The minds of the people of Ireland had fo long been prepared to expect a motion of this kind, and the difpofition of the house itself was so favourable to it, that hardly any opposition was made. Leave being given to bring in the bill, Mr. Grattan, Mr. Ponfonby, Mr. Forbes, and Mr. Knox, were appointed to prepare it.

The joy and exultation expressed by the Roman Catholics on this occafion, had never been equalled in Ireland: they were accompanied with effufions of loyalty and attach ment to the British government and nation, that indicated how effectually religious animosities might fubfide through a mild and conciliatory conduct, and that religious, as well as political differences, are fooneft terminated by forbearance and lenity.

But the universal fatisfaction arifing from the hopes conceived of an approaching emancipation from all restrictions, was quickly damped by the intelligence that arrived two days only after the paffing of the motion, that the British miniftry was averse to the measure. Lord Fitzwilliam informed them of the great danger that would infallibly refult from retracting the afsent so formally given to a motion of fuch importance, and explicitly refused, by taking upon him that office, to be the perfon to raise a flame which nothing but the force of arms could keep down. Such were his own words. In confequence of this answer, he was difinissed from his pott, which was conferred upon lord Cambden.

The confequences of this dif millot were iramediately apparent in the proceedings of the Irith parliament. Sir Laurence Parfons, in the

house of commons, proposed an address to lord Fitzwilliam, to express the confidence reposed in him by the Irish nation, and its reprefentatives, and the apprehenfions they felt on his premature removal from a station, wherein his conduct had been so acceptable to them. Another member, Mr. Duguerry, not only feconded the motion, but proCofed the impeachment of Mr. Pitt. Though this address was withdrawn at the request of those who wished to prevent farther acrimony on this occafion, it fufficiently manifefted the resentment excited by the meafures of the British miniftry. Another address, however, was voted, highly approving of his conduct.

The univerfal dislatisfaction of the Irish at the removal of lord Fitzwilliam was foon after manifefted in a more ferious manner: tumultsarofe in feveral places, which were not quelled without the intervention of the military. From the most moderate of the disaffected, addresles to him were presented, full of rancour at the treatment he had experienced, and of invectives against the authors of his disgrace.

From this period may be dated the deep and fettled fpirit of difcontent, which at once pervaded, and by degrees inflamed to the higheft pitch of violence, both Catholics and Diffenters, and was even felt by numbers of the Proteftants themfelves, who thought that the most aufpicious opportunity of reconciling all parties and interests, had been arrogantly thrown afide by the unwarrantable and ambitious machinations of a felfish faction, grafping at the exclufive enjoyment of all the places of power and profit, and at the tole management of all atlairs of flate. [Q]

The

dom. But contrarily to the best founded hopes, the people of Ire land had been deceived in the inost infulting manner: their reasonable requests had been denied, and the man of their confidence recalled, for having fhewn an inclination to gratify them. A conduct so haughty and domineering ought to undergo a ftrict examination, and parliament was bound in justice to the public, to compel minifters to account for fo inconfiftent and mysterious a conduct. The duke, therefore, made a motion to this effect.

The earls of Mansfield, Coventry, and Carnarvon, and lord Sydney, opposed the duke's motion. Lord Fitzwilliam's character not having fuffered by his removal, they maintained that no inquiry was needed to clear it up. The prerogative of the crown, empowered it to difmifs minifters at difcretion; it were unconftitutional to institute inquiries into the reasons for fuch difmiffions; and parliamentary difcuffions were the more improper, as they might disclose matters that ought never to have been divulged. The difmiffion of lord Fitzwilliam proved no more than a difference of opinion on his part, touching the affairs of Ireland, that made it improper he should act with minifters who were of another: neither was there sufficient evidence of the difcontent in Ireland, to require any particular investigation.

It was observed by the carl of Guildford, in reply, that, as without encroaching on the royal prerogative, to declare war, or to conclude peace, the propriety of either the one or the other might be difcuffed in parliament, fo might the propriety of any other act of the crown. On this principle the removal of

was

lord Fitzwilliam merited an inquiry, that the people of Ireland might know their friends in this country from their enemies. He spiritedly supported by the duke of Leeds and lord Moira, who declared themselves fatisfied that an inquiry, instead of danger would ultimately be productive of safety, by elucidating a tranfaction, the motives for which were fo obscure, that the people of Ireland were at a loss to comprehend them, and might harbour resentments against those who had no participation in the measure. Lord Fitzwilliam was charged with imprudently forwarding a defign to emancipate the Irish Catholics : but was it not fanctioned by every prudent motive? Did not three-fourths of that nation petition for it? Did the other fourth oppose it? He had laboured with particular zeal to put a stop to the glaring abufes prevailing in the administration of affairs in Ireland: these were arrived to fuch a height, that if not corrected, their consequences would shortly prove fatal to the government of that country, however it might deem itselfsecure. Was it not temerity in the extreme, amidst to many caufes of dissatisfaction, to add so material a one, as the depriving them at once of their hopes of obtaining what they were willing to confider as a redress of all griev

To this lord Fitzwilliam replied, that the most necessary policy had called upon him to act as he had done. Ireland was in a state of imminent danger from internal feuds and external foes: the Catholics were equally powerful and dissatisfied: the French were become masters of Holland, and thirty-fix hoftile fail of the line were hovering on the western coaft of Ireland. In this perilous fituation he had the happiness to unite all parties in a determination to act vigorously for the defence of the kingdom. But could he have effected this, had he not convinced 'the Irish of the liberal intentions of this country?

He was answered by lord Grenville, who, after alleging much the same reasons against an inquiry as those already adduced, reinarked that were parliament to affume the right of inquiring into the motives for the difmiffion of ministers, they might, by the fame rule, proceed next to the examination whether those who were appointed to fuc ceed them, had been properly chofen. This would obviously lead to still more dangerous inquiries, tending ultimately to unhinge the constitution.

After other arguments on both fides of the question, the motion for an sinquiry was rejected by one hundred against twenty-five.

In the house of commons very fpirited debates alfo took place on this fubject. Mr. Jekyll introduced it by observing, that the house had an unquestionable right to examine the ufe made of the royal prerogatives, and to limit them if neceffary. He reminded the minifter of his folemn promife, that whenever the period came for investigation, he would undertake to

8

a

prove that no blame was imputable to the minifters of this country. Mr. Jekyll vindicated the conduct of lord Fitzwilliam from his letters. According to these he had acted in ftrict conformity to his instructions, which went to the emancipation of the Catholics, condition without which he would not have undertaken the commission entrusted to him. But the fact was, that the interest of a particular family was primarily to be confulted; that of the Beresfords: their difmiffion from office was the real ground of diffenfion between lord Fitzwilliam and the minifter, and the business of the emancipation was only the pretence: it were abfurd, Mr. Jekyll faid, to mention the oaths taken by the king, as obstacles to fuch a meafure. In Canada, in Corfica, the Catholic religion was settled by law, without violation of the royal oath. He concluded by moving for an inquiry into the conduct of minifters in difmiffing from his office the lord-lieutenant of Ireland. It was stated, in reply, by Mr. Pitt, that no communication of the correfpondence between lord Fitzwilliam and the ministry, could be permitted without the king's affent; and ministry were officially bound to the ftrictest secrecy in all cafes of this nature. He would not, for this reason, enter into any verbal explanations of the business in quel tion, and neither should admit nor deny the facts or the inferences alleged. The king had clearly the right to nominate, and to difmifs minifters without affigning his motives; cafes of an extraordinary nature excepted. He forcibly urged the indispensible neceffity of an entire agreement in sentiments between the king's miniftry, without

which it were impracticable to conduct the affairs of the nation with any regularity or fuccess; and yet they might differ without any diminution of reciprocal friendship or efteem. He deprecated the difcuffion of fubjects now before the Irish parliament, as a manifeft violation of its independence; and warmly exhorted the house to leave the fettlement of affairs in that nation to its reprefentatives, who certainly were best qualified for that purpose.

Mr. Pitt was seconded by other members. The principal answer to ministry was made by Mr. Gray: he contended, in forcible terms, for the propriety of an inquiry, in a cafe wherein the highest interests of the British and Irish nations were equally involved; the question before the house was incontrovertibly of this defcription. The people of both countries were fenfible of its importance, and it ill-became minifters to endeavour at the concealment of matters that ought to be held out to the fullest confideration of all parties concerned. Both the English and the Irish had a right to know, whether the restrictions, of which the Irish Catholics complained, were to be taken off, or to remain; and to be made acquainted, at the fame time, with the real causes why they should either continue or fubfift no longer. The private intereft of a very minor part of the community should not, upon any pretence, be fuffered to fupercede the natural rights of the whole community at large, when every argument, founded upon equity, militated for them. Induced by the proofs which the Irish had given of an unfeigned attachment to England, fo confpicuoufly displayed, at

a

a time when the difficulties we were contending with afforded them fair opportunity of throwing off their connection with us, we had come to a determination to break thofe fetters that were evidently no longer wanted to fecure them. We had excited the liveliest hopes of a total emancipation from all those restraints, which the inimical difposition of the Roman Catholics to the Proteflants had formerly rendered necessary; and now, when on the point of extinguishing all religious feuds, and terminating happily all differences, a fudden. check was given to all these pleafing expectations: the man selected to put the finishing hand to those arrangements that were to conftitute the basis of everlasting concord, between the fister nations, was recalled, in the midst of his exertions to bring them to a final iffie, and censured, as if he had been committing an act of disloyalty to his own country. Was this behaviour of the British ministry to be borne with patience by the Irish? Was it to be fubmitted to by the English, whose honour was, in a manner, folemnly pledged, and whose intereft ought forcibly to lead them to gratify the people of Ireland in the reasonable demands they now were making, and had certainly a right to infift upon? Whence, therefore, could this unexpected denial proceed, but from private motives, too personal to intereft the public, and too base to be brought to light? A pretence was fet up, that the independence of the Irifn parliament would be violated by this country's interference in the fettlement of the affairs of Ireland: but who did not fee the futility of this pretence? Who did not know that the deliberations