his Majesty came to Ireland, appointing a Regent for England in his absence, the King could not have given the royal assent to any Bill in his Irish Parliament until his Regent had certified it to him under the English Great Seal. The provision virtually gave to the English Privy Council the power of negativing any Irish measure of legislation ; and it would be easy to show how strongly this veto was relied upon by the National Party in the Irish Parliament as a real and practical security for the connection between the countries.

The real concession which was obtained on this point and it was a most important one was that measures might be passed in both Houses of the Irish Parliament without the previous assent of the English Privy Council. That assent was now required, not before their introduction, but after they had passed. The restriction was no longer on the deliberative, but solely on the legislative power of the Irish Parliament. But let it be remembered that from 1782 to 1800 there did exist that restriction on its legislative power which consisted in requiring an assent under the Great Seal of England before any measure passed by it could become law.

Hervey Raymond Morres, 2nd Viscount Mountmorres' 1792 summary:

Before a Parliament was held, it was expedient, antecedent to 1782, that the Lord Lieutenant and Council should send over an important Bill as a reason for summoning that Assembly. This always created violent disputes, and it was constantly rejected, as a Money Bill which originated in the Council was contrary to a known maxim, that the Commons hold the purse of the nation, as all grants originate from them, since in early times they were used to consult with their constituents upon the mode, duration, and generation of the supply. Propositions for laws, or Heads of Bills, as they are called, originated indifferently in either House. But it was not till after the Revolution of 1688 that the Heads of Bills were presented. These resembled Acts of Parliament, or Bills, with only this small difference "We pray that it may be enacted," instead of "Be it enacted." After two readings and a committal, they were recommended to the Privy Council. As, however, 'they were recommended by one House only, it was desirable to induce the two Houses to confer, and to give efficiency to these propositions by a joint recommendation. When the Heads of Bills were peculiarly popular, they were presented by Parliament in a body to the Lord Lieutenant, with a request that he would recommend the measure to the King. In practice, the origination of Bills in the Privy Council was confined to the case of the summoning of a New Parliament. After two readings, and a committal, these Heads of Bills were presented to the Irish Privy Council, and then sent by the Council to England, and were submitted usually by the English Privy Council to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and they were returned thence to the Irish Privy Council, by whom they were sent to the Irish House of Commons, if they originated there (if not, to the Lords), and after three readings they were sent to the House of Lords, where they went through the same stages, and then the Lord Lieutenant gave the Royal Assent in the same form which is observed in Great Britain. In all these stages in England and Ireland it is to be remembered that any Bill was liable to be rejected, amended, or altered, but that when a Bill had passed the Great Seal of England no alteration could be made by the Irish Parliament.[* Appendix III]

By the modification of Poynings' Act, in 1782, known as the Yelverton Act, it was not necessary for the Irish Privy Council to certify a Bill under the Great Seal of Ireland as a reason for summoning a Parliament, but it was ordered to be convoked by the proclamation from the Crown as it is summoned in England. Bills, however, originated in either House, and went from one to another, as in England. They were then deposited in the Lords' office, when the Clerk of the Crown took a copy of them, and this parchment was attested to be a true copy by the Great Seal of Ireland on the left side of the instruments. Then they were sent to England by the Irish Council, and, if they were approved of by the King, the transmiss, or copy, came back with the Great Seal of England on the right side, with a commission to the Lord Lieutenant to give the Royal Assent. All Bills, except Money Bills, remained in the Lords' office, but Bills of Supply were sent back to the House of Commons to be presented by the Speaker at the Bar of the House of Lords for the Royal Assent. It is accordingly manifest that no alteration could be made in Bills except in Parliament, as the record and original roll remains in the Lords' office till it obtains the Royal Assent.

Lord Mountmorres states that it is said that there are very few instances of the rejection of Irish Bills, or of their not being returned from England since 1782, though, doubtless, the royal negative is effective.

MacNeill's Constitution of 1782 Chapter relies heavily on Lecky; describes 1783 Renunciation Act as "coping stone" of the Constitution; characterises some other Irish 1782 session Acts as occuring when "the Constitution of 1782 had only just been established".

MacNeill's own comments:

When, in 1782, the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament was so far established that the control of Irish legislation was limited to a discretionary power in the affixing of the Great Seal of Great Britain to a Bill which had passed both Houses as a condition precedent to its receiving the Royal Assent, deputations were seldom sent from the Irish Parliament to the English Government. In 1789, however, delegates from the Irish House of Lords and the Irish House of Commons went over to London to present an address of the Irish Parliament to the Prince of Wales (George IV.) asking him owing to the mental aberration of the King (George III.), which, however, was merely of a temporary character to accept the Regency with full regal powers.

APPENDIX IV. IRISH LEGISLATION AND THE ENGLISH PRIVY COUNCIL AFTER 1782.

THE old practice of submission of Irish Bills to the English Privy Council for the purpose of obtaining the Royal Assent still persisted, though this usage appears to have escaped the knowledge or notice of Irish historians. Thus, on February ist, 1785, it was ordered by the King in Council that a committee of thirteen members of the Privy Council, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President, the great officers of State, and Mr. Pitt (but no Irish Privy Councillor or Peer), or any three of them, should be appointed a Committee to consider the Bills which shall be transmitted from Ireland during the present Session of Parliament, together with the reports to be made thereupon by His Majesty's Attorney- General and Solicitor-General, and all petitions relating thereto. And by an order at the same date is was directed that the Attorney- General and Solicitor- General (of England) should report and examine upon all Bills transmitted from Ireland and the letters from the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council accompanying the said Bills, together with such petitions as shall be referred to them by the Lords' Committee. These references were not a mere matter of form. On March 7th twenty-three Irish Bills were referred to the Law Officers. One of them related to the duties payable upon the importation of sugar. It was pointed out that this Bill was inconsistent with the lower duties imposed by several English Acts of Parliament, although the duties ought to be equal, and that the high duties imposed by the Irish Bill amounted to a prohibition of that description of sugar. But as there was no time to correct the mistake their lordships allowed the Bill to be returned, hoping that the error would be remedied by a short Bill in the next Session of Parliament. There were other cases in which the Bills were ' respited ' upon the advice of the Lords of the Council. In most cases they were of course approved It appears, therefore, that the legislative independence of the Irish Parliament was still under the control of the Privy Council and the Law Officers, and in point of fact some of the Bills were not returned. Thus, a Bill for granting bounties on the manufacture of gunpowder was detained for various reasons set forth in a minute, and the Lord Lieutenant was recommended to have it altered (May 2yth, 1785). In like manner the important Act of the Irish Parliament, entitled ' An Act for preventing doubts concerning the Parliamentary Privy Council and Officers, civil and military, on the demise of the Crown,' was respited and not returned to Ireland. The cases quoted are from the year 1785, but similar proceedings were taken in each year during the existence of Grattan's Parliament " (The Edinburgh Review, April, 1886, pp. 578-580).

Dicey

A. V. Dicey's 1906 summary: A. Constitution of 1782

I. Constitution the result of a revolutionary movement (Volunteer Movement, 1778–83)

II. Characteristics of Constitution

1. Legislative independence of Irish Parliament

Repeal of 6 Geo I., c.5 (by 22 Geo. 3, c.53 — English)

Renunciation Act, 1782-3 (23 Geo. 3, c.28 — English)

Repeal of Poynings' Law (22 Geo. 3, c.47 — Irish)

2. No appeal from Irish courts to English House of Lords

3. Irish Parliament does not obtain control over the executive

4. No reform of Parliament

5. No extension to Roman Catholics of parliamentary rights

6. No diminution of the influence exercisable by the executive

Dicey also gives references:

• Porritt Vol.2 Pt.6 Chs.40-57
• Ball Irish legislative systems
• Lecky Hist England XVIIIth Century vol.2 pp.412-437; vol.4 ch.16; vol.6 chs 24 and 25.

P W Joyce Concise Hist Irl

Part III, Chapter XII. Poynings' Law

302. The accession in 1485, of Henry VII., who belonged to the Lancastrians, was the final triumph of that great party.

At this time all the chief state offices in Ireland were held by the Geraldines; but as the new king felt that he could not govern the country without their aid, he made no changes, though he knew well they were all devoted Yorkists. Accordingly the great earl of Kildare, who had been lord deputy for several years, with a short break, was still retained.

303. But the Irish retained their affection for the house of York; and accordingly when the young impostor Lambert Simnel came to Ireland and gave out that he was the Yorkist prince Edward earl of Warwick, he was received with open arms, not only by the deputy, but by almost all the Anglo-Irish: nobles, clergy, and people. But the city of Waterford rejected him and remained steadfast in its loyalty; whence it got the name of Urbs Intacta, the "untarnished city."

304. After a little time an army of 2,000 Germans came to Ireland to support the impostor; and in 1487 he was actually crowned as Edward VI., by the bishop of Meath, in Christchurch Cathedral, Dublin, in presence of the deputy Kildare, the archbishop of Dublin, and a great concourse of Anglo-Irish nobles, ecclesiastics, and officers. But this foolish business came to a sudden termination when Simnel was defeated and taken prisoner in England. Then Kildare and the others humbly sent to ask pardon of the king; who dreading their power if they were driven to rebellion, took no severer steps than to send over Sir Richard Edgecomb to exact new oaths of allegiance. In the following year the king invited them to a banquet at Greenwich; and one of the waiters who attended them at table was their idolized prince Lambert Simnel.

305. A little later on reports of new plots in Ireland reached the king's ears; whereupon in 1492 he removed Kildare from the office of deputy. These reports were not without foundation, for now a second claimant for the crown, a young Fleming named Perkin Warbeck, landed in Cork in 1492 and announced that he was Richard duke of York, one of the two princes that had been kept in prison by Richard III. And he was at once accepted by the Anglo-Irish citizens of Cork.

It was chiefly the English colonists who were concerned in the episodes of Simnel and Warbeck; the native Irish took little or no interest in either claimant.

306. The king now saw that his Irish subjects were ready to rise in rebellion for the house of York at every opportunity. He came to the resolution, therefore, to lessen their power by destroying the independence of their parliament; and having given Sir Edward Poynings instructions to this effect, he sent him over as deputy.

307. Poynings' first act was to lead an expedition to the north against O'Hanlon and Magennis, who had given shelter to some of the supporters of Warbeck. But he heard a rumour that the earl of Kildare was conspiring with O'Hanlon and Magennis to intercept and destroy himself and his army; and news came also that Kildare's brother had risen in open rebellion and had seized the castle of Carlow. On this Poynings returned south and recovered the castle.

308. He convened a parliament at Drogheda in November, 1494, the memorable parliament in which the act since known as "Poynings' law" was passed. The following are the most important provisions of this law:

1. No parliament was in future to be held in Ireland until the Irish chief governor and privy council had sent the king information of all the acts intended to be passed in it, with a full statement of the reasons why they were required, and until these acts had been approved and permission granted by the king and privy council of England. This single provision is what is popularly known as "Poynings' law."

2. All the laws lately made in England affecting the public weal should hold good in Ireland. This referred only to English laws then existing; it gave no power to the English parliament to make laws for Ireland in the future.

3. The Statute of Kilkenny was revived and confirmed, except the part forbidding the use of the Irish tongue, which could not be carried out, as the language was now used everywhere, even through the English settlements.

4. For the purpose of protecting the settlement, it was made felony to permit enemies or rebels to pass through the marches; and the owners of march lands were obliged to reside on them or send proper deputies on pain of losing their estates.

5. The exaction of coyne and livery was forbidden in any shape or form.

6. Many of the Anglo-Irish families had adopted the Irish war-cries; the use of these was now strictly forbidden.*

In this parliament the earl of Kildare was attainted for high treason, mainly on account of his supposed conspiracy with O'Hanlon to destroy the deputy; in consequence of which he was soon afterwards arrested and sent a prisoner to England.

309. Up to this the Irish parliament had been independent; it was convened by the chief governor whenever and wherever he pleased; and it made its laws without any interference from the parliament of England. Now Poynings' law took away all this power and made the parliament a mere shadow, entirely dependent on the English king and council.

This indeed was of small consequence at the time; for the parliament was only for the Pale, and no native Irishman could sit in it. But when at a later period English law was made to extend over the whole country, and the Irish parliament made laws for all the people of Ireland, then Poynings' law which still remained in force was felt by the people of Ireland to be one of their greatest grievances.

310. During the whole time that this parliament was sitting the Warbeck party were actively at work in the south. But Warbeck had at last to fly; and the rest of his career belongs to English rather than to Irish history. In 1499 he was lunged at Tyburn, with John Walter, mayor of Cork, his chief supporter in that city.

311. A double ditch or wall was at this time built all along on the boundary of the Leinster settlement from sea to sea to keep out the Irish. This little territory was called the Pale; and it remained so circumscribed for many years, but afterwards became enlarged from time to time.

• The war-cry of the O'Neills was Lamh-derg abu, i.e., the Red-hand to victory (lamh, pron. lauv, a hand). That of the O'Briens and Mac Carthys, Lamh-laidir abu, the Strong-hand to victory (laidir, pron. lauder, strong). The Kildare Fitzgeralds took as their cry Crom abu, from the great Geraldine castle of Crom or Croom in Limerick; the earl of Desmond Shanit abu, from the castle of Shanid in Limerick. Most of the other chiefs, both native and Anglo-Irish, had their several cries.

Part IV, Chapter III. "The Sixth of George I."

717. The proceedings of the Irish parliament and the political history of the country during the eighteenth century have reference solely to the Protestant colony. The struggles of the Irish legislature for independence, culminating in Grattan's parliament of 1782, were the struggles of the Protestants: the Catholics had no political existence, and had no part—could have no part—in any of these contests.

718. The Irish parliament, and the people of the colony in general, fearing further interference with their prosperity on account of the commercial jealousy of the English, and despairing of being able to maintain their rights through their own parliament, petitioned in 1703 for a parliamentary union with England. But the English government rejected the proposal.

719. The hostile attitude of the English government towards Ireland produced the same result as in times of old (257)—a feeling of distrust and aversion among the colonists, in which the Irish parliament shared.

720. These feelings were intensified by what was called the Annesley case, which brought the English and Irish houses of lords into collision, A dispute about property arose in 1719 between two Irish persons, Hester Sherlock and Maurice Annesley, which the court of exchequer decided in favour of Annesley; but the Irish house of lords, on being appealed to, reversed this and gave judgment in favour of Hester Sherlock, Annesley appealed to the English house of lords, who affirmed the exchequer decision, reversing that of the Irish lords; and they fined Burrowes the sheriff of Kildare for not putting Annesley in possession in obedience to their decree. But the Irish peers remitted the fine, and went farther by taking into custody the three barons of the court of exchequer.

721. The English parliament ended the dispute by passing, in 1719, a momentous act (known as "the Sixth of George I.") deciding that the English parliament had the right to make laws for Ireland; and depriving the Irish house of lords of the right to hear appeals.

722. Poynings' act did not give the English parliament the power of legislating for Ireland (308), which was now for the first time asserted. The Sixth of George I. quite took away the independence of the Irish parliament.

723. In 1719 the penal statutes against dissenters began to be relaxed. The penal laws had no effect whatever in suppressing the Catholic religion: we find the Irish parliament in 1723 complaining of the continued increase of Catholicity; and in this same year they proposed another bill of so extreme a character that it had to be suppressed on account of the indignation it caused in England.

724. The English parliament tried to keep down that of Ireland, chiefly by Poynings' act (which was an Irish act), and for a long time succeeded. The Irish parliament was in general very submissive; for all the great officials, from the lord lieutenant down, were Englishmen and in the English interest; and they generally had a majority in both houses.

725. Yet there was sometimes resistance; and we have seen (680) that in 1692 a money bill was rejected in Dublin because it had originated in England. Within the parliament there was always a small determined opposition against dictation, "Patriots" as they came to be called, who were seconded by some very brilliant and able men outside.

726. Long before—in 1698—William Molyneux, one of the members for the University of Dublin, a friend of Locke and a man of great scientific eminence, published his famous book, "The Case of Ireland's being bound by Acts of parliament in England stated," in which he denounced the commercial injustice done to Ireland, and maintained that the Irish parliament was independent of that of England, and had a right to make its own laws. This essay was received in England with great indignation; and the parliament there, pronouncing it dangerous, ordered it to be burned publicly by the common hangman.

727. The ablest of those outside parliament was Jonathan Swift, who was appointed dean of St. Patrick's, Dublin, in 1713, having previously been vicar of Laracor in Meath. Much inconvenience had for some time been felt in Ireland from the want of a small copper coinage; and at last in 1728, the English treasury, with the minister Walpole at their head, granted a patent to one William Wood, an Englishman, to coin £108,000 in debased halfpence and farthings, for circulation in Ireland. This would put £40,000 profit into the pockets of Wood and the king's favourite the duchess of Kendal. The Irish parliament was not consulted at all in the matter.

728. This gross job created intense alarm and indignation in Ireland; and the two Irish houses addressed the king, representing that this base coinage would diminish revenue and destroy commerce. But Wood had strong support in England: the expostulation of the Irish lords and commons had little effect; and he would have succeeded but for Swift.

729. Popular excitement increased: there were multitudes of pamphlets, songs and coarse caricatures on broadsheets circulating in Dublin; but it was Swift's "Drapier's Letters" that crushed the scheme. These were a series of five letters pretending to be written by a Dublin draper, with the signature "W. B. Drapier," attacking the scheme, and pointing out in simple, homely, vigorous language that the most ignorant could understand, the evils the dean asserted would result from the coinage.

730. He told his readers that twenty-four of these halfpence were worth no more than one good penny; that if a lady went shopping she should have to bring with her a cart loaded with the new coins; that a farmer would have to employ three horses to bring his rent to his landlord; that a poor man would have to give thirty-six of the halfpence for a quart of ale; and that it would ruin all classes, even the very beggars, for when a man gives a beggar one of these halfpence it "will do him no more service than if I should give him three pins out of my sleeve."

731. These letters increased the excitement tenfold, and the English government became alarmed. They circulated a certificate from Sir Isaac Newton, then master of the mint, that the coins were good; but to no purpose. The lord lieutenant (lord Carteret), who was of course on the side of the king, offered a reward of £300 for the discovery of the author: but though every one knew who the writer was, no attempt was made to inform on the dean or molest him. The printer Harding was arrested and put in prison; but two grand juries in succession refused to return him for trial, and he had to be let off.

732. Meantime Dr. Hugh Boulter an Englishman, the king's chaplain, was appointed archbishop of Armagh in 1724, and was intrusted with the chief management of the English interest in Ireland. He was bitterly hostile to the Roman Catholics; but otherwise he was a good man.

733. Soon after his arrival he wrote to the duke of Newcastle that things were in a very bad state in Ireland, and recommended that the halfpence scheme should be abandoned. At length, in 1725, the patent was withdrawn: but Wood received from government an indemnity of £3,000 a-year for twelve years. This victory over the government consolidated the ranks of the patriots and greatly strengthened their hands.

734. These transactions made the dean amazingly popular in Ireland with all classes, high and low, Protestant and Catholic.

735. He wrote also in favour of Irish industry, recommending the people to use none but Irish manufactures; and, like Molyneux, he maintained that it was only the king and parliament of Ireland that had the power to make laws for the country. His writings show some sympathy for the Irish Roman Catholics. He was bitterly opposed to lord Wharton (lord lieutenant in 1709), whose chief aim was to enrich himself.

George I. died in 1727, and was succeeded by his son George II.

Part IV, Chapter IV. Struggles for Parliamentary Independence

736. On the accession of George II., lord Carteret, who was popular on account of abolishing Wood's halfpence, was retained as lord lieutenant. In 1727 the Catholics prepared an address to him expressing their loyalty, and their intention to keep peaceful. It was presented to the lords justices, one of whom was archbishop Boulter; but they never forwarded it, and no notice was taken of it.

737. It was chiefly through primate Boulter's influence that the Catholics were disfranchised in the beginning of this reign (701). Finding that they would not conform, his next plan was to begin with the children. He induced the government to found the "Charter schools" in 1780: free schools in which the children of poor Roman Catholics were taught, clothed, fed, and apprenticed to a trade, all free: and educated as Protestants. But these charter schools did not effect much.

738. For years there had been great distress from the general depression of trade; and this, as well as the Test and Schism acts, drove from the country vast numbers of the Ulster Presbyterians, who continued to emigrate to New England. This alarmed the Government, as it increased the relative proportion of Catholics; yet they obstinately retained these two acts, though the duke of Dorset the lord lieutenant attempted to have them repealed in 1733: failing like lord Wharton (703).

739. The duke of Dorset was succeeded in 1787 by the duke of Devonshire, who lived in great magnificence, and bought over men by liberal bestowal of places; so that the Patriot party found it hard to retain their influence in parliament.

740. In 1745 the Scottish rebellion broke out in favour of the Pretender; but though his army was largely composed of exiled Irishmen, the Irish Catholics at home, thoroughly crushed, took no part in it. Nevertheless the English government felt greatly alarmed about Ireland: and in that same year they sent over the earl of Chesterfield as lord lieutenant, with instructions to exercise moderation.

741. The local oligarchy of Dublin pressed for more severity against the Catholics: but be ridiculed their recommendations: and having satisfied himself by his spies that the Catholics had no hostile designs, he allowed them to worship in their chapels without molestation.

A few days after the battle of Culloden in 1746, which crushed the rebellion, he was recalled. On the day of his departure he walked through the streets to the place of embarkation with his countess on his arm, amid the acclamation of the people, Catholics and Protestants.

742. In 1747 the earl of Harrington came over as lord lieutenant. In the same year George Stone was appointed primate of Armagh; and like primate Boulter, had the chief management of English affairs in Ireland. His constant study was to maintain English ascendancy, which he did in the most arrogant manner; so that he rendered himself intensely unpopular.

743. The duke of Dorset returned as lord lieutenant in 1751. His son lord George Sackville was secretary, and made himself quite as much detested as primate Stone, and for the same reasons. At this time there was a surplus of revenue; and the consideration of how to apply it revived the old question of privilege between the English and Irish parliaments.

744. The Patriots proposed, in 1749, that it should be applied to pay off some portion of the national debt; but the court party held that this could not be done without the sanction of the king.

745. There were two very able men on the side of the Patriotic party:—counsellor Anthony Malone their leader in parliament, a man of a high order of intellect, and a good orator; and Dr. Charles Lucas, first a Dublin apothecary, and subsequently a practising physician; a member of the town council; but not yet in parliament.

746. Primate Stone and secretary Sackville violently advocated the king's right to interfere; and they and their party were as violently resisted by the opposition headed by Malone in parliament, by Lucas outside, and by the earl of Kildare (afterwards duke of Leinster) in the house of lords.

747. In 1758 the commons, after great opposition from the party of Stone and Sackville, passed a bill by a small majority (of 6) disposing of the money without making any reference to the king or his consent. This gave great offence to the court party. At the same time the earl of Kildare presented a bold address to the king complaining Of the arrogance and corruption of Stone and Sackville.

748. The disturbances reached such a serious pass, that the English government recalled lord Dorset in 1755, and sent over the marquess of Hartington in his place. Under him matters settled down: but the Patriots had gained ground—the two parties being now nearly balanced—and the spirit of independence had greatly advanced within the last few years.

749. There was an increasing tendency to toleration; and even the Catholics began to bestir themselves to obtain relief, but with small result for the present.

The Catholic movement had its small beginnings in the efforts of three Catholic gentlemen:—Dr. Curry, a physician of Dublin, the historian of the civil wars in Ireland; Charles O'Conor of Bellanagar in Roscommon, a well-known scholar and antiquarian; and Mr. Wyse of Waterford. They endeavoured to stir up the Catholic clergy and aristocracy to agitate for their rights; and though they did not succeed, they spread enlightenment and infused some small life and hope among the Catholics.

750. They were more successful with the merchants and business men; and they founded the "Catholic Committee" to watch over the interests of Catholics, which was to hold its meetings in Dublin. In 1757, when John Russell duke of Bedford was appointed lord lieutenant in place of the marquess of Hartington, the Catholics forwarded him an address to which lord Russell sent a kindly-worded reply. This was the first faint beginning of a movement for Catholic relief which subsequently became so formidable under O'Connell.

751. In 1759 there were rumours of a Union between England and Ireland, which caused great excitement. The people of Dublin became enraged when they heard that their parliament was to be removed to London, and that they would have to pay the same taxes as in England; and there was a terrible riot. The mob broke into the house of lords, and seated an old woman on the throne to mock Bedford, who even before this had become very unpopular; and they tried to burn the parliamentary books.

They also made every lord and commoner they met in the streets swear to oppose the union. The military were called out, but the rioting went on, till night sent the mob home. The people who rose this time were all Protestants: the Catholics were still too crushed and timid to take part in any such movement.

Part IV, Chapter VII. Progress towards Parliamentary Independence

765. In 1762 a bill was passed in the Irish parliament to enable Catholics to lend money on the security of land: but it was suppressed in England: and in the following year it was rejected in the Irish parliament on the ground that it would tend to throw land into the hands of the Catholics.

766. About this time the Patriots, under the powerful lead of Henry Flood, and aided by the growing eloquence of young Henry Grattan, attacked the pension list, which was a source of great corruption, and had grown to enormous proportions. Many thousands of pounds were given to persons who never had any connexion with Ireland. But these efforts were vain, for the pensions, so far from being abolished, grew year by year.

767. The question of most interest at this time was the duration of parliament. In England the utmost time was seven years: in Ireland parliament lasted as long as the king wished; and the preceding one had continued during the entire reign of George II.: thirty-three years.

This state of things led to great abuses; and in 1765 the Patriots introduced a Septennial bill, which was passed in Ireland but suppressed in England.

768. Lord Townsend became lord lieutenant in 1767, and was at first popular from his gay convivial manner and his lavish distribution of favours.

769. Charles Lucas had continued to issue books and pamphlets violently attacking the court party, denouncing Poynings' act, and maintaining the right of Ireland to self-government. The corporation disfranchised him; and as he heard the house of commons were about to prosecute him he retired for a time to England, where he practised with success as a physician. He returned in 1760, and was elected member for Dublin in 1761. He was the founder of the Freeman's Journal, which advocated the rights of the people and boldly upheld liberal principles.

770. Some years after his arrival Lucas and the Patriot party re-introduced the Septennial bill and had it carried (1767); but the term was changed in England to eight years. This "Octennial" bill was accepted by the Irish parliament, and caused great joy in Ireland.

771. As a consequence of the Octennial act it was necessary to elect a new parliament, and the viceroy (lord Townsend) used bribes and corruption everywhere in order to secure a majority for the government. He now became as odious as he was at first popular.

772. But with all his bribery he was not able to induce the individual members to relinquish the right to originate money bills in the commons. In October 1769, the privy council sent over a money bill, which was rejected by the Irish house of commons, as in 1692 (680), "because it had not its origin in that house"; for they maintained the just doctrine that the representatives of the people had alone the right to tax the people.

773. On this, lord Townsend had the commons summoned to the bar of the house of lords, where he lectured them sharply. He then ordered the clerk to enter his protest, which was done in the journal of the lords; but the commons were firm, and would not permit it to be entered in their journals. The excitement in Dublin on this occasion was almost as great as in the time of Wood's halfpence.

774. The viceroy prorogued the parliament now and several times subsequently so as to prevent a meeting till 1771. But he employed the interval in buying over several prominent members of the opposition by places and pensions, among others Sexton Pery, Hely Hutchinson, and lord Loftus. During all this time Dublin teemed with newspapers, letters, pamphlets, ballads, squibs, and satires against Townsend and the government, and the opposition gained in strength and determination.

775. When the house met in 1771, addresses to the viceroy were adopted in both houses. Sixteen of the lords protested, with the duke of Leinster (lately earl of Kildare) at their head. In the Commons it was carried by only a small majority: for the Patriots bitterly opposed it as degrading. Among the opponents were the speaker Ponsonby, Hely Hutchinson, Henry Flood, and Sexton Pery—even though he had got a pension: and the speaker Ponsonby resigned rather than present it. Pery was appointed in his place. But it ought to be said that though Pery accepted pension and place from the government, he always took the side of the Patriots.

776. All this time the Catholics were absolutely silent, taking no part in political questions: their only desire being to avoid the sharp fangs of the law. Yet there were signs of some faint desire to indulge them a little. In 1771 lord Townsend had an act passed—which had been previously often rejected—enabling a Catholic to take, on long lease, and reclaim 50 acres of bog; which, however, was guarded by the precaution that the bog should not be nearer than a mile to any town or city.

777. But to counterbalance this little favour, which caused great alarm to some, he increased the pension offered to priests who became Protestants (690) from £30 to £40. The witty Dublin people called the additional £10, "Townsend's Golden Drops."

778. The viceroy had one other trial of strength with the parliament. A money bill for supplies was brought forward in 1771, and passed in the Commons, then transmitted to England, in accordance with Poynings' act, and sent back with some alterations. But the Irish commons rejected it, and passed another of their own granting the supplies.

779. Townsend at last grew tired of the sleepless opposition of the Patriots and of the everlasting deluge of hostile literature; so that he resigned in 1772, and was succeeded by Simon earl of Harcourt.

780. Townsend had, during his administration, brought to great perfection the art of corrupting parliament by pensions, places, and titles, to secure a majority for the Court or English party. But this had, on the other hand, the effect of consolidating the patriotic party, and of strengthening their determination to break down the purely English interest, and to have Irish affairs managed solely for the benefit of Ireland.

Part IV, Chapter VIII. The American War and Its Effects on Ireland

781. Lord Harcourt, coming as lord lieutenant in 1772, was well received by the leaders of the opposition. On the assembling of parliament in October 1773, a bill was introduced at his suggestion to put a tax of two shillings in the pound on the incomes of those absentee landlords who did not reside at least six months of the year in Ireland. But through the influence of the great landed proprietors it was rejected.

782. At this time three great men began their career, and for years played an important part in Irish affairs:—Henry Flood, born near Kilkenny, 1732: died 1791: Henry Grattan, born in Dublin, 1746, the son of the recorder, died 1820; Edmund Burke, born in Dublin in 1730; died 1797.

783. Burke, who figured in the English parliament, was, perhaps, the greatest political philosopher that ever lived. He began his public life in 1765, as private secretary to lord Rockingham, the English prime minister, and in the following year he was elected member for Wendover. In 1774 he became member for Bristol. He opposed the American war; and on this question and on those of the French revolution, and the Stamp act, he wrote powerful pamphlets, and made a series of splendid speeches. He lifted himself above the prejudices of the times, and all his life advocated the emancipation of the Catholics.

784. Grattan was, perhaps, Ireland's most brilliant orator and one of her purest and greatest patriots. He began his parliamentary life in 1775, at twenty-nine years of age, as member for Charlemont; and his very first speech was in opposition to the pensions of two absentees. In oratorical power, Flood was second only to Grattan.

785. In 1775 began the war between England and her North American colonies, which was brought on mainly by an attempt to tax the colonists without giving them any voice in the matter. Against this they revolted, and in the end succeeded in making themselves independent.

786. This war deeply affected Ireland in more ways than one. In November of the same year the Irish parliament agreed, on the king's request, to send 4,000 Irish troops for service in America, England to bear the expense. But they declined another proposition, to supply their place with 4,000 Protestant troops from Germany, which greatly mortified the government. At this time the nominal force in Ireland was only 12,000 troops; but the real available force was greatly less.

787. In order to cheapen provisions for the British army, as well as to prevent supplies reaching America, an embargo was, in 1776, laid on the exportation of provisions from Irish ports, which almost ruined the farmers, and produced wide-spread distress.

788. The Irish parliament showed such dangerous discontent at this measure, that it was dissolved, and a new election ordered; and lord Buckinghamshire was sent over as lord lieutenant. The elections were greatly corrupted by bribes to secure a majority for the government. The embargo gave rise to a flourishing smuggling trade in provisions, which was extensively carried on, especially round the intricate coasts of the south and west.

789. In Ireland the people generally sympathised with America; for they felt that the grievances from which they had so long suffered, were exactly those against which the Americans had risen in revolt. Their feelings were intensified by witnessing the distress caused by the embargo, which was forced on this country from England without their consent.

790. When the war began in 1775 there were some discussions in the English parliament about removing of the commercial restrictions on Ireland: and there were a few trifling concessions; which, however, were much more than counterbalanced by the embargo.

791. In 1777 the English general Burgoyne with 6,000 men had to surrender to the American general Gage at Saratoga. This caused great consternation in England, which was increased when France declared for America.

792. In 1778 France acknowledged the independence of the United States, which produced greater alarm still. Soon after, in the same year, the English Catholics were partially relieved by the English parliament, and the Irish embargo on provisions was removed immediately after.

793. In May 1778, a bill was introduced in the Irish patliament by Mr. Luke Gardiner, afterwards lord Mountjoy, granting considerable relief to Irish Catholics and Dissenters, and after a long contest and determined opposition it was carried by a majority of only nine.

794. This act repealed those enactments which prohibited the purchase of freehold property by Catholics (696) and which gave the whole property to the eldest son who became a Protestant (693). Instead of the right to purchase, they got what was as good, the right to lease for 999 years. In the following year the Test act (697) was abolished; which relieved Dissenters as well as Catholics.

Part IV, Chapter IX. The Volunteers

795. While the American war was going on, with France and Spain also hostile, the possibility of foreign invasion was in men's minds. At the same time Ireland was in a very defenceless state: for since the withdrawal of the 4,000 men for America (786) there were very few troops.

796. The danger was brought home to the people of the three kingdoms by the great number of American privateers that swarmed around the coasts, capturing British merchant vessels and doing immense damage. Paul Jones, a Scotchman in the American service, who commanded the "Ranger," especially distinguished himself by his daring exploits. He committed great havoc on the Irish coast, and outside Carrickfergus he captured, in 1778, the English brig the "Drake," and got safely off with her to Brest.

797. The Irish saw that if they were to be protected at all they must protect themselves; and this gave origin to the volunteers. The first volunteer companies were raised in Belfast in 1779, where the people still retained a vivid memory of the descent of Thurot, nineteen years before.

798. The movement rapidly spread: the country gentlemen armed and drilled their tenants: and by May 1779 there were nearly 4,000 enrolled in the counties of Down and Antrim. The Irish government did not look upon this movement with favour; but the feeling of the country was too strong for them. The movement extended to other parts of Ireland; and before the end of 1779, 42,000 volunteers were enrolled. Lord Charlemont was in command of the northern volunteers: the duke of Leinster of those of Leinster.

799. We must remember two things in regard to these volunteers. First, the government measures for suppressing Irish trade had produced great distress and great discontent all over the country. The rank and file of the volunteers were the very people who felt the prevailing distress most, and without being in any sense disloyal, they were bitterly hostile to the government, while their sympathies were entirely with the patrotic party. It was indeed the Patriots who originated and controlled the volunteers.

800. The government were well aware of all this: but they dared not attempt to keep down the movement. They were obliged even to go so far as to supply arms, though much against their will: but all other expenses, including uniforms, were borne by the people themselves.

801. The second matter to be borne in mind is that this was almost exclusively a Protestant movement, the Catholics not yet being permitted to take any positions of trust.

802. Parliament met in October 1779. The patriotic party had now the volunteers at their back, and assumed a bolder tone. Flood had been their leader down to 1774 when he took office from the government, having been appointed vice-treasurer with a salary of £3,500. This obliged him to keep silent on most of the great questions that agitated parliament; and he lost the confidence of the people, which was now transferred to Grattan.

803. The embargo had been removed; but all the older restrictions on Irish trade (chap. II.) still remained, under which it was impossible for the country to prosper.

804. On the assembling of parliament, Grattan in an amendment to the address, demanded free trade. After some discussion the following motion was carried unanimously:—"That it is not by temporary expedients, but by a free trade alone, that this nation is now to be saved from impending ruin."

805. Even the members in government employment voted for this: it was proposed by Walter Hussey Burgh the prime serjeant, and was supported by Flood, Hutchinson, Ponsonby, and Gardiner, all holding offices. Dublin was in a state of great excitement, and the parliament house was surrounded by an immense crowd shouting for free trade.

806. The address, with Grattan's amendment, was borne through Dame-street by the speaker and the commons in procession, from the parliament house to the castle, to be presented to lord Buckinghamshire the lord lieutenant. The streets were lined both sides with volunteers under the duke of Leinster, and as the procession walked along they were received with acclamation by an immense multitude; and the volunteers presented arms.

807. It was in the debates on this question that Hussey Burgh made his reputation as an orator. In one of them he used a sentence that has become famous. Someone had remarked that Ireland was at peace:—"Talk not to me of peace," said he: "Ireland is not at peace; it is smothered war. England has sown her laws as dragons' teeth: they have sprung up as armed men."* This sentence produced unparalleled excitement; and when it had calmed down so that he could be heard, he announced that he resigned his office under the crown. "The gates of promotion are shut," exclaimed Grattan: "the gates of glory are opened!"

808. But to the British parliament alone, which had laid on the restrictions, belonged the task of removing them. In November 1779 the English prime minister, lord North, introduced three propositions to relieve Irish trade: the first permitted free export of Irish wool and woollen goods; the second free export of Irish glass manufactures; the third allowed free trade with the British colonies (707). The two first were passed; the third after a little time. The news of this was received with great joy in Dublin.

• Alluding to a well-known classical myth.

Part IV, Chapter X. The Dawn

809. So far the popular party in Ireland had been successful all along; and their ideas grew with their success. They had obtained some relief for trade: they now resolved that their parliament, which was bound down by Poynings' law (308) and by the Sixth of George I. (721), should also be free.

810. On the 19th of April 1780, in a magnificent speech, Grattan moved his memorable resolutions:— That the king with the lords and commons of Ireland are the only power on earth competent to enact laws to bind Ireland.

That Great Britain and Ireland are inseparably united under one sovereign.

The question however was not put directly to a division: Flood was in favour of postponement, the parliament adjourned, and consequently the resolution was not entered on the journals. It was obvious however that the sense of the house was on the side of Grattan.

811. The next conflict was on a Mutiny bill. In England the Mutiny bill—the bill to maintain and regulate the army—is not permanent: it is passed from year to year, lest the army might be used by the king or government as an instrument of oppression. The Mutiny bill for Ireland was passed by the Irish parliament; but having been transmitted to England it was returned changed to a perpetual bill. When this was proposed by the government in the Irish parliament, it was most resolutely opposed, and created fearful irritation and excitement all over the country. But the court party carried it in spite of all expostulation.

812. Meantime the excitement and enthusiam for home government went on; and the opposition, led by Grattan, gained strength and confidence by the great increase of the volunteers, who, much against the wish of the government, continued to be enrolled in the four provinces, and at last numbered 100,000 men.

813. In December 1780, the English government, not satisfied with lord Buckinghamshire's administration, recalled him and sent over the earl of Carlisle as lord lieutenant, with Mr. Eden (afterwards lord Auckland) as secretary.

814. This new viceroy found the whole country agitated on the question of legislative independence. During the early months of 1781 innumerable meetings were held all over Ireland; and what was more significant, there were reviews of the volunteers everywhere in the four provinces.

815. In Belfast lord Charlemont rode through the crowded streets at the head of his splendid corps, and issued an address in which he hailed the spirit of freedom that had enabled them, without help from outside, to provide against foreign invasion, and looked forward to the accomplishment of legislative independence.

816. The action of the English government appears to have been singularly short-sighted and ill-judged in irritating the Irish people at the very time of wars with America, France, Spain, and elsewhere. Their proceedings instead of suppressing the spirit now abroad through the country, or allaying excitement, intensified the discontent and spread the agitation.

817. In the session of 1781, which did not open till October, Grattan was the great leader of the popular party. He was seconded with almost equal ability by Flood, who towards the end of the preceding year, finding his position of enforced silence unendurable, had thrown up his government appointment, joined his old friends, and thereby regained much of his former popularity. They had at their back a number of able and brilliant men—Hely Hutchinson, John Fitzgibbon (afterwards lord Clare, and a bitter enemy of the cause he now advocated), Hussey Burgh, and others.

818. Barry Yelverton had given notice of motion for the 5th of December 1781 for the repeal of Poynings' act; but on that day news came of a great disaster, the surrender of lord Cornwallis and his whole army in America, which ruined the cause of England in the war. Whereupon Yelverton, abandoning his motion for the time, moved an address of loyalty and attachment to the king, which was carried.

819. On the 7th December Grattan drew attention to the rapidly increasing debt, largely due to pensions; but the government, nevertheless, carried their money bills, pensions and all.

On the 11th December, Flood took up Yelverton's motion for an inquiry into Poynings' act; but was defeated by government.

820. During all this session government were able to secure a majority by a skilful and plentiful distribution of patronage:—pensions, places, promotions, titles, and other such inducements. At last Grattan, hopeless of being able to contend successfully in parliament with the government, determined to let the empire hear the voice of even a more powerful pleader. Under the management of lord Charlemont, Flood, and himself, a convention of delegates from the volunteer corps of Ulster was summoned for the 15th of February 1782, at Dungannon, the old home of Hugh O'Neill.

821. Two hundred and forty-two delegates from 143 volunteer corps of the northern province assembled in the Dissenting Meeting House of Dungannon, most of them men of wealth and station. They passed thirteen resolutions, of which the most important were:—

822. That the king, lords, and commons of Ireland have alone the right to legislate for the country.

That Poynings' law is unconstitutional and a grievance, and should be revoked;

That the ports of Ireland should be open to all nations not at war with the king:

That a permanent mutiny bill is unconstitutional:

And "That as men and Irishmen, as Christians and as Protestants, we rejoice in the relaxation of the penal laws against our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects." This last was inserted at the instance of Grattan.

823. The resolutions of the Dungannon Convention were adopted by all the volunteer corps of Ireland; and they formed the basis of the momentous legislation that followed.

824. These spirit-stirring proceedings were altogether the work of Protestants: the Catholics were still shut out from taking any part in them. Yet, though the volunteers were originally instituted for Protestants only, many Catholics were enrolled as time went on.

825. On the day that the Dungannon resolutions were passed. Mr. Gardiner introduced a measure for the relief of Catholics which was adopted. They were allowed to buy, sell, and otherwise dispose of lands the same as their Protestant neighbours; they could celebrate or hear Mass; Catholic schoolmasters could teach schools; the law prohibiting a Catholic from having a horse worth £5 was repealed, as well as those which made Catholics pay for losses by robberies, and which forbade them to come to live in Limerick and Galway.

Part IV, Chapter XI. Legislative Independence

826. In England lord North's ministry fell in 1782, and he was succeeded by the marquess of Rockingham; after which lord Carlisle retired from Ireland and the duke of Portland came over as lord lieutenant. The Irish parliament met on the 16th of April 1782, with the new viceroy present. The citizens of Dublin, knowing what was coming, were all abroad; and among them the volunteers were conspicuous with their bands, banners, and bright uniforms.

827. The usual address was moved, to which Grattan moved an amendment comprising all the chief demands of the Irish people; ending with the declaration that the king and Irish parliament alone had the right to make laws for Ireland. These were merely a repetition of the Dungannon resolutions, with the exception of Catholic emancipation which was not expressly mentioned. The amendment was unanimously agreed to. The next part of the proceedings was in the English parliament. On the 17th of May, a resolution for the repeal of the Sixth of George I (721) was proposed in the house of lords by the earl of Shelburne, and in the commons by Charles James Fox; to which both houses agreed.

828. This concession, known as the "Act of Repeal," was communicated by the viceroy to the Irish parliament at its meeting of the 27th of May. It was interpreted to mean that England gave Ireland an independent parliament over which it renounced all authority, annulled Poynings' law, restored to the Irish lords the right to hear appeals, abolished the right of appeal to the English lords, and in general yielded all the demands of Grattan's amendments.

829. This was Grattan's interpretation of the repeal of the 6th of George I. But Flood differed: he wished that England should be called on to go further by passing a formal act renouncing for ever the right to make laws for Ireland. Grattan's opinion prevailed in the house; and immediately the Irish parliament passed bills embodying all the above points. The news was received in Ireland with a tremendous outburst of joy, both in the house and outside among the people; and as an evidence of gratitude, the parliament voted 20,000 men and £100,000 to the British navy.

830. It was felt and acknowledged that this consummation was mainly due to Grattan; and parliament voted him a grant of £100,000. But he accepted only £50,000, and even that after much persuasion. With this he bought an estate in Queen's County; and took up his permanent residence in a beautiful spot that he loved: Tinnehinch, near Enniskerry in Wicklow, twelve miles from Dublin.

831. But although the parliament went with Grattan, Flood's view prevailed outside, both among the volunteers and among the people. As confirming his opinion, the English parliament, in January of the following year—1783—when lord Shelburne was prime minister, actually passed the "Act of Renunciation" declaring that Ireland's right to be bound only by the laws made by the king and the Irish parliament was "established for ever, and shall at no time hereafter be questioned or questionable."

832. Lord Rockingham died in July 1782, to whom succeeded as prime minister the earl of Shelburne; and in September earl Temple succeeded the duke of Portland in Ireland as lord lieutenant.

833. At the instance of the English government lord Temple established in 1783, a new order of knights, which was to be peculiarly Irish, the Knights of the Illustrious Order of St. Patrick, which still subsists. The new members, who are chiefly selected from among the Irish aristocracy, are installed with great ceremony on the 17th of March, St. Patrick's day. The Irish parliament was dissolved in July, 1783, and a new parliament was formed which was to meet in October.

Part IV, Chapter XII. Parliamentary and Commercial Reform

834. The Irish parliament, which was now free, was unhappily, as it stood—unreformed—as bad a type of parliament as could well be conceived: and the government resisted all reform. The house of commons consisted of 300 members, of whom only 72 were really returned by the people: all the rest were nominated, or their election was in some way influenced, by lords or other powerful people.

One noble lord commanded sixteen seats, a money making possession, for he sold them all in election times; another had fourteen, another nine, and so on. Twenty-five individuals owned about 116 seats. At one election the proprietor of Belturbet received £11,000 for the seat. The spurious boroughs fabricated in the time of the Stuarts (528) still existed , and all sent to parliament nominees of the government. The numbers of electors in many of these were not more than a dozen, who could in most cases be easily bought off. In some places, as at Swords near Dublin, every adult Protestant had a vote: an arrangement imitated from some constituencies in England. Under these circumstances it was always easy for the government to secure a majority by merely spending money. The house was thoroughly corrupt, with of course many noble individual exceptions.

835. Lastly the Roman Catholics, who formed four fifths of the population, were totally shut out: a Catholic could neither be a member nor vote for a member. It did not represent the nation: and it did not represent even the Protestant people. It contained within itself the elements of decay and dissolution There was never a parliament more in need of reform; and reform would have saved it.

836. Two great questions now lay before the country:—Parliamentary reform and the removal of restrictions on Irish commerce. A third question was Catholic emancipation, which however was, for the present, kept much in the background. Flood was for immediate action on reform; Grattan also was for reform, but thought the time had not come for pressing it, and left the matter in Flood's hands. Grattan was for emancipation; Flood was against it.

837. Flood felt keenly the loss of his influence; and Grattan's brilliant career and unbounded popularity had thrown him into the shade Between these two great men there was gradually growing up a feeling of rivalry and estrangement.

838. The volunteers took up the question of reform. A meeting of delegates was held in Dungannon in September, and there were other meetings in other parts of Ireland. In all these the subject was discussed, and a general convention in Dublin of delegates from all the volunteer corps of Ireland was arranged for the 10th of November 1783. These proceedings were very alarming to the government, who wanted no reform.

839. The earl of Northington was appointed lord lieutenant in June 1783, in place of lord Temple. The new parliament met in October, and the government, though fearing the volunteers, had a vote of thanks passed to them, probably to conciliate the country.

Flood brought in a motion in favour of retrenchment as a beginning of reform, in which the opposition were voted down by the government. In the debates that followed occurred a bitter and very lamentable altercation between Grattan and Flood, which terminated their friendship for ever. Yet subsequently, each bore generous testimony to the greatness of the other.

840. The 10th of November came, and 160 volunteer delegates assembled, first in the royal exchange in Dublin, and this being not large enough, afterwards in the Rotunda. Their commander was James Caulfield, earl of Charlemont, a man universally respected, of refined tastes and scholarly attainments, and moderate in his views. He was elected chairman.

841. Within the volunteers were men of more extreme views, who were for Catholic emancipation, and some even for total separation from England: these found a leader in an eccentric character, Frederick Augustus Hervey, earl of Bristol and Protestant bishop of Derry. He assumed great state: dressed out in gorgeous robes, he drove through the streets of Dublin, escorted by a company of dragoons, and followed by great mobs who idolised him.

842. The delegates held their sittings during the sitting of parliament. They discussed plans of reform, and after much labour certain propositions were agreed to, which however did not include any proposals for the relief of Catholics. This omission was the result of a discreditable manoeuvre on the part of the government, by which the convention was divided, and the ultra Protestants had the consideration of Catholic relief put aside.

843. In parliament Flood introduced a bill embodying the demands of the convention, which brought on a stormy debate. Barry Yelverton, now attorney general, afterwards lord Avonmore, led the opposition to the bill, at the same time denouncing vehemently the attempt to coerce the parliament by an armed body of men; and John Fitzgibbon and others followed in the same strain.

Flood, in a powerful speech, advocated the bill and defended the action of the volunteers. The scene in parliament is described as "almost terrific." Grattan supported the bill, but not very earnestly; and John Philpot Curran who had been elected for Kilbeggan this same year—1783—made his first parliamentary speech in favour of it. But the government party were too strong, and it was rejected by 159 against 77.

844. There were now serious fears of a collision between the volunteers and the government: but the counsels of lord Charlemont prevailed; and on the 2nd of December the convention was adjourned without any day being fixed for next meeting. This was the death blow to the influence of the volunteers, and they never afterwards played any important part in the political affairs of the country. Thus the efforts of the popular party to reform a corrupt parliament ended for the present in failure, through government opposition.

845. After this defeat of his party Flood resolved to play a part elsewhere, and entered the English parliament in December 1783, still retaining his Irish seat. He was now a member of both parliaments and spoke and voted in each.

846. In the following year he made another effort in Ireland at reform, but the Irish government successfully resisted all attempts to improve the representation. Napper Tandy a prominent member of the volunteers, Flood, and some others, made an attempt to have a series of meetings convened through the country; but the movement was put down by the government.

847. The duke of Rutland succeeded lord Northington as lord lieutenant in February 1784. The volunteers, deserted by their leaders, formed democratic associations and held secret meetings. In Dublin, Belfast, and elsewhere, they began to drill men in the use of arms, Catholics as well as Protestants; whereupon the government increased the army to 15,000 men, and took measures to revive the militia, a force in the service of the crown.

But the people hated the militia, and the country became greatly disturbed. Scenes of violence occurred everywhere. Even in Dublin the mobs paraded the streets, attacked and maimed soldiers, broke into shops and ill used the shopkeepers for selling English goods It was a time of trouble and alarm.

848. The next movement was an attempt to regulate the commercial relations with England, which were all against Ireland: and here the Irish government were on the side of reform, though their ideas fell short of those of the opposition. There were enormous prohibitory duties on Irish goods exported to England, but little or none on English goods brought to Ireland: this repressed Irish commerce and manufactures, and helped to keep the country in a state of distress and poverty.

849. To remedy this state ol things—to equalise English and Irish duties—Mr. Thomas Orde chief secretary brought down from the castle, on the part of the government, eleven propositions. One of the provisions was that all Irish revenue beyond £650,000 should be applied to the support of the British navy, which drew forth considerable opposition. The whole of the propositions were however passed through parliament in the shape of resolutions, 12th February 1785.

850. The eleven propositions were transmitted to England for adoption there; for as the restrictions had been the work of the English parliament, it was only in England they could be removed. But when they were proposed in England by William Pitt, then chancellor of the exchequer, there arose violent opposition; petitions against them poured in from companies, manufacturers, and merchants, in all parts of England, who insisted on maintaining the monopoly that enriched themselves and impoverished Ireland. Whereupon Pitt, fearing to face the storm, brought down to the English parliament twenty propositions of his own. much less favourable to Ireland—containing several injurious restrictions—and had them passed.

851. These on being transmitted to the Irish government and introduced by them to the Irish house in August 1785, were received by the opposition with an outburst of indignation. Flood led the opposition with all his old fire and energy. Grattan denounced the propositions in one of his finest speeches; and after an all-night stormy debate, the government had so small a majority—only 19—that they thought it more prudent to withdraw the bill. Thus the whole scheme of commercial reform fell through, and matters remained much as they were till the time of the Union.

Louis et al.

So long as the crazy-paving colonial legislatures existed the anomalous position of the Irish Parliament was not unique. [not an exact quote]

McGee

(Source:)

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. Pox 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.

Beckett 1964

p.18:

in 1782 a series of English and Irish statutes established that system of government which is sometimes known as the 'constitution of 1782' and sometimes as 'Grattan's parliament.' ... After 1782, as before, the Irish executive was nominated and directed from England and the greater degree of independence enjoyed by the Irish parliament only increased the possibility of a clash. The 'constitution of 1782' could never have provided a final settlement; in more peaceful times it might, perhaps, have provided a basis from which such a settlement could have developed.

Appendix lists GB acts 1782-1800:

• Those which constitute special legislation for Ireland,
• those which apply to Great Britain and Ireland alike,
• those which apply primarily to Great Britain, in which Ireland is included only incidentally, or for administrative purposes.

Dungannon Resolutions

15 February 1782 at Dungannon Meeting House:

At a Meeting of the Representatives of ONE HUNDRED and FORTY THREE CORPS of VOLUNTEERS of the Province of ULSTER, held at DUNGANNON on Friday the 15th Day of February, 1782. Colonel WILLIAM IRVINE in the Chair.

WHEREAS it has been asserted, "That Volunteers, as such, cannot with propriety, debate or publish their opinions on political subjects, or on the conduct of parliament, or public men."

• Resolved unanimously, That a citizen, by learning the use of arms, docs not abandon any of his civil rights.
• Resolved unanimously, That a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom, is unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance.
• Resolved (with one dissenting voice only) that the powers exercised by the Privy Council of both kingdoms, under, or under colour or pretence of the Law of Poyning's, are unconstitutional, and a grievance.
• Resolved unanimously, That the ports of this country are, by right, open to all foreign countries, not at war with the king, and that any burthen thereupon, or obstruction thereto, save only by the parliament of Ireland, are unconstitutional, illegal, and a grievance.
• Resolved (with one dissenting voice only) That a Mutiny Bill, not limited in point of duration, from session to session, is unconstitutional, and a grievance.
• Resolved unanimously, That the independence of judges is equally essential to the impartial administration of justice in Ireland, as in England, and that the refusal or delay of this right to Ireland, makes a distinction where there should be no distinction, may excite jealousy where perfect union should prevail, and is, in itself, unconstitutional, and a grievance.
• Resolved (with eleven dissenting voices only) that it is our decided and unalterable determination, to seek a redress of those grievances; and we pledge ourselves lo each other, and to our country, as freeholders, fellow-citizens, and men of honour, that we will, at every ensuing election, support those only, who have supported, and will support us therein, and that we will use all constitutional means to make such pursuit of redress speedy and effectual.
• Resolved (with one dissenting voice only) That the right honourable and honourable the minority in parliament, who have supported these our constitutional rights, are entitled to our most grateful thanks, and that the annexed address be signed by the chairman, and published with these resolutions.
• Resolved unanimously, That four members from each county of the province of Ulster, eleven to be a quorum, be, and are hereby appointed a committee till next general meeting, to act for the Volunteer Corps here represented, and as occasion shall require, to call general meetings of the province, viz. Lord Viscount Enniskillen, Major Charles Duffen, Col. Mervyn Archdall, Capt. John Harvey, Col. William Irvine, Capt. Robert Campbell, Col. Robt. M'Clintock, Capt. Joseph Pollock, Col. John Ferguson, Capt. Waddel Cunningham, Col. John Montgomery, Capt. Francis Evans, Col. Charles Leslie, Capt. John Cope, Col. Francis Lucas, Capt. James Dawson, Col. Thos. M. Jones, Capt. James Acheson, Col. James Hamilton, Capt. Daniel Eccles, Col. Andrew Thomson, Capt. Thomas Dickson, Lieut.-Col. C. Nesbitt, Capt. David Bell, Lieut.-Col. A. Stewart, Capt. John Coulson, Major James Patterson, Capt. Robert Black, Major Francis Dobbs, Rev. Wm. Crawford, Major James M'Clintock, Mr. Robert Thompson.
• Resolved unanimously, That said committee do appoint nine of their members to be a committee in Dublin, in order to communicate with such other Volunteer associations in the provinces as may think proper to come to similar resolutions, and to deliberate with them on the most constitutional means of carrying them into effect.

  In consequence of the above resolution, the committee have appointed the following gentlemen for said committee, three to be a quorum, viz:— Col. Mervyn Archdall, Capt. Francis Evans, Col. William Irvine, Capt. James Dawson, Col. John Montgomery, Capt. Joseph Pollock, Col. Thomas M. Jones, Mr. Robert Thompson, Major Francis Dobbs.

• Resolved, unanimously, That the committee be, and are hereby instructed to call a general meeting of the province, within twelve months from this day, or in fourteen days after the dissolution of the present parliament, should such an event sooner take place.
• Resolved, unanimously, That the court of Portugal have acted towards this kingdom, being a part of the British Empire, in such a manner as to call upon us to declare, and pledge ourselves to each other, that we will not consume any wine of the growth of Portugal, and that we will, to the extent of our influence, prevent the use of said wine, save and except the wine at present in this kingdom, until such time as our exports shall be received in the kingdom of Portugal, as the manufactures of part of the British empire. [Refusal to extend the Treaty of Methuen to Ireland; see The Irish Trade Dispute with Portugal 1780-87.]
• Resolved, with two dissenting voices only to this and the following resolution, That we hold the right of private judgment, in matters of religion, to be equally sacred in others as ourselves.
• Resolved, therefore, That, as men and as Irishmen, as Christians and as Protestants, we rejoice in the relaxation of the penal laws against our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and that we conceive the measure to be fraught with the happiest consequences to the union and prosperity of the inhabitants of Ireland.
• Resolved unanimously, That the Dundalk Independent Troop of Light Dragoons, commanded by Captain Thomas Read, having joined a regiment of this province (the first Newry regiment or Newry Legion} and petitioning to be received as part of this body, and under its protection, is accordingly hereby received.
• Whereas a letter has been received by the chairman of this meeting from the united corps of the county of Cavan, Colonel Ennery in the chair, declaring their readiness to co-operate with their brother Volunteers in every constitutional support of their rights
  • Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting be presented to the said united corps of the said county of Cavan for their spirited resolution, and that a copy of the proceedings of this meeting be inclosed by the chairman to Colonel Ennery, to be by him communicated to the said united corps, and that they shall have a right, is they choose, to associate with the corps represented at this meeting, to nominate four members to act with those already appointed as a committee by the delegates at this meeting.
• Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting be presented to Captain Richardson and the Dungannon Light Company, for their politeness in mounting guard this' day.
• Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting Be presented to the Southern Battalion of the First Ulster Regiment, commanded by the Earl of Charlemont, for that patriotic zeal which we are convinced induced them to call this meeting.
• Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting be presented to Colonel William Irvine, for his particular propriety and politeness of conduct in the chair.
• Resolved unanimously, That the thanks of this meeting be presented to Captain James Dawson, for his readiness in undertaking the office of Secretary to this meeting, and for his particular attention and ability in the laborious duty thereof.
• Resolved unanimously, That these resolutions be published.

To the Right Honourable and Honourable the Minority in both Houses of Parliament.

My Lords and Gentlemen;

We thank-you for your noble and spirited, though hitherto ineffectual efforts in defence of the great constitutional and commercial rights of your country. Go on — the almost unanimous voice of the people is with you; and, in a free country, the voice of the people must prevail. We know our duty to our Sovereign, and are loyal. We know our duty to ourselves, and are resolved to be free. We seek for our rights, and no more than our rights, and, in so just a pursuit, we should doubt the being of a Providence, is we doubted of success. Signed by order, WM. IRVINE.

In Committee.

• Resolved unanimously, That the corps of this province, not represented at the meeting held this day, be, and they are hereby invited to join in the resolutions of said meeting, and to become members of the said association on the most equal footing
• Resolved unanimously, That such corps as may choose to join the said association be, and they are hereby requested to communicate their intentions to our Secretary, Capt. Dawson, Union-lodge, Loughbrickland, who will lay the same before the Chairman and Committee.

WM. IRVINE, Chairman.

Summary

Some of the resolutions declared certain things to be "unconstitutional":

• "a claim of any body of men, other than the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland, to make laws to bind this kingdom"
• "the powers exercised by the Privy Council of both kingdoms, under, or under colour or pretence of the Law of Poyning's"
• restricting Irish ports from "any foreign countries, not at war with the king"
• "a Mutiny Bill, not limited in point of duration, from session to session"
• "the refusal or delay" of "the independence of judges"

All except the opening of ports were addressed by the Constitution. What about the ports? Apparently

• "Free trade" was granted in 1780 by British acts 20 Geo. 3 c. ...
  • 6. An Act to repeal certain Acts made in Great Britain, which restrain the Trade and Commerce of Ireland with Foreign Parts. (repealed 1871)
  • 10. An Act to allow the Trade between Ireland and the British Colonies and Plantations in America and the West Indies, and the British Settlements on the Coast of Africa, to be carried-on in like Manner as it is now carried on between Great Britain and the said Colonies and Settlements. (repealed 1825)
  • 18. An Act to repeal so much of an Act made in the nineteenth Year of the Reign of Henry the Seventh, or of any other Acts which prohibit the exporting, carrying, or conveying Coin out of this Realm into Ireland; and so much of certain Acts, made in Great Britain, which prohibit the Importation of Foreign Hops into Ireland, and which take off the Drawback upon Hops exported from Great Britain to Ireland; and to allow the Importation into, and Exportation from, Ireland, of such Goods as may be imported into, or exported from, Great Britain, by the Merchants of England trading to the Levant Seas. (repealed 1871)
• whereas "commercial propositions" of 1785 failed.

Resolution

Is Grattan's resolution of 16 April 1782 considered part of the Constitution or merely a prelude to it? The resolution (rather the amendment to the original reslution) states:

That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, to return His Majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious message to this House, signified by His Grace the Lord lieutenant.

To assure His Majesty of our unshaken attachment to His Majesty's person and government, and of our lively sense of his paternal care in thus taking the lead to administer content to His Majesty's subjects of Ireland.

That, thus encouraged by his royal interposition, we shall beg leave, with all duty and affection, to lay before His Majesty the causes of our discontents and jealousies. To assure His Majesty that his subjects of Ireland are a free people. That the crown of Ireland is an imperial crown inseparably annexed to the crown of Great Britain, on which connection the interests and happiness of both nations essentially depend: but that the kingdom of Ireland is a distinct kingdom, with a parliament of her own — the sole legislature thereof. That there is no body of men competent to make laws to bind this nation except the King, Lords and Commons of Ireland; nor any other parliament which hath any authority or power of any sort whatsoever in this country save only the Parliament of Ireland. To assure His Majesty, that we humbly conceive that in this right the very essence of our liberties exists ; a right which we, on the part of all the people of Ireland, do claim as their birthright, and which we cannot yield but with our lives.

To assure His Majesty, that we have seen with concern certain claims advanced by the Parliament of Great Britain, in an act entitled "An act for the better securing the dependency of Ireland:" an act containing matter entirely irreconcileable to the fundamental rights of this nation. That we conceive this act, and the claims it advances, to be the great and principal cause of the discontents and jealousies in this kingdom.

To assure His Majesty, that His Majesty's Commons of Ireland do most sincerely wish that all bills which become law in Ireland should receive the approbation of His Majesty under the seal of Great Britain ; but that yet we do consider the practice of suppressing our bills in the council of Ireland, or altering the same any where, to be another just cause of discontent and jealousy.

To assure His Majesty, that an act, entitled "An act for the better accommodation of His Majesty's forces," being unlimited in duration, and defective in other instances, but passed in that shape from the particular circumstances of the times, is another just cause of discontent and jealousy in this kingdom.

That we have submitted these, the principal causes of the present discontent and jealousy of Ireland, and remain in humble expectation of redress.

That we have the greatest reliance on His Majesty's wisdom, the most sanguine expectations from his virtuous choice of a Chief Governor, and great confidence in the wise, auspicious, and constitutional councils which we see, with satisfaction, His Majesty has adopted.

That we have, moreover, a high sense and veneration for the British character, and do therefore conceive that the proceedings of this country, founded as they were in right, and tempered by duty, must have excited the approbation and esteem instead of wounding the pride of the British nation.

And we beg leave to assure His Majesty, that we are the more confirmed in this hope, inasmuch as the people of this kingdom have never expressed a desire to share the freedom of England, without declaring a determination to share her fate likewise, standing and falling with the British nation.

The same resolution was passed by the Irish House of Lords next day.

And before moving the amendment, Grattan in his speech states his "terms":

1st. The repeal of the perpetual mutiny bill, and the dependency of the Irish army on the Irish Parliament.

2d. The abolition of the legislative power of the Council.

3d. The abrogation of the claim of England to make law for Ireland.

4th. The exclusion of the English House of Peers, and of the English King's Bench, from any judicial authority in this realm.

5th. The restoration of the Irish Peers to their final judicature. The independency of the Irish Parliament in its sole and exclusive legislature.

These are my terms. I will take nothing from the Crown.

The earlier debate is in the Proceedings.

Sullivan states:

The houses adjourned to give England time to consider Ireland's ultimatum. Within a month it was accepted by the new British administration. The "visionary" and "impracticable" idea had become an accomplished fact. The "splendid phantom" had become a glorious reality. The heptarchy had not been restored; yet Ireland had won complete legislative independence!'

This suggests it was the acceptance of the resolution by the British, rather than its passage by the Irish Parliament, that effected "independence". But what was the form of the acceptance? Wikipedia says the Repeal of Act for Securing Dependence of Ireland Act 1782 was enacted on 17 April 1782, which would have been too soon for news Grattan's resolution to have arrived. Wikipedia date was wrong: it was 21 June 1782, so the dates work out fine.

MPs

McGee says "the bills repealing the Mutiny Act, the 6th George I., and Poyning's law, were entrusted to Burgh, Yelverton, and Forbes". But the Repeal of Act for Securing Dependence of Ireland Act 1782 was passed in the UK, and none of Walter Hussey Burgh, Barry Yelverton, or John Forbes (Irish MP) was in the UK Parliament. Yelverton was Poynings (c.47) but Mutiny (c.49) was Grattan (Leave or Order to) and Benjamin Chapman (Read & Committed, and Reported). Forbes did lead the judicial tenure bill (c.50). Burgh (probably Walter HusseyBurgh rather than either of the Thomas Burghs)] nothing relevant.

Table

See also

• Pre-Union Irish Statutes Affected: 1781
• Statute Law Revision (Ireland) Act 1879: Schedule

No.	Informal name	Short title	Long title	Chapter	Parl	Date	Effect	ILDB No.	Repeal		Notes
									RoI	NI
1	Yelverton's Act		An Act to regulate the Manner of passing Bills, and to prevent Delays in summoning of Parliament	21 & 22 George III c.47	Irl	July 27, 1782	"modified" Poynings' Law.	4182	1879.
2	Repeal Act		An Act to repeal an Act, made in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His late Majesty King George the First, intituled An Act for the better securing the Dependency of the Kingdom of Ireland upon the Crown of Great Britain.	22 George III c.53	GB	June 21, 1782	Repealed the "Sixth of George I" (Dependency of Ireland on Great Britain Act 1719). "restor[ed] the judicial authority of the Irish House of Lords" (Hist. Ir. Parl.)	N/A	1871		Looks like #8 is a restatement of this by Irish Parl. Maybe some argue that #8 is the effective one and #2 is irrelevant.
3	Renunciation Act	Irish Appeals Act 1783		23 George III c.28	GB	1783	Whereas the Repeal Act implicitly gave supremacy to the Irish Parliament, the Renunciation Act explicitly did so.	N/A	2007	1962	Flood promoted; Grattan opposed. Matthew Kelly implies not part of 1782 Const.
4	Habeas Corpus Act	Habeas Corpus Act, 1781 (Republic of Ireland) Habeas Corpus Act (Ireland) 1781 (I) (Northern Ireland)	An Act for better securing the Liberty of the Subject.	21 & 22 George III c.11	Irl	February 12, 1782	Habeas corpus rights.	3665	1879 (s. 14)		Practically superseded in the Republic by Article 40.4 of the 1937 Constitution. This was passed before Yelverton and indeed before the declaration of independence, when Frederick Howard, 5th Earl of Carlisle was Lord Lieutenant under the North Ministry, before William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland took over under the Second Rockingham Ministry. Lecky explains (pp.99,133) that habeas corpus bills had often previously been passed by the Parliament and then rejected by the Irish or English privy council. He states (p.272) of the 1781 bill: "The Habeas Corpus Bill the ministers resolved after some hesitation to accept, provided a clause were inserted enabling the Lord Lieutenant to suspend it when Parliament was not sitting."
									Partly still in force
5	Mutiny Act		An Act for punishing mutiny and desertion, and for the better payment of the army and their quarters, as also for the repeal of an act entitled an act for the better accommodation and regulation of his majesty's army in this kingdom.	21 & 22 George III c.43	Irl	July 27, 1782	repealed the acts dealing with mutiny (6 Anne c.14, and 19 & 20 George III c.16; the latter was the "perpetual mutiny bill"); thenceforth annual Mutiny Acts were passed as in Britain.	3700	1879.		Murison has a nice summary of part of Mutiny Act(s) in wider debate. Routledge says, perhaps misleadingly, "Irish judges refuse to operate Mutiny Act and Mutiny Bill prepared in Irish parliament passed. Perpetual Mutiny Act passed by British Parliament." Was there a separate British Act passed in parallel to the Irish one, presumably under Poynings' Law and applicable only to Ireland, where the Bill of Rights 1689 did not prohibit it?
6		None	An Act for Securing the Independency of Judges, and the Impartial Administration of Justice	21 & 22 George III c.50	Irl	July 27, 1782	"securing judicial tenure during good behaviour" (Hist. Ir. Parl.)	3805	1962
7	Yelverton's Act	Yelverton’s Act (Ireland) 1781 [I] (Northern Ireland) Calendar Act, 1781 (Republic of Ireland)	An Act for extending certain of the Provisions, contained in an Act, intituled, An Act confirming all the Statutes made in England.	21 & 22 George III c.48	Irl	July 27, 1782	Saver for some Poynings provisions: "effect should be given in Ireland to all previous statutes in England or Great Britain, so far as relates to enactments (1) affecting private title to land in Ireland, (2) concerning commerce, where equal restraints are imposed upon, or equal benefits given to, the subjects of England and Ireland, (3) concerning the seamen of both countries, or (4) concerning the style or calendar of the year, the making of oaths, etc., and the continuance of offices, etc., on a demise of the Crown."	4187	1879 s.3 (part)		The Short Titles Act 1962, which assigned its short title, implied it had been repealed except for the adoption in Ireland of the British Calendar Acts 1750 and 1751. However, the same partial repeal was explicitly made (or perhaps repeated) later that year by the Statute Law Revision Act 1962. The 2007 schedule under "Subject matter" has "Confirmation of English Statutes (Yelverton’s Act)"; the parenthetic is accurate, inasmuch as the bill was introduced by Yelverton, but misleading, given that c.47 is more usually called "Yelverton’s Act". Haughey introducing Short Titles Bill 1961: In this Bill, statutes that have been repealed are naturally not included. Statutes which, although not expressly repealed, are clearly obsolete or which are repealed by implication (as being inconsistent with the Constitution) are not included either. Where, however, there appears to be any doubt as to whether a statute is obsolete or not it has been listed. The assignment of a short title to any particular statute should not, therefore, be taken as implying that it is still operative.
									2007
8			An Act for Redress of erroneous Judgments, Orders, and Decrees	21 & 22 George III c.49	Irl	July 27, 1782	"Appeals and writs of error to lie to Irish Parliament only";	3944	1879.		sounds Constitution-y, though not explicitly listed by my sources. Looks like this is a restatement of #2 by Irish Parl. This Act had a saver for judgments made prior to 1 June 1782, which might be taken to implicitly recognise the preceding state of affairs as legitimate. Lyall's discussion of The Irish House of Lords as a Judicial Body 1783–1800 does not mention 21 & 22 George III c.49: Did the Renunciation Act ... did not purport to confer jurisdiction on the Irish House of Lords ... that would have been re-assertion of British parliamentary supremacy. ... By renouncing jurisdiction without attempting expressly to confer it on the Irish Lords, the British legislators necessarily accepted that the matter of appeals was to be left to the unwritten Irish Constitution. ... In fact the custom of the British House of Lords of hearing appeals from Scottish courts was simply adopted by that House after the Union with Scotland. It is not, and never has been, prescribed by statute law. The courts in Ireland certainly accepted the authority of the Irish Lords after the Act
9		Admiralty Act, 1783 (Republic of Ireland)	An Act for Regulating the High Court of Admiralty in this Kingdom	23 & 24 George III c.14	Irl	March 19, 1783	Ended right of appeal from Irish admiralty court to English one, which was an anomaly given the 1782 act.	0756	1867 (§§ 1–3 [of 4])		Court survived till 1879 or 1893 and remained independent of the British court. EB1911 says "By the Irish Judicature Act of 1877 it was directed that it should be amalgamated with the Irish High Court of Justice upon the next vacancy in the office of judge, and this subsequently took place.", but sec.22 says appellate jurisdiction not transferred to high court and s23 says "All jurisdiction and powers of the Lord Chancellor and of the Court of Appeal in Chancery" transferred to Irish Court of Appeal.
									Partly still in force

There were 64 public statutes passed in the 1781-82 session (21 & 22 Geo. 3). The only one not repealed in the Republic is the Habeas Corpus Act 1781 (c.11). (The Dublin Leases Act 1781 was a private act and hence non-constitutional.)

Note

Excluded

Not the Catholic Relief Act 1782. This was intended to make Catholics side the the government rather than the Volunteers; but the Volunteers' Dungannon declaration called the government's bluff and welcomed the Act. Thomas Bartlett says:

Deprived of its Catholic card – for the Volunteers’ declaration at Dungannon had trumped it – the British government could not resist the constitutional demands being made in Ireland and were forced to concede ‘the constitution of 1782’. It was no coincidence that the Constitution of 1782 and the Catholic Relief Act of 1782 went through at about the same time for the two were intimately linked. Indeed, from the vantage point of hindsight, it may be said that the two Catholic Relief Acts of 1778 and 1782 illustrate perfectly the element of political calculation, the measure of threat and indeed the sheer politics of the Catholic question in Ireland at this time.

Marriott:Marriott, John A. R. (1927). The Mechanism Of The Modern State. Vol. II. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

[p.151] Before long the Keeper of the Privy Seal, like the custodian of the Great Seal, developed into an officer of State so important that the Lords Ordainers, when presenting their scheme of reform to Edward III, demanded that they should have the nomination of this Minister. Again, therefore, the King found it necessary to enlist the services of a less exalted official ; he provided himself with a third seal, the signet, for his private use and entrusted his private correspondence to a Secretarius. This new official, the King's Secretary, is first mentioned in official documents in the reign of Henry III.

[p.154] Meanwhile the work of the Secretary was increasing so as that in 1433 a second Secretary had been appointed for the transaction of the King’s business in France, though as there was as yet but one signet, the second Secretary being appointed by patent.

[p.155] For some time to come the appointment of a second Secretary was fitful ; only in the reign of James I was the practice definitely established. From 1539, however, there were two signets and two books of warrants in the keeping severally of the two Secretaries. In 1640 a further step was taken. On the appointment of Sir Henry Vane, in that year, the foreign business of the office was formally divided. Secretary Windebank was to have charge of the business with Spain, Italy, and Flanders ; Vane himself of that with France, Germany, Holland, and the Baltic. In fact this was only the formal recognition of an arrangement which had in practice been adopted since the reign of James I, but it formed the basis of the organization of the Northern and Southern Departments which lasted until 1782. The rationale of the arrangement was not, however, geographical, as the titles would seem to suggest, but religious and political.

[p.157] A third Secretary of State (for Scotland) was added after the Union in 1708, but in 1746 the number was again reduced to two. A third Secretaryship (this time for the Colonies) was established in 1768, only to be abolished after the recognition of American independence in 1782. In that year the work of the office was reorganized : the Northern Department was transformed into a Foreign Office ; the Southern into a Home Office responsible also for Ireland, which in the same year was granted legislative independence under the Grattan Constitution, and for the few colonies which survived the great disruption of 1782.

The simplicity of this arrangement was soon, however, rudely disturbed. The exigencies of the struggle with France brought a third Secretary (for War) into existence in 1794, and the Colonies were added to his Department in 1801.

Consequences

• Order of Saint Patrick 1783
• Royal Irish Academy 1785

William O'Connor Morris says Irish Parliament could in theory have established its own executive but chose not to. He lists three points of strain between Irish and British parliaments:

• 1783 Renunication Act
• 1785 funding for the Army
• 1789 Regency Bill (aborted when king recovered)

Reputation

A. V. Dicey says William Edward Hartpole Lecky remarked how benefits of 1782 were overstated by supporters of the Government of Ireland Bill 1893, and himself says:

The fallacy underlying the appeal to this precedent has been, to use words of Mr. Lecky, ‘so frequently exposed that I can only wonder at its repetition.’ Under Grattan’s Constitution the Irish Executive was appointed, not by the Irish Parliament, but by the English Ministry; the Irish Parliament consisted solely of Protestants; it represented the miscalled ‘English garrison,’ and was in sympathy with the governing classes of England. With all this to promote harmony, the concord between the governing powers in England and in Ireland was dubious. The rejection of England's proposals as to trade, and the exaction of the Renunciation Act, betray a condition of opinion which at any moment might have produced open discord. When at last the parliamentary independence of Ireland had led up to a savage rebellion, suppressed I fear with savage severity, English statesmen knew that an independent Irish Parliament threatened the existence of England. I may be allowed, even by Gladstonians, to place the genius and patriotism of Pitt on at least a level with the genius and patriotism of the present Premier. I may be allowed to doubt whether Mr. Gladstone’s studies, however profound, in the history of Ireland, can, in 1893, render his acquaintance with the circumstances -and the dangers of 1800 equal to the knowledge of the Minister who, in 1800, carried the Act of Union. And Pitt then held that the Union with Ireland was necessary for the preservation of England. If moreover Grattan's Constitution be a precedent for our guidance, let us see to what the precedent points. The leading principles or features of Grattan's Constitution are well known. They are the absolute sovereignty of the Irish Parliament, and its independence of and equality with the Parliament of Great Britain ; the renunciation by the British Parliament of any claim whatever to legislate for Ireland, and of any jurisdiction on the part of any British court to entertain appeals from Ireland ; and, lastly, the absence of all representation of Ireland in the Parliament at Westminster. Each of these principles or features is denied or reversed by our new Gladstonian constitution. The Irish Parliament is to be, not a sovereign legislature, but a subordinate legislature created by statute, and a legislature of such restricted and inferior authority as to be unworthy of the name of a parliament. The Imperial Parliament, with its vast majority of British members, asserts its absolute supremacy in Ireland, and the right at its discretion to legislate for Ireland on any matter whatever ; in Ireland there is to be founded an Imperial or British Court appointed by the Imperial Ministry, having jurisdiction on all matters affecting Imperial rights, and the final Court of Appeal from every tribunal in Ireland is to be the British Privy Council. Add to this that Irish members are to sit in the Parliament of Westminster as the ‘outward and visible sign’ of the Imperial Parliament's supremacy. But if every principle of Grattan’s Constitution be contradicted by the Gladstonian constitution, if every principle which Grattan detested is a principle which Mr. Gladstone asserts, with what show of reason can the success, uncertain though it be, of the Constitution of 1782 he pleaded as evidence of the probable success of the Gladstonian constitution of 1893 ? That two arrangements are unlike is to ordinary minds no proof that they will have similar results; a parliamentary-majority of forty-two may repeal the Act of Union, but it cannot repeal the laws of logic.

Arthur Griffith also pointed to 1782 as model for his Sinn Féin policy. 1908 Sinn Féin conference report ascribed to the IPP the assertion that 'Imperial "Home Rule" will be extended to Ireland on the two following conditions : (1) That the British Liberal Government remains in office in perpetuity; and (2) that the Irish nation endorses the annulment of the Renunciation Act of 1783 and abandons its traditional right to Independence'.

T. Corcoran old-school Catholic nationalist in the 1930s, said 1782 is overrated.

• myth perpetrated by wishful thinking of Young Irelanders
• many bills had a "no action" decision in Britain without even bothering to inform Dublin; and
• didn't improve the lot of Catholics; the first act passed in Ireland was anti-Catholic "Gardiner's Act" / "Relief Act", which reduced some penalties but added new ones relating to education. Corcoran claims the act was mainly a restatement in Irish law of penal laws passed in England prior to 1782 which had become invalid as a result of Yelverton's Act; but that seems incorrect to me, in that Yelverton was not retrospective.

"The independence movement was strongly interventionist in its economics. The belief in interventionism was founded on [among other things] the belief that a period of legislative independence between 1782 and 1800 brought economic growth stimulated by the Irish parliament"

"The establishment of Irish legislative independence in 1782-3, once regarded as a watershed in Irish constitutional history, has more recently and quite properly been reduced to an achievement of modest proportions"

References

Sources

• Beckett, J. C. (1950–1955). "The Irish Parliament in the Eighteenth Century". Proceedings and Report of the Belfast Natural History and Philosophical Society. 4 (2nd series): 17–38. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
• Cullinan, William F. (1885). The Irish statutes : 3 Edward II to the Union A.D. 1310–1800 (PDF) (Revised ed.). London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. Retrieved 16 March 2015.
• Kelly, James (1993). Henry Grattan. Dublin: Dundalgan Press for the Historical Association of Ireland. Retrieved 17 May 2018.
• Kelly, James. "Politics and Administration in Ireland, 1770-1815". Multitext. UCC. Retrieved 23 August 2015.
• McGrath, Charles Ivar (2012). "The Parliament of Ireland to 1800". In Jones, Clyve (ed.). A Short History of Parliament: England, Great Britain, the United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland. Boydell Press. pp. 321–338. ISBN 9781843837176. Retrieved 17 May 2017.

To read

• Bartlett, Thomas (2000). "Ireland : from legislative independence to legislative union 1782–1800". In Dickinson, Harry Thomas; Lynch, Michael (eds.). The challenge to Westminster : sovereignty, devolution and independence. East Linton: Tuckwell. pp. 61–70. ISBN 1862321523.
• Beckett, James Camlin (1964). "Anglo-Irish constitutional relations in the later 18th century". Irish Historical Studies. 14 (53): 20–38. doi:10.1017/S0021121400020071. ISSN 0021-1214. S2CID 159834427.
• Beckett, J. C. (James Camlin) (1983). The Anglo-Irish tradition. Dundonald, Belfast: Blackstaff Press. pp. 50 et seq. ISBN 978-0-85640-280-7 – via Internet Archive.

  [p.50] "The so-called ‘Constitution of 1782’—in which these rights were enshrined—was at best a ramshackle piece of work. It raised more questions than it decided; and, though the legislative independence of the Irish parliament was established, the Irish executive remained as firmly as ever under the control of the British ministry."

  [p.51] "In the course of the nineteenth century, as the Roman Catholic majority made good its claim to be regarded as the Irish nation, the ‘Constitution of 1782’ and all that went with it took on a new aspect." Anglo-Irish saw as culmination of Irish patriotic pride, Catholics as just another ascendancy law.

• Bodkin, Matthias McDonnell (1912). Grattan's parliament, before and after. London: T. F. Unwin.
• Costello, Kevin (Winter 1988). "A constitutional antiquity? - Habeas Corpus (Ireland) Act 1782 revisited". Irish Jurist. 23 (23): 240–254. JSTOR 44027326.
• Fitzmaurice, Lord, Edmond George (1912). "Ireland, 1782 and 1912". The new Irish Constitution, an exposition and some arguments. London: Hodder and Stoughton. pp. 268–289.
• Herman, Neil (November 2001). "Henry Grattan, the Regency Crisis and the emergence of a Whig party in Ireland, 1788–9". Irish Historical Studies. 32 (128): 478–97. doi:10.1017/S0021121400015224. ISSN 0021-1214. JSTOR 30006972. S2CID 156209780.
• Jupp, Peter (September 1971). "Earl Temple's viceroyalty and the question of renunciation, 1782–3". Irish Historical Studies. 17 (68): 499–520. doi:10.1017/S0021121400111630. ISSN 0021-1214. JSTOR 30005306. S2CID 191903767.
• Kelly, James (May 1992). "Scarcity and poor relief in eighteenth-century Ireland : the subsistence crisis of 1782–1784". Irish Historical Studies. 28 (109): 38–62. doi:10.1017/S0021121400018575 (inactive 2022-06-09). ISSN 0021-1214. JSTOR 30008004.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of June 2022 (link)
• Kennedy, Denis (1974). "The Irish whigs, administrative reform and responsible government, 1782–1800". Éire-Ireland. 8 (4): 55–69. ISSN 0013-2683.
• Lammey, David (November 1994). "Review of Prelude to Union: Anglo-Irish Politics in the 1780s by James Kelly". Irish Historical Studies. 29 (114): 261–262. doi:10.1017/S0021121400011676. JSTOR 30006752. S2CID 156972683. [summarises and critiques Kelly's summary of historiography of 1782]
• Lee, John Joseph (1973). "Grattan's parliament". In Farrell, Brian (ed.). The Irish parliamentary tradition. Thomas Davis Lectures. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. pp. 149–159.
• Lyall, Andrew (1993–1995). "The Irish House Of Lords As A Judicial Body, 1783–1800". Irish Jurist. 28–30: 314–360. JSTOR 44026395.
• Mansergh, Danny (2005). Grattan's failure : parliamentary opposition and the people in Ireland, 1777–1800. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. ISBN 9780716528159.
• McDowell, Robert Brendan (1986). "Grattan's Ireland". Written at Saint Mary's University, Halifax. In Byrne, Cyril J.; Harry, Margaret (eds.). Talamh and Eisc : Canadian and Irish essays. 16th International Conference of the Canadian Association for Irish Studies, 1983: "Irish Culture from Grattan's Parliament to the Famine and Links with Atlantic Canada". Canadian journal of Irish studies. Vol. 12. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Nimbus. pp. 3–11. ISBN 092085253X. ISSN 0703-1459.
• McDowell, Robert Brendan (1986). "Colonial nationalism and the winning of parliamentary independence, 1760–82". In Moody, T. W.; Vaughan, W. E. (eds.). Eighteenth-Century Ireland. A New History of Ireland. Vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 196–235. ISBN 9780199563722.
• McDowell, Robert Brendan (1986). "Parliamentary independence, 1782–9". In Moody, T. W.; Vaughan, W. E. (eds.). Eighteenth-Century Ireland. A New History of Ireland. Vol. 4. Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 265–288. ISBN 9780199563722.
• O'Brien, Gerard (1987). Anglo-Irish politics in the age of Grattan and Pitt. Dublin: Irish Academic Press. ISBN 9780716523772.
• O'Brien, Gerard (1986). "The Grattan mystique". Eighteenth-century Ireland : Iris an dá chultúr. 1: 177–194. ISSN 0790-7915. JSTOR 30070822.
• Ó Conluain, Proinsias (2008). "The Dungannon conventions of 1782–1783". Dúiche Néill. 17. O'Neill Country Historical Society: 52–67.
• O'Connor, Theresa M. (1949). "The conflict between Flood and Grattan, 1782–3". In Cronne, H. A.; Moody, T. W.; Quinn, D. B. (eds.). Essays in British and Irish history in honour of James Eadie Todd. London: Frederick Muller. pp. 169–84.
• O'Flaherty, Eamon (1993). "The Limits of Legislative Independence". The Irish Review (1986-) (14): 148–151. doi:10.2307/29735724. JSTOR 29735724.
• Pack, Mark (Winter 2001). "Charles James Fox, the Repeal of Poynings' Law, and the Act of Union 1782–1801" (PDF). Journal of Liberal Democrat History (33: Liberals and Ireland): 6–8.
• Powell, Martyn J. (October 2002). "British party politics and imperial control : the Rockingham Whigs and Ireland, 1765–1782". Parliamentary History. 21 (3): 325–50. doi:10.1111/j.1750-0206.2002.tb00237.x. ISSN 0264-2824.
• Sayles, George Osborne (1954). "Contemporary sketches of the members of the Irish Parliament in 1782". Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Section C. 56 (3): 227–86. ISSN 0035-8991.
• Smith, Peter (1983). "Grattan and 1782 : a survey". Retrospect. Irish History Students' Association: 7–20.
• Ward, Alan J. (1994). The Irish Constitutional Tradition: Responsible Government and Modern Ireland, 1782–1992. Irish Academic Press. ISBN 9780716525196 – via Internet Archive. [especially Chapter 1: "The 'Independent' Parliament 1782–1800" (Index "Irish constitution (1782) 9, 16-20, 43, 45"), though later chapters also refer to Grattan's Parliament]
• Parliamentary records:
• The parliamentary history of England, from the earliest period to the year 1803
  • vol.22 (1782) cc.1241–1269 Debate in the Commons on the Affairs of Ireland (8 April c.1241); The King's Message relating to Ireland (9 April c.1264); Debate in the Lords on the Affairs of Ireland (11 April c.1266).
  • vol. 23 (17 May 1782) cc.16–38 Debate in the Commons on the Affairs of Ireland (c.16); Debate in the Lords on the Affairs of Ireland (c.35)
  • vol. 23 (3 June 1782) cc.91–95 Debate in the Lords on the Affairs of Ireland
  • vol. 23 (6 July 1782) cc.147–152 The Earl of Abingdons Speech and Bill relating to the Trade and Commerce of Ireland
  • vol. 23 cc.322–342 Debate in the Commons on the Affairs of Ireland (19 December 1782) c.322 / Debate in the Commons on the Irish Judicature Bill (22 January 1783) c.325
  • vol. 23 (11 April 1783) cc.730–757 Debate in the Lords on the Irish Judicature Bill

Further reading

• The Irish Parliament from the year 1782 to 1800. Being the Cressingham prize essay, 1878 (1879) William Ellis Hume-Williams Cassell, Petter & Galpin