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 £1,260,000 (which did not nearly amount to the price which the
boroughs at that time fetched in the market) was paid. Of this,
£67,500 was paid to Englishmen who owned seats in the Irish
Parliament; £60,000 to boroughs who had no owners; £30,000 to the
executors of a deceased owner; £18,750 to two ladies; and
£1,100,000 to Irishmen who owned boroughs--of which £400,000 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