Highness the Prince of Wales, who was graciously pleased to give us the enclosed answer, from which it will appear to the House, that it is our duty to wait His Royal Highness's further commands.

"We have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servants,

"Thos. Conolly,

John O'Neill,

"London, Feb. 27. 1789."

W. B. Ponsonby,

Ja. Stewart.

THE PRINCE'S ANSWER.

"My Lords and Gentlemen,

"The address from the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, of Ireland, which you have presented to me, demands my warmest and earliest thanks.

"If any thing could add to the esteem and affection I have for the people of Ireland, it would be the loyal and affectionate attachment to the person and government of the King, my father, manifested in the address of the two Houses.

"What they have done, and their manner of doing it, is a new proof of their undiminished duty to His Majesty, of their uniform attachment to the House of Brunswick, and of their constant care and attention to maintain inviolate the concord and connection between the kingdoms of Great Britain and Ireland, so indispensably necessary to the prosperity, the happiness, and liberties of both.

"If, in conveying my grateful sentiments on their conduct in relation to the King, my father, and to the inseparable interests of the two kingdoms, I find it impossible adequately to express my feelings on what relates to myself, I trust you will not be the less disposed to believe, that I have an understanding to comprehend the value of what they have done, an heart that must remember, and principles that will not suffer me to abuse their confidence.

"But the fortunate change which has taken place in the circumstances which gave occasion to the address agreed to by the Lords and Commons of Ireland, induces me for a few days to delay giving a final answer, trusting that the joyful event of His Majesty's resuming the personal exercise of his Royal authority may then render it only necesary for me to repeat those sentiments of gratitude and affection for the loyal and generous people of Ireland, which I feel indelibly imprinted on my heart."

Mr. GRATTAN then moved, "That the letter and His Royal Highness's answer to the address be entered in the journals of the House." Ordered unanimously..

Mr. Grattan observed, that as His Royal Highness's answer was not final to the business, it would be at present unnecessary and unseasonable to enter into any resolutions thereon.

OFFICES IN REVERSION.

MR. GRATTAN PROPOSES HIS RESOLUTION RESPECTING THE GRANT OF OFFICES IN REVERSION.

March 3. 1789.

MR R GRATTAN said: Sir, I rise to offer to the House a resolution which I think is absolutely necessary from a transaction that has lately taken place. I think it necessary to call to the attention of the House certain principles which the gentlemen with whom I have generally the honour to coincide have considered as the indispensable condition without which no government could expect their support, and which the present government had resisted.

The first was a reform of the police. At present the institution could only be considered as a scheme of patronage to the Castle and corruption to the city; a scheme which had failed to answer the end of preserving public peace, but has fully succeeded in extending the influence of the Castle.

It had been thrown out on a former occasion when I had intimated my intention of reforming the police, that the bill to be proposed would be as bad as that at present existing, but that assertion was not founded in truth. The bill which I wanted to introduce was intended to rescue the corporation of the city out of the court, and to make them responsible to the public for their conduct, to restore the peace and liberty of the city, and to provide against any abuse of power in those to whom the guardianship of that peace and liberty should be committed. This bill had in the last session been stated as necessary, but had been resisted by Lord Buckingham's government, but it should now be soon introduced.

Another principle much desired was to restrain the abuse of pensions by a bill similar to that in Great Britain. This principle Lord Buckingham had resisted, and his resistance to it is one great cause of my opposing his government.

To these I would add another principle, the restraining revenue officers from voting at elections. This is a principle of the British Parliament, and it is certainly more necessary here from what had lately taken place, where, by a certain union of family interests, counties had become boroughs, and those boroughs had become private property.

But the principle to which I beg to call the immediate attention of the House, is that of preventing the great offices

of the state from being given to absentees. This is a principle admitted by all to be founded in national right, purchased by liberal compensation, and every departure from it must be considered as a slight to the nobility and gentry of Ireland, who certainly were better entitled to the places of honour and trust in their own country, than any absentee could possibly be; but, besides the slight shown to the nobility and gentry of Ireland, by bestowing places of honour, of profit, and of trust, on absentees, the draft of money from this country, the institution of deputies, (a second establishment unnecessary were the principals to reside,) the double influence arising from this raised the abuse into an enormous grievance.

After the nation had recovered its liberty, one of the first objects was to bring home the great offices of the state. These have been taken away in an unjust manner, and in violation of native right when the country was under oppression. I do not mean to enter into a question, whether too much was paid for bringing home great employments. I shall not dispute the price, as it was the purchase of a principle; but the principle being once established, that it was wise and honourable in the nation to purchase home the great offices of the state, and this having been actually reduced to practice in instances of the chancellorship of the Exchequer, the vice-treasurership, the clerk of the crown and hanaper, &c. it followed as a necessary consequence that the granting away again great places, to absentees, must be highly improper, and a gross violation of the principle purchased by the nation.

With respect to the reversionary patent granted to Mr. Grenville; of that gentleman's merits in his own country, he would say nothing, they could be no reason for granting him a great employment in this, where it was most certain he never would reside; and, therefore, in condemning the grant, no one had a right to argue that it was condemned as a grant to the Lord-lieutenant's brother, but as a grant to a person that must necessarily be an absentee. It must be condemned as a slight and an affront to the native resident nobility and gentry of Ireland.

I beg to ask, are we ready to submit to such an insult? Are we ready to submit to have the principle which we have purchased violated? Are we ready to return to that state of degradation and contempt, from which the spirit of the nation has so lately emancipated itself? If we are not, we shall not hesitate to come to a resolution asserting the principle which we have purchased. I shall submit such a resolution worded in the most guarded manner, not attacking the prerogative of the Crown to grant, but condemning the advice by which the

Crown was misled to abuse that prerogative. I therefore move the following resolution:

"Resolved, that recommendations for the purpose of granting the great offices of this kingdom, or the reversion of great offices, to absentees, are improvident and prejudicial, especially now as great annual charges have been incurred by making compensation to absentees for resigning their offices, that those offices might be granted to residents."

The motion was opposed by Mr. Parsons, Mr. O'Hara, Mr. Coote, Mr. Hobart, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Attorney-general, and the Prime Serjeant. They contended that the resolution conveyed a false impression; namely, that the Crown was disposed to grant the great offices of state away from the nobility and gentry of the country. The fact was the reverse. The judges and the bishops (a thing before unheard of) were now almost all Irishmen; besides, the Crown had a right to bestow places on whomsoever it thought proper. As to the office which Mr. Grenville held, it required laborious attention, and must be executed by deputy; and Mr. Grenville deserved the reward for the exertions he had made to obtain an act of relinquishment, on the part of England, of the claim to legislate for Ireland. On this topic Mr. Parsons enlarged, and entered into an invective against the conduct of Mr. Grattan, and the line he, took on the subject of simple repeal. Mr. Grattan replied; but as these speeches were of a personal nature, and the difference that followed was adjusted in the House, it is unnecessary to make further mention of them. The motion was supported by Mr. Charles O'Neill, Mr. Hardy, Mr. George Ponsonby, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Curran. They defended the principle of the motion. It was injurious to the country to grant offices to absentees, and still more so to grant offices in reversion; and what had lately occurred was a proof of it. A pension of 1700l. a-year was placed on the establishment, by the present Lord-lieutenant, for the Secretary to the late Lord-lieutenant; and this reversion he had granted to his own brother. The King's prerogative was too frequently abused by such improvident and unjustifiable grants; and this measure would go to restrain the evil.

The Attorney-general moved the question of adjournment; on which the House divided; Ayes 115, Noes 106; Majority for the adjournment 9. Tellers for the Ayes, Major Hobart and Mr. Denis Browne; for the Noes, Sir Edward Newenham and Mr. Curran.

PENSION BILL.

MR. FORBES MOVES THE BILL TO DISQUALIFY PENSIONERS FROM SITTING IN PARLIAMENT.

March 9. 1789.

On the 4th of March, Mr. Forbes had obtained leave to bring in "A bill to disable any person from being chosen a member of, or sitting or voting in, the House of Commons, who has any pension during pleasure, or for any number of years from, or holds any office or place of profit created after, a certain time, under the Crown, and to limit the amount of pensions." On this day it was read a second time; and Mr. Forbes moved that it be committed. Mr. Mason said that the bill was introduced for the purpose of diminishing the influence and just prerogatives of the Crown; and as he had uniformly opposed all measures of such a nature, he would move that "the bill be committed on the 1st of May next." This was supported by the Attorney-general, Mr. Denis Browne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Holmes, Mr. Hamilton, Mr. Alexander, Mr. Hobart, Mr. Toler, and Mr. Marcus Beresford. They objected to the measure as being peculiarly ungracious at the present moment, to salute His Majesty, on his recovery, with marks of indignation and complaint. This measure would effect a change in the constitution, and abridge the rights of the Crown. It should be remembered, that, in the year 1757, a factious aristocracy bore down the government. The aristocracy at present have overcome the government, and a proper influence in the Crown was necessary to counterbalance it. The original motion was supported by Mr. Brownlow, Mr. Dunn, Major Doyle, Mr. Arthur Browne, Mr. Westby, Mr. Hardy, Mr. Curran, Mr. Corry, and Mr. George Ponsonby. They said, it was necessary to controul the grants of our chief governors; that the principle was a constitutional one; it was acted on in Great Britain, where a bill of this nature existed already. As to the evil of an unlimited power to grant pensions, the strongest proof of the abuse was shown to be in the grant of Mr. Orde's pension; and if the author of the propositions was entitled to such a reward, no man could be refused. The reversionary grant of that pension to the brother of the Lord-lieutenant was an additional proof of the necessity of a reform in such a system.

Mr. GRATTAN. On the general principle, the enemies to this bill cannot stand. A pensioned Parliament is not constitutional, nor has it been held so by Great Britain. In the time of William III. a pension bill passed in England; in the present reign another. The gentlemen who oppose a pension bill in Ireland, will explain how it happens that a