and they had long been looked upon and treated as private property, not only in Ireland but in England and Scotland also; and there were many honest men in all three countries who contended that the system worked well, as it was the means whereby a large number of distinguished men obtained their first introduction into public life—­amongst them being Pitt, Canning, and Fox in England, Grattan, Flood and Plunkett in Ireland.  Then in other cases when powers which had long been regarded as property have been abolished, compensation has been given.  This was the case when the heritable jurisdictions in Scotland were abolished, and when by the disestablishment of the Irish Church the right of patrons to nominate to livings was taken away.  And even granting for the sake of argument that this is wrong, is it fair to call it bribery?  Eighty-four places were disfranchised, and a sum of L1,260,000 (which did not nearly amount to the price which the boroughs at that time fetched in the market) was paid.  Of this, L67,500 was paid to Englishmen who owned seats in the Irish Parliament; L60,000 to boroughs who had no owners; L30,000 to the executors of a deceased owner; L18,750 to two ladies; and L1,100,000 to Irishmen who owned boroughs—­of which L400,000 went to Anti-Unionists who opposed the Bill.  In many cases, of course, the actual occupant of the seat was a different person from the owner who received the compensation; for instance, there is reason to believe that all the fifty barristers in the house had purchased their seats, but not one of them was the permanent owner.  Now, if compensation is bribery, who was bribed?  Really it must be admitted that on investigation the charge of bribery, so far as it refers to compensation to borough-owners, falls to the ground.

Then it is said that the Government made actual payments to members for their votes.  This charge was brought forward in a general way at the time in both Houses; the Government indignantly denied it, and called on the Opposition to prove their accusation; but they failed to do so.  To repeat it now is therefore unjust.  It may be admitted that amongst Lord Castlereagh’s letters there is one which taken by itself looks as if a certain sum of money was to be used in bribery; but, as Dr. Ingram has pointed out, a careful investigation of the matter shows that it refers to proposed changes in the tariff, and not to bribery at all.

Again, it is argued that the lavish distribution of titles amounted to bribery.  If so, it is hard to find any Government in England or Ireland that has not been to some extent guilty of bribery—­though it is true that no British Premier has ever created peerages or salaried offices on anything like the scale that Mr. Asquith has done.  After the Bill had passed, Pitt created twenty new Irish peerages and four English ones; and promoted sixteen peers a step in their order; which after all is not very much more than Lord North had done in 1779, on no special occasion, when he had created eighteen Irish peerages and promoted twelve existing peers.