pious reflection which had comforted a saint of earlier days—"Alas! had I been a bishop I should most probably have been numbered with the reprobate!"—J. A., D.
FLÖGEL, Karl Friedrich, a German litterateur, was born at Jauer, Silesia, 3d December, 1729, and died at Liegnitz, 9th December, 1788, where he had held a professorship in the academy. He wrote "Geschichte des menschlichen Verstandes;" "Geschichte der Komischen Literatur;" "Geschichte der Hofnarren," and some other works on similar subjects.—K. E.
FLOOD. See Fludd.
FLOOD, Henry, the Right Honourable, an eminent orator and politician, was born in 1732. The family of Fludd was anciently of Kent, and distinguished in the time of the Tudors, whence a branch of it passed into Kilkenny in Ireland during the civil wars of the Commonwealth. The father of Henry was the Right Honourable Warden Flood, lord chief-justice of the queen's bench in Ireland, and the first Irishman who filled a judicial appointment there. We know little of Henry's early years. He entered Trinity college, Dublin, in his sixteenth year, whence he was transferred in three years to Oxford, and placed under Dr. Markham, afterwards archbishop of York. Here he applied himself to study, and associated with the most learned men of the place. He soon distinguished himself as a classical scholar, and besides original compositions, translated portions of Pindar, Demosthenes, and Cicero; nor did he neglect the severer studies of mathematics and logic, for which his mind was especially suited. Having graduated after two years, he left Oxford with a high reputation, and commenced his legal studies at the Temple; and when he was twenty-seven years old he returned to Ireland, and was elected member of parliament for the county of Kilkenny during the administration of the duke of Bedford. His first display in the house was in 1761, when he replied to the brilliant and memorable speech of Hamilton. Speaking from the opposition benches, he attacked the administration with so much vigour and ability, as to win the applause of the house and the approbation of the popular party out of doors. He now married Lady Francis Maria Beresford, and being in affluent circumstances, retired to the enjoyment of a country life, where, in the cultivated society of Grattan, Bushe, and other brilliant men of his day, he was disposed to abandon politics for the enjoyment of literary ease and private theatricals. But his was not a nature to be satisfied long with such pursuits. Accordingly, we find him soon again in his place in parliament, taking an active part in the exciting Irish politics of the times, and one of his triumphs was in defence of the liberty of the press, when he defeated a motion to commit the printer of the North Briton, though supported by the ministry. On the election which occurred in 1769, Flood was involved in a fatal duel with Mr. Agar. At the first meeting Agar, the challenger, was slightly wounded. He demanded a second meeting, which terminated in his being shot through the heart. The details of the affair are given by Bushe in a letter to Grattan, which certainly places the conduct of Flood in very creditable contrast to that of his antagonist. Flood was tried at the ensuing spring assizes for Kilkenny, and acquitted. Flood was now admittedly amongst the best speakers in the commons. He was also distinguished for his literary abilities, and, in conjunction with Langrishe and Grattan, produced a collection of political satires entitled "Barateriana," in which Lord Townshend was portrayed under the name of Sancho Panza. The elegance of the composition, the wit of the sarcasms, and the point and brilliancy of illustration, were deservedly admired, and even gave rise to the belief for a time that Flood was the author of the Letters of Junius. In 1773 Flood went to England, for the purpose of impressing Lord North in favour of promoting the commerce of Ireland, and he was received with great consideration and respect there. Lord Harcourt was now chief governor of Ireland, and courted the support of Flood, and offered him the post of vice-treasurer, which, after some demur, he accepted in 1775. This step was severely censured by his political connections as inconsistent with his position, and especially drew down upon him the brief and sharp invective of Grattan, and did not escape the censure of his great countryman and friend, the earl of Charlemont. During the administration of Lord Harcourt and the earl of Buckingham, Flood held this office, but resigned it in 1780, and once again stood forward in the ranks of the opposition. In the debates on the repeal of the 6th George I., which limited the independence of the Irish parliament, Flood took a large and prominent share in opposition to Grattan, who advocated a simple repeal, while Flood insisted on a declaration expressly renouncing the right of the English parliament to bind the Irish. The contest was maintained with great ability on both sides, and Flood, though foiled at first, ultimately carried his point; but the struggle embittered the minds of these two eminent men against each other, and a scene in the house in 1783 put an end to their acquaintance. Flood had made some severe comments on the government, to which Grattan answered in a spirit of personal sarcasm against his opponent. To this Flood replied with an acrimony beyond what the provocation justified, and with a power and oratorical brilliancy that has rarely been surpassed. Once more Grattan arose. His "reply, says Wills, "remains yet unparalleled among the reports of parliamentary encounter for its condensed severity." Flood was much disconcerted, and stammered out a few incoherent words. Both gentlemen left the house; a challenge from Flood followed. The parties were bound over, and thenceforward they were as strangers to each other. It must, however, be stated to the credit of Flood, that he made overtures for a renewal at least of courteous recognition, which were declined by Grattan; and that he presided at meetings where resolutions complimentary to his opponent were passed. He had, too, the consolation of receiving an address on the occasion from the volunteers, with whom he was highly popular, expressing their sense of his services and condemning the severity of Grattan's invective, and he was permitted to make an ample vindication in the house. Flood bore a distinguished part in the proceedings of the celebrated "convention of delegates," and in November, 1783, made the motion for parliamentary reform, in accordance with the plan digested in the convention in the house of commons, which led to the momentous debate in which Yelverton, Scott, Fitzgibbon, and Hutchinson, took prominent parts. The conduct of Flood in connection with this armed body, which sought to overawe the deliberations of the legislature, has been the subject of animadversion, and perhaps justly so. At all events, his political influence soon began to decline before the ascendancy of his great rival, Grattan. He now resolved to enter the English house of commons, and was returned for Winchester. He made his first appearance in the house at the close of the debate on Mr. Fox's East India bill, exhausted by a long and fatiguing journey. Nevertheless he, unwisely for his fame, rose to speak. His great reputation had preceded him; there was a profound silence, universal attention, and curiosity. Wraxall,: in his memoirs, thus describes the occasion—"Though possessing little local information, he spoke with great ability and good sense; but the slow, measured, and sententious style of enunciation which characterized his eloquence, appeared to English ears cold, stiff, and deficient in some of the best recommendations to attention." There can be no doubt that it was highly injudicious in Flood to make his début at the end of a debate, every point of which had been previously so ably handled, as to leave nothing new to be said by him. This alone would have forbidden success, but failure was inflicted on him from the lips of a countryman. Mr. Courtenay, who afterwards confessed to owing him a grudge, "opened upon him a battery of ridicule and wit, seasoned with allusions of the most personal and painful kind," which overwhelmed Flood, and the effect of which he never overcame. Parliament was shortly after dissolved, and Flood, after two defeats, was returned for the borough of Seaford in 1784. He continued to take part in the proceedings of the house, speaking on all important questions, often displaying great oratorical powers, not unworthy of his best days in the Irish house of commons. Meantime he continued to hold his seat in Ireland, and was actively engaged in the struggle for parliamentary reform. But it was in his opposition to Pitt, upon the commercial treaty with France proposed in 1787, that he exhibited before the English house all the great powers of his mind. His speech extorted high commendation from all parties, and as a recent writer has said, he combated Pitt's commercial system "with a force of concentrated ratiocination, which, whatever may now be thought of its value in the eyes of political economists, certainly at the time when it was delivered received no sufficient answer." The close of his parliamentary career may be considered his attempt to introduce parliamentary reform in England in 1790, and his speech on that occasion is remarkable for its sound principles and constitutional learning. While in retirement at Farmley, and suffering from gout, a fire broke out,
