146 FLOOD, transplanted to England in 1749 or 1750, and placed under the tuition of Doctor Markham, at Christ-church, Oxford. Here he spent two years, during which period he lived in great intimacy with the late learned Mr. Thomas Tyrwhitt; and it is recorded, that the first circumstance that induced him seriously to apply to literary attainments, was his finding that gentleman and several other friends frequently talking (at their evening meetings) on subjects of which he was in a state of perfect ignorance. He re solved to preserve almost an entire silence in their com pany for six months, during which period he studied with excessive ardour and unremitting attention, commencing with a course of mathematics, and then reading such of the historians of Rome and Greece, as he had not perused before. From that time until the period of his decease, he was a constant and diligent student, even while he was engaged in a l l the turbulence o f political life, and became a t length s o complete a master o f the Greek language, that h e read i t with almost a s great a facility a s English. I n 1759, h e was chosen a member o f the House o f Commons i n Ireland, but made n o trial o f his oratorical powers during that session. I n 1761, h e was a second time chosen a member o f the new parliament, and spoke for the first time during Lord Halifax's administration. “Every one,” we are told, “applauded him, except Pri mate Stone, whom h e abused, and who was not suffi ciently politic o r magnanimous t o pass over the invective o f the young orator.” During the early part o f Mr. Flood's speech, his grace, who was i n the House o f Commons, and did not know precisely what part the new member would take, declared that h e had great hopes o f him; but when the orator sat down, his grace asserted with some vehemence, that “a duller gentleman h e had never heard.” He shortly after this stood forward a s the greatest leader o f opposition i n that country. The first important point which h e attempted t o effect i n parliament, was a n explanation o f the law o f Poyning, b y a misconstruction o f which, for more than a century,
