In 1759, he entered the Irish parliament as member for
County Kilkenny, a seat he held until 1761. There was at that time no party in the
Irish House of Commons that could truly be called national, and until a few years before there had been none that deserved even the name of opposition. The Irish parliament was still constitutionally subordinate to the English privy council; it had practically no powers of independent legislation, and none of controlling the policy of the executive, which was nominated by the ministers in London. Though the majority of the people were
Roman Catholics, no person of that faith could either enter parliament or exercise the franchise; the penal code, which made it almost impossible for a Roman Catholic to hold property, to follow a learned profession, or even to educate his children, and which in numerous particulars pressed severely on the Roman Catholics and subjected them to degrading conditions, was as yet un-repealed, though in practice largely obsolete; the industry and commerce of Ireland were throttled by restrictions imposed, in accordance with the economic theories of the period, in the interest of the rival trade of
Great Britain. Men like
Anthony Malone and
Hely-Hutchinson fully realised the necessity for far-reaching reforms; and it only needed the ability and eloquence of Flood in the
Irish House of Commons to raise up an independent party in parliament, and to create in the country a public opinion with definite intelligible aims. The chief objects for which Flood strove were the shortening of the duration of parliament which had then no legal limit in Ireland except that of the reigning sovereign's life, the reduction of the scandalously heavy pension list, the establishment of a national militia, and, above all, the complete legislative independence of the Irish parliament. For some years little was accomplished; but in 1768 the English ministry, which had special reasons at the moment for avoiding unpopularity in Ireland, allowed an octennial bill (limiting the term of parliament to eight years) to pass, which was the first step towards making the
Irish House of Commons in some measure representative of public opinion. It had become the practice to allow crown patronage in Ireland to be exercised by the owners of parliamentary boroughs in return for their undertaking to manage the House in the government interest. But during the vice-royalty of Lord Townshend the aristocracy, and more particularly these undertakers as they were called, were made to understand that for the future their privileges in this respect would be curtailed. When, therefore, an opportunity was taken by the government in 1768 for reasserting the constitutional subordination of the Irish parliament, these powerful classes were thrown into a temporary alliance with Flood. In the following year, in accordance with the established procedure, a money bill was sent over by the privy council in London for acceptance by the Irish House of Commons. It was rejected, but a reason for this course was assigned; namely, that the bill had not originated in the Irish House. In consequence, parliament was peremptorily prorogued, and a recess of fourteen months was employed by the government in securing a majority by the most extensive corruption. Nevertheless, when parliament met in February 1771 another money bill was thrown out on the motion of Flood; and the next year
Lord Townshend, the
lord lieutenant whose policy had provoked this conflict, was recalled. The struggle was the occasion of a publication, famous in its day, called
Baratariana, to which Flood contributed a series of powerful letters after the manner of
Junius, one of his collaborators being
Henry Grattan. The success which had thus far attended Flood's efforts had placed him in a position such as no Irish politician had previously attained. He had, as an eminent historian of Ireland observes, "proved himself beyond all comparison the greatest popular orator that his country had yet produced, and also a consummate master of parliamentary tactics. Under parliamentary conditions that were exceedingly unfavourable, and in an atmosphere charged with corruption, venality and subservience, he had created a party before which ministers had begun to quail, and had inoculated the
Protestant constituencies with a genuine spirit of liberty and self-reliance."
Lord Harcourt, who succeeded Townshend as viceroy, saw that Flood must be conciliated at any price "rather than risk the opposition of so formidable a leader." Even his trial for the murder of his long-time enemy James Agar in 1770 did nothing to damage his career or his reputation. Found guilty of the lesser crime of
manslaughter, he was spared a prison sentence, and the episode is said to have made duelling more rather than less respectable. Flood represented
Callan between 1762 and 1776, where he had a bitter feud with the Agar family, whose effective head
James Agar he killed in a duel, and
Longford Borough between 1768 and 1769. Accordingly, in 1775, he was offered and accepted a seat, in the
Privy Council of Ireland and the office of
vice-treasurer with a salary of £3500 a year. For this step, he has been severely criticized. Flood may reasonably have held that he had a better prospect of advancing his policy by the leverage of a ministerial position. The result, however, was that the leadership of the national party passed from Flood to Grattan, who entered the Irish parliament in the same session that Flood became a minister. Flood continued in office for nearly seven years. Re-elected for
Enniskillen in 1777, he necessarily remained silent on the subject of the independence of the Irish parliament, and had to be content with advocating minor reforms as occasion offered. He was instrumental in obtaining bounties on the export of Irish corn to foreign, countries and other commercial concessions. On the other hand, he failed to procure the passing of a
Habeas corpus bill and a bill for making the judges irremovable, while his support of
Lord North's American policy gravely injured his popularity and reputation. An important event in 1778 led indirectly to his recovering to some extent his former position in the country; this was the alliance of France with the revolted American colonies. Ireland was thereby placed in peril of a French invasion, while the English government could provide no troops to defend the island. A
volunteer movement was then set on foot to meet the emergency; in a few weeks more than 40,000 men were under arms, officered by the country gentry, and controlled by
Lord Charlemont. This volunteer force, in which Flood was a colonel soon made itself felt in politics. A Volunteer Convention, formed with all the regular organisation of a representative assembly, but wielding the power of an army, began menacingly to demand the removal of the commercial restrictions which were destroying Irish prosperity. Under this pressure the government gave way; the whole colonial trade was in 1779 thrown open to Ireland for the first time, and other concessions were also extorted. Flood, who had taken an active though not a leading part in this movement, now at last resigned his office to rejoin his old party. He found to his chagrin that his former services had been to a great extent forgotten and that he was eclipsed by Grattan. When in a debate on the constitutional question in 1779 Flood complained of the small consideration shown him in relation to a subject which he had been the first to agitate, he was reminded that by the civil law if a man should separate from his wife and abandon her for seven years, another might then take her and give her his protection. But though Flood had lost control of the movement for independence of the Irish parliament, the agitation, backed as it now was by the
Volunteer Convention and by increasing signs of popular disaffection, led at last in 1782 to the
concession of the demand, together with a number of other important reforms. Soon after this development, a further issue emerged, known as the “Simple Repeal” controversy. The debate centered on whether England, in addition to repealing the statutes that had established the subordination of the Irish Parliament, should also formally renounce any future claim to exercise control over Irish legislation. The principal historical significance of this dispute lies in its role in contributing to a breakdown in relations between Flood and Grattan, who subsequently criticized each other in the House of Commons.. In 1783, Flood was again returned to the house, this time for
Kilbeggan. His view prevailed for a
Renunciation Act such as he advocated was ungrudgingly passed by the English parliament of the same year and for a time he regained popularity at the expense of his rival. Flood next (28 November 1783) introduced a reform bill, after first submitting it to the Volunteer Convention. The bill, which contained no provision for giving the franchise to Roman Catholics, which Flood always opposed, was rejected, ostensibly on the ground that the attitude of the volunteers threatened the freedom of parliament. The volunteers were perfectly loyal to the crown and the connection with England. They carried an address to the king, moved by Flood, expressing the hope that their support of parliamentary reform might be imputed to nothing but a sober and laudable desire to uphold the constitution and to perpetuate the cordial union of both kingdoms. The convention then dissolved, but Flood had desired, in opposition to Grattan, to continue it as a means of putting pressure on parliament for the purpose of obtaining reform. In Dublin, he was a member of
Daly's Club. ==British Parliament==