The Noble Earl went to the government of Ireland with as fair, honourable, and diftinguifhed a name as ever man poffeffed, and he thought he had returned with that name unfulfied; why then call for an inquiry that would involve the difcuílion of Cabinet fecrets? If any breach had been made in the tranquillity of Ireland, would the motion tend to heal the breach of the peace, or restore harmony either in that country or this? For thefe reafons he hoped their Lordships would diffent from the motion. He fhould not attempt to follow the Noble Duke through all the topics he had brought forward: No doubt but the House was much obliged to him for the information he had given to their Lordships.

Earl Fitzwilliam returned the Noble Duke his fincere thanks for bringing this fubject forward, and gave the motion his hearty affent. What might be the confequence he knew not, but he must call on the juftice of the Houfe. He called on them to do juftice to an individual. He ftood charged, not by words but by facts. They were no Cabinet fecrets, nor any fecrets. The facts were notorious to all the world, but the motive of recalling him, if this inquiry be not inflituted, would remain in darkness. Here he was entreating their Lordships to do what they were bound in duty to do, to hear thofe who were charged defend themfelves, if they were able to defend themselves. He came forwards to their Lordships, as one of their body, charged with mifconduct in the execu tion of an official truft of great magnitude, and imploring their Lordships protection, begging of them to allow him the opportunity to vindicate his character, and defend himfelf. He afferted that his conduct had not been merely pure and befitting, but that it had been meritorious. All he asked was, that the cause of his removal should be laid before their Lordships. His fame and his honour lay at their feet, and he trusted their Lordships would do justice, and enable him to rescue both from the difgrace fo unmeritedly attempted to be caft on them.

The Earl of Mansfield faid, he would confine himself strictly to what appeared to him to be the question, and would in the first inftance declare, that he should give his vote against the motion, as he faw no falutary effect whatever that it could anfwer; the character of the Noble Lord (Earl Fitzwilliam) certainly gave great and weighty advantage to the present motion for inquiry. That character he admitted always to have been pure and unfullied, nor was it lefs fo in the prefent moment, than it had been during every period of his life. He meant to oppofe the motion entirely upon general grounds. He did not confider the character of the Noble Earl as implicated in any charge which called for inquiry. There were two pofitions, upon which the motion was grounded, which

U 2

he

he wished unequivocally to admit; firft, the refponfibility of minifters with refpect to Irish affairs; and fecondly, the right of that House to inftitute an inquiry in all cafes which called for their investigation: But that right was not to be exercised on every occafion; it was always to be exercifed with a found difcretion, and only when a very strong cafe indeed occurred, which rendered inquiry indifpenfibly neceffary. In the prefent cafe he contended that no inquiry was neceffary. It was the indifputable prerogative of the Crown to remove ministers from their fituation. To inquire in every inftance into the grounds of fuch removals, would be an interference on the part of that House new in point of practice, and unauthorised by the principles of the conftitution. Let their Lordships afk themselves on what ground either of law, justice, or the conftitution, the inquiry now propofed ought to be granted in this inftance. No fuch ground would be found to exift. Another and a still more important reason why the present inquiry fhould not be inftituted, offered itself, namely, the neceflity of fecrecy in the conduct of public bufinefs. He would state two cafes, one of a General, who fhould be fuperfeded in the middle of a campaign, and the other of an Ambaffador recalled. These two were undoubtedly among the strongest cases that could poffibly be imagined. But he would put one still stronger-fuppofe his Majefty were to dismiss a Secretary of State for foreign affairs pending a negotiation of great importance, if the perfons thus difmiffed, fhould affert that they had been engaged in a train of measures highly beneficial to the Public, when they had been ftopt short in the middle of their career, if they should loudly demand an inquiry into their conduct, and for that purpose move for all the papers relative to the plan of operations, or the progress of negotiation, would the House exercise a found difcretion, if they were to comply with fuch requifitions? on the contrary, would they not directly negative any fuch application? And was the correfpondence relative to the affairs of Ireland lefs confequential, lefs important, that it should be expofed on the prefent occafion? It was neceffary for the proper conduct of public bufinefs, and in order to keep up a right understanding between minifters and those who ferved the Public at any distance under their inftructions, that the most free and unreferved communication of fentiment should take place between minifters in this country, and thofe who had the direction of affairs out of the ifland. Could this be the cafe if every communication from the minifter to the fervants of the Public was liable to be brought forward, and made the subject of Parliamentary difcuffion? If fuch a procedure was to be fanctioned, however, the correfpondence might retain the name of fecret

fecret and confidential, it would affume a degree of referve and caution, that would totally defeat all the effential ends of fuch communication, which could never be expected to be attained, unless the moft free and unreferved confidence were exercised by both parties, and that could never be the cafe unlefs they were mutually affured of inviolable fecrecy, unless when great and indifpenfible neceffity impelled a difclofure. Ministers would recollect that they were liable at a future period to be called to account for every unguarded expreffion, and might sometimes be induced to fupprefs particulars, which, if communicated, would have been effential to the public service. He acknowledged and agreed with the Noble Duke, that ministers were refponfible for their conduct to Parliament by the constitution; but how could they be juftly held to that refponfibility, if the very effential part of their fecurity, the confidence that should fubfift between them and their colleagues, and the fecrecy on which that confidence was built, were to be violated and promulged, upon every occafion of difcontent, by the interference and order of Parliament?-The Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam) had faid, that a charge had been brought against his character, and had called upon the House for their protection. If fuch had been the cafe, he would then have admitted that an inquiry was neceffary, for the purpofe of his exculpation. He contended however that the fact of his removal from office by no means implied any charge against his character; and even if it were true, that there must be blame imputable somewhere, which he denied, it did not follow that the Noble Earl stood accufed. The power by which he had been removed was difcretionary, and all that could be inferred was, that there exifted between him and his Majefty's advisers in this country, a difference of opinion, which rendered it impoflible that they fhould act in conjunction with respect to the affairs of Ireland. What final de termination could be obtained, even if the papers called for were on the table? The queftion must then turn on the wifer opinion of the two parties, minifters or the Noble Earl. In politics it has been faid, there is no certainty of conclufion; beyond probable confequences they could not go. He there fore called upon the House, however much they might be interefted by the feeling appeal of the Noble Earl, to confult their reafon and their prudence, in the decifion of the prefent queftion, and to purfue the line of conduct which he was perfuaded the Noble Earl himself would always adopt from conviction, in preferring the public good to the gratification of their own private feelings. Such were the general arguments in oppofition to the motion; but it might be faid that the pre

fent difficult and embarraffing fituation of Ireland more particularly called upon the Houfe to go into an inquiry. What were the facts to which they were to refort for that purpose? It was neceffary that it fhould be afcertained that Ireland was really in a state of difcontent and inquietude, neither of which admitted of any proof that could be brought before the Houfe; and next, that the recal of the Noble Earl was the cause of that difcontent, of which, as a Member of an English House of Lords, he knew nothing. A queftion, though not in the precife terms, yet nearly of the fame tendency, as the prefent motion, had been already proposed to the Irish Parliament, and negatived by a large majority. To take up the difcuffion then in that House, would be to interfere with the decision of an independent Legiflature, who were alone competent to determine upon the fubject, and could only have the tendency, as had been remarked by a Noble Earl (Lord Coventry) to increase the fermentation, and inflame difcontent, rather than to restore harmony. In this point of view he could not help confidering the motion as highly dangerous and mifchievous. Having, therefore, argued the queftion upon general and conftitutional grounds, and strictly abstained from faying any thing that might admit of a perfonal application, his Lordfhip faid, he fhould conclude with giving his negative to the motion.

The Earl of Guildford faid, that from the experience of ten years, during which he had found minifters were in every inftance determined to refift examination, and obftruct inquiry, he had not been at all disappointed that day in their steady adherence to their eftablished fyftem of ftifling inquiry. Notwithstanding, therefore, their boaft upon a former occafion, that whenever the fubject of Irish affairs came to be difcuffed, they would be bound to prove that no part of the blame attached to them, he had never been fanguine enough to expect that they would keep their words, but had fuppofed that they would take fome means to evade an inquiry; and in the event he had not been difappointed. He trufted however that their Lordships would force minifters in this inftance to abandon their strong hold, and, though against their wills, to grant the papers called for, and then inquiry muft take place. It was not indeed neceffary to go into an inquiry to vindicate the character of the Noble Earl; that, as had been admitted, ftill remained pure and unfullied; not from the circumftance that no attempts had been made to take it away, but because the efforts of a few individuals had been found infufficient to prevail against the teftimony of his whole life, and the general integrity of his conduct. A queftion of much greater importance than the life or honour of an individual was now at

iffue; the interefts of both countries called loudly for an in-. quiry, and were deeply involved in the decifion. The House were bound, from motives of duty and of honour, to go into the inquiry which was demanded. If it was found, that the mifchief had arifen from the incapacity, the weakness, the prefumption, and the contumacy of the Lord Lieutenant, it was fitting that he should be punished; if, on the other hand, it had proceeded from the duplicity and treachery of his Majesty's minifters in this country, the infamy of their policy ought no longer to be concealed. The neceffity of statefecrecy was urged in oppofition to the prefent motion for inquiry. Could they teach the people of Ireland any thing which they did not at prefent know and feel? Were not they already in poffeffion of the facts which would form the bafis, of difcuffion? It had been faid by two Noble Earls that it was the prerogative of the Crown to difmifs all its officers at pleafure, and without assigning a reason, and that it was no part of the duty of that Houfe to inquire into the grounds of their removal. It was the prerogative of the Crown to declare war; it was the prerogative of the Crown to conclude treaties; and was that any reafon why the House fhould not difcufs the justice of the one and the policy of the other? It was the duty of both Houses of Parliament to watch over the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown on all occafions with a fcrupulous jealousy. In the prefent inftance a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had been removed, in poffeffion of the almost unanimous approbation and confidence of the people. Expectations which had been raifed in a very numerous body of the community, with refpect to the adoption of certain measures, had been grievously difappointed. The confequence had been to produce in the people of Ireland difcontent and distrust, if not alienation and defpair. Was it not fitting that the House should inquire who were the authors of this calamity? Were they not bound by the strongest ties of honour to avert from the country the reproach of such a conduct, and to prove to the people of Great Britain, and, what was ftill more effential, to the people of Ireland, that only a few individuals, and not the English nation, were really their enemies? It had been faid, by the Noble Earl who fpoke laft, that inquiry ought not to be pushed too far, that it fhould never be granted but under a found difcretion, and in this inftance it would be. dangerous. He profeffed that he could not agree with the Noble Lord, but was of a quite contrary opinion, and that to ftifle investigation was much more dangerous. It could not be argued that fuch an investigation would open the eyes of the Irish nation, for it was a fact that the eyes of the Irish nation,

were